In order to achieve this a production revolution of sorts took place in many advanced economies, countries shifted from Fordism to Post-Fordism. Fordism was based upon Henry Ford's use of production lines and mass production. This model de-skilled the workers involved and made flexibility on the production lines difficult. During the early 1960's a larger range of products were being demanded which meant that companies were losing profits as they could not keep up with demand due to the inflexible production process. The changes which came with the adoption of Post-Fordism were largely implemented to increase flexibility on the production line and consequently boost profits, as Mitchell stated “Post-Fordism has been portrayed as a
This was all thanks to Russia’s finance minister Sergei Witte. He tried to bring Russia’s economy up to the standards with the rest of Europe as they were seen as backwards compared to other countries. The best way he saw this was through industrialization. This is because the market was heavily controlled by the state and the development of heavy industry allowed for a fast catch-up, rapidly covering the 'gap' that existed in the country's economy. Besides all this such industrialization improved the overall military capability of Russia.
Frequent acquisitions and mergers due to numerous recessions have allowed large companies to grow and enter new market segments. Lastly, mini-mill producers used to only produce niche products for a selected market. Today, however, they now operate and compete on a much broader scale. A high threat of new entrants also complements extremely high competitive rivalry. Industry consolidation in both the United States and around the world has resulted in numerous acquisitions and mergers.
Much of this investment came from already industrialized countries like Germany, Great Britain, and France whose business owners looked for new investment opportunities in the United States. These investors put money into the work of mechanics and engineers with the expertise to develop new, more efficient ways of mass-producing goods. Machines benefited the United States by allowing business owners to specialize in the production of goods and manufacture them in large quantities to distribute throughout the nation or export. As a result, the cost of mass-produced goods went down as their quantity went up causing industrial profits to rise. With the creation of transcontinental railroads and telephones, marketing nationally was available to distribute these goods.
World War II changed this in a number of ways. The first catalyst was the aforementioned increase in the country’s industrial needs. This created the need for more
With that information being stated ideological differences are most likely the cause of most wars. For example, the Cold War. The contrast between two US presidents in Yalta and Postdam conferences showed that the increasing tension between two superpowers wasn’t mainly due to ideological difference, rather it was Truman’s lack of experience and judgment had worsened the two relations. However, the ideological difference did play a significant role in the Marshall Plan because it was found in the American economic and political system. The liberal capitalist US economy needed ever increasing trade and investment opportunities to overcome its endemic weaknesses, (Mccauley).
Furthermore, for many centuries, European nations had been building empires, slowly extending their economic and political control over various peoples of the world and practicing imperialism. Colonies supplied the European imperial powers with raw materials and provided markets for manufactured goods. As Germany industrialized, it competed with France and Britain in the contest for colonies. In continuation, because each nation wanted stronger armed forces than those of any potential enemy, the imperial powers followed a policy of militarism—the development of armed forces and their use as a tool of diplomacy. Empires were expensive to build and to defend, and the growth of nationalism and imperialism led to increased military spending.
To what extent were economic factors more important than political ones in German unification? Over concentration on political and diplomatic themes in explaining German unification has led many historians to look for explanations in the social and economic realms. Many recent historians have taken up this argument, such as Helmut Bohme who considerably stress the importance of the economic factors over the political and military. However, although economic factors certainly played a considerable part in unifying Germany, there are arguments attacking their importance over other factors, namely political (Bismarck), the international situation (decline of Austria) and military factors (army reforms of von Moltke). Firstly, we must look at the role of the economic factors.
Hitler used propaganda, elimination of the opposition, and a cult of personality to gain the support and trust of the German people in a time of economic crisis to his benefit and the rest of the world's loss. Single party states arise from a crisis, and Germany was suffering from a very large one at that time. The end of World War I in 1918 had left the economic state in shambles, and the loss struck the German people hard. Furthermore, the Treaty of Versailles the following year resulted in the demilitarisation and many cuts from German land and territory. Hitler criticized the carving up of Europe by the "Big Four" (the US, UK, France and Italy), stating that the Germans were the "master race".
Explain why Germany was bankrupt by 1923. At first, Germany’s main problem was that its government was bankrupt. The cost of the war was so great that that all of the German gold reserves had been put towards the cause. After the Weimar Republic had made the decision to surrender, The Treaty of Versailles had made things considerably worse. It deprived Germany of wealth-earning areas, such as the coalfields in Silesia.