.jpg)
Source: PBS
Robber Barron was an analysis of monopolies and a case study on John D. Rockefeller, whose compan, Standard Oil, was deemed a monopoly by the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890. Reed's argument is that Standard wasn't a monopoly in the villanous sense of the word but was an 'efficient' monopoly. Rockefeller was just better at his business than his competitors. Not corrupt. Not oppressive. But not afraid to take advantage of existing legislation and market practices either.
Source: The White House
The Myths of the Great Depression took FDR to task. Reed's thesis is that Roosevelt's action extended the Great Depression rather than shortening it. He makes an interesting case.
On both of these issues, there is a different perspective to argue from and it is the one I've heard most of my life so this was quite interesting to wrestle with. Did FDR's skill as a communicator blind many to his erroneous and negative policies?
I'd be curious to hear more of this argument. As a scientist, I frequently take issue with economics primarily because there is no way, with a sample size of 1, to empirically demonstrate that one solution is better than another. Each instance of an economic downturn, for example, occurs under somewhat different sets of circumstances.
ReplyDeleteWithout comprehensive knowledge of the multiverse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse), I'm not clear how you can demonstrate that making a different historical choice would have resulted in a particular (better or worse) outcome. In this case (or our current economic problems), I don't think even hindsight can be 20/20.