The technological and industrial history of the United States describes the United States' emergence as one of the most technologically advanced nations in the world. The availability of land and literate labor, the absence of a landed aristocracy, the prestige of entrepreneurship, the diversity of climate and a large easily accessed upscale and literate free market all contributed to America's rapid industrialization. The availability of capital, development by the free market of navigable rivers, and coastal waterways, and the abundance of natural resources facilitated the cheap extraction of energy all contributed to America's rapid industrialization. Fast transport by the very large railroad built in the mid-19th century, and the Interstate Highway System built in the late 20th century, enlarged the markets and reduced shipping and production costs. The legal system facilitated business operations and guaranteed contracts. Cut off from Europe by the embargo and the British blockade in the War of 1812 (1807–15), entrepreneurs opened factories in the Northeast that set the stage for rapid industrialization modeled on British innovations.
From its emergence as an independent nation, the United States has encouraged science and innovation. As a result, the United States has been the birthplace of 161 of Britannica's 321 Greatest Inventions, including items such as the airplane, internet, microchip, laser, cellphone, refrigerator, email, microwave, personal computer, Liquid-crystal display and light-emitting diode technology, air conditioning, assembly line, supermarket, bar code, automated teller machine, and many more.
Hope this helps you
Answer:
The concept of servant leadership was developed by Robert Greenleaf in 1970. According to him, servant leadership was based on the philosophy that for leaders to be effective, they must have the passion to serve others. He was disturbed by the many instances where leaders wanted to lead or become leaders first so as to serve people.
His argument was that if people and organizations were to put service first, they were able to transform the world and make it a better place to live.
He argued that servant leadership was the key to the realization of a world with justice; a world where people were not driven by their self interests but the desire and passion to stand for those who are oppressed and those who are not able to articulate their feelings in a highly competitive and biased world.
Kurt Lewin outlined three broad categories of leadership namely autocratic, democratic and laissez-faire. These types of leadership are distinguished by the characteristics of the leaders and the techniques they use in their leadership.
The autocratic type of leadership is characterized by failure to share power with others. In an organizational context, autocratic leaders are the sole decision makers and they perceive the other employees simply as objects which are not capable of making any decision.
Democratic leadership is the opposite of autocratic leadership. This leadership is sometimes referred to as participative leadership because the leaders lead through bringing everybody on board in decision making with the idea that inclusiveness brings about sustainability as far as realization of organizational goals and objectives is concerned. With this style, all members of the team are involved in identifying essential goals and strategies for attaining those goals.
Servant leadership falls under the category of democratic leadership which is characterized by the inclusion of everybody in making decisions which affect their work and their organizations at large.
The laissez-faire type of leadership is actually not leadership at all because people just do as they wish. This type of leadership lacks a central authority responsible for making decisions. It is rare to find organizations with this type of leadership today.
A. Because if you only hear from one side of a war then you only get their side of the story, and there are always two sides to a story
Internal terrorism and external terrorism both pose a great threat, but terrorism carried out by the United State's own citizens can be much more harmful in the long run. My favorite quote about this is nerdy, but it's from Captain America: Civil War and is stated by the true antagonist of the movie, "An empire toppled by its enemies can rise again. But one which crumbles from within? That's dead... forever." We as a people can rally against an outside threat and rise from whatever they may do to us, but we become exponentially weaker if we must rally against those within our own borders. That's just kinda my opinion.
Answer:
Capitalism enables human choice.
Explanation:
Given that socialism is a form of socio-political governance that stipulates that all factors and processes of production, including distribution of services and commodities, should be controlled by the community and in turn, distributed again among the community.
Hence, it is apparent that this style of sociopolitical government does not favor "Human Choice" as every member of the community is working together. Whether individuals like it or not.
Hence, in this case, the correct answer is "Capitalism enables human choice."
