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

[RandomVariable]

The Robber Barons were all-powerful, certainly more powerful than the government then and did not, in any way, need anybody's help. It is how the richest corporations and men today also do not need any help from the federal government.

So the railroads weren't subsidized by the federal government, and as such didn't make their routes purposefully nonsensical and longer than necessary in an attempt to get more money from the government? And the richest corporations today don't help the federal government write the regulations that they can easily absorb but keep out smaller companies from entering the market and competing with them? That's all a myth?

You've proved my point for me. The railroads did as they please. Nevertheless, are you dumb or what? The government had no control over the railroads, where it mattered, towards building an empire. Like you said, they made the routes as they pleased and did just about everything they pleased. That's how Robber Barons amassed their capital. That the government helped them some is inconsequential.

Robber Barons aside, what are the moral rules on accepting funds from the government? If it is cutting edge research, for example, then presumably that is OK. If is a railroad at the turn of the century than would would have been immoral, except it was inconsequential so that was OK. Honorable businesses do not accept money from the government, perhaps the reason some think they should not have to pay taxes, any more taxes anyway. Unemployment, is that honorable or immoral? Student loans? Social Security? How does the honorable/immoral government spending thing work anyway?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Robber Barons were all-powerful, certainly more powerful than the government then and did not, in any way, need anybody's help. It is how the richest corporations and men today also do not need any help from the federal government.

So the railroads weren't subsidized by the federal government, and as such didn't make their routes purposefully nonsensical and longer than necessary in an attempt to get more money from the government? And the richest corporations today don't help the federal government write the regulations that they can easily absorb but keep out smaller companies from entering the market and competing with them? That's all a myth?

You've proved my point for me. The railroads did as they please. Nevertheless, are you dumb or what? The government had no control over the railroads, where it mattered, towards building an empire. Like you said, they made the routes as they pleased and did just about everything they pleased. That's how Robber Barons amassed their capital. That the government helped them some is inconsequential.

No, that's the entire point. The government helped them, and that's how they became robber barons. Without the government they never could have become robber barons. James J. Hill certainly wasn't a robber baron.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Subisidies are good for those industries that get them, but no industry is going to falter in the least without them. They will search under every rock to find other revenues and get them.

Then how in the world did many of the railroads who actually did receive subsidies go bankrupt?

They did not have what it takes.

So no industry is going to falter without government subsidies, unless they don't have what it takes. Is that a real argument?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Price controls can be done with or without the government's help, like the sale of gasoline. Of course, it is better when the government does it, but it is only a convenience.

How?

Cooperation?

And yet the incentive is to immediately stop cooperating and cut prices so that you can attract more customers away from the others and make more money. Is it your position that they'll all choose to make less money for the sake of cooperation?

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Then how in the world did many of the railroads who actually did receive subsidies go bankrupt?

They did not have what it takes.

So no industry is going to falter without government subsidies, unless they don't have what it takes. Is that a real argument?

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

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

So the railroads weren't subsidized by the federal government, and as such didn't make their routes purposefully nonsensical and longer than necessary in an attempt to get more money from the government? And the richest corporations today don't help the federal government write the regulations that they can easily absorb but keep out smaller companies from entering the market and competing with them? That's all a myth?

You've proved my point for me. The railroads did as they please. Nevertheless, are you dumb or what? The government had no control over the railroads, where it mattered, towards building an empire. Like you said, they made the routes as they pleased and did just about everything they pleased. That's how Robber Barons amassed their capital. That the government helped them some is inconsequential.

No, that's the entire point. The government helped them, and that's how they became robber barons. Without the government they never could have become robber barons. James J. Hill certainly wasn't a robber baron.

So you are saying the Robber Barons would haven given up without subsidies and price controls.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

How?

Cooperation?

And yet the incentive is to immediately stop cooperating and cut prices so that you can attract more customers away from the others and make more money. Is it your position that they'll all choose to make less money for the sake of cooperation?

The Robber Barons did not get where they got from these nearly petty reasons you are giving like price controls and subsidies. They mostly got there from intimidation, outright theft of land through taking advantage of the endless hard times people went through during that period and probably by murder and other crimes.

 

[PainefulTruth]

Whenever libturds talk about the "evils of capitalism," they never fail to bring up the so-called "robber barons." Most of what they believe is pure horseshit. The fact is that many of the men maligned with this label made this country great. They grew the industries that produce the wealth we enjoy today. They became rich because they provided consumers with abundance, not because they "robbed" anyone. You can read the truth in the following book.

The Myth of the Robber Barons: A New Look at the Rise of Big Business in America: Burton W. Folsom, Forrest McDonald: 9780963020314: Amazon.com: Books

As a pro-capitalist libertarian, I'm all for his stand on the subject. But the writeup (and apparently the text) doesn't fit with the title, or reality. He shows that the problem isn't the myth of the robber barons, but the robber baron stereotype which, as usual, has a basis in fact. The government manipulators definitely existed, most notoriously the rail barons (spawning the word "railroaded"), who used and promulgated government corruption to their advantage, and against those over whom they rode roughshod.

Not sure why he includes Schwab who isn't from that time period.

I particularly like what the writeup says about Mellon and Coolidge who were decades ahead of the Laffer Curve.

 

[editec]

I didn't realize you preferred to have discussions in meaningless slogans.

The Robber Barons were all-powerful, certainly more powerful than the government then and did not, in any way, need anybody's help. It is how the richest corporations and men today also do not need any help from the federal government.

So the railroads weren't subsidized by the federal government, and as such didn't make their routes purposefully nonsensical and longer than necessary in an attempt to get more money from the government? And the richest corporations today don't help the federal government write the regulations that they can easily absorb but keep out smaller companies from entering the market and competing with them? That's all a myth?

Kevin there you see the power and debating technique of the KNOW NOTHINGS.

They know nothing except what they want to know. Yes they have truth, but usually its a kind of half truth.

This is why FASCISTS and other control freaking tyrants always declare war on history.

I don't care if you love capitalism or hate it, FACTS IS FACTS except to the know-nothings

 

[editec]

You guys are trying to GENERALIZE your way to the TRUTH about Robber Barons, and about history, too.

It just makes no sense to do this EXCEPT if you don't care about truth and are simply grinding your political ax.

We need less partisans and more philosophers on this board.

As to Robber Barronage?

How about discussing one person at a time so that we can arrive at some truth about that person?

Nah! no partisan wants to do that because that means you'd have to KNOW something REAL about that person's history.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

They did not have what it takes.

So no industry is going to falter without government subsidies, unless they don't have what it takes. Is that a real argument?

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

Which is directly contradictory to what you said before.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You've proved my point for me. The railroads did as they please. Nevertheless, are you dumb or what? The government had no control over the railroads, where it mattered, towards building an empire. Like you said, they made the routes as they pleased and did just about everything they pleased. That's how Robber Barons amassed their capital. That the government helped them some is inconsequential.

No, that's the entire point. The government helped them, and that's how they became robber barons. Without the government they never could have become robber barons. James J. Hill certainly wasn't a robber baron.

So you are saying the Robber Barons would haven given up without subsidies and price controls.

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.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

The Robber Barons were all-powerful, certainly more powerful than the government then and did not, in any way, need anybody's help. It is how the richest corporations and men today also do not need any help from the federal government.

So the railroads weren't subsidized by the federal government, and as such didn't make their routes purposefully nonsensical and longer than necessary in an attempt to get more money from the government? And the richest corporations today don't help the federal government write the regulations that they can easily absorb but keep out smaller companies from entering the market and competing with them? That's all a myth?

Kevin there you see the power and debating technique of the KNOW NOTHINGS.

They know nothing except what they want to know. Yes they have truth, but usually its a kind of half truth.

This is why FASCISTS and other control freaking tyrants always declare war on history.

I don't care if you love capitalism or hate it, FACTS IS FACTS except to the know-nothings

Often the most incredibly obscure fact can be most powerful of all. First of all, I have done research continually as my only work since 1987. You will just have to take my word for it.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

So no industry is going to falter without government subsidies, unless they don't have what it takes. Is that a real argument?

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

Which is directly contradictory to what you said before.

Prove it!

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

No, that's the entire point. The government helped them, and that's how they became robber barons. Without the government they never could have become robber barons. James J. Hill certainly wasn't a robber baron.

So you are saying the Robber Barons would haven given up without subsidies and price controls.

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.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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

Which is directly contradictory to what you said before.

Prove it!

Ok.

Subisidies are good for those industries that get them, but no industry is going to falter in the least without them. They will search under every rock to find other revenues and get them.

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

Those two comments are direct contradictions to one another.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So you are saying the Robber Barons would haven given up without subsidies and price controls.

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.

 

[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.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Which is directly contradictory to what you said before.

Prove it!

Ok.

Subisidies are good for those industries that get them, but no industry is going to falter in the least without them. They will search under every rock to find other revenues and get them.

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.

 

[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.