competition will exist because the state will set the prices. There will be virtually no wealth gap because everybody will contribute equality and earn equal capital. There will see be an elite group of people who basically run the country. These people will have a great deal of power because they run the government. Using Keynes views, a checks and balances system would be setup to make sure the people in power will not exploit the population.

In my personal point of view, I am persuaded by the Keynesian compromise, which is a system of embedded liberalism. The wealth gap in many third world countries is staggering, yet a market system is needed to build wealth. Structuralists argue that capitalism is an unavoidable step towards socialism because it creates the wealth. The government must regulate this capitalist system so that the working class is not exploited. The Keynesian compromise is a liberal international system that includes free trade and open markets at its core. However, “individual nations would be able to undertake the sorts of domestic policies that Keynes advocated for moderating inflation, controlling unemployment, and encouraging economic growth” (58). Basically, free markets dominate relations between nations while the state has an “important macroeconomic role within each nation…” (58). This ‘Keynesian Compromise’ is a mixture of John Maynard Keynes’ views and Bretton Woods’ views. Instead of viewing the IPE as state versus market, the Keynesian compromise seeks “the right degree and nature of state intervention within an overall system of open markets” (58). A good model is most of Western Europe, including France and the Netherlands. Western Europe has a free market and extensive social welfare systems. The European Union advances the free market system while each individual nation chooses which social programs it plans to have. Switzerland, for example, has universal health care for all its citizens. Switzerland also has markets and trade. This country has one of the highest standards of living in the world, higher than the United States. And this country uses embedded liberalism. Markets, trade, social and welfare programs, an

Structuralism seeks to critique and change the inequality and exploitation of the working class that capitalist and liberal viewpoints produce. Karl Marx tried to understand the nature of this inequality. He believed the bourgeoisie, who owned all the capital and means of production, sought to exploit the proletariat, or the working class. “Critical for Marx is the fundamental imbalance of power between the classes” (74). While a liberal believes the bourgeoisie and proletariat are capable of forming a mutually advantageous relationship, Marx believed “the bourgeoisie and the proletariat are trapped in a decidedly one-sided relationship, with an ‘unemployed army’ of workers frustrating the ability of the labor force to organize itself…giving the capitalists the upper hand in all negotiations” (74). Even though “Marx believes that capitalism is fundamentally flawed” (75), he still believed that it was a necessary stage toward socialism because it builds wealth, technology, and raises living standards. To understand why the capitalist and liberal viewpoints produce exploitation of the laboring class, we must analyze “the market economy as a system, rather than piece by piece” (76).

Structuralists focus “on the production structure inherent in capitalism” (77). This structure leads to classes, leading to class struggles that create crises. These crises lead to revolution. Lliberals “have a tendency to view individual actions as cooperative and constructive, not competitive and destructive” (49). According to the liberal perspective, the state seeks to be abusive of the liberties of the individual. This leads to tension between the state and the market. Thus, to solve this problem, the liberals believe the government must only “perform the limited number of tasks that individuals cannot perform by themselves, such as establish a basic legal system, assure national defense, and coin money” (50). This was actually one of Adam Smith’s central ideas; the government should do the work that private interests won’t. Because classic liberals see the state as destructive to the market, they seek no governmental interference in the market outside of the tasks that people cannot do themselves. This is a piece-by-piece viewpoint of the market economy. Structuralists seek to view the market economy in its entirety. Because they believe that the economic structure is the strongest influence on society, the free market system envisioned by liberals will create class conflicts between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. While liberals believe that the state is a dangerous force, structuralists see that “the state and the bourgeoisie are intertwined to such an extent that the two cannot be separated” (77). This basically means that liberals see the state as an opposing force while from the structuralist view point, only the proletariat sees the state as a dangerous force because of the cooperation between the bourgeoisie and the state. Viewing the economy in its whole, it is easy to understand that the government supports and defends the elite class of bourgeois essentially because they are the capital owners. This is extremely evident in the current state of affairs in the United States. For example, rich oligopolies, such as the banking companies, have an extremely tight connection to the government. Many companies contribute heavily to the campaigns of politicians who, if elected, pass regulation that helps the oligopolies. The government recently passed a bill that makes it harder to file for bankruptcy. The bill was lobbied heavily by the banking industry, which holds much of the capital of the nation. It only benefits the banking industry. It will make it extremely hard for people to file for bankruptcy, and also makes them have to pay back the money. This legislation hurts the working class tremendously while benefiting the banking industry. Thus, it is evident that the government does indeed support and defend the interests of the elite class.

This tight bond between the government and bourgeois leads to the exploitation of the laborers and one of the pitfalls of liberalism. What leads to class conflict? There are many remarkable findings when looking at this problem from a global point of view. According to Leninists’, the profit-seeking capitalists would not use surplus capital to raise the standard of living of the proletariat. “Therefore, capitalists societies would remain unevenly developed ones, with some classes prospering as others were mired in poverty” (81). In reality, the standard of living has risen for the majority of people worldwide because of the effects of modernization. V.I. Lenin was wrong when it came to the standard of living for the proletariat, but he was correct in his analysis that capitalists societies would be unevenly developed and that the proletariat would still get the short end of the stick. Lenin’s imperialist theory of capitalism seeks to “explain how it was that capitalism shifted from internal to international exploitation, and how the inequality among the classes had as its parallel the law of uneven development among nations” (81). Lenin believed that the imperial phase of capitalism exported exploitation to poor peripheral countries as wealth and poverty were put onto the world stage. Looking at the world’s economy, this made a new class of proletariats that was not bound within nations. For Lenin, imperialism was a tool that rich capitalist nations sought to use to increase revenue by making poor nations dependent on them for manufactured goods, jobs, and financial resources. It also made these poor nations heavily in debt, thus making them more dependent on the rich capitalism nations. This leads to a cycle of dependency. The bourgeois (by owning the means of production) and the government benefit from this ‘tool’ while the proletariats suffer tremendously. Why do the proletariats suffer? Imperialism heavily exploited the working class, especially of the colonized countries, by denying them basic workers rights and keeping them impoverished through a cycle of debt. Basically, structuralists see the bond between the rich and the government as detrimental to the working class.

When it comes to competition, liberals believe that it “constrains self-interest and prevents it from becoming destructive to the interests of others” (50). Producers must push prices down because of competition, thus benefiting the working class by creating low prices. This is countered with Marx’s “law of concentration (or accumulation of capital)” (76). The theory is that the capitalist system produces “inequality in the distribution of income and wealth. As the bourgeoisie continue to exploit the proletariat and weaker capitalists are swallowed by stronger, bigger ones, wealth and the ownership of capital become increasingly concentrated in fewer and fewer hands” (76). The law of disproportionality also counters the liberal view that competition benefits the working class. According to the law of disproportionality, “capitalism, because of its anarchic, unplanned nature, is prone to instability” (75). Capitalism can be subject to overproduction or underconsumption. “Capitalists are not able to sell everything they produce at a profit and workers cannot afford to buy what they make” (76). This disproportionality between supply and demands leads to economic fluctuations and increases the chance of social unrest and revolution. The Keynesian Theory of economics can further prove this disproportionality.

John Marynard Keynes developed his theory just as the Great Depression spread poverty all over the United States. In his view, “individuals and markets tended to make decisions that were particularly unwise when faced with situations where the future is unknown” (56). Basically, Keynes believed that people were concerned about being unemployed in the future. So, everybody spent less money, saved more, and the result was that fewer goods were purchased and produced. Thus, “the recession and unemployment that everyone feared…[was] caused by the very actions that individuals took to protect themselves from this eventuality” (56). This is called the paradox of thrift. The wealth gap in the country continued to grow and all the capital was concentrated within the hands of the few elite. Competition vanished at this point because the means of production was halted. “Keynes argued that the state should spend and invest when individuals would not…” (56). Keynes was a liberal at heart, yet even he envisioned the Great Depression and the consequences of it. Structuralists seek to end this instable cycle of booms and busts by creating a socialist society where everybody is as equal in class as possible. No competition will exist because the state will set the prices. There will be virtually no wealth gap because everybody will contribute equality and earn equal capital. There will see be an elite group of people who basically run the country. These people will have a great deal of power because they run the government. Using Keynes views, a checks and balances system would be setup to make sure the people in power will not exploit the population.

In my personal point of view, I am persuaded by the Keynesian compromise, which is a system of embedded liberalism. The wealth gap in many third world countries is staggering, yet a market system is needed to build wealth. Structuralists argue that capitalism is an unavoidable step towards socialism because it creates the wealth. The government must regulate this capitalist system so that the working class is not exploited. The Keynesian compromise is a liberal international system that includes free trade and open markets at its core. However, “individual nations would be able to undertake the sorts of domestic policies that Keynes advocated for moderating inflation, controlling unemployment, and encouraging economic growth” (58). Basically, free markets dominate relations between nations while the state has an “important macroeconomic role within each nation…” (58). This ‘Keynesian Compromise’ is a mixture of John Maynard Keynes’ views and Bretton Woods’ views. Instead of viewing the IPE as state versus market, the Keynesian compromise seeks “the right degree and nature of state intervention within an overall system of open markets” (58). A good model is most of Western Europe, including France and the Netherlands. Western Europe has a free market and extensive social welfare systems. The European Union advances the free market system while each individual nation chooses which social programs it plans to have. Switzerland, for example, has universal health care for all its citizens. Switzerland also has markets and trade. This country has one of the highest standards of living in the world, higher than the United States. And this country uses embedded liberalism. Markets, trade, social and welfare programs, and

ople cannot do themselves. This is a piece-by-piece viewpoint of the market economy. Structuralists seek to view the market economy in its entirety. Because they believe that the economic structure is the strongest influence on society, the free market system envisioned by liberals will create class conflicts between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. While liberals believe that the state is a dangerous force, structuralists see that “the state and the bourgeoisie are intertwined to such an extent that the two cannot be separated” (77). This basically means that liberals see the state as an opposing force while from the structuralist view point, only the proletariat sees the state as a dangerous force because of the cooperation between the bourgeoisie and the state. Viewing the economy in its whole, it is easy to understand that the government supports and defends the elite class of bourgeois essentially because they are the capital owners. This is extremely evident in the current state of affairs in the United States. For example, rich oligopolies, such as the banking companies, have an extremely tight connection to the government. Many companies contribute heavily to the campaigns of politicians who, if elected, pass regulation that helps the oligopolies. The government recently passed a bill that makes it harder to file for bankruptcy. The bill was lobbied heavily by the banking industry, which holds much of the capital of the nation. It only benefits the banking industry. It will make it extremely hard for people to file for bankruptcy, and also makes them have to pay back the money. This legislation hurts the working class tremendously while benefiting the banking industry. Thus, it is evident that the government does indeed support and defend the interests of the elite class.

This tight bond between the government and bourgeois leads to the exploitation of the laborers and one of the pitfalls of liberalism. What leads to class conflict? There are many remarkable findings when looking at this problem from a global point of view. According to Leninists’, the profit-seeking capitalists would not use surplus capital to raise the standard of living of the proletariat. “Therefore, capitalists societies would remain unevenly developed ones, with some classes prospering as others were mired in poverty” (81). In reality, the standard of living has risen for the majority of people worldwide because of the effects of modernization. V.I. Lenin was wrong when it came to the standard of living for the proletariat, but he was correct in his analysis that capitalists societies would be unevenly developed and that the proletariat would still get the short end of the stick. Lenin’s imperialist theory of capitalism seeks to “explain how it was that capitalism shifted from internal to international exploitation, and how the inequality among the classes had as its parallel the law of uneven development among nations” (81). Lenin believed that the imperial phase of capitalism exported exploitation to poor peripheral countries as wealth and poverty were put onto the world stage. Looking at the world’s economy, this made a new class of proletariats that was not bound within nations. For Lenin, imperialism was a tool that rich capitalist nations sought to use to increase revenue by making poor nations dependent on them for manufactured goods, jobs, and financial resources. It also made these poor nations heavily in debt, thus making them more dependent on the rich capitalism nations. This leads to a cycle of dependency. The bourgeois (by owning the means of production) and the government benefit from this ‘tool’ while the proletariats suffer tremendously. Why do the proletariats suffer? Imperialism heavily exploited the working class, especially of the colonized countries, by denying them basic workers rights and keeping them impoverished through a cycle of debt. Basically, structuralists see the bond between the rich and the government as detrimental to the working class.

When it comes to competition, liberals believe that it “constrains self-interest and prevents it from becoming destructive to the interests of others” (50). Producers must push prices down because of competition, thus benefiting the working class by creating low prices. This is countered with Marx’s “law of concentration (or accumulation of capital)” (76). The theory is that the capitalist system produces “inequality in the distribution of income and wealth. As the bourgeoisie continue to exploit the proletariat and weaker capitalists are swallowed by stronger, bigger ones, wealth and the ownership of capital become increasingly concentrated in fewer and fewer hands” (76). The law of disproportionality also counters the liberal view that competition benefits the working class. According to the law of disproportionality, “capitalism, because of its anarchic, unplanned nature, is prone to instability” (75). Capitalism can be subject to overproduction or underconsumption. “Capitalists are not able to sell everything they produce at a profit and workers cannot afford to buy what they make” (76). This disproportionality between supply and demands leads to economic fluctuations and increases the chance of social unrest and revolution. The Keynesian Theory of economics can further prove this disproportionality.

John Marynard Keynes developed his theory just as the Great Depression spread poverty all over the United States. In his view, “individuals and markets tended to make decisions that were particularly unwise when faced with situations where the future is unknown” (56). Basically, Keynes believed that people were concerned about being unemployed in the future. So, everybody spent less money, saved more, and the result was that fewer goods were purchased and produced. Thus, “the recession and unemployment that everyone feared…[was] caused by the very actions that individuals took to protect themselves from this eventuality” (56). This is called the paradox of thrift. The wealth gap in the country continued to grow and all the capital was concentrated within the hands of the few elite. Competition vanished at this point because the means of production was halted. “Keynes argued that the state should spend and invest when individuals would not…” (56). Keynes was a liberal at heart, yet even he envisioned the Great Depression and the consequences of it. Structuralists seek to end this instable cycle of booms and busts by creating a socialist society where everybody is as equal in class as possible. No competition will exist because the state will set the prices. There will be virtually no wealth gap because everybody will contribute equality and earn equal capital. There will see be an elite group of people who basically run the country. These people will have a great deal of power because they run the government. Using Keynes views, a checks and balances system would be setup to make sure the people in power will not exploit the population.

In my personal point of view, I am persuaded by the Keynesian compromise, which is a system of embedded liberalism. The wealth gap in many third world countries is staggering, yet a market system is needed to build wealth. Structuralists argue that capitalism is an unavoidable step towards socialism because it creates the wealth. The government must regulate this capitalist system so that the working class is not exploited. The Keynesian compromise is a liberal international system that includes free trade and open markets at its core. However, “individual nations would be able to undertake the sorts of domestic policies that Keynes advocated for moderating inflation, controlling unemployment, and encouraging economic growth” (58). Basically, free markets dominate relations between nations while the state has an “important macroeconomic role within each nation…” (58). This ‘Keynesian Compromise’ is a mixture of John Maynard Keynes’ views and Bretton Woods’ views. Instead of viewing the IPE as state versus market, the Keynesian compromise seeks “the right degree and nature of state intervention within an overall system of open markets” (58). A good model is most of Western Europe, including France and the Netherlands. Western Europe has a free market and extensive social welfare systems. The European Union advances the free market system while each individual nation chooses which social programs it plans to have. Switzerland, for example, has universal health care for all its citizens. Switzerland also has markets and trade. This country has one of the highest standards of living in the world, higher than the United States. And this country uses embedded liberalism. Markets, trade, social and welfare programs, an

f the proletariat. “Therefore, capitalists societies would remain unevenly developed ones, with some classes prospering as others were mired in poverty” (81). In reality, the standard of living has risen for the majority of people worldwide because of the effects of modernization. V.I. Lenin was wrong when it came to the standard of living for the proletariat, but he was correct in his analysis that capitalists societies would be unevenly developed and that the proletariat would still get the short end of the stick. Lenin’s imperialist theory of capitalism seeks to “explain how it was that capitalism shifted from internal to international exploitation, and how the inequality among the classes had as its parallel the law of uneven development among nations” (81). Lenin believed that the imperial phase of capitalism exported exploitation to poor peripheral countries as wealth and poverty were put onto the world stage. Looking at the world’s economy, this made a new class of proletariats that was not bound within nations. For Lenin, imperialism was a tool that rich capitalist nations sought to use to increase revenue by making poor nations dependent on them for manufactured goods, jobs, and financial resources. It also made these poor nations heavily in debt, thus making them more dependent on the rich capitalism nations. This leads to a cycle of dependency. The bourgeois (by owning the means of production) and the government benefit from this ‘tool’ while the proletariats suffer tremendously. Why do the proletariats suffer? Imperialism heavily exploited the working class, especially of the colonized countries, by denying them basic workers rights and keeping them impoverished through a cycle of debt. Basically, structuralists see the bond between the rich and the government as detrimental to the working class.

When it comes to competition, liberals believe that it “constrains self-interest and prevents it from becoming destructive to the interests of others” (50). Producers must push prices down because of competition, thus benefiting the working class by creating low prices. This is countered with Marx’s “law of concentration (or accumulation of capital)” (76). The theory is that the capitalist system produces “inequality in the distribution of income and wealth. As the bourgeoisie continue to exploit the proletariat and weaker capitalists are swallowed by stronger, bigger ones, wealth and the ownership of capital become increasingly concentrated in fewer and fewer hands” (76). The law of disproportionality also counters the liberal view that competition benefits the working class. According to the law of disproportionality, “capitalism, because of its anarchic, unplanned nature, is prone to instability” (75). Capitalism can be subject to overproduction or underconsumption. “Capitalists are not able to sell everything they produce at a profit and workers cannot afford to buy what they make” (76). This disproportionality between supply and demands leads to economic fluctuations and increases the chance of social unrest and revolution. The Keynesian Theory of economics can further prove this disproportionality.

John Marynard Keynes developed his theory just as the Great Depression spread poverty all over the United States. In his view, “individuals and markets tended to make decisions that were particularly unwise when faced with situations where the future is unknown” (56). Basically, Keynes believed that people were concerned about being unemployed in the future. So, everybody spent less money, saved more, and the result was that fewer goods were purchased and produced. Thus, “the recession and unemployment that everyone feared…[was] caused by the very actions that individuals took to protect themselves from this eventuality” (56). This is called the paradox of thrift. The wealth gap in the country continued to grow and all the capital was concentrated within the hands of the few elite. Competition vanished at this point because the means of production was halted. “Keynes argued that the state should spend and invest when individuals would not…” (56). Keynes was a liberal at heart, yet even he envisioned the Great Depression and the consequences of it. Structuralists seek to end this instable cycle of booms and busts by creating a socialist society where everybody is as equal in class as possible. No competition will exist because the state will set the prices. There will be virtually no wealth gap because everybody will contribute equality and earn equal capital. There will see be an elite group of people who basically run the country. These people will have a great deal of power because they run the government. Using Keynes views, a checks and balances system would be setup to make sure the people in power will not exploit the population.

In my personal point of view, I am persuaded by the Keynesian compromise, which is a system of embedded liberalism. The wealth gap in many third world countries is staggering, yet a market system is needed to build wealth. Structuralists argue that capitalism is an unavoidable step towards socialism because it creates the wealth. The government must regulate this capitalist system so that the working class is not exploited. The Keynesian compromise is a liberal international system that includes free trade and open markets at its core. However, “individual nations would be able to undertake the sorts of domestic policies that Keynes advocated for moderating inflation, controlling unemployment, and encouraging economic growth” (58). Basically, free markets dominate relations between nations while the state has an “important macroeconomic role within each nation…” (58). This ‘Keynesian Compromise’ is a mixture of John Maynard Keynes’ views and Bretton Woods’ views. Instead of viewing the IPE as state versus market, the Keynesian compromise seeks “the right degree and nature of state intervention within an overall system of open markets” (58). A good model is most of Western Europe, including France and the Netherlands. Western Europe has a free market and extensive social welfare systems. The European Union advances the free market system while each individual nation chooses which social programs it plans to have. Switzerland, for example, has universal health care for all its citizens. Switzerland also has markets and trade. This country has one of the highest standards of living in the world, higher than the United States. And this country uses embedded liberalism. Markets, trade, social and welfare programs, an

” (76). The theory is that the capitalist system produces “inequality in the distribution of income and wealth. As the bourgeoisie continue to exploit the proletariat and weaker capitalists are swallowed by stronger, bigger ones, wealth and the ownership of capital become increasingly concentrated in fewer and fewer hands” (76). The law of disproportionality also counters the liberal view that competition benefits the working class. According to the law of disproportionality, “capitalism, because of its anarchic, unplanned nature, is prone to instability” (75). Capitalism can be subject to overproduction or underconsumption. “Capitalists are not able to sell everything they produce at a profit and workers cannot afford to buy what they make” (76). This disproportionality between supply and demands leads to economic fluctuations and increases the chance of social unrest and revolution. The Keynesian Theory of economics can further prove this disproportionality.

John Marynard Keynes developed his theory just as the Great Depression spread poverty all over the United States. In his view, “individuals and markets tended to make decisions that were particularly unwise when faced with situations where the future is unknown” (56). Basically, Keynes believed that people were concerned about being unemployed in the future. So, everybody spent less money, saved more, and the result was that fewer goods were purchased and produced. Thus, “the recession and unemployment that everyone feared…[was] caused by the very actions that individuals took to protect themselves from this eventuality” (56). This is called the paradox of thrift. The wealth gap in the country continued to grow and all the capital was concentrated within the hands of the few elite. Competition vanished at this point because the means of production was halted. “Keynes argued that the state should spend and invest when individuals would not…” (56). Keynes was a liberal at heart, yet even he envisioned the Great Depression and the consequences of it. Structuralists seek to end this instable cycle of booms and busts by creating a socialist society where everybody is as equal in class as possible. No competition will exist because the state will set the prices. There will be virtually no wealth gap because everybody will contribute equality and earn equal capital. There will see be an elite group of people who basically run the country. These people will have a great deal of power because they run the government. Using Keynes views, a checks and balances system would be setup to make sure the people in power will not exploit the population.

In my personal point of view, I am persuaded by the Keynesian compromise, which is a system of embedded liberalism. The wealth gap in many third world countries is staggering, yet a market system is needed to build wealth. Structuralists argue that capitalism is an unavoidable step towards socialism because it creates the wealth. The government must regulate this capitalist system so that the working class is not exploited. The Keynesian compromise is a liberal international system that includes free trade and open markets at its core. However, “individual nations would be able to undertake the sorts of domestic policies that Keynes advocated for moderating inflation, controlling unemployment, and encouraging economic growth” (58). Basically, free markets dominate relations between nations while the state has an “important macroeconomic role within each nation…” (58). This ‘Keynesian Compromise’ is a mixture of John Maynard Keynes’ views and Bretton Woods’ views. Instead of viewing the IPE as state versus market, the Keynesian compromise seeks “the right degree and nature of state intervention within an overall system of open markets” (58). A good model is most of Western Europe, including France and the Netherlands. Western Europe has a free market and extensive social welfare systems. The European Union advances the free market system while each individual nation chooses which social programs it plans to have. Switzerland, for example, has universal health care for all its citizens. Switzerland also has markets and trade. This country has one of the highest standards of living in the world, higher than the United States. And this country uses embedded liberalism. Markets, trade, social and welfare programs, an

competition will exist because the state will set the prices. There will be virtually no wealth gap because everybody will contribute equality and earn equal capital. There will see be an elite group of people who basically run the country. These people will have a great deal of power because they run the government. Using Keynes views, a checks and balances system would be setup to make sure the people in power will not exploit the population.

In my personal point of view, I am persuaded by the Keynesian compromise, which is a system of embedded liberalism. The wealth gap in many third world countries is staggering, yet a market system is needed to build wealth. Structuralists argue that capitalism is an unavoidable step towards socialism because it creates the wealth. The government must regulate this capitalist system so that the working class is not exploited. The Keynesian compromise is a liberal international system that includes free trade and open markets at its core. However, “individual nations would be able to undertake the sorts of domestic policies that Keynes advocated for moderating inflation, controlling unemployment, and encouraging economic growth” (58). Basically, free markets dominate relations between nations while the state has an “important macroeconomic role within each nation…” (58). This ‘Keynesian Compromise’ is a mixture of John Maynard Keynes’ views and Bretton Woods’ views. Instead of viewing the IPE as state versus market, the Keynesian compromise seeks “the right degree and nature of state intervention within an overall system of open markets” (58). A good model is most of Western Europe, including France and the Netherlands. Western Europe has a free market and extensive social welfare systems. The European Union advances the free market system while each individual nation chooses which social programs it plans to have. Switzerland, for example, has universal health care for all its citizens. Switzerland also has markets and trade. This country has one of the highest standards of living in the world, higher than the United States. And this country uses embedded liberalism. Markets, trade, social and welfare programs, and government intervention along with a system of checks and balances is the ideal viewpoint that I advocate.

Work Cited

Balaam, David N., and Michael Veseth. Introduction to International Political Economy. 3rd ed. New Jersey: Pearson Education, 2005.

-Greg A.