The nineteenth-century entrepreneurs were not robber barons. While it is true that these entrepreneurs used were ruthless and focused on a singular goal, that is the nature of business. The methods used by these businessmen were simply the most effective out of all of their competitors. That is not something we as objective researchers of the past can condemn them for. America was built on the principles of pursuing one’s own happiness and prosperity, and these entrepreneurs were simply abiding by these principles. In addition, the American economy was greatly stimulated by the successes of these men and consequently helped build America into a dominant international economic force. Much of the money earned by the entrepreneurs of the nineteenth-century was also donated to many institutions that benefited society such as Carnegie's donation to the building of Carnegie Hall.
I agree with your statement that a lot of the entrepreneurs were ruthless but that was a part of business. If they were not carefull they could easily go bankrupt so that is why a lot of them bought out the smaller companies so there was no middle man.
The answer to this question is yes. As the yes article state, “[industries were] built with blood, sweat, politics, and thievery.” “Shares were sold cheaply to Congressmen” so they would turn the other way and “the people of the United States would be bled even more effectively than before” to boost the wealthy 10%. With one man able to amass a “fortune [which] would total 2 billion dollars,” the common person was definitely robbed in the nineteenth century. The men in power took control of all the natural resources, gained huge influence in the government, destroyed competing companies, sold inflated stock, and only paid extremely low wages to their workers. Using their high and mighty amount of money, those men in power took over every piece of industry. Yes, new ideas were formed and good things did come of this “Robber Baron” way of life, but the derogatory term “Robber Baron” is indeed fitting.
I agree with your statement about the industries were built with blood, sweat, politics, and thievery. A lot of the big industry owners cheated congressman such as the railroad industry.
I agree with your post. Especially with your statement referring to how these so called "Robber Barons", donated much of their fortune to public works.
The Nineteenth-Century Entrepreneurs were "Robber Barons" because all of them seemed to have one goal, and that was to expand their business so big so that they could become some of the richest people in the world. Now most of these people that started their companies did not start life out at the bottom of the ladder; they started life out in a middle or higher class family and were higher up on the ladder. This made it a lot easier to get going and start their business. However this was not always the case such as Andrew Carnegie. He started as a factory employee and worked his way up to start his own business. Andrew Carnegie might have been a Robber Baron for part of his life but he ended up giving 7/8 of his fortune away after retirement to schools and communities. So Andrew Carnegie could be looked down on and up on.
Though I do not agree with your stance on this subject I agree with your statement regarding Andrew Carnegie. He was a very good person and very generous to the public. However, he actually was not the only one to give back, and he was also not the only one to have started from a poor class and work his way up.
Carnegie was a very nice and generous person...after he retired and realized how selfish he was during his life. He talked about how he dislike monopolies, yet he himself owned much of his industry. It's easy to be generous and kind when you have it easy, but he obviously was taken over by greed once he reached the top.
I like how you bring up that most of the wealthiest people in this time period started out as middle or high class, except for Andrew Carnegie, who truly was a 'from rags to riches' type of person.
Though many people believe that the successes of the entrepreneurs of the late nineteenth century were the result of scandal and dishonesty, I do not believe that these businessmen were "Robber Barons". These men were simply using their rights given to them by the constitution ( " life, liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness"), in order to make a name for themselves, and they just happened to be better at it than the rest of the country at the time. We should not criticize these men for being successful, we should hold them to the highest esteem because they represent what America is so proud of; the ability to make your way up from nothing, to the very top.
I agree that those men were exercising their rights, I just do not believe they used those rights in the most human way. To be human is to help each other because without that, we would all be dead right now anyway. These men did good things, some for the country and the world, but mostly for themselves. Just because of their selfish ways, I feel the term "Robber Baron" is fitting.
I like how you think the 'robber barons' were just exercising their Constitutional rights by going out and making a name for themselves, because that's what they were doing, and that is what is in the Constitution.
Well, in my opinion it depends on who the reader looks at. Not all of the entrepreneurs were robber barons. Men like Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Gould were they used corrupt and inappropriate methods to get to the top. They invested everything into their work, but were not whole heartily in for the people of the nation they were in for the money they could make for themselves. As a whole in the entrepreneur world they were seen a idols people at the bottom of that world looked up to. This meant bad news for the nation as a whole as they invested money to bring it all to the people and no more than that. At first many ideas were frowned upon as they were not set for the era yet. Everyone in the north and west were beginning to depend on the robber barons ideals and how they transferred goods as well the cities that sprouted along the railway. Everything was done for a reason and all of it made a huge impact on the nation but the men at the top were robber barons trying to make another dollar.
You bring up some good points to support your standing on this topic, but I have to disagree with you. Getting to the top and making money is what big business was all about back then, and still to this day as well. They weren't really "robbing" anyone, they were just really good at being successful.
The nineteenth century entrepreneurs were called “robber barons” because people thought these millionaires were scamming them, which in fact they were. Although these men cheated their consumers, they somehow managed to increase their production even while “robbing” these people. How is this possible?! It is made possible by the laziness and uncaring nature of the consumers. If these men were truly robbing the people, wouldn’t you think a boycott or some form of real action would be taken against them? These entrepreneurs used tactic and skill to take control, since when has being self-educated and wise ever been illegal just because others were being stupid?!
I believe that a few bad grapes spoiled the bunch because many entrepreneurs during the 19th century go unaccredited, and the ‘robber barons’, the vast few of them there were, relatively, were such huge political and industrial figures that they get ascribed as the only ‘real’ entrepreneurs in America in the 1800’s. The main people in the late 1800’s, after the Civil War, that is, to be considered entrepreneurial and ‘robber barons’ were Andrew Carnegie, J.P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller, and they started or refined their respective businesses, yes, but they were not the only people in the world of business.
The Nineteenth-Century Entrepreneurs were not "Robber Barons" because a business must have a plan as to what service or product they are going to provide. Then they must have suppliers in order to get the materials that they need to make their business run smoothly. When all of that is set up, they must then provide to their customers. Of all of the businesses in that category, the top business is the one that has the best product. When other Entrepreneurs start to rise past the top, there is more competition. This is where the businesses will start to have money issues. In order to stay top business, the business has to be sure that their product stays the best, and what better way to do this than control how everything you use is made. Because one business cannot completely control another, what better way than to buy out the business under them? This also helps with the money situation because they are cutting out the middle man. Thus the Nineteenth-Century Entrepreneurs were not "Robber Barons" their only trying to have the best product/service.
Although I do believe there were some, "robber barons," in the 19th century, I think they got a worse rap than they deserved. Sure some of the big names like Rockefeller, Morgan, and Carnegie dominated their prospective markets, but I think only a few were actually ruthless, greedy, and cold-hearted people. People looked up at them with contempt because they wish they were rich too. Because of this, they painted a misleading picture of the presidents of big companies. Most bosses did what any of us would do if we were in their situation, which is try to make a large profit. Although there were definite drawbacks to big companies taking over, there were also many benefits like the standard of living rising constantly during this time. In conclusion, there were "robber barons" but the picture has been distorted from reality by the common people.
Entrepreneurs of the 19th century were "Robber Barons," as the term "Robber Baron" is used to describe wealthy and powerful businessmen. The businessmen of the 19th century used exploitative/manipulative practices to gain their wealth. They took control of and manipulated many people for their own benefit and with it, snatched their monetary gain. "Entrepreneurs" encouraged monopolies in America and screwed around with the orderly systems for the sole purpose of personal gain. Due to the corruptive practices of these entrepreneurs, it is safe to call them "Robber Barons."
I agree with your post completely! The term "corruptive practices" is so accurate, and I'm glad you presented that idea. The "Robber Barons" definitely did what they did for their own personal gain. Thanks for this post!
It is highly unfair to call them "Robber Barons" because im their eyes they were simply blessed more than the aaverage person. They should not be refered to as such because the conditions and time period required America to gain these monopolies in order to compete on a larger scale.
I don't believe that the nineteenth century entrepreneurs were "Robber Barons". They were simply using tactics in the way they handled their businesses that no one had ever thought of before. It's just the nature of being successful in the business world. To quote the NO author, "they were creating at a breathtaking pace the modern corporate economy, and thus a wholly new economic universe." The people didn't know how to handle what was going on around them so they panicked, as people usually do with substantial change. The NO author also brought up the point that the politicians seeking to restrict these so called "robber barons" were in the reelection business. They were always coming up with some way to get their way and to be successful in their "business". Mudslinging was their tactic of choice back then. Calling men such as Andrew Carnegie, JP Morgan, and John Rockefeller robber barons is unfitting. They were just very successful businessmen; they didn't rob anyone of anything. That's how the business game is played.
I agree that these men should not be called "Robber Barons" simply because they took advantage of their situation. The business world is full of back stabbing and extreme competition, therefore, these men were, in a way, kind compared to their competitiors due to the ffact that they still enabled their conquered rivals to keep their income.
The nineteenth-century entrepreneurs were not robber barons. While it is true that these entrepreneurs used were ruthless and focused on a singular goal, that is the nature of business. The methods used by these businessmen were simply the most effective out of all of their competitors. That is not something we as objective researchers of the past can condemn them for. America was built on the principles of pursuing one’s own happiness and prosperity, and these entrepreneurs were simply abiding by these principles. In addition, the American economy was greatly stimulated by the successes of these men and consequently helped build America into a dominant international economic force. Much of the money earned by the entrepreneurs of the nineteenth-century was also donated to many institutions that benefited society such as Carnegie's donation to the building of Carnegie Hall.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statement that a lot of the entrepreneurs were ruthless but that was a part of business. If they were not carefull they could easily go bankrupt so that is why a lot of them bought out the smaller companies so there was no middle man.
DeleteI agree it is the nature of business, however not all business.
DeleteThe answer to this question is yes. As the yes article state, “[industries were] built with blood, sweat, politics, and thievery.” “Shares were sold cheaply to Congressmen” so they would turn the other way and “the people of the United States would be bled even more effectively than before” to boost the wealthy 10%. With one man able to amass a “fortune [which] would total 2 billion dollars,” the common person was definitely robbed in the nineteenth century. The men in power took control of all the natural resources, gained huge influence in the government, destroyed competing companies, sold inflated stock, and only paid extremely low wages to their workers. Using their high and mighty amount of money, those men in power took over every piece of industry. Yes, new ideas were formed and good things did come of this “Robber Baron” way of life, but the derogatory term “Robber Baron” is indeed fitting.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statement about the industries were built with blood, sweat, politics, and thievery. A lot of the big industry owners cheated congressman such as the railroad industry.
DeleteI agree with your post. Especially with your statement referring to how these so called "Robber Barons", donated much of their fortune to public works.
DeleteThe Nineteenth-Century Entrepreneurs were "Robber Barons" because all of them seemed to have one goal, and that was to expand their business so big so that they could become some of the richest people in the world. Now most of these people that started their companies did not start life out at the bottom of the ladder; they started life out in a middle or higher class family and were higher up on the ladder. This made it a lot easier to get going and start their business. However this was not always the case such as Andrew Carnegie. He started as a factory employee and worked his way up to start his own business. Andrew Carnegie might have been a Robber Baron for part of his life but he ended up giving 7/8 of his fortune away after retirement to schools and communities. So Andrew Carnegie could be looked down on and up on.
ReplyDeleteThough I do not agree with your stance on this subject I agree with your statement regarding Andrew Carnegie. He was a very good person and very generous to the public. However, he actually was not the only one to give back, and he was also not the only one to have started from a poor class and work his way up.
DeleteCarnegie was a very nice and generous person...after he retired and realized how selfish he was during his life. He talked about how he dislike monopolies, yet he himself owned much of his industry. It's easy to be generous and kind when you have it easy, but he obviously was taken over by greed once he reached the top.
DeleteI like how you bring up that most of the wealthiest people in this time period started out as middle or high class, except for Andrew Carnegie, who truly was a 'from rags to riches' type of person.
DeleteThough many people believe that the successes of the entrepreneurs of the late nineteenth century were the result of scandal and dishonesty, I do not believe that these businessmen were "Robber Barons". These men were simply using their rights given to them by the constitution ( " life, liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness"), in order to make a name for themselves, and they just happened to be better at it than the rest of the country at the time. We should not criticize these men for being successful, we should hold them to the highest esteem because they represent what America is so proud of; the ability to make your way up from nothing, to the very top.
ReplyDeleteI agree that those men were exercising their rights, I just do not believe they used those rights in the most human way. To be human is to help each other because without that, we would all be dead right now anyway. These men did good things, some for the country and the world, but mostly for themselves. Just because of their selfish ways, I feel the term "Robber Baron" is fitting.
DeleteI like how you think the 'robber barons' were just exercising their Constitutional rights by going out and making a name for themselves, because that's what they were doing, and that is what is in the Constitution.
DeleteWell, in my opinion it depends on who the reader looks at. Not all of the entrepreneurs were robber barons. Men like Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Gould were they used corrupt and inappropriate methods to get to the top. They invested everything into their work, but were not whole heartily in for the people of the nation they were in for the money they could make for themselves. As a whole in the entrepreneur world they were seen a idols people at the bottom of that world looked up to. This meant bad news for the nation as a whole as they invested money to bring it all to the people and no more than that. At first many ideas were frowned upon as they were not set for the era yet. Everyone in the north and west were beginning to depend on the robber barons ideals and how they transferred goods as well the cities that sprouted along the railway. Everything was done for a reason and all of it made a huge impact on the nation but the men at the top were robber barons trying to make another dollar.
ReplyDeleteYou bring up some good points to support your standing on this topic, but I have to disagree with you. Getting to the top and making money is what big business was all about back then, and still to this day as well. They weren't really "robbing" anyone, they were just really good at being successful.
DeleteThe nineteenth century entrepreneurs were called “robber barons” because people thought these millionaires were scamming them, which in fact they were. Although these men cheated their consumers, they somehow managed to increase their production even while “robbing” these people. How is this possible?! It is made possible by the laziness and uncaring nature of the consumers. If these men were truly robbing the people, wouldn’t you think a boycott or some form of real action would be taken against them? These entrepreneurs used tactic and skill to take control, since when has being self-educated and wise ever been illegal just because others were being stupid?!
ReplyDeleteI like the voice in your post, but how you say "wouldn’t you think a boycott or some form of real action would be taken against them?".
DeleteI believe that a few bad grapes spoiled the bunch because many entrepreneurs during the 19th century go unaccredited, and the ‘robber barons’, the vast few of them there were, relatively, were such huge political and industrial figures that they get ascribed as the only ‘real’ entrepreneurs in America in the 1800’s. The main people in the late 1800’s, after the Civil War, that is, to be considered entrepreneurial and ‘robber barons’ were Andrew Carnegie, J.P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller, and they started or refined their respective businesses, yes, but they were not the only people in the world of business.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that a few ruined the image of all. Of course people are gonna make them all look like ruthless people.
DeleteThe Nineteenth-Century Entrepreneurs were not "Robber Barons" because a business must have a plan as to what service or product they are going to provide. Then they must have suppliers in order to get the materials that they need to make their business run smoothly. When all of that is set up, they must then provide to their customers. Of all of the businesses in that category, the top business is the one that has the best product. When other Entrepreneurs start to rise past the top, there is more competition. This is where the businesses will start to have money issues. In order to stay top business, the business has to be sure that their product stays the best, and what better way to do this than control how everything you use is made. Because one business cannot completely control another, what better way than to buy out the business under them? This also helps with the money situation because they are cutting out the middle man. Thus the Nineteenth-Century Entrepreneurs were not "Robber Barons" their only trying to have the best product/service.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I do believe there were some, "robber barons," in the 19th century, I think they got a worse rap than they deserved. Sure some of the big names like Rockefeller, Morgan, and Carnegie dominated their prospective markets, but I think only a few were actually ruthless, greedy, and cold-hearted people. People looked up at them with contempt because they wish they were rich too. Because of this, they painted a misleading picture of the presidents of big companies. Most bosses did what any of us would do if we were in their situation, which is try to make a large profit. Although there were definite drawbacks to big companies taking over, there were also many benefits like the standard of living rising constantly during this time. In conclusion, there were "robber barons" but the picture has been distorted from reality by the common people.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that they were viewed more shrewdly than they should have been. Good Point!
DeleteEntrepreneurs of the 19th century were "Robber Barons," as the term "Robber Baron" is used to describe wealthy and powerful businessmen. The businessmen of the 19th century used exploitative/manipulative practices to gain their wealth. They took control of and manipulated many people for their own benefit and with it, snatched their monetary gain. "Entrepreneurs" encouraged monopolies in America and screwed around with the orderly systems for the sole purpose of personal gain. Due to the corruptive practices of these entrepreneurs, it is safe to call them "Robber Barons."
ReplyDeleteI agree with your post completely! The term "corruptive practices" is so accurate, and I'm glad you presented that idea. The "Robber Barons" definitely did what they did for their own personal gain. Thanks for this post!
DeleteIt is highly unfair to call them "Robber Barons" because im their eyes they were simply blessed more than the aaverage person. They should not be refered to as such because the conditions and time period required America to gain these monopolies in order to compete on a larger scale.
DeleteI don't believe that the nineteenth century entrepreneurs were "Robber Barons". They were simply using tactics in the way they handled their businesses that no one had ever thought of before. It's just the nature of being successful in the business world. To quote the NO author, "they were creating at a breathtaking pace the modern corporate economy, and thus a wholly new economic universe." The people didn't know how to handle what was going on around them so they panicked, as people usually do with substantial change. The NO author also brought up the point that the politicians seeking to restrict these so called "robber barons" were in the reelection business. They were always coming up with some way to get their way and to be successful in their "business". Mudslinging was their tactic of choice back then. Calling men such as Andrew Carnegie, JP Morgan, and John Rockefeller robber barons is unfitting. They were just very successful businessmen; they didn't rob anyone of anything. That's how the business game is played.
ReplyDeleteI agree that these men should not be called "Robber Barons" simply because they took advantage of their situation. The business world is full of back stabbing and extreme competition, therefore, these men were, in a way, kind compared to their competitiors due to the ffact that they still enabled their conquered rivals to keep their income.
Delete