Both Adam Smith and John Hobson declared British imperialism unsound national policy from a strictly economic standpoint.
1. First, what did they mean by British imperialism?
2. Second, why did they agree that British imperialism was an economic burden on Britain, not a benefit.
3. What were their difference, if any, on their analysis of British imperialism's real cause?
4. Is imperialism ever economically beneficial to the imperialist mother country?
5. Is it beneficial in some other way? (drawing both questions on Smith and Hobson, answering persuasively).
6. What is imperialism? If it is sometimes beneficial?
A brief explanation to these questions will be sufficient. Thank you!© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 16, 2018, 5:01 pm ad1c9bdddf
By responding to the questions, this solution examines British imperialism from the perspectives of Adam Smith and John Hobson, as well as if imperialism was beneficial to the mother country. It also discusses imperialism and if it is beneficial. Supplemented with three articles on imperialism and racism.
Was war good for children from 1900-50?
My exam question is along the lines of "consider the statement that 'War was good for babies and small children in the first half of the 20th Century'". The essay is based on events in the UK but events from outside the UK can be considered. I have been preparing what areas I am going to cover in the exam and I would like your thoughts as to what I should write about.
So far I have:
Will examine whether the war good for children
Will look at positives from the war
Will also look at negatives from the war
Paragraph 1- Liberal Reforms
Paragraph 2- Formation of the NHS
Paragraph 3- National Insurance
Paragraph 4- Negatives
Thank you!View Full Posting Details