The New Economy versus the Old Economy

The rise of new technology has transformed every aspect of our lives. Some on the new technology are so useful that we would not imagine our lives without them. The internet is one of these inventions, the fact that they offer cheapness and urgent passing of information is of great importance.Advertising We will write a custom research paper sample on The New Economy versus the Old Economy specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Almost all sectors of the economy have incorporated the internet. In the field of business ,internet has established some networks like E-commerce and E-business, which are proving to be very important in the running of the business. The combination of all this system is what has led to the rise of new economy. New economy and old economy are two concepts used in description of how the economy operates. While old economy can be described as an economy whose infrastructures are based on manufacturing and industria lization, the new economy is characterized with having services and technology. The two concepts of the economy base their difference on the approach they have in carrying out business operation. However, notable between the two is the fact that the old economy existed before the new economy. Old economy can be traced its roots from the industrial revolution when production of goods was changing from production into small quantities to mass production. The new economy has enjoyed its rise from evolution of the old technology and the development of skills that formed the bases of new technology (Lowson, 2002). New technology is characterized by recent productivity, inflation, and unemployment gains, which are results of new economy forces, and include technology, globalization, and increased competitive pressures. There are two interpretations to how the economy operates. Moderate interpretation is one of them; it proposes that these forces contributing to economic gains are doing it in a way that they are consistent with conventional economic theory. New economy extremists on the other hand urge out that something more profound has happened and that the structure of the economy has changed and new set of roles have now been set.Advertising Looking for research paper on business economics? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More The two sets of school of thoughts cannot be refuted since they have truths in them. To start with, the moderate’s arguments are evident because the U.S productivity has been revived due to information technology (Siebert, 2002). Similarly, inflation and unemployment has improved due to due to technology, globalization, and increased competitiveness. The thought that the economy has experienced deeper changes is also true; some are even urging that the Philip curve has been rendered obsolete due to global competition. The moderate thought mostly supported by economist is the one w hich is carrying much weight since it links technology, globalization, and competition with traditional theories. However, the thought that radical changes have taken place is also true; the problem is that we may not have reached some extremes in technology (Siebert, 2002). New economy has come up as a result of revolution on the old economy that has been in existence from the industrial revolutions times. The main aspect that are contained in the new economy is having information technology taking control in business world. The resultant of this is what is known as E-business, which has led to different definitions of organization. Complex business networks have been established along with the value chain and they are being defined by the ability to gets products to the market with the greatest customers with the least cost and at a fast speed. The main components that makeup E-business is having an I.T infrastructure for communication, the services and the products that are being put in the market (Burn, 2002). The two types of economy have various distinctions that make them unique from each other. To start with, the old economy a simple formula was what was needed to make a product, where else the new economy embraces use of intangibles like branding to add value to a product. On the other hand, one would measure the value that he has increased to a product in the old economy, which is not the case in the new economy because the value added is not measurable. The value of the product dependent on the scarcity of the product in question in the Old economy, however, for the new economy this is not the case as the value of the product is dependent on wide uses of the products. Proximity to the users of a product was important in the old economy, which is not the case in the new economy since the market is so diverse and globalized (Pollacco, 2001). There has been changes in existing trends that are being brought about by the new economy. To start with, there has been a shift from manufacturing production and has been replaced by provision of services. Employments in the manufacturing sectors have decreased in the last few years. Counter to this, service industry and tourism industry have increased greater in the last few years. There has also been improvement in the upgrading of skills as well as gender balancing in regard to labor provision.Advertising We will write a custom research paper sample on The New Economy versus the Old Economy specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More The illiteracy levels are getting eliminated through education and more and more students are getting enrolled in higher institutions (Pollacco, 2001). Another trend has been that there is a major shift from domestic competition to an international one. The issue of globalization has widened the market from the local level to a global one. The policies that the governments are adopting have also change in past decad es, the governments used to have the policy of import substitution. The importance of this policy was that it helped out in industrialization, since technology wise we are past that era, abolishing these policies has taken place to embrace a greater market. Protectionism is another policy that is been campaigned against, though some firms are still using them. Having a globalized market has not only brought about efficiency but also increased the growth domestic product among different markets. Customers are getting a wider market while producers are able to move their products freely. However, it is notable that as much as there are many benefits that are brought about by the new technology, there are other people who are losing (Fitzsimmons 2011). The new economy will come with various implications in the economy. To start with, new economy requires subordination from manufacturing to service oriented mode. Abolishing of the previous structure is needed and incorporation of a new structure of E- business. New economy has a great support on the profit motive of the organization. However, it assumes that other motives that affect behaviors like religion are put aside and what man seeks to achieve is happiness and satisfaction through material items (Fitzsimmons 2011). New technology has great praise in capitalist free market in comparison to communist market. New technology has also redefined the role of the military. Previously, the military in the U.S had the role of maintaining the liberty and protection against attacks, lately this has changed to a scenario where the military is protecting big businesses and are mostly placed in areas where there are United States economic interests (Droke, 2000). There are various question that have come up with introduction of the new economy, among them is how long we are going to supplement physical production to rely on an electric-based economy. It is therefore necessary to keep in mind the importance of having the p roducts that we use daily still in production as well as having the services in place. Surely, the future is unknown: it is therefore important to put into consideration that a balance needs to be achieved in having both the old and new technology in our lives today.Advertising Looking for research paper on business economics? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More References Burn J, P. M. (2002). e-Business strategies for virtual organizations. Massachusetts: Butterworth-Heinemann. Droke, C. (2000, March 16). New vs Old economy. Retrieved from https://www.gold-eagle.com/article/new-economy-vs-old-economy Fitzsimmons, James A. Fitzsimmons, Mona J. (2011). Service Management: Operations, strategy, and information technology. Boston. McGraw-Hill Companies. Lowson, R. H. ( 2002). Strategic operations management: the new competitive advantage. New York: Routledge. Pollacco, J. (2001, February 6). Old economy vs new economy. Web. Siebert, H. (2002). Economic policy issues of the new economy. Berlin: Springer. This research paper on The New Economy versus the Old Economy was written and submitted by user Deac0nFr0st to help you with your own studies. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly. You can donate your paper here.

The Invention of the Saddle Stirrup

The Invention of the Saddle Stirrup It seems like such a simple idea. Why not add two pieces to the saddle, hanging down on either side, for your feet to rest in while you ride a horse? After all, humans seem to have domesticated the horse around 4500 BCE. The saddle was invented at least as early as 800 BCE, yet the first proper stirrup probably came about roughly 1,000 years later, around 200-300 CE. Nobody knows who first invented the stirrup, or even in which part of Asia the inventor lived. Indeed, this is a highly controversial topic among scholars of horsemanship, ancient and medieval warfare, and the history of technology. Although ordinary people likely do not rank the stirrup as one of historys greatest inventions, up there with paper, gunpowder and pre-sliced bread, military historians consider it a truly key development in the arts of war and conquest. Was the stirrup invented once, with the technology then spreading to riders everywhere? Or did riders in different areas come up with the idea independently? In either case, when did this happen? Unfortunately, since early stirrups were likely made of biodegradable materials such as leather, bone, and wood, we may never have precise answers to these questions. First Known Examples of Stirrups So what do we know? Ancient Chinese Emperor Qin Shi Huangdis terracotta army (c. 210 BCE) includes a number of horses, but their saddles do not have stirrups. In sculptures from ancient India, c. 200 BCE, bare-footed riders use big-toe stirrups. These early stirrups consisted simply of a small loop of leather, in which the rider could brace each big toe to provide a bit of stability. Suitable for riders in hot climates, however, the big-toe stirrup would have been no use for booted riders in the steppes of Central Asia or western China. Interestingly, there is also a small Kushan engraving in carnelian that shows a rider using hook-style or platform stirrups; these are L-shaped pieces of wood or horn that do not encircle the foot like modern stirrups, but rather provide a sort of foot-rest. This intriguing engraving seems to indicate that Central Asian riders may have been using stirrups circa 100 CE, but it is the only known depiction of that region, so more evidence is needed to conclude that stirrups were indeed in use in Central Asia from such an early age. Modern-style Stirrups The earliest known representation of modern-style enclosed stirrups comes from a ceramic horse figurine that was buried in a First Jin Dynasty Chinese tomb near Nanjing in 322 CE. The stirrups are triangular in shape and appear on both sides of the horse, but since this is a stylized figure, it is impossible to determine other details about the construction of the stirrups. Fortunately, a grave near Anyang, China from approximately the same date yielded an actual example of a stirrup. The deceased was buried with full equipage for a horse, including a gold-plated bronze stirrup, which was circular in shape. Yet another tomb from the Jin era in China also contained a truly unique pair of stirrups. These are more triangular in shape, made of leather bound around a wooden core, then covered with lacquer. The stirrups were then painted with clouds in red. This decorative motif brings to mind the Heavenly Horse design found later in both China and Korea. The first stirrups for which we have a direct date are from the tomb of Feng Sufu, who died in 415 CE. He was a prince of Northern Yan, just north of the Koguryeo Kingdom of Korea. Fengs stirrups are quite complex. The rounded top of each stirrup was made from a bent piece of mulberry wood, which was covered with gilded bronze sheets on the outer surfaces, and iron plates covered with lacquer on the inside, where Fengs feet would have gone. These stirrups are of typical Koguryeo Korean design. Fifth-century tumuli from Korea proper also yield stirrups, including those at Pokchong-dong and Pan-gyeje. They also appear in wall murals and figurines from the Koguryeo and Silla dynasties. Japan also adopted the stirrup in the fifth century, according to tomb art. By the eighth century, the Nara period, Japanese stirrups were open-sided cups rather than rings, designed to prevent the riders feet from becoming entangled if he or she fell off (or was shot off) of the horse. Stirrups Reach Europe Meanwhile, European riders made do without stirrups until the eighth century. The introduction of this idea (which earlier generations of European historians credited to the Franks, rather than Asia), allowed for the development of heavy cavalry. Without the stirrups, European knights could not have gotten onto their horses wearing heavy armor, nor could they have jousted. Indeed, the Middle Ages in Europe would have been quite different without this simple little Asian invention. Remaining Questions: So where does this leave us? So many questions and previous assumptions remain up in the air, given this somewhat scanty evidence. How did the Parthians of ancient Persia (247 BCE - 224 CE) turn in their saddles and fire off a parthian (parting) shot from their bows, if they did not have stirrups? (Evidently, they used highly arched saddles for extra stability, but this still seems incredible.) Did Attila the Hun really introduce the stirrup into Europe? Or were the Huns able to strike fear into the hearts of all Eurasia with their horsemanship and shooting skills, even while riding without stirrups? There is no evidence that the Huns actually used this technology. Did ancient trade routes, now little remembered, ensure that this technology spread rapidly across Central Asia and into the Middle East? Did new refinements and innovations in stirrup design wash back and forth between Persia, India, China and even Japan, or was this a secret that only gradually infiltrated Eurasian culture? Until new evidence is unearthed, we will simply have to wonder. Sources Azzaroli, Augusto. An Early History of Horsemanship, Leiden: E.J. Brill Company, 1985.Chamberlin, J. Edward. Horse: How the Horse Has Shaped Civilizations, Random House Digital, 2007.Dien, Albert E. The Stirrup and Its Effect on Chinese Military History, Ars Orientalis, Vol 16 (1986), 33-56.Sinor, Denis. The Inner Asian Warriors, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 101, No. 2 (Apr. - June, 1983), 133-144.