Image from https://www.pinterest.com/pin/823525481830781929/
International Competition:
Close to the start of his lecture, Dr. Folsom talks about the motivation of the United States to compete with other countries in the realms of industry and technology. To me, the logic behind this motivation is faulty. In my opinion, the quality of life for Americans is far more important than the notoriety of the United States on the world stage. If the government were to place more emphasis on meeting the needs of the people it represents, then I am sure that many more Americans would be pleased with the status of industry, technology, and many other items in the United States.
What? The government is out of touch?
I really enjoyed how Dr. Folsom regularly asked his audience what decision they thought Congress would make regarding providing Edward Collins with more government subsidy to fund his steamboat business. Collins was directly competing with Cornelius Vanderbilt for market share in the steamboat industry, but Collins became an unfortunate example of one of the major downsides of government subsidies. The way Dr. Folsom posed his questions in a way that suggests Congress was employing very poor decision-making strategies, and I would say this proved to be true. In the case of Collins and Vanderbilt, Vanderbilt proved that an in-touch entrepreneur with the motivation of investment, profit, and competition will almost always beat a company funded by an out-of-touch government. I feel that one of the biggest issues with our current government structure is that politicians are extremely out of touch when it comes to the daily lives of Americans. I understand that it is very difficult for all officials to have a full understanding of this, but I feel that a group that is so far removed from society should not be the group in charge of policy making.
Historical Propaganda:
Dr. Folsom stops and asks the audience at a couple of points during the lecture if they have heard the stories he shared about the ineffectiveness of government-subsidized companies, and the large majority of audience members do not raise their hands in response to the question. I myself had not heard the example of Collins and Vanderbilt competing in the steamboat industry before, so I suppose I would fit in the majority. I am not enough of a conspiracist to claim that the government is intentionally suppressing any historical perspectives that would paint them in a bad light, but I am enough of a cynic that I would not be surprised if that was the case.
Ingenuity vs. Subsidy:
The various entrepreneurs and inventors that Dr. Folsom discusses in his lecture undoubtedly made a positive impact on American society with their ingenuity and drive. I can confidently claim that the same is not true for the examples Dr. Folsom provided about the government-subsidized companies. If a company or individual is guaranteed a government subsidy, then they have no motivation to exceed or even meet expectations. Even though the privately-funded entrepreneurs were competing against government-funded entities, the entrepreneurs almost always won out because of their need to innovate in order to stay ahead.
Crooked Business Dealings:
Many people debate over the legitimacy of the business practices employed by famous “robber barons” such as John D. Rockefeller. Rockefeller bought out many of his competitors in the oil industry, and this has been frowned upon by a number of historians. However, Dr. Folsom pointed out that Rockefeller bought out his competitors with Standard Oil stock that would later pay large dividends for his former competitors. I think it is fair to say that the businesses and industries kickstarted by America’s “robber barons” had a measurably negative impact on the environment. The industrialization brought about by the entrepreneurs of the 1800s also had a negative impact on the general health and wellbeing of the industry’s employees. I can’t help but wonder if other serious competitors would have emerged in certain industries if legislation was in place to prevent the forming of monopolies in the age of the robber barons. Even so, I am glad that such legislation exists now, whether or not it was because of the robber barons.
Conclusion:
Overall, I found Dr. Folsom’s lecture to be very engaging. I was very impressed by the speed and thoroughness with which he answered the audience’s questions. While I never really viewed America’s “robber barons” in a completely negative way, I found Dr. Folsom’s reasoning to be very sound regarding their positive impact on society. Also, I am glad their success stories exist because they serve as great examples of the ineffectiveness of government subsidies. Lastly, Dr. Folsom’s lecture has convinced me even more that America’s society and economy thrives when entrepreneurs are free to create value and engage in competition.