The founders placed a great amount of emphasis on individual states as the centerpiece of the new system. Did they place too much emphasis on the states? Or not enough? Does it still make sense to emphasize the state as the main unit of representation, or does something else make more sense today?

I think the founding fathers placed the needed attention

Explanation:

I believe they put enough attention to the state as the primary political system. See, the concept of state is based on the idea of individual freedom, and in this case, the state acts as a moderator of the issues. Without it, there will be anarchy.  However, once the state begins to accumulate power, that's the moment the citizens have to fight against it. That's why I believe the founding fathers thought carefully about what kind of state they wanted for the new nation. A limited one, and still useful. And yes, the state still is worth, because is a trustful political organization, easy to understand and to maintain.

answer: /hbv

explanation: ,mnb nml; ,

when a country suffers, for example, a drought period, the market product is affected for a low offer, in this case, potatoes; the government has to tax to the households, which have to give more money for the potatoes which they consume, that situation make them consume substitute goods even through loans, it could increase the financial market movement and the inflationary phenomena, the business has to increase salaries in order to the employees could buy a more expensive food (potatoes) and in order to inflation tha business had to buy expensive supplies in the factor market, while the rest of the world have to gain more money to consume the same amount of potatoes.