Compare And Contrast Checks And Balances

938 Words 4 Pages
Checks and Balances and Market Economies
During early development of the United States, many great men proclaimed their beliefs on how the newly established country should operate. Adam Smith, a popular economist in the late 1700s, wrote An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, and James Madison, an influential federalist, is known as the Father of the Constitution. These revolutionary men imagined the United States in similar ways even though they focused on different aspects. Smith was interested in establishing a market economy, and Madison concentrated on limiting the power of the federal government by checks and balances. Although different, Adam Smith’s ideology about market economies overall parallels with Madison’s
…show more content…
As people focus on their own desires, they set up an arrangement to get the things they care for in the most reasonable approach. Adam Smith notes that men will create little treaty with one another stating, “Give me that which I want and you shall have this which you want.” (The Wealth of nationsfhkajsk 58) He then brings in the points that these transactions are not actions of service, but instead are actions of own advantage, self-love, or own interest. Similarly, the government works in the identical way. Hirschman, the writer of The passions and the interests, concludes that greed, a self interest, can help propel the greater good. “interest will not lie to him or deceive him” (the passions and the interest 39) this brings up the idea that government works as long as it is predictable. The United States of America needed leadership that resulted in persistent government with the citizen’s needs as the first priority. As the government leads with avarice in mind it will push the federal structure into favorable outcomes. After all, when the factions of government focus on their own wants, then through collaboration the uttermost crucial issues are the ones that will be debated. Evidently, selfishness is required in both the partitioned government as well as in a products assembly and …show more content…
Some might define competition as fighting, rivalries, conflict, oppositions, enemies, war, struggles, and even some will say it is to do or die. Although in the pervious argument surrounds the idea of cooperation both ideologies, market economies and separations of power, also find its opposite, competition, essential to generate the best institutions in the different corners of economies and politics. First looking at markets, competition arouses in prices of produces. “Adam Smith expected competition to control economic interests and to generate reasonable prices. He saw that prices would generally be determined by the impersonal forces of supply and demand, with both buyers and sellers feeling that price was largely beyond their control.” (City upon a hill 54) Supply and demand compels the value of the products. High appeal causes the prices to increase, just as low scarcity of the product and the resources to make it more expensive. One example of this today is oil. Oil is in high demand to a first world to continue some of the high technology. It is also in low supply since is it challenging resource to attend and is only found is some regions of the world. Now looking at competition from the federal government perspective, checks and balances are fixed so one branch of leadership does not obtain all the power. The legislative, executive, and judicial branches all need to compete

Related Documents