Affiliate Marketing Secrets

can you check and see if my answers are right?
the questions will pertain to this paragraph….
The Knights of Labor
The Noble and Holy Order of the Knights of Labor (KOL) was formed in 1869 in Philadelphia. Uriah S. Stephens and a handful of tailors created this union to organize skilled and unskilled workers in the same union. The Knights of Labor offered membership to workers regardless of gender or race. In the early years, it was a secret organization because many workers who were openly in unions were fired. They created elaborate secret rituals drawn from the Freemasons. By the early 1880s, they were a national force powerful enough to drop their secrecy.
The KOL had ambitious goals. Among these goals:
an eight-hour work day
end child labor
end the use of prison labor, which deprived other workers of jobs
equal pay for women
government ownership of railroads and telegraph lines
land policy that benefited settlers instead of speculators
a graduated income tax
Although the KOL initially opposed using strikes, they were common by the mid-1880s. The Knights won strikes against the Union Pacific Railroad in 1884 and the Wabash Railroad in 1885. But they failed to win the Missouri Pacific strike in 1886. That was the same year of the Haymarket Square Riot, during which a bomb exploded, killing several policemen. Soon the Knights’ demands appeared to go against the American system of government and economy. Opponents of the Knights became more vocal. Poor management, internal bickering, and feuds between skilled and unskilled workers eroded its support. By 1900, the Knights of Labor were virtually powerless, and other less radical unions became more popular.
The American Federation of Labor
Samuel Gompers had observed the Knights of Labor struggling. He knew that what workers wanted most were higher wages and improved working conditions. In 1886, Gompers met with leaders from the masons’ union, the hatmakers’ union, and other craft unions to form the American Federation of Labor (AFL). Unlike the Knights of Labor, the American Federation of Labor did not seek to include unskilled workers. Gompers believed the union would have more power if it represented only skilled workers. It also used strikes to force improvements for workers.
Gompers recognized that support for the Knights of Labor had suffered because of the organization’s radical ideas. As a result, the American Federation of Labor pursued a more moderate course. It provided strike relief, or support, to striking workers so they could continue to provide for their families. Successful strikes helped improve workers’ wages and reduced the length of their workweek.
By 1900, as the Knights were declining, Gompers’ union had over 500,000 skilled tradespeople in its ranks. He was seen as the leader of labor, and until the Great Depression, the AFL was seen as the nation’s most important labor organization. The AFL benefitted from Gompers’ leadership and the realistic goals he set.
Now select the correct responses to the following questions about the case study.
Which of the following was used against unions?
the right to strike
–>Sherman Anti-Trust Act
Fourteenth Amendment
the right to collectively bargain
Question 2 (Multiple Choice Worth 5 points)
Which type of economy is practiced in the United States today?
supply economy
–>mixed economy
market economy
planned economy
Question 3 (Multiple Choice Worth 5 points)
What was the main goal of labor unions by the end of the 19th century?
protection for immigrant workers and ending child labor
a return to the days before factories
–>higher wages and better working conditions
direction of the economy by the government
Question 4 (Multiple Choice Worth 5 points)
Which type of economic system was favored by small business owners?
controlled market
mixed economy
–>free market
planned economy
Question 5 (Multiple Choice Worth 5 points)
Which factor most greatly limited union growth at the end of the 19th century?
–>higher wages for all workers
popularity of Social Darwinism
hostility of business towards unions
improved working conditions
Question 6 (Multiple Choice Worth 5 points)
How did the American Federation of Labor and the Knights of Labor view membership?
Both allowed unskilled workers to be members.
–>Neither allowed unskilled workers to be members.
Only the Knights of Labor allowed unskilled workers to be members.
Only the American Federation of Labor allowed unskilled work

1.
The mountain man of the West
A) was, in his own way, as caught up in the national integrated economic network as a farmer.
B) illustrated that some Americans lived beyond the reach of the market economy.
D) functioned as an independent businessman, vulnerable to the market but at least able to be his own boss in an enterprise not yet dominated by large eastern organizations.
2.
Indian economies with which new Americans came into contact were primarily based on
A) hunting and gathering.
B) semisubsistence agriculture like that of whites.
D) None of these answers is correct.
3.
Which of the following was NOT one of the goals that underlay Alexander Hamilton’s financial proposals?
A) stimulate the essentially virtuous nature of ordinary citizens, who could take advantage of new economic opportunities
D) make the U.S. as a whole independent of European control by strengthening it economically
4.
Which of the following was NOT a charge raised by opponents to Hamilton’s program?
A) It violated the idea of a broad or loose construction of the Constitution.
C) It threatened to lead to English-style monarchism and corruption.
5.
The Federalist party
A) wanted a weak government in order to promote economic individualism.
B) opposed a republican form of government.
D) wanted to use government power to promote commerce and industry.
6.
In the XYZ Affair,
B) French officials demanded a bribe to open negotiations with the United States.
C) Adams broke with his party and sent a new peace commission to France.
D) the United States agreed to end the Quasi-War.
7.
Which of the following does NOT accurately state a principle that Jefferson espoused?
A) People may be trusted to make political choices based on correct principles.
B) Radical change is periodically necessary to make sure that equality and democracy continue to be extended to all men and women of all races and faiths.
C) Human reason is the powerful tool that will unlock the secrets of nature and improve human society.
8.
The Louisiana Purchase was significant for all of the following reasons, EXCEPT that
A) Jefferson’s constitutional scruples caused him to hesitate to act in the Republic’s best interests.
B) it illustrated Jefferson’s enthusiastic interest in the West.
C) it illustrated America’s continued ties to world power politics.
9.
What kind of vessel did the Barbary states use to plunder the cargo of enemy ships and enslave their crews if tribute was not paid?
A) corvair
C) corvette
D) corsair
10.
The Hartford Convention (1814) was
A) a meeting of New England literary figures.
D) a protest meeting of anti-war New Englanders.
11.
The Monroe Doctrine
A) proclaimed that the U.S. would be a continental nation.
B) warned Europe not to interfere in the Americas.
12.
The War of 1812
B) ended in a treaty that granted generous concessions to the U.S.
C) produced no significant American victories.
D) was followed by a surge of American nationalism.
13.
A chief characteristic of a commercial economy was that it required
A) the availability of relatively cheap transportation.
C) inequality in the distribution of wealth.
D) more materialistic and acquisitive values.
14.
The Alien and Sedition Acts were used primarily
A) to weaken the Republican party.
C) against immigrants and aliens.
D) against French- and Spanish-sponsored intrigue.
15.
At best, Jefferson considered government
A) the highest calling a person could aspire to.
B) inherently good.
D) a necessary evil.
16.
One of the more important results of the presidential election of 1800 is that it
A) convinced both Federalists and Republicans that a two-party system was preferable.
B) was won with no opposition candidate.
C) brought Washington to office for a third term.
D) None of these answers is correct.
17.
What larger social pattern helps explain the clashes between whites and Indians on the Ohio frontier and, more specifically, their resort to both religious renewal movements and abusive consumption of increased quantities of alcohol?
A) Neither tribal villages nor backcountry villages felt any cultural or economic need for the other.
B) Traditional cultural systems were breaking down, creating great cultural stress.
D) Both groups had abandoned their religious roots and rejected calls to return to traditional beliefs.
18.
Once in power, Jefferson
A) fully dismantled Hamilton’s economic program.
B) respected the independence of the judiciary.
D) increasingly put pragmatic considerations above strict political principles.
19.
According to the doctrine established in the landmark Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison,
A) the high court could rule on the constitutionality of federal laws.
B) the high court could compel public officials to perform their duties.
D) the judicial branch should defer to the wishes of the legislative branch.

Or is there really so much domestic policy can actually do?
Now, everybody knows the middle class is dwindling. That’s not a secret.
The left will blame the greed of the corporate elites and the right will blame government taxation and regulations for putting a break on investment.
But what’s really going on here?
A worker in China – a country of 1.5 billion people, 5 times the population of the United States – has an average hourly wage of $1.68, a little bit below the wage in India, another country whose population is above a billion people.
China today is the second largest economy in the world, having recently passed Germany.
Since people like to discuss economics here…
What happens if prices in a market A are higher than those in market B? Well, unless there’s some reason why consumers can’t readily go into market B, they will leave market A and head towards market B, which will force sellers in market A to lower their prices. Market B will raise its prices somewhat, until a new equilibrium is reached.
And globalization has done just that: It was a concerted effort to get rid of trade barriers.
For a while, the west still held sway, in part because of a better-educated population (the value-added thing), but these countries haven’t stayed static in that domain either. India now has accounting firms that will do work for $12 an hour – hardly the wage promised to graduates in accounting in the west. They also make more microchips. China now has an EMERGING middle class – over 100 million people there now own a car (incidentally, an important reason why you’re paying more at the pump – more demand=higher price).
Given all of this, isn’t this whole political discourse misleading?
Isn’t time for western countries to face up to the simple fact the party is over?
As for the automobile sector, right now, North America is competing with Japan. Still an acceptable proposition. But what happens when Chinese vehicles flood the market? There’s no inherent reason a Chinese-made car must be bad. It’s coming sooner or later.
(You may believe everybody has a responsibility to become an entrepreneur then, as you’ll hear Randians say, but who else thinks it’s realistic to have an entire economy based on import-export and financial transactions?).

If a person owned all or most of the tv satalite and radio stations,NEWSPAPERS, could you win in an election against them?
ELECTING A PERSON WITH NO COWS IN A COW TOWN; IF THE TOWN ONLY HAD 10,000 COWS NO WAY ? AFTER THERE IS 1 MILLION COWS MAYBE FUN HUH? It is usually difficult to practice anti-competitive practices unless the parties involved have significant market power or government backing. Monopolies and oligopolies are often accused of, and sometimes found guilty of, anti-competitive practices. For this reason, company mergers are often examined closely by government regulators to avoid reducing competition in an industry. Although anti-competitive practices often enrich those who practice them, they are generally believed to have a negative effect on the economy as a whole, and to disadvantage competing firms and consumers who are not able to avoid their effects, generating a significant social cost. For these reasons, most countries havecompetition laws to prevent anti-competitive practices, and government regulators to aid the enforcement of these laws. The argument that anti-competitive practices have a negative effect on the economy arises from the belief that a freely functioning efficient market economy, composed of many market participants each of which has limited market power, will not permit monopoly profits to be earned…and consequently prices to consumers will be lower, and if anything there will be a wider range of products supplied. Some people[who? ] believe that the realities of the marketplace are sometimes more complex than this or similar theories of competition would suggest. For example, oligopolistic firms may achieve economies of scale that would elude smaller firms. Again, very large firms, whether quasi-monopolies or oligopolies, may achieve levels of sophistication e.g. in business process and/or planning (that benefit end consumers and) that smaller firms would not easily attain. There are undoubtedly industries (e.g. airlines and pharmaceuticals) in which the levels of investment are so high that only extremely large firms that may be quasi-monopolies in some areas of their businesses can survive. Many governments regard these market niches as natural monopolies , and believe that the inability to allow full competition is balanced by government regulation . However, the companies in these niches tend to believe that they should avoid regulation, as they are entitled to their monopoly position by fiat. In some cases, anti-competitive behavior can be difficult to distinguish from competition. For instance, a distinction must be made between product bundling , which is a legal market strategy, and product tying , which violates anti-trust law . Some advocates of laissez-faire capitalism (such as Monetarists , some Neoclassical economists , and the heterodox economists of the Austrian school ) reject the term, seeing all “anti-competitive behavior” as forms of competition that benefit consumers.

Just a little curiosity here.
As the world changes, and definitely not for the better, I often find myself asking “what is the easiest way to restore stability?” Global warming caused by both citizens and corporations not giving a ****, people and companies like Bill Gates, Tim Horton’s, or Valve (the video game company) abusing the free markets for their explicit monopolization, so called activists intentionally attempting to trample on other peoples rights while crying about their own, and especially an economy which suffers a devastating recession approximately every seven to thirteen years. The list goes on and on.
Of course everybody says “we just need more freedom”, but do we really? I mean, the government never steps in to man handle the economy back together no matter how desperate the situation is because we are free to choose where we work, if we work at all. When all the major oligopolies were collapsing and entire cities worth of people were losing their jobs through no fault of their own our government refused to change the structure to adapt and survive. A totalitarian government, ideologically driven to perpetuate a stable economy, would go through great lengths to maintain civil order and economic growth… or at least stability. The police, always accused of brutality whenever the most minor of protests begins, are actually told NOT to attack groups such as the hells angels, scientology, and the KKK even though the entire planet knows they are guilty of all the most horrible crimes. The police could (and probably should) have just shot Carla Homolka but they didn’t.
But say a realistic and practical totalitarian political party with ideals based on what we hold dear in the present reality presents itself and somehow gathers enough power to actually do something. Would you be able to support them when they attempt fixing the economy by simply saying “inflation doesn’t exist” and they hard mark all prices at a fixed number (bread, for example, will forever cost $2.00). When they ship all the organized crime groups off to their secret prisons would you complain at all? How about when they force an employer to give you a job you wanted because everyone should have the right to employment. Would you side with them or defend the employers right to hire who he/she wishes?
Now I know everyone just defaults to hating totalitarianism and to explain why people feel that way would require a full essay of its own. But it has worked well in the past (and most of what we do know about cold war era ones is based on what our own media told us. Not that reliable of information is it?) Remember, one of the goals of totalitarianism is to attempt to enforce a preconceived idea of utopia. If this government were founded in, say, Canada, it is certain that they wouldn’t want freedom of association to disappear.
So I ask, if a totalitarian regime could present answers to our worlds problems would you be able to consider and maybe accept them?
No delusions of illogically and impractically random and omnipresent oppression please. This is a serious question asking for serious consideration. Yes we are all concerned about Big Brother but we all know how absurd that kind of depiction of totalitarianism is. It’s called fiction for a reason.

An extended grouind war in the Middle East and many the reinstating the military draft would put millions of people back to work, building tanks, airplanes and bombs.
Millions of our young people would have the chance to serve their country while making the world a better place with free markets and democracy.
WW2 pulled the U.S. out of the Great Depression and if this war were conducted properly it could save the United States.