- Paul A, Volcker & Alan Greenspan – Answer the following questions:
a) Critics think that the Federal Reserve Department has become so autonomous that it
constitutes a fourth branch of government, usurping the checks and balances of our
original constitution. Indicate if you agree with this and why. Note; the Federal
Reserve Department does not report to the executive, judicial, or legislative branches.
Please present a clear argument on why these critics may be correct. I want you to
properly support your argument. You did this in your discussion and homework. I
felt you still need to cover this. See my comments in your work from class.
Hint: you are showing an argument that supports that the Federal Reserve is indeed
essentially a forth branch.
b) What happened to the Stock Market & other investment market values when Paul A,
Volcker or Alan Greenspan even just commented on the economy? They both
yielded tremendous power, often their opinions and comments affected the economy
even before they actually made a change in policy or interest rates. Please cite your
sources for this.
c) Subsequent chairs have not seemed to have that same influence. Why do you think
this may be so and indicate the last two chairs’ names and how long she/he they
served? Hint: They really do not have the influence that Volcker and Greenspan did.
- John Maynard Keynes – Answer the following questions:
a) Describe what he did and what he is known as.
b) Indicate his major paper that began the Keynesian Theory of Economics. Please
make sure you indicate the right paper the last semester the groups listed the wrong
papers. He is by far the most significant pioneer of economics. I would make sure
you cover his life and what he did that shaped economics. Also please let me know if
this is followed now by most economist and by our government.
An individual who carries out the demonstrations which structure entire or part of the actus reus of the wrongdoing is known as an 'essential in the main degree": Osland v R (1998)  It very well may be gotten from the certainties that both Andy and Matthew were available at the scene to do a joint criminal endeavor: Tangye (1997)  as there was an express understanding: Tangye (1997) made between the two to catch the chiefs of expansive grocery stores in their homes and power them to come back to their general stores and open the safes. On the certainties it can't be set up that subsidiary obligation exists between the two or any inability to consent to such activities is available: Osland v R (1998) rather an "acting in show" which may make the impact of similarly putting duty on every person for the demonstrations of the other: R v Lowery and King (No.2) (1972)  Both Andy and Matthew might be accused of Conspiracy under S.321 to submit and offense does this reach out to Jimmy? Scheme Andy puts his arrangements to Mathew who consents to participate in the burglaries, for a level of the returns under S.321 of the wrongdoings Act 1958 this understanding made among Andy and Matthew brought about the association and commission of the offense henceforth may prompt a finding of blame in trick to submit that offense. Does this apply to Jimmy's dimension of inclusion? Actus Reus Trick has been characterized as a consent to complete an unlawful demonstration or a legitimate demonstration by unlawful means":R V Jones (1832)  there is unmistakably no inquiry of question that both Andy and Mathew chose that the most ideal method for making brisk cash was to execute the concurred criminal act. To set up contradiction of s.321 it might be construed that Jimmy's direct of giving a "protected house' purposefully distorted the course of Justice or planned to debase the organization of open equity: James v. Robinson (1963)  thus making Jimi a complicit in the commission of a wrongdoing. Mens Rea The foundation of both Andy and Matthews' deliberate consent to repudiate s.321 is clear on the actualities suggesting the conversation starter whether a trick charge is as successful as heavier gauged substantive charges accessible: Hoar v R (1981)  Jimmy might be discovered liable under the similarly pertinent test on the off chance that it is demonstrated that the arrangement of the 'protected house' was a promotion to the regular reason: R. v. Tripodi (1955)  in actuality being at risk for accessorial obligation because of the directing and obtaining included with Andy and Matthews fundamental offenses. Guards The extent of mens rea unmistakably connected to Jimmy is easy to refute "an intrigue is demonstrated by proof of the real terms of the understanding made or acknowledged or by proof from which a consent to impact normal articles or reason for existing is construed.": Gerakiteys v R (1984) . No proof of real terms of the understanding gives a reasonable section point before the demonstration or regular item to the commission of the offense by Jimmy: R v Theophanous (2003) The negligible giving of a "sheltered house' gives just a deduction to a jury to draw upon sometime later of Jimi's dimension of p>GET ANSWER