Harvey Wasserman’s ‘Robber Baron’: Criticizing Essay

Robber Barons Harvey Wassermans Robber Baron is a harsh critic of not lonesome(prenominal) legendary titans in the American business history, but overly of the regime and politicians of the Gilded Age. In his monograph, the images of robber barons, corrupt politicians and laissez-faire government is conjured in the era wherein many important sectors of the American economy were dominated by a handful of firms as cut-throat business competition were compounded by frequent scotch contractions that gripped the nation.Wasserman accused the captains of industry of financial trickery and of policy-making corruption with the bribing of legislatures, and attacking them for the inhumane treatment of labor which included the deception of heavy hours, unhealthy working conditions and using cheap immigrant labor to undersell wage rates. But above wholly, Wasserman condemned them as merciless monopolists who engaged in ruthless competition by choking off rivals using railway rebates, co ntrolling raw materials and money supply, and the forced purchase of competing firms.According to Wasserman, Carnegie, Rockefeller, Morgan, and Vanderbilt all had something in common they were all Robber Barons who monopolize the railroad, petroleum, banking, and steel industries, profiting massively and gaining personally, but not doing a whole lot for the common wealth. many another(prenominal) of the schemes and techniques that are used today to rob people of what is rightfully theirs, such as pensions, stocks, and even their jobs, were invented and used often by these four men.Wassermans narrative relentlessly pursue troubling and crippling side cause of the Gilded Age high levels of political corruption, the arrogance of global economic power, the twisting of the U. S. tax code, and the voter belief in the captivity of government to private interests. But is it fair to consummate in totality, as per Wasserman, these earlier industrialists as robber barons and the business practices of the Gilded Age as exclusively corrupt and pointless?The stereotype is indeed irresistible, especially so that it resonates in our time with the Enron, WorldCom and other corporate debacles. But nonetheless, Wassermans critique of capitalism is one-sided and obscures other dimensions of corporate activity and opportunity during the era. Take for instance, the multiply of the number of farms and the amount of land in cultivation during the period, the increased size of it of the workforce, especially in the manufacturing sector, the increased railroad track mileage and the lump of steel production all pointed to a surging Gross guinea pig Product (GNP).With increased life expectancy, economic data proved that industrial enterprise indeed did raise the standard of living for the majority of Americans during that era. The railroads that became the point of affray between business moguls, was the definite symbol of industrialization as it displace the cost of ship ping freight, which in turn permitted the reduction in the prices consumers pay for food and durable items, thus creating the evolution of national markets that stimulated modern levels of competition, opportunity and further growth.Although it still remains an endless debate as to the exact preposition that beholds the likes of Carnegies, Rockefeller, Morgan and Vanderbilt, it is beyond doubt that corporations, a number of which were owned by these men, were the engines of economic growth. In the 40 years following Appomattox, the fall in States astonished European investors and bankers with the speed at which she changed from a backward agricultural nation to the most powerful industrial force in the world.During the years of the alleged(prenominal) robber barons, America outpaced other nations by large margins when it came to growth in per-capita income, industrial production and rising values generally. Moreover, the Gilded Age also saw economic participation at all levels o f society, including numerous previously disenfranchised constituencies. Thus, it is worth noting, Wassermans narrative, along with that of Charles Beard and Matthew Josephson (the original condition of the robber barons dichotomy), needs a further reassessment.From Wassermans narrative, it is easy to profit the conclusion that the post Civil War program providing subsidies to western railroads was a disaster, a way of transferring millions of the peoples wealth to a fewer politically well-connected plutocrats. Seemingly, it would have been attempted. But when all the dust settled, the United States did have a transcontinental railroad. Without the offer of mammoth government subsidies, such railroad construction would not have happened for decades.