• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Let Us Speak in Praise of Robber Barons and Righteous Men

http://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-Robber-Barons-Business/dp/0963020315

The Myth of the Robber Barons describes the role of key entrepreneurs in the economic growth of the United States from 1850 to 1910. The entrepreneurs studied are Cornelius Vanderbilt, John D. Rockefeller, James J. Hill, Andrew Mellon, Charles Schwab, and the Scranton family. Most historians argue that these men, and others like them, were Robber Barons. The story, however, is more complicated. The author, Burton Folsom, divides the entrepreneurs into two groups market entrepreneurs and political entrepreneurs. The market entrepreneurs, such as Hill, Vanderbilt, and Rockefeller, succeeded by producing a quality product at a competitive price. The political entrepreneurs such as Edward Collins in steamships and in railroads the leaders of the Union Pacific Railroad were men who used the power of government to succeed. They tried to gain subsidies, or in some way use government to stop competitors. The market entrepreneurs helped lead to the rise of the U. S. as a major economic power. By 1910, the U. S. dominated the world in oil, steel, and railroads led by Rockefeller, Schwab (and Carnegie), and Hill. The political entrepreneurs, by contrast, were a drain on the taxpayers and a thorn in the side of the market entrepreneurs. Interestingly, the political entrepreneurs often failed without help from government they could not produce competitive products. The author describes this clash of the market entrepreneurs and the political entrepreneurs. 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. Also, the amount of revenue into the federal treasury increased sharply after tax rates were cut. The Myth of the Robber Barons has separate chapters on Vanderbilt, Hill, Schwab, Mellon, and the Scrantons. The author also has a conclusion, in which he looks at the textbook bias on the subject of Robber Barons and the rise of the U. S. in the late 1800s. This chapter explores three leading college texts in U. S. history and shows how they misread American history and disparage market entrepreneurs instead of the political entrepreneurs. This book is in its fifth edition, and is widely adopted in college and high school classrooms across the U. S.

Yea, yeah, yeah... he is a right wing wackaloon. Worth looking at though.
 
I don't agree with what the author says about Vanderbilt, judging from your small excerpt. I read Vanderbilt was in favor of subsidies for various industries in their infancy. He even would quietly press Congress to grant the subsidies to develop the technology and research to the point whatever tech he wanted was easy to make or at least cheaper to make. Then when he thought he could find a profitable use for the technology he would attack the subsidy in the press and try to get congress to end it, and when it most often the case did he swooped in and bought up the old subsidized company or its assets for cheap and put them to use making him money.
 
Yea, yeah, yeah... he is a right wing wackaloon. Worth looking at though.

Does the book have anything to say about the worker wages these companies offered? By far, the biggest criticism the left lays at these type of companies and the people that run them (and capitalism in general) is that they amass the wealth primarily off the backs of workers by exploiting them and paying shit wages and providing shit working conditions for desparate people.
 
I've earned $1M.

Of course, it took me 20 years, and I actually had to work for it.

But, besides all that, I'm just like them.

So, where's the praise?
(and tax exemption)
 
I've earned $1M.

Of course, it took me 20 years, and I actually had to work for it.

But, besides all that, I'm just like them.

So, where's the praise?
(and tax exemption)

Congrats on likely being a fairly productive member of society. Many free market supporters have advocated lower marginal tax rates on labor as well as a lower overall tax burden on labor.

To the extent that there is a correlation between wealth/earnings and truly exceptional professional accomplishments (let's say the top .1% of people whose efforts and decisions have provided the largest increases in societal welfare) , your level of compensation suggests you would not be in such a category meriting the exceptional praise the OP focuses on, but still praise nonetheless. There are numerous exceptions, however, since the correlation is no where near perfect. Notable exceptions would include exceptional accomplishments in nonprofit sectors (such as academic research and certain public service positions, among others).

For someone who earlier suggested that Paris Hilton was "praised", I ask, by whom? She made herself a public figure that is more often insulted and looked down upon than praised. Fascination with the life of is not the same thing as "praise".

Which kind of brings me back to the OP, where is this praise and adoration of someone _because_ they are rich (as opposed to simply being fascinated with or praising for perceived accomplishments resulting from personal actions)? Key word here is because (which means it is the sole reason for the praise). I see no convincing evidence that such is a common phenomenon. As a result, the OP wishes to discuss something that is rather rare and wishes to discuss something that will likely be in 100% agreement on this board.

The answer starts with an "N" and ends with an "O". What other kind of answer was the OP expecting from anyone here?
 
Last edited:
I've earned $1M.

Of course, it took me 20 years, and I actually had to work for it.

But, besides all that, I'm just like them.

So, where's the praise?
(and tax exemption)

Congrats on likely being a fairly productive member of society. Many free market supporters have advocated lower marginal tax rates on labor as well as a lower overall tax burden on labor.

To the extent that there is a correlation between wealth/earnings and truly exceptional professional accomplishments (let's say the top .1% of people whose efforts and decisions have provided the largest increases in societal welfare) , your level of compensation suggests you would not be in such a category meriting the exceptional praise the OP focuses on, but still praise nonetheless. There are numerous exceptions, however, since the correlation is no where near perfect. Notable exceptions would include exceptional accomplishments in nonprofit sectors (such as academic research and certain public service positions, among others).

For someone who earlier suggested that Paris Hilton was "praised", I ask, by whom? She made herself a public figure that is more often insulted and looked down upon than praised. Fascination with the life of is not the same thing as "praise".

Which kind of brings me back to the OP, where is this praise and adoration of someone _because_ they are rich (as opposed to simply being fascinated with or praising for perceived accomplishments resulting from personal actions)?
If that's your starting assumption, they amount to the same thing
 
Congrats on likely being a fairly productive member of society. Many free market supporters have advocated lower marginal tax rates on labor as well as a lower overall tax burden on labor.....

For someone who earlier suggested that Paris Hilton was "praised", I ask, by whom? She made herself a public figure that is more often insulted and looked down upon than praised. Fascination with the life of is not the same thing as "praise"....

It is you who congratulates somebody just on getting money, not even knowing or seemingly caring how the money was gotten.

And what we have in the US now is an economy more and more owned and run by people like Paris Hilton. Not owned and run by the people who made the money but run by their heirs.

To sing the praises of the US economy is simply to sing the praises of unworthy oligarchs, like Paris Hilton.

Yet we hear the loud singing from many, who only worship money, and nothing else.
 
Congrats on likely being a fairly productive member of society. Many free market supporters have advocated lower marginal tax rates on labor as well as a lower overall tax burden on labor.....

For someone who earlier suggested that Paris Hilton was "praised", I ask, by whom? She made herself a public figure that is more often insulted and looked down upon than praised. Fascination with the life of is not the same thing as "praise"....

It is you who congratulates somebody just on getting money, not even knowing or seemingly caring how the money was gotten.

And what we have in the US now is an economy more and more owned and run by people like Paris Hilton. Not owned and run by the people who made the money but run by their heirs.

To sing the praises of the US economy is simply to sing the praises of unworthy oligarchs, like Paris Hilton.

Yet we hear the loud singing from many, who only worship money, and nothing else.

Key words: "likey" and "to the extent that earnings are correlated...to professional accomplishments." What do you believe the level of correlation to be between earnings and accomplishments? Certainly not zero, right?
 
Yea, yeah, yeah... he is a right wing wackaloon. Worth looking at though.

Does the book have anything to say about the worker wages these companies offered? By far, the biggest criticism the left lays at these type of companies and the people that run them (and capitalism in general) is that they amass the wealth primarily off the backs of workers by exploiting them and paying shit wages and providing shit working conditions for desparate people.

I don't remember, I read it 20 years ago. I'm guessing not. Does history treat these guys unfairly? Probably. Is Tim Cook a Robber Barron because he outsources all the iShit to FoxConn where workers can't jump to their death anymore because they put up nets? Do you purchase only fair trade products?
 
Yea, yeah, yeah... he is a right wing wackaloon. Worth looking at though.

Does the book have anything to say about the worker wages these companies offered? By far, the biggest criticism the left lays at these type of companies and the people that run them (and capitalism in general) is that they amass the wealth primarily off the backs of workers by exploiting them and paying shit wages and providing shit working conditions for desparate people.


This feigned ignorance does you worse than no good. Perhaps if you stopped taking Loren pills?
 
Does the book have anything to say about the worker wages these companies offered? By far, the biggest criticism the left lays at these type of companies and the people that run them (and capitalism in general) is that they amass the wealth primarily off the backs of workers by exploiting them and paying shit wages and providing shit working conditions for desparate people.


This feigned ignorance does you worse than no good. Perhaps if you stopped taking Loren pills?

It's not feigned and I don't know what Loren pills are. 20 years ago I was a right winger. I read the book then and all but forgot about it until this thread. At this moment I'm reading info on The Robber Barron via Google. I don't have an agenda.


---edit---

Just googled "Loren Pills" and all I'm finding are pics of Sophia Loren (which is cool... I'll have to add her to the beautiful woman thread) and something about schizophrenia.

I think Chomsky is worth reading, but I'd qualify him as a wackaloon as well.
 
Does the book have anything to say about the worker wages these companies offered? By far, the biggest criticism the left lays at these type of companies and the people that run them (and capitalism in general) is that they amass the wealth primarily off the backs of workers by exploiting them and paying shit wages and providing shit working conditions for desparate people.


This feigned ignorance does you worse than no good. Perhaps if you stopped taking Loren pills?

You think I read this book by using your psychic powers? Check yourself into therapy because, I hate to break it to you, such powers do not exist and yours are failing miserably.
 
To the extent that there is a correlation between wealth/earnings and truly exceptional professional accomplishments (let's say the top .1% of people whose efforts and decisions have provided the largest increases in societal welfare) , your level of compensation suggests you would not be in such a category meriting the exceptional praise the OP focuses on, but still praise nonetheless.

Sure, and to the extent that there is a correlation between rank/title and truly exceptional ability, you're ok for a commoner, but don't have the breeding of a true aristocrat.

I've heard of the phenomenon whereby people take their preferred indicators of social status and they try and force the accomplishments of individuals to fit, but I never expected to see it in practice.

Which kind of brings me back to the OP, where is this praise and adoration of someone _because_ they are rich (as opposed to simply being fascinated with or praising for perceived accomplishments resulting from personal actions)? Key word here is because (which means it is the sole reason for the praise). I see no convincing evidence that such is a common phenomenon.

Forbes' Rich List is published every year. On what basis does the person at the top of the list get a full write up and their picture in a major circulation periodical?

Please also consider:
Times rich list
Global rich list
Bloomberg rich list
Financial Times rich list
The Guardian rich list
Challenges rich list
The Goal rich list
etc. ad nauseam
 
Back
Top Bottom