Introduction
Burton W. Folsom, Jr. is a historian who has written several books based on his knowledge of the history of economic realities from the reader's viewpoint of a true literate concerning these issues. He fittingly has a Ph.D. in history and held full-time posts in the latter field at universities. Folsom has addressed the themes of the supremacy of "sweat equity" through bold, innovative action in practical business, and not in philosophical academia. In addition, he offers a clearer understanding of the steadfastness of American economic men without any prescribed feeding from strength-altering portions of government welfare and regulation. His experiences inform his readers about the "Industrial Revolution" as history, even as they define those whom it employed but did not induce. Do 'aristocracy' and 'industrialist' really fit well in the same definition of individual class, asks Folsom.
In The Myth of the Robber Barons, Folsom takes his Ph.D. in history and his practical knowledge and compiles a book on a disjointed piece of American history. He creates a timeline of American industry that pairs the names of the soulless capitalist robber baron suppliers of what people will buy with those who regard it only as people's interest and eventually productive demand for a quantity and quality of goods, services, and increasingly varied consumption shifts. His objective is to provide a sense of the more personal aspects of these suppliers ranging from crude oil to steel, biscuits, and aluminum. Finally, he gives an extensive and somewhat vague pictorial biography of himself.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Key Concepts and Arguments
The Myth of the Robber Barons is an exploration into the men behind some of the greatest industrial fortunes in American history. The term 'robber baron', applying to wealthy men during the industrial revolution, is not an accurate and just term for them nor for the activities they participated in. Values that many of these businessmen exhibit drew from free-market capitalism and the idea of every man for himself. This system fostered growth and channeled people's creativity, generating economic expansion. Several of the 'captains of industry' - men who were considered by their country to be the leaders in the respective field of business they delved into - started from nothing and created not only a large and profitable business but also many jobs for many people, as well as entire manufacturing of consumer products that would pave the way for future production processes.
There is a critique of government intervention in the economy and the need for more government control, which has long been part of the U.S. economy. The economic freedom and achievements of the likes of Cornelius Vanderbilt, John D. Rockefeller, and Charles M. Schwab are contrasted to the more restrained systems of socialist governments. The book is an attempt to understand the men behind industrial history and does so by outlining the nature of the free-market capitalism that spawned the rise of so many millionaires and billionaires of the late 1800s. There is a refutation of traditional criticism of industrial capitalists. The more comprehensive refutation does not only eschew previous analyses based on moral character but also applies insights to the economic achievements of the great industrial capitalists to demonstrate their contributions to society. These are the building blocks of what is called economic achiever theory. It is insisted that when people come to terms with this, they will have "a different outlook on the market system".
Relevance of the Robber Barons
To appreciate the economic role the so-called "robber barons" played, an individual must have an understanding of their age. The robber baron era was truly an age of extremes. There was a gold rush, steel and oil booms, and the building of immense fortunes and monopolies. The era was also characterized by long, hard depressions that violently swung from high years of great prosperity to a few devastating general panics. This time was a period when six-day-a-week hard work, at times by children, from before dawn to beyond dusk could build a major business in a decade. One can also see unprecedented immigration of every type of European into the United States at this time: everyone wanted to bet their fortune in "the land of opportunity." In order to understand the economic contribution of a Rockefeller or a Vanderbilt, one must examine this period in history.
Recent research in economics has led to major adjustments in the historical assessment of these times. Nevertheless, outdated history books used in public schools still tend to portray the robber barons as men who established their wealth through robbing the gullible public. This historical theme is not eliminated but reinforced in more modern literature. Critics of big business charge that our goals have changed, but not our methods. Businessmen of today have no interest in conservative profits. Mergers result in the same exploitation of the public, practical monopoly, and no rate reductions found in the euphoric days of the robber barons. The examination of the lives of eight robber barons during this era aims to understand this time in history and oneself in association with it. It warns the reader that "they will spare you from the paranoia that you alone suffer under the depredations of the big, bad robber barons." In short, folk history, teaching that the robber barons were thieves at work in every corner of America, continues to find a home in the hearts of the modern public. If it does, we must all look back to our origins to understand how we fit into history and just how long we've been pulling the wool over our own eyes.
Critiques and Counterarguments
Some critics dismiss Folsom’s portrayal of the business leaders in The Myth of the Robber Barons as uniformly beneficial to American economic history. They argue that many of the activities that these men engaged in were overtly monopolistic and, therefore, prima facie blameworthy. There are two aspects of this argument that bear emphasis: first, the monopolistic behaviors were endemic to the Gilded Age economy, and second, that they were morally culpable. This second point, with variations based on ethical theory, suggests that the industrialists’ economic achievements were not entirely praiseworthy because they were achieved, to some extent, by violating the ethical principles that should govern economic life.
Folsom concedes that the business leaders in the book were monopolistic, but claims that such behavior was well within the legal parameters of his time. By this standard, slavery was also once well within the legal parameters of his time. It is unequivocal nonsense to argue that behaviors condemned on ethical grounds are ok if they happen to be legal. Folsom does not entirely dismiss monopolistic concerns. In the last pages of the revised conclusion to The Myth of the Robber Barons, he says that businesses need to seek a patent, copyright, or some way to separate their product from competitors. He contrasts these legal protections with monopolistic practices, of which he is not in favor, but he does not clearly define or illustrate how these two things differ. This discussion is so brief that the distinction seems mere lip service to critics. Domhoff also claims that Folsom glosses over the concern with unbridled capitalism found in much progressivism and the new left. Folsom’s exclusion of these and other negative reactions detracts from the thoroughness of his work.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the myth of the robber barons has been dispelled, and these titans of industry are no longer the callously greedy and morally repugnant men they have been portrayed as. In reviewing the book, it is clear that the use of the biographical approach, attention to the historiography, and distinctively pro-capitalist interpretation of history are all valuable contributions to the history of American economic progress. The establishment of reform clubs, organizations, or think tanks that have worked to counteract negative reimaginings of these men and their deeds is an example of the thought-provoking nature of the book. Effectively marrying innovation with entrepreneurship and placing this combination within its proper moral context rather than disengaging the two in an artificial separation of motivations could constitute the basis for a theoretical approach to determining the basic economic 'goodness' of these men’s business affairs.
The work is about the development of capitalism, its impact and implications, and as such is an interesting survey of prominent recent contributions to economic history. When evaluating our own bracing sea change in political economy through critical examination of our historical figures and narratives, we can turn to this literary evaluation of our past in the hopes of understanding our present controversy more clearly. Efforts to establish the moral fiber and generally sympathetic interpretation of their contributions of present business titans as ongoing public anxieties suggest that this dimension of the research and debates over capitalist expansion and governmental regulation remain important for readers to study further in their quest for historical precedence and guidance in contemporary debates. The importance of historical interpretation. Finally, the book should provide an impetus to the reader to investigate current economic policy and commentary in light of the ongoing capitalist debates in American politics.
Stuck on your essay?
