How did friction matches change early americas economy?
341394
it created a new taxable industry for government, and it created jobs.
156233
I would recommend the excellent book The World's Banker : A Story of Failed States, Financial Crises, and the Wealth and Poverty of Nations.  Or Guns, Germs and Steel, by Jared Diamond.  Or perhaps "The open veins of Latin America", by Eduard Galeano.\n\nThe arguments are very complex and the analysis of history and culture very interesting, but I will boil it down and make it very simple.\n\nSuccessfull cultures in today's world are almost entirely based on the values of a particular culture (yes there are other factors, but bear with me).  Countries that approach economics from an exploitationist perspective (see Spain in the 16th century in the new world) or many countries today where a few people control the mineral and resource wealth of a country fail repeatedly until eventually the values of the people change.  \n\nCountries that have promoted mercantilism, trade and commerce generally prosper, because in order to create a climate in which commerce can flourish, soceity has to value the traits that are conducive to commerce (transparency, rule of law, meritocracy, etc).  A smart businessman hires the best people he can to do the job, not necessarily his family members (as is the norm in some countries).  \n\nSo, how is it that countries that have relatively few natural resources are rich and powerful (Great Britain, Japan for instance)?  They are mercantilists to one extent or another.  Look at the Netherlands. Almost no natural resources, and only 14 million people.  However, they own many major businesses that operate in the US and have influence out of proportion to their size.  Why?  they figured it out early and got with the program.
861451
Politics control an area. Everything such as slavery, King Cotton, and the lack of industrialization in sourth influnced politics which in turn influenced the relationships. The north and south had become very different areas. If a new tariff or law that helped one area, always hurt the other area. All these were decided in Congress, especially the slave laws.
357540
had good trading routes
937146
"Discovery" is the key word.  The voyages of the age of discovery increased knowledge, brought new products, introduced cultures, opened new markets, etc.  New challenges brought changes in maritime technology - improved navigation, shipping, and associated crafts.  The expense - and potential rewards- of these complex ventures helped to spur the growth of corporate entities (there is a name for them - joint stock companies, I think, but check that for accuracy) that helped spread risk.  Insurance, too.  The huge increase in money brought about by the discovery of gold and silver in Mexico and Peru lead to major economic growth in Europe, which in turn allowed more exploration.
229518
the early 19th century
33939
well there was this guy named captain john smith and he sent a bunch of people to america (he paid for there ship and their supplies and all that stuff) to find gold and siver and find a easy way to trade with china and japan.then when they didnt find any thing they figured there has to be a way to make money.so they made a glass factory.and that made a little money.but then they found tobaco in virgina (which was where they were at in america) and they started to sell that and that made tons of money (they didnt know it was bad though).so then these people in america found out that they needed help so they went over to china and started taking people and selling them to help the people get the tobaco. (the people that brought the slaves over where called the dutches)and then 200 years later in the 1800's the south thought slavery was wrong and the north thought it wasnt so then they got into a fight and eventually slavery was mostly ended. (any question about this you dont get e-mail me at cool_dude6490@yahoo.com)
600340
Industry was a big part-as always money. Nothing changes. Greed is always there isn't it.\n\nSlavery was a second and used by the money people as their excuse.
754944
okay first really read the Encarta passage (where I got two of the answers)the answers because if your teacher asks you where you got em or why the causes were SO important you won't know! Also anytime you have a history paper or anything history,science or political go to Encarta!!! IT has saved me hours of fact finding time!I couldn't find the rest but they should be in your text book! good luck.\na)Spread of the Plantation System\nb)Africans as the Labor Source
526220
Not very long. The north was far more industrialized the the agrarian south. What the person above said is true as well.
120307
The first match was made by Robert Boyle around 1680, and scientists and inventors have been improving them ever since.\n\nCheck out the website I've attached.  I hope this helps.
413651
the irony was that war was good for the world economically as it spured their economies.  as world war 2 started, they needed workers for the factories to produce bombs and guns.  soon, the unemployment rate went down, and the US especially was starting to profit through the selling of weaponry to other countries before Lend Lease Act.  as more people are working, they get paid, and the economy goes for the better.  another one in a very small role was the New Deal by Franklin Delano Roosevelt.  while it didn't stop the great depression, it put the US in the fast track by creating more jobs and putting new laws and restrictions in the economy.
963885
What ultimately made life possible for the 'pilgrims' was something akin to capitalism. They started out in more of a commune system, which about killed them off, b/c there's no incentive to work (produce).\n\nYou need people that are focused on getting ahead, aggressively.
21298
This is a tricky question. Economics is a broad topic, and this is a narrow application. One interesting observation that I've heard is that slavery is non-existent in post-agrarian societies! Once a culture starts to move toward an industrial age, slavery simply melts away. The assertion is that capitalism is incompatible with slavery.\n\nKen Wilber has related this to developmental stages in human cultures. It is dangerous to assume a cause and effect relationship here. It might just be that once a culture has matured enough to have a robust decentralized economic system like modern capitalism, the culture likewise matures sufficiently to find reprehensible the levels of coercion that slavery requires.
821282
1. The turning point from rural to industrial economy\n2. automation, work less and achieve more. freedom (since engines were developed, slavery - the way people had it - was not needed!). More free time => more education. More cultural exchanges.
84091
As President Grant said in his memoirs, the South stopped working for compromise when they could no longer command political dominance of the country. Back in the early 1980's, the Commerce Department put out a series of books on the economic history of the United States, which brought up many aspects of early US history that are now forgotten.\n\nAfter the revolution, when the country was a bankrupted swath of states along the Atlantic Ocean, there seemed no way the country could survive economically. Then, the industrialization of the American Northeast was financed in large part by hard currency achieved through the export of cotton and tobacco. These were the only resources the US had in large quantities that had a monopoly throughout the world, and this was of course produced exclusively in the South. The grains produced in the Northeast and later in the Midwest were largely barred from European markets because of the British Corn Laws and other agricultural protective measures across the world.\n\nYou must remember, this was before the advent of sectionalism, and many across the country gave their political loyalty to the Whig Party, which represented Business both large and small. As a result, the South would reap huge profits on cotton (which thus became an industry only for those rich and powerful enough to hold large amounts of land and large numbers of slaves) and then invest those profits in the North to build industry. This also gave the South a certain amount of extra influence in how things were done across the country.\n\nAs the North began to also grow rich because of its expanding industrial base, leaders in the North began to also throw their political and economic weight around. In the 1830's, Northern and Midwestern sections brought about a very protective tariff against foreign manufactured goods and European luxuries (hence the name Sectionalism).\n\nAs we have seen all throughout our history, when a domestic industry is protected by increasing the price of foreign competition, rather than using the protection to increase their market share and long term health, American business will simply increase their prices to maximize their short term profits. This was the case here as well. The leaders in the North, because they needed semi-skilled labor which is not condusive to slavery, started to fund the political movement to abolish slavery which, when gold was discovered in California and people had to travel through Missouri and actually see the way slaves were treated, became an uncontrollably emotional issue. The South found themselves now having to pay higher prices for goods they could not produce themselves, even though they had made those goods possible, and found their peculiar institution which was the basis of their own wealth attacked as being immoral.\n\nThe two sections of the country had found themselves growing farther apart, and the differences were becoming too stark for the Southern leaders to deal with. While they defended African slavery as moral and humanitarian, they lived in mortal fear of becoming slaves themselves. The Whig Party began to unravel, with those in the North going to the Republicans and the South going to the Democrats. With the very idea of slavery being called into question, the South demanded a concession in the Compromise of 1850 that they felt would force the whole country to recognize the institution of slavery, the Fugitive Slave Act. This completely backfired on the South, because now to the people in the North, slavery was no longer just some bad thing that was happening far far away that you could pretend was someone else's problem (like Darfur today). The new law now required Northern communities to arrest and hold captive black people in their local jails with their local police for no other reason than because someone in the South said the black person was a runaway slave (there was no hearing, and no evidence allowed other than the statement of
321978
A dramatic change in the ways people earned money and made goods that began in England around the mid-1800s. People went from making goods in their own homes with simple tools to making them in large-scale factories with complicated machinery. As a result, many rural regions became more urban as cities grew rapidly around the new industrial activity.