All categories

3 years ago

how did industrialization in the united states differ from industrialization in japan,china and russia

History

1 answer:

Fudgin [204]3 years ago

8 0

Answer:

The first difference is that industrialization in the United States ocurred much earlier than in Japan, China, and Russia. The U.S. began to industrialize in the mid nineteenth century, while Japan industrialized in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, Russia industrialized in the early and mid twentieth century, and China industrialized in the mid and late twentieth century.

Another difference is that the United States industrialized under a market economy system, with low taxation, albeit, high tariffs. This is similar to the model that Japan used to industrialize.

Russia and China did something different. Russia, when it was part of the Soviet Union, industrialized under a planned socialist economy, where the government controlled all enterprises.

China used a mixed strategy, in which state control and economic planning was combined with private investment in some sectors, and in specific geographic locations.

You might be interested in

Who is the king of Nepal ?

sveticcg [70]

2) Birendra Bir Bikram Sh

3 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

40 POINTS WILL GIVE BRAINLIST FOR FIRST CORRECT ANSWER

lawyer [7]

Hi! The cultural aspects of the ciry-state impact the from of government because the greeks were in some ways independently -minded and developed a culture of individual freedom where it was considered by many a disgrace to work for someone else. This independence led the lower classes to want to participate in government, and promoted democracy - not today's representative democracy where a member of parliament is supposed to represent the citizens within an electorate, but rather direct democracy, where all the citizens met in assembly each fortnight and made decisions directly on matters put to them by a council, which latter saw to the implementation of their decisions. So I hope that help :)

7 0

3 years ago

which of the following situations would not be supported by a government practicing a mercantilist economic system

Dmitry [639]

The country's navy uses only imported wood and steel to build itsships.

8 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Take a position on whether you believe the right to privacy should be guaranteed to all citizens and what limits if any, should

astra-53 [7]

Answer:

obviously yes yelling fire in a crowded theater is morally wrong. but I do believe that there are certain guidelines as to what you can and cannot say in public. such as slurs. and things like this.

8 0

3 years ago

Suppose a country comes out of world war 2 with increased territory but much structural damage. It employs a commandshow has the

abruzzese [7]

Answer: As with any well thought out and planned packaging scheme, the science of

military packaging for the United States Government developed from a well recognized logistical

need. This science has evolved over the course of its life to accommodate the many technology

changes in how the military distributes its supplies. It remains a dynamic force that can either

provide a positive or negative contribution to the success of military missions. Unlike most elements

of military doctrine, military packaging is rarely understood and appreciated for its contributions,

thus making it a prime target for criticisms from uninformed opinions.

The purpose of this paper is to make the reader aware of the basic reasons behind why military

packaging exists. This paper will review the many historic factors that first led military leaders to

recognize the need to protect supplies and equipment, and then follow the evolution of the science of

military packaging through current day practices.

GENESIS: The need for specific military procedures and requirements on how to package materiel

first surfaced on two different fronts. The Army had run sustainment exercises to Iceland during the

summer of 1941, and experienced high levels of supply losses that troop units attributed to bad

packaging. The same problem hit the Navy quite dramatically during the amphibious operations at

Guadalcanal in 1942. The commercial packaging that the Army, Navy and Marine Corps used during

the early months of World War II colossally failed to serve its intended purpose, and seriously

jeopardized the War Department's and Navy Department's abilities to sustain operations then being

planned. No one in either of those Departments had paid attention to the changes that had occurred in

packaging designs since Armistice Day.

In 1918, the most common shipping containers for military supplies were wood boxes, crates,

kegs and barrels. These were very much like the common commercial shipping containers of that

era, and were well-suited for all types of supply distribution environments. These containers were

heavy-duty, sturdy designs, generally built by craftsmen. With proper care, some surviving examples

of these containers could be readily used today as intended.

Immediately prior to World War II, military planners failed to recognize that the packaging they

had been receiving with their supplies would not meet their vital needs for overseas operations.

Industry had recognized that they could lower costs and improve profit margins by getting their

products to market in suitable packaging that weighed less and cost less to produce than traditional

packaging. In 1914, American railroads, who at the time were carrying most of the freight in the

United States, recognized and authorized the use of corrugated and solid fiberboard shipping

containers for packing many different types of products. Motor carriers, in turn, followed the

railroads' example in 1935 when they adopted their own packaging rules that often called for

fiberboard boxes. The United States Treasury Department issued the first federal specifications for

corrugated and solid "fiber boxes" in 1930 for packing supplies used by the civil agencies.

Industry, at the time, was also moving toward marketing plans that products would be consumed

Explanation:

6 0

3 years ago