Robber barons income gap blatantly displayed with

This preview shows page 6 - 7 out of 20 pages.

2. “Robber Barons”: Income gap blatantly displayed, with arrogant industry leaders (“public be damned”) building mansions in the context of child labor, low wages, horrible working conditionsculminated in hostility towards financial moguls. Income gap was “essential to industry growth.”3. This was also the era of more technological innovations with regards to railroads, and big industry leaders: Andrew Carnegie, who exploited investment banking; J.P. Morgan, who kick started the Great Merger Movement by merging Carnegie Steel with other producers into U.S. steel (2/3 of U.S. steel production); John D. Rockefeller, who used railroad shipping rates to builda monopoly, Standard Oil Refinery.Social Science 1.Liberalism: The idea of classical liberalism became a model for society still seen today; itwas especially popular among the urban, well-educated, and Republicans, and it was the belief that markets are self regulated—best thing to do is leave it alone.2.Social Darwinism: Herbert Spencer and Sumner manipulated the idea of evolutionary Darwinism and applied it to social society and said that competition is a good thing. It allowed them to justify trying to separate government and industry. 3.Social Sciences: During this mid to late 19thcentury Americans began to attend universities more and create the modern academia culture. With a the growth in universities there was opening to public and social working; for example, Florence Kelley and dealing with the problems of urban poverty. Social ScienceAlthough both Andrew Carnegie and William Sumner are both upper-class individuals, Carnegie has a different viewpoint than Sumner in that Sumner believes that charity/philanthropy is unneeded, while Carnegie believes that donations are part of the "gospel" all rich peopleshould adhere to. At the same time, though, Carnegie admits that money given to charities can also be misused. He believes that charitable giving should be used to help the poor better themselves, which is somewhat similar to Sumner's belief in "survival of the fittest" and pulling oneself up by the bootstraps. Do you think that Carnegie's viewpoint, then, is the opposite of Sumner's? Or is it an extension of (or different way of achieving) Sumner's viewpoint that the poor shouldn't be helped through meaningless handouts?Carnegie believed that the government should "tax estates heavily at death"--and by estates, he implied that he was only talking about the estates of the wealthy. This is also a view that has gained more popularity in light of today's poor economic climate. Given the stigma of being wealthy (case in point: Wall Street investment bankers) in our current society, is it possible that the "gospel of wealth" will gain new followers?(This is a broad broad broad question) What factors can influence/cause judicial activism? Were

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture