The Myth of the Robber Barons: A New Look at the Rise of Big Business in America

[QuickHitCurepon]

No, I'm saying that without those things they would have been forced to change their ways to compete in the free and competitive market, or they would have gone bankrupt. Which, as we've already established, is what happened. When the government was propping them up, however, they were able to do whatever they wanted.

A jillion things could have happened to change the past. I never waste my time on such an idle activity of questioning what has been given us through history.

Look at the creations of the Robber Barons as a boardwalk at an amusement park. The people can stay on it and have a good time or at least prosper one way or another if only by just grabbing a coke. The railroads were like a boardwalk for people to "walk" across with a wonderful new invention. Now interject your absurd assumptions that the government did this for us into that wonderland of American know-how and see how dumb you sound. The government never invented anything except limitations.

I have no idea what you're saying, but I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with what I said.

You said they would change their practices, but the Robber Barons did not need the government's help to figure out what to change.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Prove it!

Ok.

Various industries and companies are always going to fail. Not everyone can win.

Those two comments are direct contradictions to one another.

Since your English comprehension is so sophomorish, I'll have to walk you through it.

When I say "various industries," "various" is a hint that it was a weak, specious or spurious industry. When I say "no industry," you mistakenly took me literally, a common mistake among reading neophytes. If you want to twist my words, then of course, you are right, but an idiot while you are at it.

var·i·ous [vair-ee-uhs] Show IPA
adjective
1.
of different kinds, as two or more things; differing one from another: Various experiments have not proved his theory.
2.
marked by or exhibiting variety or diversity: houses of various designs.
3.
presenting or having many different qualities or aspects: a woman of various talent.
4.
having a variety of colors; varicolored.
5.
different from each other; dissimilar.

Various | Define Various at Dictionary.com

Sorry, but "weak, specious, and spurious" don't seem to have anything to do with the word "various."

Various Synonyms, Various Antonyms | Thesaurus.com

Not there either. It's not "sophomorish" (I'm sorry, is that a word? Could you have possibly meant sophomoric?) to not be able to comprehend what you're saying when you use words that don't mean what you think they do.

As for the bit regarding "no industry," I think, once again, the mistake was on your part, not mine. Now you claim you were just joshing with what you said, but you certainly gave no indication of this prior to being called out on your mistake.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Ok.





Those two comments are direct contradictions to one another.

Since your English comprehension is so sophomorish, I'll have to walk you through it.

When I say "various industries," "various" is a hint that it was a weak, specious or spurious industry. When I say "no industry," you mistakenly took me literally, a common mistake among reading neophytes. If you want to twist my words, then of course, you are right, but an idiot while you are at it.

var·i·ous [vair-ee-uhs] Show IPA
adjective
1.
of different kinds, as two or more things; differing one from another: Various experiments have not proved his theory.
2.
marked by or exhibiting variety or diversity: houses of various designs.
3.
presenting or having many different qualities or aspects: a woman of various talent.
4.
having a variety of colors; varicolored.
5.
different from each other; dissimilar.

Various | Define Various at Dictionary.com

Sorry, but "weak, specious, and spurious" don't seem to have anything to do with the word "various."

Various Synonyms, Various Antonyms | Thesaurus.com

Not there either. It's not "sophomorish" (I'm sorry, is that a word? Could you have possibly meant sophomoric?) to not be able to comprehend what you're saying when you use words that don't mean what you think they do.

As for the bit regarding "no industry," I think, once again, the mistake was on your part, not mine. Now you claim you were just joshing with what you said, but you gave no indication of this prior to being called out on your mistake.

If you want to be dull, that is your business, but I like to write things that entertaining or I would not be here. I can get all the boredom I want by watching tv.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

A jillion things could have happened to change the past. I never waste my time on such an idle activity of questioning what has been given us through history.

Look at the creations of the Robber Barons as a boardwalk at an amusement park. The people can stay on it and have a good time or at least prosper one way or another if only by just grabbing a coke. The railroads were like a boardwalk for people to "walk" across with a wonderful new invention. Now interject your absurd assumptions that the government did this for us into that wonderland of American know-how and see how dumb you sound. The government never invented anything except limitations.

I have no idea what you're saying, but I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with what I said.

You said they would change their practices, but the Robber Barons did not need the government's help to figure out what to change.

Except they had no incentive to do so when the government was subsidizing them, and, in fact, had every incentive not to do so. If the government is going to pay me a certain amount for every mile of track I lay then the incentive is for me to lay more track, whereas, on the free market, my incentive is to lay my track in the most economically efficient way as possible. That's why the Great Northern Railway's track was essentially a straight line, and the government subsidized rails were loop-de-loops.

Furthermore, when the government gets in the game they're going to want certain kickbacks. If I'm going to vote for your subsidies, then I want your railroad to come through my district to bring money to it, regardless of whether it makes sense economically to build your rail that way.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Since your English comprehension is so sophomorish, I'll have to walk you through it.

When I say "various industries," "various" is a hint that it was a weak, specious or spurious industry. When I say "no industry," you mistakenly took me literally, a common mistake among reading neophytes. If you want to twist my words, then of course, you are right, but an idiot while you are at it.

var·i·ous [vair-ee-uhs] Show IPA
adjective
1.
of different kinds, as two or more things; differing one from another: Various experiments have not proved his theory.
2.
marked by or exhibiting variety or diversity: houses of various designs.
3.
presenting or having many different qualities or aspects: a woman of various talent.
4.
having a variety of colors; varicolored.
5.
different from each other; dissimilar.

Various | Define Various at Dictionary.com

Sorry, but "weak, specious, and spurious" don't seem to have anything to do with the word "various."

Various Synonyms, Various Antonyms | Thesaurus.com

Not there either. It's not "sophomorish" (I'm sorry, is that a word? Could you have possibly meant sophomoric?) to not be able to comprehend what you're saying when you use words that don't mean what you think they do.

As for the bit regarding "no industry," I think, once again, the mistake was on your part, not mine. Now you claim you were just joshing with what you said, but you gave no indication of this prior to being called out on your mistake.

If you want to be dull, that is your business, but I like to write things that entertaining or I would not be here. I can get all the boredom I want by watching tv.

I'm sure it is dull to have somebody point out that your positions are inconsistent, that you use words incorrectly, and that you simply make up words.

 

[regent]

The problem America has had with capitalism is trying to keep America capitalistic. The robber barons' goal was to make monopolies thereby destroying capitalism, and even a Republican president saw the problem and asked for legislature to control those that were trying to destroy America's basic economic system.
Even today as fast as a regulation is created to maintain capitalism, some are already trying to figure out a way to get around the regulation, and so the battle to keep America a capitalistic nation never ends.

And the only way to make a monopoly is through the assistance of the government who can limit competition.

Well let's try this: What nation on this planet has the type of economic system you believe to be ideal?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The problem America has had with capitalism is trying to keep America capitalistic. The robber barons' goal was to make monopolies thereby destroying capitalism, and even a Republican president saw the problem and asked for legislature to control those that were trying to destroy America's basic economic system.
Even today as fast as a regulation is created to maintain capitalism, some are already trying to figure out a way to get around the regulation, and so the battle to keep America a capitalistic nation never ends.

And the only way to make a monopoly is through the assistance of the government who can limit competition.

Well let's try this: What nation on this planet has the type of economic system you believe to be ideal?

What government on this planet has overcome human nature and purposefully limited its own power?

None, obviously.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Various | Define Various at Dictionary.com

Sorry, but "weak, specious, and spurious" don't seem to have anything to do with the word "various."

Various Synonyms, Various Antonyms | Thesaurus.com

Not there either. It's not "sophomorish" (I'm sorry, is that a word? Could you have possibly meant sophomoric?) to not be able to comprehend what you're saying when you use words that don't mean what you think they do.

As for the bit regarding "no industry," I think, once again, the mistake was on your part, not mine. Now you claim you were just joshing with what you said, but you gave no indication of this prior to being called out on your mistake.

If you want to be dull, that is your business, but I like to write things that entertaining or I would not be here. I can get all the boredom I want by watching tv.

I'm sure it is dull to have somebody point out that your positions are inconsistent, that you use words incorrectly, and that you simply make up words.

You think you found a grammar mistake and that proves your position that we only have our government to thank for colonizing the West.

If you want to make a coherent argument you might want to bring the Indians into it. Then you would have something other than repeating yourself over and over. Yea, it could not have been done without the cavalry riding in and saving the Robber Baron's asses.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If you want to be dull, that is your business, but I like to write things that entertaining or I would not be here. I can get all the boredom I want by watching tv.

I'm sure it is dull to have somebody point out that your positions are inconsistent, that you use words incorrectly, and that you simply make up words.

You think you found a grammar mistake and that proves your position that we only have our government to thank for colonizing the West.

If you want to make a coherent argument you might want to bring the Indians into it. Then you would have something other than repeating yourself over and over. Yea, it could not have been done without the cavalry riding in and saving the Robber Baron's asses.

Now who's twisting words? Your poor grammar and inability to make a coherent point is a separate issue.

As for your point regarding the Indians, that's not the only way it could have been done. James J. Hill once again proves that the market could take care of the claims of the Indians as well. The robber barons, the people who used the government like the Union Pacific Railroad, certainly relied on the government's extermination of the Indians to aid them.

The point here is that you're using too broad of a brush in labeling people robber barons. Yes, robber barons existed, but they're the ones who used the government to get ahead. When you paint entrepreneurs like James J. Hill as robber barons you prove you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[RandomVariable]

Look, if the government hadn't been urging everyone to go west we would have needed the dang, blasted railroad in the first place.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

I'm sure it is dull to have somebody point out that your positions are inconsistent, that you use words incorrectly, and that you simply make up words.

You think you found a grammar mistake and that proves your position that we only have our government to thank for colonizing the West.

If you want to make a coherent argument you might want to bring the Indians into it. Then you would have something other than repeating yourself over and over. Yea, it could not have been done without the cavalry riding in and saving the Robber Baron's asses.

As for your point regarding the Indians, that's not the only way it could have been done. James J. Hill once again proves that the market could take care of the claims of the Indians as well. The robber barons, the people who used the government like the Union Pacific Railroad, certainly relied on the government's extermination of the Indians to aid them.

Claims of the Indians? Try to follow my logic. That's why you are not understanding me. The point was that the Indians killed as many white folk as they could with the point of their arrows. Without the military, there never would have been a sense of security in the West.

The point here is that you're using too broad of a brush in labeling people robber barons. Yes, robber barons existed, but they're the ones who used the government to get ahead. When you paint entrepreneurs like James J. Hill as robber barons you prove you have no idea what you're talking about.

I labeled "people" Robber Barons?

There were just a few who qualified, and they could hardly be classified as "people."

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You think you found a grammar mistake and that proves your position that we only have our government to thank for colonizing the West.

If you want to make a coherent argument you might want to bring the Indians into it. Then you would have something other than repeating yourself over and over. Yea, it could not have been done without the cavalry riding in and saving the Robber Baron's asses.

As for your point regarding the Indians, that's not the only way it could have been done. James J. Hill once again proves that the market could take care of the claims of the Indians as well. The robber barons, the people who used the government like the Union Pacific Railroad, certainly relied on the government's extermination of the Indians to aid them.

Claims of the Indians? Try to follow my logic. That's why you are not understanding me. The point was that the Indians killed as many white folk as they could with the point of their arrows. Without the military, there never would have been a sense of security in the West.

The point here is that you're using too broad of a brush in labeling people robber barons. Yes, robber barons existed, but they're the ones who used the government to get ahead. When you paint entrepreneurs like James J. Hill as robber barons you prove you have no idea what you're talking about.

I labeled "people" Robber Barons?

There were just a few who qualified, and they could hardly be classified as "people."

Yes, and the argument could be made that the Indians were simply defending themselves. James J. Hill certainly had no trouble with them shooting arrows at him.

Regardless, you're getting boring.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

As for your point regarding the Indians, that's not the only way it could have been done. James J. Hill once again proves that the market could take care of the claims of the Indians as well. The robber barons, the people who used the government like the Union Pacific Railroad, certainly relied on the government's extermination of the Indians to aid them.

Claims of the Indians? Try to follow my logic. That's why you are not understanding me. The point was that the Indians killed as many white folk as they could with the point of their arrows. Without the military, there never would have been a sense of security in the West.

The point here is that you're using too broad of a brush in labeling people robber barons. Yes, robber barons existed, but they're the ones who used the government to get ahead. When you paint entrepreneurs like James J. Hill as robber barons you prove you have no idea what you're talking about.

I labeled "people" Robber Barons?

There were just a few who qualified, and they could hardly be classified as "people."

Yes, and the argument could be made that the Indians were simply defending themselves. James J. Hill certainly had no trouble with them shooting arrows at him.

Regardless, you're getting boring.

Ok

 

[regent]

And the only way to make a monopoly is through the assistance of the government who can limit competition.

Well let's try this: What nation on this planet has the type of economic system you believe to be ideal?

What government on this planet has overcome human nature and purposefully limited its own power?

None, obviously.

OK, how about this: what nation on this planet comes closest to your ideal economic system? I think a number of nations now limit their own power, certainly that was one reason for our own Constitution. As for human nature, it can be almost anything one wants it to be. Is greed part of human nature or just part of some people's human nature?

In any case, can you name your ideal economic system that is now practiced or has been practiced?

 

[Flopper]

Whenever libturds talk about the "evils of capitalism," they never fail to bring up the so-called "robber barons." .......................


In the Mellon chapter, the author describes how Andrew Mellon an entrepreneur in oil and aluminum became Secretary of Treasury under Coolidge. In office, Mellon was the first American to practice supply-side economics. He supported cuts on income tax rates for all groups. The rate cut on the wealthiest Americans, from 73 percent to 25 percent, freed up investment capital and led to American economic growth during the 1920s.

Then WTF happened in 1929? Ooops! There goes THAT theory.

Do Folsom and McDonald explain how what the "barons" built went to hell just a few years later? Or did they make out like "bandits" and survive the worst economic disaster this country has ever seen?

The Coolidge Administration ended several months before the crash. A liberal Republican then became president. And even then, the economy began to recover, but democrats quickly put an end to that.

The market crashed in the first year of the Hoover administration and there was no recovery until the last few months before Roosevelt took over. During Hoover's rein the stock market lost nearly 90% of the value.

Herbert Hoover believed in free markets and less government, an ideology that ultimately led to the Great Depression. The Depression only got worse under his watch, and his callous Administration did nothing to assist those who were suffering.

 

[RandomVariable]

Claims of the Indians? Try to follow my logic. That's why you are not understanding me. The point was that the Indians killed as many white folk as they could with the point of their arrows. Without the military, there never would have been a sense of security in the West.

This is just something I grabbed quickly. If you don't understand where I am coming from I could give you something more graphic and direct?

Bison skull pile

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well let's try this: What nation on this planet has the type of economic system you believe to be ideal?

What government on this planet has overcome human nature and purposefully limited its own power?

None, obviously.

OK, how about this: what nation on this planet comes closest to your ideal economic system? I think a number of nations now limit their own power, certainly that was one reason for our own Constitution. As for human nature, it can be almost anything one wants it to be. Is greed part of human nature or just part of some people's human nature?

In any case, can you name your ideal economic system that is now practiced or has been practiced?

I'm not intimately familiar with the economic systems of every country on the planet, so I couldn't say who comes closest. We can say the U.S. comes closest for the sake of argument, but my ideal would be capitalism which requires the government to stay out of the economy completely. Obviously, the U.S., even assuming it's the best, falls quite short in that regard.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Then WTF happened in 1929? Ooops! There goes THAT theory.

Do Folsom and McDonald explain how what the "barons" built went to hell just a few years later? Or did they make out like "bandits" and survive the worst economic disaster this country has ever seen?

The Coolidge Administration ended several months before the crash. A liberal Republican then became president. And even then, the economy began to recover, but democrats quickly put an end to that.

The market crashed in the first year of the Hoover administration and there was no recovery until the last few months before Roosevelt took over. During Hoover's rein the stock market lost nearly 90% of the value.

Herbert Hoover believed in free markets and less government, an ideology that ultimately led to the Great Depression. The Depression only got worse under his watch, and his callous Administration did nothing to assist those who were suffering.

Completely ahistorical. Much of Roosevelt's New Deal was based on Hoover's policies, and Roosevelt actually campaigned on the fact that Hoover was too much of an interventionist.

 

[regent]

The Coolidge Administration ended several months before the crash. A liberal Republican then became president. And even then, the economy began to recover, but democrats quickly put an end to that.

The market crashed in the first year of the Hoover administration and there was no recovery until the last few months before Roosevelt took over. During Hoover's rein the stock market lost nearly 90% of the value.

Herbert Hoover believed in free markets and less government, an ideology that ultimately led to the Great Depression. The Depression only got worse under his watch, and his callous Administration did nothing to assist those who were suffering.

Completely ahistorical. Much of Roosevelt's New Deal was based on Hoover's policies, and Roosevelt actually campaigned on the fact that Hoover was too much of an interventionist.

I think we did this? In any case, Hoover used the trickle down idea and FDR the trickle up. Loaning to corporations was nuts, if they couldn't sell their product they quit producing, and loans to them went where, maybe under the mattress? Couldn't trust banks. Yet if government puts money into the hands of common citizens the money is spent at once.
The problem with the New Deal was it didn't put enough money into the hands of the common citizens, it took the spending of WWII to do that deed. So far no one has come up with a better system to handle depression/recessions. Both Republicans and Democrats now use Keynes.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The market crashed in the first year of the Hoover administration and there was no recovery until the last few months before Roosevelt took over. During Hoover's rein the stock market lost nearly 90% of the value.

Herbert Hoover believed in free markets and less government, an ideology that ultimately led to the Great Depression. The Depression only got worse under his watch, and his callous Administration did nothing to assist those who were suffering.

Completely ahistorical. Much of Roosevelt's New Deal was based on Hoover's policies, and Roosevelt actually campaigned on the fact that Hoover was too much of an interventionist.

I think we did this? In any case, Hoover used the trickle down idea and FDR the trickle up. Loaning to corporations was nuts, if they couldn't sell their product they quit producing, and loans to them went where, maybe under the mattress? Couldn't trust banks. Yet if government puts money into the hands of common citizens the money is spent at once.
The problem with the New Deal was it didn't put enough money into the hands of the common citizens, it took the spending of WWII to do that deed. So far no one has come up with a better system to handle depression/recessions. Both Republicans and Democrats now use Keynes.

Both FDR and Hoover operated under the assumption that prices needed not to fall, which is exactly what does need to happen in a correction. Their policies sought to keep prices stable or let them rise.