Supply To Match Gold Sociology Discussion

November 29, 2022

Supply To Match Gold Sociology Discussion

Order Number	636738393092
Type of Project	ESSAY
Writer Level	PHD VERIFIED
Format	APA
Academic Sources	10
Page Count	3-12 PAGES

Instructions/Descriptions

Supply To Match Gold Sociology Discussion

[Order Now]

But even institutions as old and powerful as banks and symbolic universes as sweeping as that of money can be challenged. Read the highlighted portion from The Social Construction of Reality below to frame your thinking. The prompt is to imagine competing money “experts” or economists on what the future of money should be.

Three economists walk into a bar and have the following argument:

Economist A : “We need to return to the gold standard and limit our money supply to match gold reserves, this will guard against inflation!”

Economist B: “We should keep fiat currency and fractional reserve banking as is, this will help our economy grow!”

Economist C: “We should abandon government-based currencies all together for decentralized crypto-currencies, this will democratize money!”

[Order Now]

Response Prompt

Answer each question below in as few or many words as you need:

1: Let’s make sure we have a grasp on a few key terms. First, in your own words define: fractional reserve banking, fiat money, and block chain

2: Which expert is right when the entire concept of money is socially constructed? Each choice will have a set of social repercussions, both pro and con. Which one would you side with and why? (or write in your own answer as “Economist D” if you propose an alternative to these three)

3: What do you think the role of crypto-currency will be in 10 years? What impact will it have on fiat money? Why?

Feel free to like each other’s posts. They will sort by likes.

Supply To Match Gold Sociology Discussion

RUBRIC

Excellent Quality

95-100%

Introduction

45-41 points

The context and relevance of the issue, as well as a clear description of the study aim, are presented. The history of searches is discussed.

Literature Support

91-84 points

The context and relevance of the issue, as well as a clear description of the study aim, are presented. The history of searches is discussed.

Methodology

58-53 points

With titles for each slide as well as bulleted sections to group relevant information as required, the content is well-organized. Excellent use of typeface, color, images, effects, and so on to improve readability and presenting content. The minimum length criterion of 10 slides/pages is reached.

Average Score

50-85%

40-38 points

More depth/information is required for the context and importance, otherwise the study detail will be unclear. There is no search history information supplied.

83-76 points

There is a review of important theoretical literature, however there is limited integration of research into problem-related ideas. The review is just partly focused and arranged. There is research that both supports and opposes. A summary of the material given is provided. The conclusion may or may not include a biblical integration.

52-49 points

The content is somewhat ordered, but there is no discernible organization. The use of typeface, color, graphics, effects, and so on may sometimes distract from the presenting substance. It is possible that the length criteria will not be reached.

Poor Quality

0-45%

37-1 points

The context and/or importance are lacking. There is no search history information supplied.

75-1 points

There has been an examination of relevant theoretical literature, but still no research concerning problem-related concepts has been synthesized. The review is just somewhat focused and organized. The provided overview of content does not include any supporting or opposing research. The conclusion has no scriptural references.

48-1 points

There is no logical or apparent organizational structure. There is no discernible logical sequence. The use of typeface, color, graphics, effects, and so on often detracts from the presenting substance. It is possible that the length criteria will not be reached.