Myth of the Robber Barons

[Patrick_R]

http://fee.org/nff/the-myth-of-the-robber-barons/

A period of men innovating and producing goods and services cheaper than their competition and selling it to whoever wants to buy it.

The time of the Robber Barons...a time of rising standards of living and falling prices.

Is the idea of modern government intervention in the economy based on poor historical interpretation?

Some resources for you: Bicentennial Edition: Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970
Part 1 - PDF | ZIP - 52.2 MB http://www2.census.gov/prod2/statcomp/documents/CT1970p1-01.pdf
Part 2 - PDF | ZIP - 66.1 MB http://www2.census.gov/prod2/statcomp/documents/CT1970p2-01.pdf

You may find interesting data in there like how Americans work on average, more hours in a week today than before the 40 hour work week was made. You may find that wages were rising in the US without a minimum wage. I've read some books that have used this source and they found that child labor declined and was virtually eliminated well before the Federal government finally outlawed it.

Other myths worth busting, no regulation would mean cocaine gets put in coke again! Coke dropped coccaine from its product years before the US government outlawed it.

Other myths worth busting, the US economy was saved by the New Deal...actually the new deal worsened the economy : http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=4013

and

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx (UCLA economists find that the great depression lasted 7 years longer because of government intervention)

 

[Patrick_R]

US CPI http://www.measuringworth.org/datasets/uscpi/result.php

Notice the period of the Robber Barons : falling prices

Year U.S. Consumer Price Index *
1774 7.82
1775 7.41
1776 8.46
1777 10.31
1778 13.38
1779 11.84
1780 13.29
1781 10.72
1782 11.76
1783 10.31
1784 9.91
1785 9.43
1786 9.19
1787 9.02
1788 8.62
1789 8.54
1790 8.86
1791 9.10
1792 9.27
1793 9.59
1794 10.64
1795 12.17
1796 12.81
1797 12.33
1798 11.92
1799 11.92
1800 12.17
1801 12.33
1802 10.39
1803 10.96
1804 11.44
1805 11.36
1806 11.84
1807 11.20
1808 12.17
1809 11.92
1810 11.92
1811 12.73
1812 12.89
1813 15.47
1814 17.00
1815 14.91
1816 13.62
1817 12.89
1818 12.33
1819 12.33
1820 11.36
1821 10.96
1822 11.36
1823 10.15
1824 9.35
1825 9.59
1826 9.59
1827 9.67
1828 9.19
1829 9.02
1830 8.94
1831 8.38
1832 8.30
1833 8.14
1834 8.30
1835 8.54
1836 9.02
1837 9.27
1838 9.02
1839 9.02
1840 8.38
1841 8.46
1842 7.90
1843 7.17
1844 7.25
1845 7.33
1846 7.41
1847 7.98
1848 7.65
1849 7.41
1850 7.57
1851 7.41
1852 7.49
1853 7.49
1854 8.14
1855 8.38
1856 8.22
1857 8.46
1858 7.98
1859 8.06
1860 8.06
1861 8.54
1862 9.75
1863 12.17
1864 15.23
1865 15.79
1866 15.39
1867 14.34
1868 13.78
1869 13.21
1870 12.65
1871 11.84
1872 11.84
1873 11.60
1874 11.04
1875 10.64
1876 10.39
1877 10.15
1878 9.67
1879 9.67
1880 9.91
1881 9.91
1882 9.91
1883 9.71
1884 9.51
1885 9.32
1886 9.12
1887 9.22
1888 9.22
1889 8.92
1890 8.82
1891 8.82
1892 8.82
1893 8.72
1894 8.34
1895 8.14
1896 8.14
1897 8.04
1898 8.04
1899 8.04
1900 8.14
1901 8.24
1902 8.34
1903 8.53
1904 8.63
1905 8.53
1906 8.72
1907 9.11
1908 8.92
1909 8.82
1910 9.21
1911 9.21
1912 9.40
1913 9.60
1914 9.69
1915 9.74
1916 10.64
1917 12.82
1918 15.06
1919 17.30
1920 20.04
1921 17.90
1922 16.77
1923 17.07
1924 17.10
1925 17.53
1926 17.70
1927 17.37
1928 17.13
1929 17.13
1930 16.70
1931 15.23
1932 13.66
1933 12.96
1934 13.39
1935 13.73
1936 13.86
1937 14.36
1938 14.09
1939 13.89
1940 14.03
1941 14.73
1942 16.30
1943 17.30
1944 17.60
1945 18.00
1946 19.54
1947 22.34
1948 24.08
1949 23.85
1950 24.08
1951 25.98
1952 26.55
1953 26.75
1954 26.88
1955 26.78
1956 27.18
1957 28.15
1958 28.92
1959 29.16
1960 29.62
1961 29.92
1962 30.26
1963 30.62
1964 31.03
1965 31.56
1966 32.46
1967 33.40
1968 34.80
1969 36.67
1970 38.84
1971 40.51
1972 41.85
1973 44.45
1974 49.33
1975 53.84
1976 56.94
1977 60.61
1978 65.22
1979 72.57
1980 82.38
1981 90.93
1982 96.50
1983 99.60
1984 103.90
1985 107.60
1986 109.60
1987 113.60
1988 118.30
1989 124.00
1990 130.70
1991 136.20
1992 140.30
1993 144.50
1994 148.20
1995 152.40
1996 156.90
1997 160.50
1998 163.00
1999 166.60
2000 172.20
2001 177.10
2002 179.90
2003 184.00
2004 188.90
2005 195.30
2006 201.60
2007 207.34
2008 215.30

 

[Patrick_R]

Compare that to the GDP per capita (proxy for standard of living) note how it rises even as the CPI is falling or at least remaining stable

Dollars are adjusted to 2000 dollar values

1790 $917
1791 $943
1792 $983
1793 $1,030
1794 $1,129
1795 $1,163
1796 $1,163
1797 $1,150
1798 $1,162
1799 $1,206
1800 $1,237
1801 $1,258
1802 $1,258
1803 $1,241
1804 $1,250
1805 $1,276
1806 $1,294
1807 $1,255
1808 $1,219
1809 $1,272
1810 $1,303
1811 $1,323
1812 $1,337
1813 $1,375
1814 $1,393
1815 $1,367
1816 $1,330
1817 $1,322
1818 $1,330
1819 $1,315
1820 $1,327
1821 $1,358
1822 $1,370
1823 $1,379
1824 $1,419
1825 $1,440
1826 $1,447
1827 $1,448
1828 $1,424
1829 $1,435
1830 $1,521
1831 $1,600
1832 $1,659
1833 $1,660
1834 $1,639
1835 $1,678
1836 $1,681
1837 $1,648
1838 $1,670
1839 $1,668
1840 $1,628
1841 $1,618
1842 $1,622
1843 $1,655
1844 $1,702
1845 $1,759
1846 $1,846
1847 $1,908
1848 $1,907
1849 $1,868
1850 $1,888
1851 $1,969
1852 $2,117
1853 $2,210
1854 $2,206
1855 $2,225
1856 $2,252
1857 $2,202
1858 $2,232
1859 $2,339
1860 $2,308
1861 $2,298
1862 $2,530
1863 $2,666
1864 $2,636
1865 $2,650
1866 $2,467
1867 $2,447
1868 $2,481
1869 $2,484
1870 $2,492
1871 $2,540
1872 $2,684
1873 $2,834
1874 $2,808
1875 $2,737
1876 $2,791
1877 $2,872
1878 $2,908
1879 $3,184
1880 $3,380
1881 $3,714
1882 $3,805
1883 $3,800
1884 $3,644
1885 $3,573
1886 $3,789
1887 $3,989
1888 $4,131
1889 $4,162
1890 $4,482
1891 $4,438
1892 $4,559
1893 $4,195
1894 $3,913
1895 $4,288
1896 $4,151
1897 $4,255
1898 $4,646
1899 $4,884
1900 $4,921
1901 $5,083
1902 $5,238
1903 $5,292
1904 $5,010
1905 $5,465
1906 $5,580
1907 $5,621
1908 $4,917
1909 $5,169
1910 $5,116
1911 $5,200
1912 $5,359
1913 $5,462
1914 $4,948
1915 $5,011
1916 $5,626
1917 $5,410
1918 $5,834
1919 $5,852
1920 $5,721
1921 $5,483
1922 $5,708
1923 $6,350
1924 $6,422
1925 $6,475
1926 $6,806
1927 $6,777
1928 $6,771
1929 $7,099
1930 $6,418
1931 $5,960
1932 $5,152
1933 $5,056
1934 $5,567
1935 $6,021
1936 $6,761
1937 $7,065
1938 $6,769
1939 $7,256
1940 $7,827
1941 $9,079
1942 $10,644
1943 $12,220
1944 $13,053
1945 $12,766
1946 $11,241
1947 $10,925
1948 $11,206
1949 $10,957
1950 $11,717
1951 $12,412
1952 $12,668
1953 $13,032
1954 $12,719
1955 $13,389
1956 $13,410
1957 $13,435
1958 $13,088
1959 $13,782
1960 $13,840
1961 $13,932
1962 $14,552
1963 $14,971
1964 $15,624
1965 $16,420
1966 $17,290
1967 $17,533
1968 $18,196
1969 $18,573
1970 $18,391
1971 $18,771
1972 $19,555
1973 $20,484
1974 $20,195
1975 $19,961
1976 $20,822
1977 $21,565
1978 $22,526
1979 $22,982
1980 $22,666
1981 $23,007
1982 $22,346
1983 $23,146
1984 $24,593
1985 $25,382
1986 $26,024
1987 $26,664
1988 $27,514
1989 $28,221
1990 $28,429
1991 $28,007
1992 $28,556
1993 $28,940
1994 $29,741
1995 $30,128
1996 $30,881
1997 $31,886
1998 $32,833
1999 $33,904
2000 $34,761
2001 $34,668
2002 $34,885
2003 $35,432
2004 $36,393
2005 $37,122
2006 $37,798
2007 $38,192
2008 $38,262

 

[Doc Daneeka]

Please do consider that posting long columns of numbers is rather rude on a web forum. That's why we have the ability to link to things.

 

[Patrick_R]

Please do consider that posting long columns of numbers is rather rude on a web forum. That's why we have the ability to link to things.

The links will lead to a dead end because you generate these graphs on the website yourself, so you'll have to deal.

 

[Tricky]

There were "robber barons". There were wealthy people who exploited the working man (and often children) in order to become more wealthy. The government stepped in and those practices have been, to a great extent, curtailed. To deny this is to deny a great deal of historical evidence. Controlling the practices of the super-wealthy is, in great part, what led to the rise of the great middle class in America. They would not be fair willingly. They had to have the government enforce laws to make them be fair.

Just for the record, I think this was mostly a good thing for my country, though I admit that every solution brings some different problems. In this case, the problems, while not inconsequential, are much less than they were before the government intervened.

 

[Patrick_R]

I think you are really confused.

Robber barons provided people jobs when they had none, gave them better wages, produced products at a lower price than their competitors, innovated new solutions to old problems and other wise helped increase the standard of living of a lot of people.

Most of you have this notion that because someone got rich and other people didn't that it must be an unjust situation. That is nonsense.

The age of the Robber baron is as much a myth as any ghost story...read the article above.

 

[joobz]

I think you are really confused.

Robber barons provided people jobs when they had none, gave them better wages, produced products at a lower price than their competitors, innovated new solutions to old problems and other wise helped increase the standard of living of a lot of people.

Most of you have this notion that because someone got rich and other people didn't that it must be an unjust situation. That is nonsense.

The age of the Robber baron is as much a myth as any ghost story...read the article above.

nope.

 

[Hindmost]

I think you are really confused.

Robber barons provided people jobs when they had none, gave them better wages, produced products at a lower price than their competitors, innovated new solutions to old problems and other wise helped increase the standard of living of a lot of people.

Most of you have this notion that because someone got rich and other people didn't that it must be an unjust situation. That is nonsense.

The age of the Robber baron is as much a myth as any ghost story...read the article above.

Yeah, fun times... Everyone had a Biltmore

http://nhs.needham.k12.ma.us/cur/Baker_00/2002_p7/ak_p7/childlabor.html

glenn

 

[Tricky]

I think you are really confused.

Robber barons provided people jobs when they had none, gave them better wages, produced products at a lower price than their competitors, innovated new solutions to old problems and other wise helped increase the standard of living of a lot of people.

Most of you have this notion that because someone got rich and other people didn't that it must be an unjust situation. That is nonsense.

The age of the Robber baron is as much a myth as any ghost story...read the article above.

LOL. And all those people went home, popped a beer and had a big dinner when they went home from work? Don't be silly. It was exploitation, pure and simple.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to enforce today's moral standards on people in history. I understand why slavery happened too, and I don't think that the people who kept slaves were necessarily evil people. Most of them took good care of their slaves and provided them with jobs and living quarters. By doing so, they made sure that their products could be provided to the market at lower costs than their competitors.

But times change. That sort of system is no longer acceptable to people, and the rights of the worker have attained some measure of parity with the rights of the owner. I feel this is a good development, and indeed has contributed to the great rise in the US and other countries in the economic world. Can you name me a country that still has slavery and is an economic power?

While the "robber barons" may have been useful in their day, but that day is past. To pretend that we should emulate that past is as ludicrous as suggesting that we should go back to slavery.

 

[tomwaits]

Dude, we get it. You're a libertarian. I can respect that, but do you need to make so many threads about it?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Dude, we get it. You're a libertarian. I can respect that, but do you need to make so many threads about it?

Ahem.

 

[DC]

he doesnt care about exploitation, he cares for a cheap price, thats all.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

1. First of all, just the GDP pro capita doesn't even start to paint the whole picture. There are other factors like the GINI index (measure of income inequality) which can paint a situation where even though the GDP may be high, the poor can still be at bare subsistence levels or actually starving.

E.g., imagine a city state much like ancient Sparta or Athens, where the few rich can afford estates and statues and marble temples, but the large mass of the poor are slaves and don't even _have_ an income. That's a GINI of almost 1, pretty much.

It's actually possible that in a period of rising GDP per capita, the poor actually get poorer, if the GINI index also moves towards more inequality. E.g., such a thing lead to one nasty slave revolt starting from Roman sicily, back then. The landowners made more money than ever, but the slaves were left to starve and scavenge for themselves so the owners could export more grain. Yeah, the GDP per capita rose, but those starving slaves didn't see any improvement out of it. Quite the contrary.

Maybe a bit extreme examples, but basically nevertheless I'll call BS on the whole technique of cherry-picking the favourable numbers out of context and pretending that that's the whole people.

Yes, the GDP per capita rose slowly, but how much of that was actually improving the workers' lot and how much just going into (A) the robber barons' pockets, and (B) rebuilding the economy after each cycle of boom and crash? If the baron got 100 times richer and the workers got a pay cut, does that raising GDP per capita actually mean jack squat?

"Per capita" doesn't mean everyone actually gets that, basically.

2. Even those figures just tell me a different story. I'll take your numbers so we don't argue about source and validity.

Between 1900 and 1930, decidedly non-keynesian years, the GDP pro capita in 2000 dollars rose from $4,921 to $6,418. But ok, the depression was already kicking in, let's take the $7,099 peak from 1929 instead. That's a total rise of about 40% in 30 years.

But in only 8 years of the New Deal, from 1933 to 1941 the same indicator rose from $5,056 to $9,079, or roughly by 80%.

In a comparable 30 year interval, from 1950 to 1980, that indicator approximately _doubled_.

So the way I read your numbers, yes, during these keynesian post-Great-Depression years, the economic growth was much faster than in the good ol' Laissez Faire years. So why would I want to bring those back?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Also, it seems to me that you forget to mention that the first data set to give is basically _meaningless_ for the actual standard of living at any point. It doesn't matter if a bread costs 1 cent or 1 dollar, it matters how many you can buy from a wage, basically. I.e., the second set of numbers, because that's how they calculate the equivalence to year 2000 dollars. (You did bother reading the PDF's, right?)

So, nice handwaving but no banana.

 

[Foolmewunz]

The article cited in the OP is full of crap.

 

[tomwaits]

Ahem.

Please do not edit my posts.

 

[joobz]

Please do not edit my posts.

OK, If you insist..

 

[timhau]

The links will lead to a dead end because you generate these graphs on the website yourself, so you'll have to deal.

Actually, we don't. That's why the ignore-function exists.

 

[Patrick_R]

LOL. And all those people went home, popped a beer and had a big dinner when they went home from work? Don't be silly. It was exploitation, pure and simple.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to enforce today's moral standards on people in history. I understand why slavery happened too, and I don't think that the people who kept slaves were necessarily evil people. Most of them took good care of their slaves and provided them with jobs and living quarters. By doing so, they made sure that their products could be provided to the market at lower costs than their competitors.

But times change. That sort of system is no longer acceptable to people, and the rights of the worker have attained some measure of parity with the rights of the owner. I feel this is a good development, and indeed has contributed to the great rise in the US and other countries in the economic world. Can you name me a country that still has slavery and is an economic power?

While the "robber barons" may have been useful in their day, but that day is past. To pretend that we should emulate that past is as ludicrous as suggesting that we should go back to slavery.

Every single one of you seem to be projecting present day assumptions on a past world. You seem to think that because you have a home now and a cold beer in the fridge than everyone should have one then.

This kind of world view assumes that you can magically leap from poverty to wealth if only you had the right kind of government shuffling wealth.

This period of American history saw millions of Americans wrenched out of absolute poverty and into better lives. They weren’t as good as our lives now, but it was progress and it was a progress that continues, in spite of our governments attempt to screw it up with high taxes and unnecessary regulations.

Times change, times change? Of course times change. But why do we as a people hundreds of times better off than the average person back then NEED more government today. It is absurd.