Development of an industrialized, mechanized economy in the United States

Till the time of the Statesn Revolution, the Ameri butt end sparing was basically a colonial economy, and worked for the return of the mother country(Britain). With time the colonies resentment with the mother country grew and they breached their links much to the ire of the British Empire. The stop that went by between the American Revolution and the Civil War witnessed the growth of a young subject field economy. Though it was still largely agricultural, the manufacturing and industrial sector was in addition coming up in a big way (complemented by the rise of a fledgling take movement).Serious and vigorous economic and political competition among the sections (North, South, and West) was a primary force shaping the culture of American politics. At the same time, the soil slowly developed the foundations of a unified national economic system.This consolidation of American economic carriage was driven by such technological developments as the invention of the steamboat, the railroad, and the telegraph by the development of risingfangled economic enterprises (e.g. , railroad and telegraph systems) capitalizing on these technological advances and by the linking of the nations several regions through the construction of internecine improvements such as canals and roads and toll bridges. The Unions possession of these economic advantages was a major factor in its victory everywhere the Confederacy in the Civil War. After the Civil War was all over, the coupled States was complete as a major player in the world economy.The Development of infrastructure and bran-new actor of communication resulted in bonding the national economy together, and also making feasible the rise of great(p) industrial enterprises. Education and political legal support also assisted the growth of these enterprises by the development of such forms of organization as the business corporation, the trust, and the holding company. But the labour movement in America also grew a t a frantic pace in order to protect their interests from the hands of capitalists and it can be said that largely the work force was dissatisfied at the treatment meted out to them.The dig up movements initially forced the government to bring legislation protecting the interests of the worker but later during the mid-twenties and early 1930s an aggressively pro-business climate led either to the suppression or the abandonment of these efforts. The economy grew at a frantic pace in the 1920s but the lack of regulation and decorous safeguards led to monopolization that in result led to the Great Depression of 1929-1941. It led to a stern rethink on the part of the government and new rules were laid paving the way for a new relationship between the government and the economy as a whole.At first the government tried to take the unregulated economy. After that for a while in the two decades that followed American economy thrived like anything, and also paved the way for the new Am erican middle class. The check since the late 1960s has demonstrated that the American dream of the 1950s and 1960s was short-lived. Two clusters of developments spelled the end of Americans dreams of continuing economic and social prosperity First, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, a continuing climate of economic recession and industrial retrenchment led to the loss of thousands of jobs.Second, in the 1970s and early 1980s, American corporations seemed increasingly unable to compete with the industries and products of unknown competitors specifically German and Japanese electronics and locomote manufacturers. In particular, the successful Japanese challenge to the primacy of the American automobile industry spelled economic disaster, not just for the big tether auto manufacturers, but also for the wads of industries (for example, steel) dependent on a healthy domestic automobile industry.In the 1980s, many Americans believed that the malaise of the 1970s was at an end. But the 1980s was an era of feverish economic growth based not on the solid flowering of productive industry but on the ever-more-frantic manipulations of corporate takeovers and stock manipulation. The goals of free trade urinate also been furthered since World War II by US participation in the International pecuniary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and dispense (GATT).With the formation in 1995 of the World Trade Organization (WTO), most-favored-nation policies were expanded to trade in services and other areas. In 1993, Congress pass the North American Free Trade Agreement, which extended the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States to include Mexico. NAFTA, by eliminating tariffs and other trade barriers, created a free trade zone with a unite market size of $6. 5 trillion and 370 million consumers. The effect on employment was uncertainestimates change from a loss of 150,000 jobs over the next ten years to a net gain of 200,000 .Labor intensifier goods-producing industries, such as apparel and textiles, were expected to suffer, while it was predicted that capital goods industries would benefit. It was anticipated that US automakers would benefit in the short run by taking advantage of the low wages in Mexico and that US penetrate farmers and the US banking, financial, and telecommunications sectors would gain enormous new markets. As of 2003, the pros and cons of NAFTA were still being hotly debated.Spokespersons for organized labor claimed in 2000 that the agreement had resulted in a net loss of 420,000 jobs, while advocates of free trade insisted that 311,000 new jobs had been created to support record US exports to Canada and Mexico, with only 116,000 workers displaceda net gain of 195,000 jobs. In 2003, President George W. scrubbing introduced, and Congress passed a tax cut of $350 billion designed to stimulate the economy, which was in a period of slow growth. This came on the heels of a $1. 35 tri llion tax cut passed in 2001 and a $96 billion stimulus package in 2002.Democrats cited the loss of 2.7 million private sector jobs during the first three years of the Bush administration as evidence that the president did not have control over the economy. In 1998, for the first time since 1969, the federal budget closed the fiscal year with a surplus. In 2000, the government was running a surplus of $236 billion, or a projected $5. 6 trillion over 10 years. By mid-2003, the federal budget had fallen into deficit the deficit stood at $455 billion, which was4. 2% of down-to-earth domestic product (GDP). Congress was debating an overhaul of the Medicare program, to provide prescription drug coverage for the elderly and disabled. full treatment CITEDhttp//www.eduref.org/Virtual/Lessons/crossroads/sec5/Introduction/g_economy.htmlhttp//www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Americas/United-States-ECONOMIC-DEVELOPMENT.html