Robber Barons Of Today Analysis

A Review of The Myth of the Robber Barons a book by Burton Folsom JR.

While they were only getting richer with their corrupt methods, the poorer classes were getting poorer because of the money they spent on the capitalists’ goods. In “The Robber Barons of Today, 1889”, the robber barons are seen with their “knightly” attire while the poor pay “tribute” to them. (Doc D) It represents the poor paying the “amazing” capitalists and being subservient for the goods they need. Also, in Henry George’s Progress and Poverty, 1879, it said that the gulf between the classes is getting wider and wider. Because of the industrial tycoons taking the poor’s money, they are getting richer. They are also providing fewer jobs since the industries usually have one major company for a particular manufacturing, and so “the poorer class is becoming more dependent” on the capitalists to provide jobs and goods. (Doc A) The robber barons took the poor’s money to become wealthier and to feed their greed while worsening the gap between the social

During the Industrial Revolution of the 19th century, both robber barons and captains of industry were terms used to place businessmen into a good or bad category. The term robber baron is a representation of industrialist who used manipulative methods in order to reach enormous quantities of wealth. Some characteristics of robber barons were: they depleted America of its valuable resources, forced authority to pass laws that would work in there favor, make opponents in the industry go out of business, and force laborers to work in hazardous circumstances with little pay. The term captains of industry meant the exact opposite, these businessmen did positive things in order to reach enormous quantities of wealth. Some characteristics of captains of industry were: they constructed factories to make the accessibility of goods rise, increased production, developed markets, gave to charity, and created more jobs with generous pay. While many historians believe that the industrialist of the 19th century were captains of industry there are others that would object and say that they were indeed robber barons. Would you consider the great industrialist of the 19th century to be robber barons or would you consider them as captains of the industry?

In a book published in 1991 by Burt Folsom, The Myth of the Robber Barons is essentially a book about two theories competing against one another, which is the political versus the market entrepreneurs. The book adamantly persuades the reader into believing market entrepreneurship has provided Americans with greater results versus political entrepreneurs featuring from real life scenarios to back up Mr. Folsom claims. He pointed out several market entrepreneurs in his book such as J.D. Rockefeller, Cornelius Vanderbilt, James Hill and Charles Schwab as ones who helped changed the economic climate for Americans by providing superior and lower-cost products and/or services than its competitors. Mr. Folsom continued to shine light on several political

In the late 19th Century, when industrialism became part of the American economy system, many wealthy entrepreneurs that controlled oil, gas, and coal industries formed monopolies and trust to ensure that there were no small business to form competition. Some of the wealthy industrialists, such as Andrew Carnegie, were considered philanthropists due to donating and acting largesse towards the lower-class citizens within the American society. It’s controversial to determine whether or not the wealthy businessmen that controlled oil, gas, and coal industries were “Robber barons” or “Captains of Industry”. The following documents will confirm with evidence that these wealthy businessmen were “Robber Barons” within the 19th Century Industrialist

On February 9th, 1859, editor of the New York Times, Henry Raymond, pronounced something unusual about Cornelius Vanderbilt. Raymond disliked Vanderbilt, a steamship magnate with such an extensive convoy that he was commonly known as the Commodore, the highest position in the US Navy. In the article “Your Money of Your Line,” Raymond attacked Vanderbilt for stealing a substantial monthly payment from the Pacific Mail Steamship Company which was in exchange for Vanderbilt’s preceding antagonism on the sea lanes to California. Carnegie, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, and Morgan fit into the concept of the Gilded Age because they all embody the ideas of robber barons or captains of industry. These individuals all helped to create the huge corporation

The Myth of Robber Barons discusses some of the major entrepreneurs in of the United States from 1850 to 1910. Burton Folsom also discusses these entrepreneur’s key role in their fields and the whole economy of the United States. The entrepreneurs discussed are Commodore Vanderbilt, James J. Hill, The Scranton’s Group, Charles Schwab, John D. Rockefeller, and Andrew Mellon. We know these men as “Robber Barons,” but Folsom argues that these entrepreneurs succeeded by producing quality product and service at a competitive price. He compares so called “Robber Barons” to the political entrepreneurs who rely heavily on government subsidy and make no improvement.

Carnegie, Rockefeller, and JP Morgan really are Robber barons because of what they have done to their workers including the conditions they were kept in. More evidence is that Andrew Carnegie is a Robber baron because he decreased his workers salary by 33% because his workers wanted coal and food in the winter. They asked for these things because they were starving and close to freezing to death, they needed help but they were too greedy to help them, but when they did help their workers they decreased salary or made them work longer to get the money back that they “wasted” on the workers who cared enough to help them in the beginning. But I have a couple extra examples to support my claim. J. P. Morgan is also a Robber Baron because of the

The Myth of Robber Barons is a short, but excellent book that talks about the entrepreneurs of early America. It argues against the misconception that the successful businessmen of the 19th century, often called the “robber barons”, amassed a big fortune by robbing the general public, whereas, they became wealthy because they offered good quality products and services at low prices which in turn attracted so many Americans to do business with them.

In Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America, Barbara Ehrenreich tells a powerful and gritty story of daily survival. Her tale transcends the gap that exists between rich and poor and relays a powerful accounting of the dark corners that lie somewhere beyond the popular portrayal of American prosperity. Throughout this book the reader will be intimately introduced to the world of the “working poor”, a place unfamiliar to the vast majority of affluent and middle-class Americans. What makes this world particularly real is the fact that we have all come across the hard-working hotel maid, store associate, or restaurant waitress but we hardly ever think of what their actual lives are like? We regularly dismiss these people as

A "robber baron" was someone who employed any means necessary to enrich themselves at the expense of their competitors. Did John D. Rockefeller fall into that category or was he one of the "captains of industry", whose shrewd and innovative leadership brought order out of industrial chaos and generated great fortunes that enriched the public welfare through the workings of various philanthropic agencies that these leaders established? In the early 1860s Rockefeller was the founder of the Standard Oil Company, who came to epitomize both the success and excess of corporate capitalism. His company was based in northwestern Pennsylvania.

Accurately established by many historians, the capitalists who shaped post-Civil War industrial America were regarded as corrupt “robber barons”. In a society in which there was a severe imbalance in the dynamics of the economy, these selfish individuals viewed this as an opportunity to advance in their financial status. Thus, they acquired fortunes for themselves while purposely overseeing the struggles of the people around them. Presented in Document A, “as liveried carriage appear; so do barefooted children”, proved to be a true description of life during the 19th century. In hopes of rebuilding America, the capitalists’ hunger for wealth only widened the gap between the rich and poor.

When the names Carnagie, Rockefeller, and Pullman come to mind, most of us automatically think of what we saw or read in our history books: "These men were kind and generous and through hard work and perseverance, any one of you could become a success story like them," right? Wrong. I am sick of these people being remembered for the two or three "good deeds" they have done. Publicity and media have exaggerated the generosity of these men, the government has spoiled these names with false lies, and people have been blind to see that these men were ruthless, sly businessmen who were motivated by your money and their struggle for power.

Throughout American industrialization, large industries were run by some of the richest men in history. These men got the nickname “robber barons” due to their creation of large monopolies by making questionable business and government activities, and by taking advantage of their workers to succeed. But in The Myth of the Robber Barons by Burton W. Folsom, he argues against these claims, and he takes a deeper look into some of America’s richest and most successful men. By specifically looking at Cornelius Vanderbilt, John D. Rockefeller, James J. Hill, the Scranton family and many more, Folsom believed that these so-called robber barons were actually entrepreneurs with a drive to succeed, leading to an improvement in American lives.

The decades after the Civil War rapidly changed the face of the United States. The rapid industrialization of the nation changed us from generally agrarian to the top industrial power in the world. Business tycoons thrived during this time, forging great business empires with the use of trusts and pools. Farmers moved to the cities and into the factories, living off wages and changing the face of the workforce. This rapid industrialization created wide gaps in society, and the government, which had originally taken a hands off approach to business, was forced to step in.