Total Posts:44|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Andrew Carnegie???

comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2010 6:30:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Was Mr. Carnegie a product of government help or laissez faire economics?

He was the model of a "self made man", but the argument can be made that with out government help he would not have the opportunity to make it.

Was it a model of "hard work can will get you any where" when his father died a broken man, looking up at his son saying, "Son, I am proud of you".

Carnegie seems like a product of determination, luck, hard work, and government.
With out government he may not have had a chance to make it in America.

Food for thought...
Is there room for the government to help people that work hard but will never be able to catch a break?

Is there a place for government intervention or help, even if it is just at a state level?
Should we take care of our own when they need help?

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2010 6:39:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
"This is no wild assertion, but a sober statement of fact, as I will explain. It is not enough, however true, to say that, "if a man has labor to sell, he must find some one with money to buy it"; it is necessary to add the much more important truth that, if a man has labor to sell, he has a right to a free market in which to sell it,—a market in which no one shall be prevented by restrictive laws from honestly obtaining the money to buy it. If the man with labor to sell has not this free market, then his liberty is violated and his property virtually taken from him. Now, such a market has constantly been denied, not only to the laborers at Homestead, but to the laborers of the entire civilized world. And the men who have denied it are the Andrew Carnegies. Capitalists of whom this Pittsburg forge-master is a typical representative have placed and kept upon the statute-books all sorts of prohibitions and taxes (of which the customs tariff is among the least harmful) designed to limit and effective in limiting the number of bidders for the labor of those who have labor to sell. If there were no tariffs on imported goods; if titles to unoccupied land were not recognized by the State; above all, if the right to issue money were not vested in a monopoly,—bidders for the labor of Carnegie's employees would become so numerous that the offer would soon equal the laborer's product. Now, to solemnly tell these men who are thus prevented by law from getting the wages which their labor would command in a free market that they have a right to reject any price that may be offered for their labor is undoubtedly to speak a formal truth, but it is also to utter a rotten commonplace and a cruel impertinence. Rather tell the capitalists that the laborer is entitled to a free market, and that they, in denying it to him, are guilty of criminal invasion. This would be not only a formal truth, but an opportune application of a vital principle." - Benjamin Tucker[1]

1 http://fair-use.org...
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2010 6:41:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Reasoning, do you ever think for yourself? :P

To stay on-topic, I'm pretty sure Carnegie was a product of a Laissez-Faire market. We talked about him briefly in my US history class I took last semester.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2010 6:44:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/1/2010 6:41:34 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Reasoning, do you ever think for yourself? :P

To stay on-topic, I'm pretty sure Carnegie was a product of a Laissez-Faire market. We talked about him briefly in my US history class I took last semester.

An argument could be made against a full Laissez-Faire.

The government had to lay the rail that inspired him; with out the railway he would not have elevated his status or come up with his ideas.

Government played a large roll in his wealth, HUGE.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2010 6:46:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/1/2010 6:44:51 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 9/1/2010 6:41:34 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Reasoning, do you ever think for yourself? :P

To stay on-topic, I'm pretty sure Carnegie was a product of a Laissez-Faire market. We talked about him briefly in my US history class I took last semester.

An argument could be made against a full Laissez-Faire.

The government had to lay the rail that inspired him; with out the railway he would not have elevated his status or come up with his ideas.

Government played a large roll in his wealth, HUGE.

Since when did government build railroads?
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2010 6:47:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/1/2010 6:46:01 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/1/2010 6:44:51 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 9/1/2010 6:41:34 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Reasoning, do you ever think for yourself? :P

To stay on-topic, I'm pretty sure Carnegie was a product of a Laissez-Faire market. We talked about him briefly in my US history class I took last semester.

An argument could be made against a full Laissez-Faire.

The government had to lay the rail that inspired him; with out the railway he would not have elevated his status or come up with his ideas.

Government played a large roll in his wealth, HUGE.

Since when did government build railroads?

They provided the way they were managed.
And who owned the land that they were laid on?
Who divide it up?

Think people. I need some thinkers!!!
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2010 6:49:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/1/2010 6:47:45 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 9/1/2010 6:46:01 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/1/2010 6:44:51 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 9/1/2010 6:41:34 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Reasoning, do you ever think for yourself? :P

To stay on-topic, I'm pretty sure Carnegie was a product of a Laissez-Faire market. We talked about him briefly in my US history class I took last semester.

An argument could be made against a full Laissez-Faire.

The government had to lay the rail that inspired him; with out the railway he would not have elevated his status or come up with his ideas.

Government played a large roll in his wealth, HUGE.

Since when did government build railroads?

They provided the way they were managed.
And who owned the land that they were laid on?
Who divide it up?

Think people. I need some thinkers!!!

Who owned the land? Well, either it was unoccupied, or the Native Americans owned it. If it was unoccupied, then no one owned it, and a railroad company had just as much right to build there as anyone else.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2010 6:52:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'm pretty sure many of the railroad companies inhumanely relocated many of the natives to reserves, some a few states away in order to build.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2010 6:54:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/1/2010 6:52:16 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I'm pretty sure many of the railroad companies inhumanely relocated many of the natives to reserves, some a few states away in order to build.

True. They didn't have to though. They could have built around where the Native Americans lived. But they had the government to forcibly relocate them, so they could take the cheaper option and build wherever they wanted.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2010 6:55:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/1/2010 6:49:47 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/1/2010 6:47:45 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 9/1/2010 6:46:01 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/1/2010 6:44:51 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 9/1/2010 6:41:34 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Reasoning, do you ever think for yourself? :P

To stay on-topic, I'm pretty sure Carnegie was a product of a Laissez-Faire market. We talked about him briefly in my US history class I took last semester.

An argument could be made against a full Laissez-Faire.

The government had to lay the rail that inspired him; with out the railway he would not have elevated his status or come up with his ideas.

Government played a large roll in his wealth, HUGE.

Since when did government build railroads?

They provided the way they were managed.
And who owned the land that they were laid on?
Who divide it up?

Think people. I need some thinkers!!!

Who owned the land? Well, either it was unoccupied, or the Native Americans owned it. If it was unoccupied, then no one owned it, and a railroad company had just as much right to build there as anyone else.

Because of the nature of the way money was given to the companies building the railroad, they were sometimes known to sabotage each others railroads to claim that land as their own. When they first came close to meeting, they changed paths to be nearly parallel, so that each company could claim subsidies from the government over the same plot of land. Fed up with the fighting, Congress eventually declared where and when the railways should meet.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2010 6:57:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/1/2010 6:54:52 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/1/2010 6:52:16 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I'm pretty sure many of the railroad companies inhumanely relocated many of the natives to reserves, some a few states away in order to build.

True. They didn't have to though. They could have built around where the Native Americans lived. But they had the government to forcibly relocate them, so they could take the cheaper option and build wherever they wanted.

Yea, but cheaper isn't better when there's the welfare of others at stake such as in this situation.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2010 6:58:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/1/2010 6:54:52 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/1/2010 6:52:16 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I'm pretty sure many of the railroad companies inhumanely relocated many of the natives to reserves, some a few states away in order to build.

True. They didn't have to though. They could have built around where the Native Americans lived. But they had the government to forcibly relocate them, so they could take the cheaper option and build wherever they wanted.

We are talking about the 1863 thru 1869 people.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2010 7:03:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/1/2010 6:52:16 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I'm pretty sure many of the railroad companies inhumanely relocated many of the natives to reserves, some a few states away in order to build.

Initially, railroads would make deals with the indians. Pay them not to interfere etc. Later, when the feds took a more active roll, the US army came on down started exterminating them. Its nice.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2010 7:06:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/1/2010 7:03:34 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 9/1/2010 6:52:16 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I'm pretty sure many of the railroad companies inhumanely relocated many of the natives to reserves, some a few states away in order to build.

Initially, railroads would make deals with the indians. Pay them not to interfere etc. Later, when the feds took a more active roll, the US army came on down started exterminating them. Its nice.

Yep, I was absolutely disgusted while learning about America's history with their natives. I thought Canada was bad, but compared to the US we were pretty merciful when dealing with our natives.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2010 7:09:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
What someone like Laissez-faire and others forget is that the USFG was the main investor in railroad infrastructure, and had the most to benefit from it. Half the rails were built because the state needed the fast transportation to convince settlers to come and that security would only be a train ride away. So, the government "built" the railways insofar that without out, they probably wouldn't exist to the extent they do today.

As for the OP's question, well, it's not really either way. Carnegie benefited from market forces while also benefiting from government investment and interest. That's the usual liberal slant - market is important, and government can be apart of it without controlling it.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2010 7:13:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/1/2010 7:09:01 PM, Volkov wrote:
What someone like Laissez-faire and others forget is that the USFG was the main investor in railroad infrastructure,

That is what I have been saying, and thought was common knowledge.

and had the most to benefit from it. Half the rails were built because the state needed the fast transportation to convince settlers to come and that security would only be a train ride away. So, the government "built" the railways insofar that without out, they probably wouldn't exist to the extent they do today.

Exactly!


As for the OP's question, well, it's not really either way. Carnegie benefited from market forces while also benefiting from government investment and interest.

I know, but people like too claim this a victory for the free market, but a little reserch shows that government interaction helpout a lot.

That's the usual liberal slant - market is important, and government can be apart of it without controlling it.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2010 7:16:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/1/2010 7:09:01 PM, Volkov wrote:
What someone like Laissez-faire and others forget is that the USFG was the main investor in railroad infrastructure, and had the most to benefit from it. Half the rails were built because the state needed the fast transportation to convince settlers to come and that security would only be a train ride away. So, the government "built" the railways insofar that without out, they probably wouldn't exist to the extent they do today.
Government simply crowds out the private sector. You're speculating that the temporary stewards of the USFG cared deeply about the long term prosperity of America, and had better economic insights than the top entrepreneurs and investors gambling their own money.

A far more likely scenario is that the feds got involved to maximize personal profits. See dilorenzo http://mises.org...
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2010 7:19:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/1/2010 7:16:16 PM, Sieben wrote:
Government simply crowds out the private sector. You're speculating that the temporary stewards of the USFG cared deeply about the long term prosperity of America, and had better economic insights than the top entrepreneurs and investors gambling their own money.

So you're telling me the USFG had no interest in making more accessible tracts of land for settlers to live on and for its military to roll over in? None whatsoever. Right? 'Cause, you know, governments surely don't want to expand themselves geographically....

A far more likely scenario is that the feds got involved to maximize personal profits. See dilorenzo http://mises.org...

Lol at another Mises article.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2010 7:22:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/1/2010 7:19:25 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/1/2010 7:16:16 PM, Sieben wrote:
Government simply crowds out the private sector. You're speculating that the temporary stewards of the USFG cared deeply about the long term prosperity of America, and had better economic insights than the top entrepreneurs and investors gambling their own money.

So you're telling me the USFG had no interest in making more accessible tracts of land for settlers to live on and for its military to roll over in? None whatsoever. Right? 'Cause, you know, governments surely don't want to expand themselves geographically....
The USFG is not a monarchy. Its politicians are temporary caretakers. They do not benefit from maximizing long term wealth.

A far more likely scenario is that the feds got involved to maximize personal profits. See dilorenzo http://mises.org...

Lol at another Mises article.
Well, its a peer reviewed article with many citations you can check if you don't trust mises.org. But do whatever makes you feel fuzzy.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2010 7:24:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
"The fact is that our railways, with few exceptions, did not grow up in response to any actual economic demand. They were speculative enterprises enabled by State intervention, by allotment of the political means in the form of land-grants and subsidies; and of all the evils alleged against our railway-practice, there is not one but what is directly traceable to this primary intervention." - Albert Jay Nock
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2010 7:25:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/1/2010 7:22:56 PM, Sieben wrote:
The USFG is not a monarchy. Its politicians are temporary caretakers. They do not benefit from maximizing long term wealth.

Someone has been reading his Hoppe.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2010 7:26:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/1/2010 7:22:56 PM, Sieben wrote:
The USFG is not a monarchy. Its politicians are temporary caretakers. They do not benefit from maximizing long term wealth.

OK, what? The government in general, no matter who is in it, benefits from increased land and accessibility and control. Even temporary caretakers like to increase their power, Sieben. Or do all CEOs and stock holders not bother setting themselves up for profit in the long term simply because they may leave the company eventually?

Well, its a peer reviewed article with many citations you can check if you don't trust mises.org. But do whatever makes you feel fuzzy.

Mises.org is officially the bane of my existence, as well as most reasoned debate. I'd trust the Fraser Institute over the hogwash that comes out of Mises.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2010 7:29:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/1/2010 7:26:00 PM, Volkov wrote:
Mises.org is officially the bane of my existence, as well as most reasoned debate.

What? Why? Mises is generally quite good.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2010 7:32:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/1/2010 7:29:28 PM, Reasoning wrote:
What? Why? Mises is generally quite good.

I shouldn't say "bane of my existence," I suppose. Possibly a bit far. But I've never liked Mises, and feel it just plays to its base and nothing else. Most of the articles I either read or get linked to are just God awful, IMO.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2010 7:32:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/1/2010 7:26:00 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/1/2010 7:22:56 PM, Sieben wrote:
The USFG is not a monarchy. Its politicians are temporary caretakers. They do not benefit from maximizing long term wealth.

OK, what? The government in general, no matter who is in it, benefits from increased land and accessibility and control.
The government is not some homogeneous blob. Politicians move in and out. If you play musical chairs with office no one cares about what happens when their turn is up.

Even temporary caretakers like to increase their power, Sieben.
They do it by handing out favors to their buddies.

Or do all CEOs and stock holders not bother setting themselves up for profit in the :long term simply because they may leave the company eventually?
You can sell firms and factories though. Monarchs pass down countries to their children. But democratic politicians, without any property rights in the state, cannot capture the benefits of any long term wealth they generate.

Well, its a peer reviewed article with many citations you can check if you don't trust mises.org. But do whatever makes you feel fuzzy.

Mises.org is officially the bane of my existence, as well as most reasoned debate. I'd trust the Fraser Institute over the hogwash that comes out of Mises.
You don't have to trust it. The article is historical. If you find a fact that is suspect, look for its citation and follow it outside of mises.org. Am I asking you to be unreasonable?
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2010 7:34:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/1/2010 7:32:31 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/1/2010 7:29:28 PM, Reasoning wrote:
What? Why? Mises is generally quite good.

I shouldn't say "bane of my existence," I suppose. Possibly a bit far. But I've never liked Mises, and feel it just plays to its base and nothing else. Most of the articles I either read or get linked to are just God awful, IMO.

They only play to their base insofar as they are consistent in reasoning. By what standards are they "God awful"?
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2010 7:36:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/1/2010 7:32:33 PM, Sieben wrote:
The government is not some homogeneous blob. Politicians move in and out. If you play musical chairs with office no one cares about what happens when their turn is up.

Politicians, temporary or not, work to keep the government running, usually for the long-term. It's not all short-term idealism, you know.

They do it by handing out favors to their buddies.

So cynical. Why can't people, politicians or not, simply want a stronger government?

You can sell firms and factories though. Monarchs pass down countries to their children. But democratic politicians, without any property rights in the state, cannot capture the benefits of any long term wealth they generate.

Sure they can, especially if it works in their corporate favour, as often they did in this era (how many in Congress had shares in the railroads?). But, again, you seem to be thinking that all politicians think of is their own benefit. Get your head out of the sand and realize that not every politician is evil - some simply want what they believe is best for their country. They benefit from what the government position ends up being (supposing they've worked to do something they consider positive), even after they're out of office, as well as their children.

You don't have to trust it. The article is historical. If you find a fact that is suspect, look for its citation and follow it outside of mises.org. Am I asking you to be unreasonable?

No, but that doesn't mean much.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2010 7:37:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/1/2010 7:32:31 PM, Volkov wrote:
I shouldn't say "bane of my existence," I suppose. Possibly a bit far. But I've never liked Mises, and feel it just plays to its base and nothing else.

Well, yeah. That's Lew Rockwell's strategy. You'd know this if you were more acquainted with libertarian thought and history.

Nonetheless, most of the articles are quite well-reasoned. I honestly don't understand what you object to.

Most of the articles I either read or get linked to are just God awful, IMO.

Such as?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2010 7:38:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/1/2010 7:34:10 PM, Sieben wrote:
They only play to their base insofar as they are consistent in their reasoning.

Fix'd that for you.

By what standards are they "God awful"?

Maybe its just their worldview I don't like, and how it colours everything they do. Kind of the point, maybe, but meh.