Account for the Growth of Large-Scale Organizations, Essay Example

Introduction

Large-scale undertakings by companies have a tendency to be progressively worldwide to be competitive and have an improved share of the industry, a procedure reputed to be globalization. These organizations are active in some nations and have unequivocal weight in global trade; through auxiliaries throughout the globe create economies of scale. Moreover, new advances now permit better management of transaction costs and improve the benefits.

This paper will account for the growth of these large-scale organizations or companies in the 19^th century. This will give the reasons for the growth in addition to the effects this growth has brought to the world[1]. Technological and scientific revolution is attributed to this growth.

Primarily, the investment of the large-scale enterprises was in the natural resource sectors in underdeveloped countries, creating their sales and purchasing divisions[2]. They established high-tech production industries, as the venture was profitable. This was because the hosts lacked the skills, technology, and necessary staff.

The second phase was the growth of enterprises in the mid of 19^th century. This is linked with the strengthening of foreign production, both in developing and underdeveloped countries. Overseas offices in production specialized in production of the same line of products produce in small scale by the hosts for large-scale. This led to mass production of products to serve local demand and markets. The rapid growth of these enterprises is attributed to the scientific and technological advances in transport, communication, and human skills.

Conclusion

In summary, the growth of the large-scale companies throughout the world can be attributed to the fact that the host countries had ready resources. Moreover, when these resources were combined with skills, technological advances, and scientific knowledge, production of goods in large scale was possible and hence the growth of the large-scale organization across the world.

Difference between the First and Second New Deal

Introduction

The first New Deal was a brilliant in any measure. The regulation of the economy congested recession and economic down fall. However, President Roosevelt fought for a new set of developments that were recognized as The Second New Deal. These two were different in several ways. For instance, the second mainly relied on the Keynesian approach of shortage while the first one did not.

The Second New Deal did not work well and the American economy went down. The paper will discuss the differences between the two reforms and show that the First New Deal was the better of the two since the Second New Deal had failed and President Roosevelt adapted new developments.

Differences

The First New Deal was aimed at recovering the American economy that had fallen while the Second New Deal emphasized in creation and development of proper social justice in the country. Moreover, the reforms, laws, and agencies developed in the First New Deal accounted for very many, about all, sectors of the American society. However, the Second New Deal mainly dealt and emphasized on some of conflicts because of class divisions in the American society.

The First New Deal was responsible for the immediate procedures of creating employment and welfare recovery for the unemployed persons. However, the Second New Deal, which included the WPA, provided only work to the unemployed, but not welfare. Moreover, the second one provided insurance for the disabled and the aged later in its new piece of legislation.

Conclusions

In summary, while most people have similar opinion that the New Deal transformation phases appeared in 1933 and 1935, there are many differences in the structures and functions or intensions of the First New Deal and Second New Deal. While the First New Deal was better and had succeeded in its purpose, the second one had failed.

Impacts of war mobilization

Introduction

The labor force in America has varied greatly during the country’s evolution from an agrarian into an industrialized country. America was mainly an agricultural country until in the 1860s when it was revolutionized and became an industrialized nation. More than 40% of the workers in the cities were unskilled and got very little pay. However, other skilled and organized workers assumed top positions. The war in America had great effects on these laborers. The work will discuss the effects of war, and the way government laws affected the laborers’ lives.

Mobilization of the war saw women and racial minorities included in the labor force as President Roosevelt believed that the effort of every American citizen was needed during the time of war. This can also be responsible for ending unemployment in America as the labor force was increased to produce commodities in large numbers in preparation for the war.

Moreover, labor shortage was realized in agricultural sectors since many people went to work in factories in the cities. As a result, agricultural commodities increased demand as the military and the civilians needed food. Therefore, the government encouraged food production and tight federal control of the prizes and markets heightened.

In addition, government legislation in areas such as taxes and controls, and rationing affected this population during the war mobilization period. The tax policy saw the tax increase at a high rate[3]. This was to pay for the war. Moreover, many controls were put on the economy, for instance, price control was imposed on many commodities and monitored through some government bodies. Wages and salaries were also closely monitored and controlled. There was also rationing of the commodities and every person only got the minimum amount of the necessities.

Conclusion

Therefore, the mobilization of war had several effects on the workers. This saw women include in the work force, and many people migrate to cities leaving agricultural sectors lacking laborers and hence the rise in demand for agricultural produce. Moreover, government policies and laws on taxes, controls, and rationing of commodities affected the population in the cities.

Ways in which Bush depart from conservatism

Introduction

President George W. Bush had promised to build the nation and claimed to be a conservative who could represent the values of the American society. However, the Americans who elected him to represent them later dismissed him as not being what he claimed to be because of his actions that were categorized as far away from conservatism. Although his determination was good and admirable, he failed to notice the unlikable realities and change the bad policies he adapted during his reign. The work discusses the actions that show President Bush did not adhere to conservatism.

Ways in which Bush depart from conservatism

President Bush falsely professed a “humble” foreign plan, however pursued an unwise and counterproductive program of unwanted domination and occupation, which is different from the original good aim of disarming a dictator.

Moreover, he had claimed to be a strict constructionist and to respect the laws of the land as articulated in the constitution; however, he undermined the role of the congress as laid down in the American constitution to declare war and give authority to the American forces. He took the initiative of authorizing the army to attack the Middle East countries with the consent of the congress.

He had portrayed himself as a campaigner of free enterprise; however, he handed billions in deals to associates who campaigned for him, and thereby he let corporate immoral people name their regulators[4]. A true conservative does not recognize people to opportunities partially through corruption and influence from friends. Fairness and impartiality is the way of conservatives, and survival of free capitalistic system is the conservatism.

In summary, although President Bush claimed to be a conservative, his actions did not go hand in hand with conservatism. He acted contrary to the provisions of conservatism and hence he not a true conservative as he claimed.

Bibliography

Carew, Michael G. becoming the arsenal: the American industrial mobilization for World War II, 1938-1942. Lanham: University Press of America, 2010.

Carruthers, Bruce G., and Sarah L. Babb. Economy/society: markets, meanings, and social structure. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Pine Forge Press, 2000.

Glenn, Brian J., and Steven M. Teles. Conservatism and American political development. Oxford New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Henretta (2009). The Industrial City: Building It, 18 Living in It Venn, Fiona. The New Deal. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007.

[1] Henretta (2009). The Industrial City: Building It, 18 Living in It

[2] Glenn, Brian J., and Steven M. Teles. Conservatism and American political development. Oxford New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.

[3] Carruthers, Bruce G., and Sarah L. Babb. Economy/society: markets, meanings, and social structure. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Pine Forge Press, 2000.

[4] Carew, Michael G. becoming the arsenal: the American industrial mobilization for World War II, 1938-1942. Lanham: University Press of America, 2010.