E-Business Strategy Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

E-Business Strategy - Essay Example Kourdi defines business strategy as â€Å"the plans, choices and decisions used to guide a company to greater profitability and success† (3). In e-business terms, we can mould this definition to state that e-business strategy is the plans, choices and decisions that are used by the business owners to guide their electronic transactions with other businesses, customers, suppliers, executives, partners and investors to achieve high end productivity in the virtual world. If the e-business owners are able to implement clearly focused strategy, they are then able to provide commercial success to their virtual businesses. On the other hand, if the strategy is faulty, this leads to total destruction of the company in the short or long run. Therefore, it is important to understand the importance of e-business strategy which is quite different from the real world business strategy. It is also important to differentiate between the strategic plans and otherwise decisions because many bu sinessmen have the â€Å"tendency to label every plan and decision strategic when most are about implementing strategy rather than setting it†, according to Kourdi (3). Successful E-Business Strategy- An Example How and why e-business strategies are successful is understood when the results and outcomes are observed. Dave mentions in his book that when the e-business owner knows in which direction he will drive his company and what kind of organizational culture he is going to impart to his e-business so as to enhance the productivity and attract e-consumers efficiently, this enables them to lay down such a strategic plan that helps them achieve their mission. E-business strategies are successful because they tend to clarify the mission statement and the vision of the e-company thus resulting in goal-based and productive performance of the company in the cyberspace. Dave mentions in his book many examples of successful e-businesses out of which a very interesting one is that of the Dow Chemical (p.249). According to Dave, Dow chemical is the result of implementation of a successful e-business strategy

Treaty of Versailles Essay Example for Free

Treaty of Versailles Essay As solders on the battlefields celebrated, families reunited, and the unlucky ones mourned, the war was finally over, as of 11 o clock on the morning of November 11th in 1918 (Vaughan, 1-2). The solders that survived came home, and the unlucky ones did not; some families united, and other families mourned for their loved ones. Everybody started celebrating the end of the first major war, where so many young lives were lost; so many people were permanently scarred for life or suffered horrible war-injuries (Vaughan, 1-2). The Treaty of Versailles was the treaty formed at the end of World War I, which many historians say caused the next major war, WWII. The reason for this, they say, is because of too many harsh laws included in the treaty, which put the full blame of Germany. Germany was blamed, because they lost the war, and so every other country used them as easy scapegoat, for all of the damage and loss of lives that had just happened. Of course as the scapegoat, Germany was forced and had to pay huge amounts of reparation fees and had to give up most of their land for no real apparent reason (Vaughan, 1-2). All of these heavy burdens and mistakes were just being thrown on the Germans and their nation for no other reason than the fact that they had lost the war. Germany did not even start the war, at a matter of fact (abid). Two month later, after WWI, leaders gathered in Paris to make a treaty, the treaty of Versailles. This treaty like all treaties in history, was to help maintain peace and to prevent war. But in this case, it is not the same. The treaty actually encouraged war, than to prevent it (nv.cc.va.us). In a palace near Paris, France called Versailles, the new treaty was created. Named after the place it was written it, the treaty of Versailles was supposed to have a goal, which was of course to maintain the peace for as long as possible, like all treaties ever made. But which of course, less than twenty years went by, until the whole world experienced the biggest and deadliest war that they had ever seen, WWII (Mayer, 3365). This deadly war, WWII, affected at least every country in the world in one way or another and  the death number was in the millions. So therefore and obliviously the treaty did not do a very good (Vaughan, 1-2). The leaders who met to sign the treaty were known to the world as the Big Four, basically because the fate of Germany was put into their hands, and later the fate of WWII. This Big Four included these popular leaders: Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924), the president of the United States at the time, David Lloyd George (1863-1945), who was the prime minister of Great Britain, Georges Clemenceau (1841-1929), who was the premier of France), and finally, Vittorio Emanuele Orlando (1860-1952), the premier of France. Another name, which was not with or in the Big Four was Ulrich Von Brockdoff-Rantzau (1869-1928), and he was the leader of delegation; foreign minister who was given the treaty on behalf of Germany. He was the person who had to accept the terms or Germany would be completely annihilated (learn.co.uk). Many historians ask if the four leaders or idealists were, in definite seeking a just and lasting peace, or were they more concerned with vengeance and assurances of national security (Vaughan, 1-2)? The historians that said this quote thought that the leaders only were concerned with vengeances, and not assurances of national security, which they probably were. Many people say that the leaders were not trying to punish Germany for the cause of war, because everyone already knew that Germany in fact did not cause it, but actually were trying to help themselves to free German land and their money. Nobody really knows what were going in the minds of the Big Four, except for them, but everyone does know that whatever it was, it caused a great deal of tensions and, between Germany and the rest of Europe. (abid) A great example of a person trying to get free land at the time the treaty was being made was Georges Clemenceau, the premier of France. He wanted to detach the Rhineland, and wanted to post that in the treaty, but the president of the United States at that time, Woodrow Wilson, knew what he was up to. He knew that the premier has been looking for a way to annex Saar Basin from Germany from in which rich resource would be taken from (bbc.co.uk). The one and probably the only one positive result from WWI, was the beginning of the League of Nations, formed and organized by Woodrow Wilson, of the United States. Woodrow formed this organization which supported a way for nations and leaders throughout the world, to come together and talk instead of fight. It was a way to prevent war, basically. Woodrow Wilson invited all countries to join the league instead of use arms. Unfortunately many did not join and the idea thus became weak, just like the organization (learn.co.uk). In fact the person who created it, Woodrow Wilson withdrew from his own organization. This was after some of the other leaders wanted the organization to be restricted and not welcome Germany or other weak countries. These leaders liked Woodrows idea, except they wanted it to be an exclusive organization, and did not have the same idea as Woodrow did on this. So without the U.S. or Russia, the organization became weak, until of course W.W.II, where it was brought back up again. The League of Nations was and still is today, one of mankinds attempts to find a means of abolishing war, and maintaining peace for as long as possible (learn.co.uk). The League of Nations was a way for leaders all around the world to talk about the problem at hand, instead to quickly take arms, and cause violence. Thus this is one of mankinds attempts to maintain peace and avoid violence throughout the world. This peace treaty was acclaimed as the single official document that had the most influence on shaping the events (Vaughan, 3). The events that Vaughan was talking about, was of course WWII, and the treaty was famous, or acclaimed for causing or shaping the next war. Somewhere between the first major war, and twenty years after that, the next major war, the treaty took affect. People, mostly the Germans felt betrayed and vengeful, because of the presented treaty. In those twenty years, the treaty of Versailles was ignored and not in any way enforced by anyone. The treaty basically did not have any positive value and instead only had negative affects. For example, it made all German citizens angry, and lead up to dictatorship, or Hitler. Therefore many say that the treaty caused more harm than good, if any good at all (abid). The treaty statements would have been harsh and difficult for anyone, not just Germany, to handle. The treaty was composed of exactly 440 articles, maps, and illustrations which all commanded or told Germany what to do and what to give up (lib.byu). The list of the changes was long and harsh. The Big Four were busy making changes and playing with Germanys eastern borders, such as Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Rumania, Hungary, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Finland, Estonia, and the Rhineland (Mayer, 3365). All of these were either taken away from Germany, or were affected in some way by the terms of the treaty, as stated in Articles 27-30. The four leaders did not just want reparations, which were high enough, but even wanted to punish their enemies by taking away their land. Some countries were annexed away completely, and others were taken away from only in some parts, and all of the annexed areas were distributed among the countries that won. Ports, waterways, and even railways, all of which were German property, in the beginning, were now divided equally (Mayer, 3365). Also, the treaty talks about reducing Germanys military, naval and Germanys air-force (Articles 159 through 213), but of course since the treaty was never enforced, Hitler, who comes into play much later, does not even pay much attention to these rules (momo.essortment). On September 14, 1930, the new Nazi party was elected, and whenever Hitler, the ruler or dictator of the party, broke a rule stated in the treaty, the Germany people liked Hitler even more, because they despised the treaty. So thus everyone encouraged Hitler to build up his army, airplanes, and submarines (momo.essortment). How did Hitler come into power, and cause the deaths of billions around the world, ask historians. Or more important, how did this the treaty of Versailles affect Hitler or make him popular with the people? Well, the money was a big problem. The leaders made Germany deeply into debt, with their high-reparation fees. This of course would lead Germanys economy to  be dangerously low (Cecil, 20). The German money value decreased and the affect of that made many go into poverty. Many were asking why pay so much, even if their country did not start the war. Many lost jobs or committed suicides even, because problems were so bad (abid). So that is why the people hated the treaty of Versailles so much, especially since the treaty told them that money was not enough, and Germany had to give away their land, for free. This treaty caused not only bitterness at first, but made Europe grow a continued tension [that lasted] for the next two decades (Vaughan, 2) The treaty caused these tensions which builded and grew larger in the people, which resulted in a huge war, WWII. The people grew hatred, and did not know who to blame for all of this. Their hatred and anger turned on their government, which currently was the Weimar Republic (bbc. co.uk). During the time period of 1919 and 1923, the uprisings and trouble grew larger. Many revolutions and protests happened in the streets, all against their government. Groups like the communists, and others, like the right-wing nationalists tried to take advantage of this opportunity, by trying to overthrow the government and rule it for themselves [Everyone] blamed the government for accepting the treaty and tried to overthrow [them] (bbc.co.uk). The people or citizens did not know who to blame for the punishment that was put on them for no reason, so the people turned on their own government, and blamed them. At this time, where these uprisings were happening, a person by the name of Adolf Hitler was currently working as a spy at several anti-Semitic groups, in 1919. After fighting in WWI and suffering from poison gas, he was looking for some extra money and a temporary job from the German army, so he went and spied on these groups. Only two years later though, in 1921, his interest grew; he joined the party and soon became their leader (bbc.co.uk). As leader, Hitler tried to get as many people to join his party, as possible. He did things like change the name of the party, which included words like socialists, and nationalists so that the name would attract more people. Also he spoke to mass-audiences, and made speeches on how he would revive Germanys respect, and rule Germanys empire for more than 1,000  years (abid). Eventually, he got elected into power with the help of a friend, Paul von Hindenburg. But after he died, Hitler took the chance and became the new consensus successor or dictator. He had obtained full control over the country. After taking care of some business and eliminating those who opposed him (other parties and government institutions), he put Mein Kampf, his first plan, into full affect. This plan, was world domination and Hitler outlined this to his army generals, on November, 1937 (remember). Hitler did not just want to conquer more lands or get back the land stolen from them, but from his anti-Semitic values that he learned while working as a spy, he created dozens of death camps wherever his empire expanded to. Millions of people send to these death traps to die, and the only reason that they were sent to die was because they were considered inferior. Inferior, meaning a different religion, race, etc. (remember). Jews, homosexuals, and even the mentally handicapped were all targeted, considered to be inferior in the eyes of the racist Nazis, were all killed because of who they were, and for no other reason than that(abid). So in conclusion, did the so called peace treaty help in maintaining peace or bringing about conditions that helped Adolph Hitler rise to power to get revenge. German citizens thought that that all the stuff that Hitler was doing such as expanding Germany and killing millions was just or right; was just a common reaction from the many harsh laws inside the treaty. The people never thought that Hitler was too out of line, because they might have been too vengeful themselves or didnt have anything else on their mind, except hatred. Of course, not until the end of WWII, did everyone find the death camps, and what Hitler was really doing behind their backs. Adolph Hitler opposed the treaty while he was in power, and was supported by the Germans for so long, because of that, say historians (remember). For instance, every time he broke a law from the treaty, such as increasing his army, or expanding his borders, he would became more popular with his own people. Hitler played a significant role in causing World War II, less than twenty years later the terms of the treaty were written (abid). The person who wrote this quote told an obvious fact, Hitler did not jut play a significant role in the war, he basically caused the entire war himself. The  treaty of Versailles had ended WWI, in which millions of people, mostly young, fought and died in the belief that they were defending their homelands, their families, and their people, would soon cause another deadly war, this war even more deadlier than before. Millions of young lives and fellow citizens believed in slogans that yelled to them. Loud slogans on posters and bulletins yelled and predicted WWI to be, the war to end all wars, or the war to make the world safe for democracy (nv.cc.va.us). WWI was named these two things at the time, probably to enlist more and more people, but which of course both did not come true. WWI was not the war to end all wars, nor was it, the war that made it s afe for democracy.

Bacillary And Post Parturient Hemoglobinuria Biology Essay

Bacillary And Post Parturient Hemoglobinuria Biology Essay Post parturient hemoglobinuria is a sporadic disease of multiparous, high producing dairy cows and buffaloes characterized by red blood cells breakdown in the muscles, hemoglobinuria and anemia. The prevalence of the disease in the overall cattle population is very little with a case fatality rate ranging from 10 to 50% (1).Parturient hemoglobinuria was formerly known as milk fever complex, post- parturient hemoglobinuria, puerperal hemoglobinuria and nutritional hemoglobinuria, etc. History Parturient hemoglobinuria was first reported in 1939 in buffaloes in the Indian sub-continent in the Lyallpur district, now Faisalabad (Aslam and Haq, 1967). The first known reference of its occurrence and possible cause in Pakistan was by Hussain (1955). Subsequent reviews on the issue recommended that phosphorus insufficiency may be a possible reason of the disease (Pirzada et al., 1989; Pirzada and Ali, 1990). However, so far its true etiology remains doubtful. Etiology Consequent papers concluded that PPH is neither infectious nor contagious derived from negative serological and bacteriological verification for pathogenic bacteria and failure to identify erythrocyte parasites (1,6,7,8,9,10).Different causes, e.g. protein and mineral insufficiency, Saponin from cruciferous plants, competition for mineral assimilation and, hypophosphataemia because of phosphorus insufficiency. Pirzada et al. (1989) and Cheema et al. (1980) reported that no contributory pathogen could be secluded from the affected animals. Copper insufficiency has been recommended as a possible cause of PPH by personnel in New Zealand. animals from dairy farms with a high occurrence of PPH had low levels of copper in serum and liver (12). A disease in Ontario named as red water was linked with several predisposing factors which included: a) fresh parturition, b) intense milk production, c) dietetic phosphorus insufficiency and d) eating of turnips, rape, kale, green alfalfa and sugar beet pulp (13,14,15). In addition, many cows were hypophosphataemia (1, 16, and 17). Susceptible animals A first round report recommended that parturient hemoglobinuria frequently affected high producing buffalo cows in the area of the Punjab province of Pakistan wherever there is a insufficiency of minerals, chiefly in the districts of Faisalabad, Jhelum, Attock and Rawalpindi. At these points soil tended to be deprived in minerals and buffaloes were affected more than cattle (Husain, 1955). The incidence of this syndrome in bulls, cows prior to parturation, heifers under two years old, or beef cows is remarkable but has been reported (23,22). A disease with many similarities has been described in sheep (13), Egyptian and Indian buffaloes (24,16) and a goat (17). Clinical signs Clinical signs of syndrome can bee seen 20+,-10 days, before or after parturition at what time affected Animals pass red to coffee colored urine and rectal temperature ranges from 38.38C to 39.48C, (Pirzada et al., 1989). On the other hand, with the advancement of disease, rectal temperature declines. Additional clinical signs are jaundice, anemia, recumbency, in appetence, labored breathing, and constipation (Razz et al., 1988). Cheema et al. (1980) reported that there was a considerable increase in the rectal temperature of affected animals. The disease affects buffaloes more than cattle (Pirzada et al., 1989) which is a judgment in close agreement with that of Raz et al. (1988). Pirzada et al. (1989) additional observed that phosphorus administration yielded effective outcome suggestive of hypophosphataemia as a causal issue and that, in the affected areas from August to January, animals in advanced stages of pregnancy should be supplemented with dicalcium phosphate or bone meal w hich should contain 13% and 17% phosphorus correspondingly (Amir and Kripsch- eer, 1989). This agreed with the findings of Akram et al. (1990) and Raz et al. (1988). Earlier, Sadiq et al. (1965) found that even though cases of parturient hemoglobinuria occurred all the way through the year, the occurrence increased in winter. On the other hand, Cheema et al. (1980) reported that frequently stall-fed animals were affected, and that most cases were occurring in July and September. The acute disease (three to five days) can come to an end in death or be followed by extended convalescence (two to eight weeks). Gangrene and sloughing of the extremities are reported sequelae. Recovered animals get back their former body condition and milk production gradually. Diagnosis It can On the basis of clinical signs and history Urinalysis can be helpful in the diagnosis of this syndrome. Microscopic inspection of the urine sediment is imperative to distinguish hematuria from hemoglobinuria. Treatment The recommended treatment for Post parturient hemoglobinuria in North America includes: 1) intravenous infusion of sodium acid phosphate (60 g in 300 mL of water), 2) 100 g of bone meal administered as a drench two times a day, 3) transfusion of fresh blood as needed and 4) intravenous fluids to sustain hydration (1,29,30). Improvement of any phosphorus insufficiency or disproportion in the ration together with removal of incriminated feeds might prevent further cases. Because of incompatible results with phosphate therapy and the copper-deficient status of affected cows, personnel in New Zealand recommend parenteral copper (120 mg available copper per cow) as the favored treatment (31). A study on treatment trials of hemoglobinuria in buffalo cows and cattle indicated that subsequent treatment with sodium acid phosphate (20% sol) administered concurrently by i.v., s.c. and oral routes, approximately 100% of affected animals recovered in 1-3 days (Shah et al., 1988). Blood transfusion also shows a good result in this regard (Rauf, 1989; Raz et al., 1991). A blood coagulant Botrophase prepared from the venom of the snake Bothrops jararaca, seems to have anti fibrinolytic action and was productively used to treat buffaloes facing parturient hemoglobinuria (Goel et al., 1988). Parenteral copper (120 mg available copper per cow) as the favored treatment (31). Treatment with toldimfos sodium and tea leaves and sodium acid phosphate Result of this treatment was based on the recovery of urine discoloration; the efficacy of toldimfos sodium was 85% followed by tea leaves 56%, and sodium acid phosphate 18%. (Zameer et.al 2010). Fallowing treatment with tae leaves and toldimofos sodium urine was clear next day, and with treatment with sodium acid phosphate urine was clear on third dy. (Zameer et.al 2010) Prevention Parenteral administration of copper has been effectual in dairy herds with previous histories of PPH (36,37). For prevention of the disease, supplementation with dicalcium phosphate has been suggested (Pirzada et al., 1989; Pirzada and Ali, 1990). The occurrence of PPH was considerably lower (5.18% versus 25.51%; P

Finding Hope in Failure Essay -- Personal Narrative, essay about mysel

It was a cold, dark morning when the phone rang. It was boisterously loud and the clock read six o'clock. The deafening noise jolted us again, and there was only one way to make it stop. Chris picked up the phone and in a tired, drowsy voice, answered, "Hello." "Wake up call," I could hear Coach on the other end of the line. "Wake everyone else up in the room and the bus will leave at seven." "Okay," and with that, Chris hung up the telephone. I could hear him bury his head back into his pillow to try and get just a few more minutes of sleep before the big day. "C'mon, Chris, you get in the shower first," Taylor ordered from the other bed. "You're already up." Chris conceded and worked his way to the shower. Everyone in the room knew it too, due to his grunting and whining under his breath. Soon enough he was out of the shower and so were Taylor, Anders, and I. We ate breakfast with the rest of the team downstairs in the hotel in silence. It was too early to talk or chat. Everyone knew that one thing was going to be on their minds: winning. It was not worth discussing, either. Everyone knew that our varsity eight was possibly the strongest that McCallie had ever had, and that we had a good chance of winning some gold medals that day, if not a great chance. We loaded on the bus like ants, noiselessly flowing into one little opening. The bus ride was silent all of the way over as well. Everyone's heads, looking intently forward, were slightly jostling along with the bumps in the road. Some tried to sleep, but the tension and excitement was to o much for most of them to be successful. Eventually, we arrived at the race course. Stepping off of the bus, the exhilaration was uplifting as we looked across the sunrise ... ...re are fifty boats in our race, and we got third, now that's not too bad for a busted fin." This did not seem to help, however, as there was no apparent response. "I don't know about you all, but after this, it just makes me want to bust by butt during the off-season to come back here in the Spring and kill them all!" Slowly, but surely, everyone's heads raised. I realized that this was not the end at all. We made a pact to work our hardest to come back in the Spring and win out as much as possible. As the commotion settled, Chris quieted us down, "Okay, come on guys." He put his hand in the middle of the circle. We all followed his lead. "We will not let an unfortunate accident get in our way! We will not settle for third place!" With that we all threw our hands up into the air. I looked around and smelled the breeze. Suddenly it was the best feeling in the world.

media :: essays research papers

  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚     Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In spite of all the freedom, technology, and human rights that some of the countries posses in this new era, the debating on media thought control and media filter is still floating around with some supporters and others opposing this fact. Although the argument by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman was developed quite some time ago, but I believe this argument is still strongly valid at our time. Many examples to prove this argument can be given such as the media role during the war on Iraq, media coverage in the holy land for the conflict between the Palestinians and Israelis, and last but not least, the strongly influenced, and hidden hand of some people that affect media.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  We all have witnessed the media propaganda carried by the US media and especially by CNN before the war on Iraq to market this war and strengthen president bush position from this war. President G.W. Bush said before going to war that the Iraqi people will welcome the American soldier with flowers and smiles. However The New Yorker wrote in one of its release â€Å"In April 2003, CNN aired footage of a marine in Baghdad who is confronted with a crowd of angry Iraqis. He shouts back in frustration, â€Å"We’re here for your f*** freedom!† George Packer, The New Yorker, November 24, 2003. The media also focused on the possibility that iraq has weapon of mass destruction to brainwash people’s opinion on this war. However they government didn’t find any proofs â€Å" We all have witnessed the media propaganda carried by the US media and especially by CNN before the war on Iraq, however the press was unable to adequately cover every second and provide detailed information about the war due to the management of the news and information provided by reporters. â€Å"One key example of this media failure is worth examining in greater detail. In Octobor 1990, testimony before the US house of Representatives Human Rights Caucus told of Iraqi atrocities, particularly how Iraqi soldiers had removed babies from incubators in a Kuwait Hospital and talem the incubators back to iraq and leaving the infants to die in the hospital floor.

Rockefeller :: Free Essay Writer

Rockefeller John Davison Rockefeller, a U.S industrialist was the founder of the infamous Standard Oil Company, through which he dominated the U.S oil industry in the late 19th century and early 20th century and created the first major business trust in the United States of America. His business trust made him the world first billionaire .he also created a lot of controversies and opposition because of his business practices and form of organization especially from the US government. Together being a billionaire Rockefeller was one of the first major philanthropists in the U.S establishing several important foundations and donating a total of $540million to charitable purposes. Rockefeller was born on 8th July 1839 on a farm at Richford, in Tioga County, New York. He was second of the six children of William A. and Eliza (Davison) Rockefeller. The family lived in modest circumstances. The family moved to Owergo, New York and then headed west to Ohio in 1853. The Rockefeller’s bought a house in Strongville , Moravia near Cleveland. John entered Central High School in Cleveland where he rented a room in the city and joined the Erie Street Baptist church; he was very active in its affairs and became a trustee of the church at the age of 21. Rockefeller left high school in 1855 in order to take up a business course at Folsom Mercantile College. After completing the six month course in three months and after looking for a job for six weeks he landed a job as an assistant bookkeeper with Hewitt & Turtle , a small firm of commission merchants and produce shippers .He was not paid his salary for three moths when Hewitt gave him $50 ($3.57a week) and told him that his salary will be increased to $25 a month. A few months later he attained the position of the cashier and bookeeper. In 1859, with $1000 he had saved and another $1000 borrowed from his father at a rate 10% per annum, he formed a partnership in the commission business with a British Immigrant, Maurice B.

Between 1820 and 1860

Between 1820 and 1860 there were a few fundamental differences between the economies of the North and South. How far do you agree? BY beckY10036 Between 1820 and 1860 there were a few fundamental differences between the economies of the North and South. How far do you agree? Between 1820 and 1860 there were problems in America that resulted in the civil war in 1861, the economy affected the North and South during the civil war, and some major differences helped win the civil war. However this does not mean that the economy had many undamental differences.For example the methods of earning money were different, but overall both earned roughly the same amount of money. Firstly, the main difference was that the North relied much more on money from industry and manufacturing, as they had more connections with foreign countries, and more factories were built. In the North in 1860 there were 74,000 factories producing two thirds, of goods for America. Whereas in the South there were only 2 major factors: Textiles factory in South Carolina and an Iron works in Virginia set up in 1840.Although they had fewer factories, the Iron works was vital, as it supplied the North with weaponry during the Civil war. In 1850 the South only produced 10% of the nations manufactured output. However the South did lack the industrialisation because their agricultural methods were so effective they had no need for change. The South was also very traditional and disliked change, whereas seven out of eight immigrants had chosen to settle in the North, and they had seen new ideas in other places in Europe so were welcome to change.This is shown by the South's labour orce being reduced from 82% to 81% over 60 years, on the other hand, the North's labour force was reduced from 68% to over the 60 years. This is however not a reflection on the North rapidly reducing agriculturally, because they still relied on agriculture, and a lot of the North was still rural. Around the urban areas, the popu lation was increasing as towns and cities were developing swiftly.As the North had smaller but still prosperous farmers known as yeomen, they did not earn as much money through agriculture, because they did not have many or any slaves at ll, so they could not produce the high quantities that the south did. Farmers that had lots of land were called plantation owners; there were many more plantations in the south, and when the cotton gin was created in 1793, there was a boom in cotton, and the benefit of having slaves increased. This made Southern plantation owners invest their capital in the Slaves, because they produced so much cotton, which was very lucrative. 5% of slaves worked in cotton which shows how much money was made out of it. The South needed to transport their goods to the North so that it ould be transported abroad, but there was a lack of transport in South, as they only had 35% of the train tracks, which affected them in the Civil war. This meant it was fairly expensi ve to transport the cotton, but they still received a good amount of money it hey lived near a train track. When the cotton arrived in the North the Lowell factory system meant the manufacturing of it was very cheap, which meant the North earnt a large margin on it.Although the danger of the South investing all their money in Slaves was that when slavery got banned, they lost a lot of money, which was partly hy they were so keen to keep slavery. However only one quarter of the population owned a slave, as they were expensive (in 1860 they were $1800 which was double the price in 1820). The North's economy was based on free labour whereas the South's was based on slave labour, which meant that the North's economy was more stimulated by the presence of workers with money who could buy products, which would make money for the company, which in turn would increase wages or hire more workers.The South's economy was largely devoid of this benefit. Essentially, the conomy in the South was weaker and only based on a few important exports (cotton, tobacco, and sugar). This made the South less diversified, as they focused their sales on cotton. Another difference is tariffs; in 1828 congress passes a controversial high protective tax. This majorly benefitted the North as they were the main distributors. However the South were very worried about this because they believed that if they stopped buying the expensive foreign goods, then foreign countries would stop buying their goods, as they would have tax on them too.This affected the economy ntil the tax was promised to be reduced after the law in 1833. In contrast the North and South didn't have many fundamental differences. They both created a lot of money, and were not lacking at all, the only difference was the method in which was used to make the money. The economic diversification was similar too, as 10% of Northerners owned 68% of the wealth, and the wealth was dominated by the plantation owners, called oligarchies , as there were few free-soilers. 12% of the plantation owners owned half the slaves.This shows that there were few farmers, ut the big plantations owned many slaves. Even though the North seems to be more industrial, the South also made efforts to modernise industrially, but they Just lacked because of the closed opinions of the southerners. Also not many people in the North and the South owned slaves, it was more of a rare thing, and the main owners, owned a large amount of slaves. However there was a larger need for slaves in the South, because there was cheap labour force from Europe settling in the North which meant slaves were more expensive so were not deemed as important.Overall I think there ere many differences between the North and South between 1820 and 1860. Some affected the outcome of the Civil war such as the transport boom, and the industrialisation in the North, but a fundamental point is that numerically they have equal amounts of income; there were Just different methods to earning the money. However the differences were major; the amount of industrialisation, and amount of agriculture, the manufactured output, and the need for slaves, was all very different for the North and South. The main similarity was the economic diversification.