What themes stood out most to you in the assigned readings and lecture this week? What questions did the lectures and readings raise for you? Please post your responses in the comment section below.
The theme of "The Money Question" stood out for me in this week's readings and lectures, specifically pertaining to the Gilded Age. The differences in preferences between hard money and soft money depicted the extreme differences in economic standing in the country at this time. While bankers and industrialists often preferred hard money, producing no more money than what the nation has in gold, less wealthy people preferred soft money, which allowed loans from the bank.
The theme that stood out to me this week was the debate between whether Social Darwinism or systemic factors were responsible for the wealth and poverty that had become present in America. I thought this was interesting because I think it is still a major theme discussed today in politics. The start of this debate is here and is due to the rise of big businesses. While both explanations make sense and have justification, it is a matter of opinion as to which one a person exercises, which can have a major effect on others. I especially thought Carnegie's viewpoint was unique because while he thought he had a responsibility to give his money back to the public, he did not trust the individual with his money due to his Social Darwinism ideas.
One idea that I found particularly interesting about the Gilded Age was that of "discovering" wealth and poverty. The fact that excessive displays of wealth and exhibits of poverty were a staple of this time period wasn't surprising to me, but I did question how things as timeless as wealth and poverty could be "discovered". As we learned about the industrial revolution and saw how systemic factors emerged as the driving force behind the allocation of wealth it became clear how wealth and poverty were different than they ever had been previously. These systemic factors were responsible for many significant social and political developments of the time. The fact that the evolution of one theme changed many different aspects of life and sparked debates that have lasted through many generations definitely makes that theme stand out in my mind.
The major themes of the gilded age are how forces (government, corporations, labor unions) interacted with the new themes and issues presented in the new age of rapid industrialization. Issues such as speculation, labor reform, the "money question", among others- while not necessarily being new issues- became the biggest political and social debates. Presidential reigns were marred by scandal (especially Grant), and many of the issues facing America were deep and dark issues. The very name of the gilded age, coined by Mark Twain, implies in its very nature a sense of covering of gold-- everything is covered in this illusion of wealth. What is being covered up are the issues such as wage slavery, maltreatment of workers, corruption, and poverty. How the government and other organizations would deal with those issues was a major theme of the coming progressive era.
One thing I found interesting was the debate of why people are rich or poor. Some say people were poor or wealthy because of systemic reasons. Others, such as Herbert Spencer, cited Social Darwinism and natural selection. Another issue that arose was how to go about helping the poor. Andrew Carnegie, who believed in Social Darwinism, felt a moral obligation to use his wealth to help educate the poor. If he gave the poor the tools to succeed, and they remained poor, then he concluded that it was their fault and they are not the fittest. I find this to be a better alternative to welfare programs we have that keep the poor afloat, but doesn't help them out of poverty. Educating the poor and giving them the opportunity to succeed and escape poverty can have a greater impact on the economy, if the people work hard enough. My question is though, can we actually expect the poor to thrive in these education programs while dealing with the daily struggles created by poverty?
One theme that stood out to me this week was that of Social Darwinism, the idea that those who were less wealthy were somehow weaker and that Americans did not have any obligation to one another. I also found the conflicting and opposing viewpoints on this interesting, such as Carnegie's obligation to philanthropy and Henry George’s view that poverty was something of a crime.
One of the themes that I found interesting this week was the subjugation of the poor to poverty through systemic factors. Proponents of Social Darwinism, like Carnegie, believed that poverty was a result of weakness. They neglected to realize that poverty only aggregated as their wealth augmented because corporate leaders, again like Carnegie, tried to cut costs by paying workers less denying them a living wage. The attitudes of Social Darwinists towards wage laborers thrust many Americans into deplorable conditions of poverty, the effects of which were long lasting. My question is what role did the U.S. government play in the solidification of systemic factors leading to poverty?
One theme that stood out to me this week was the divergent views of money and economic policy. I think the struggle between soft and hard money, and the competing desires of debtors and creditors are very interesting because they emphasize the growing difference between the poorer classes and the wealthier classes.
Additionally, I think that the changing social thought and the emergence of opposing ideas like Social Darwinism and the notion of poverty as a crime speak to this growing divide. Social Darwinism, which rejects the idea that poverty is a systemic problem and rather attributes economic failure to the individual was popular among wealthy businessmen who felt as though they had earned their money entirely due to their own ambition and intelligence.
The lectures and readings this week made me question the role of political reform and an expanding electoral base on changing government policies relating to poverty and systemic economic limitations.
An idea that stood out to me this week was how systemic factors determined how wealthy a person would become, not the amount of work they did. Factory workers would do backbreaking work all day and only receive a fraction of what the factory manager or owner would be paid. I found this interesting because many migrants moved to America to pursue the American Dream, which was based on labor resulting to success, when in reality they were living in the opposite situation.
A theme that stood out to me this week was the money question. The government could either aid the side of big business and keep the gold standard. Or they could chose to help the farmers by inflating some of the money supply with silver coinage, thus decreasing the amount they owe in debt.
A major theme that stood out to me was the debate between social Darwinists and those who believed that poverty was a result of systemic factors. These opposing beliefs shaped people's political beliefs at the time. For example, the wealthy, who tended to believe in Social Darwinism, supported the gold standard and limiting the amount of money in circulation. The poor and middle class tended to believe that poverty was a result of corruption and systemic factors, and supported a bimetallic standard.
The theme of "The Money Question" stood out for me in this week's readings and lectures, specifically pertaining to the Gilded Age. The differences in preferences between hard money and soft money depicted the extreme differences in economic standing in the country at this time. While bankers and industrialists often preferred hard money, producing no more money than what the nation has in gold, less wealthy people preferred soft money, which allowed loans from the bank.
ReplyDeleteThe theme that stood out to me this week was the debate between whether Social Darwinism or systemic factors were responsible for the wealth and poverty that had become present in America. I thought this was interesting because I think it is still a major theme discussed today in politics. The start of this debate is here and is due to the rise of big businesses. While both explanations make sense and have justification, it is a matter of opinion as to which one a person exercises, which can have a major effect on others. I especially thought Carnegie's viewpoint was unique because while he thought he had a responsibility to give his money back to the public, he did not trust the individual with his money due to his Social Darwinism ideas.
ReplyDeleteOne idea that I found particularly interesting about the Gilded Age was that of "discovering" wealth and poverty. The fact that excessive displays of wealth and exhibits of poverty were a staple of this time period wasn't surprising to me, but I did question how things as timeless as wealth and poverty could be "discovered". As we learned about the industrial revolution and saw how systemic factors emerged as the driving force behind the allocation of wealth it became clear how wealth and poverty were different than they ever had been previously. These systemic factors were responsible for many significant social and political developments of the time. The fact that the evolution of one theme changed many different aspects of life and sparked debates that have lasted through many generations definitely makes that theme stand out in my mind.
ReplyDeleteThe major themes of the gilded age are how forces (government, corporations, labor unions) interacted with the new themes and issues presented in the new age of rapid industrialization. Issues such as speculation, labor reform, the "money question", among others- while not necessarily being new issues- became the biggest political and social debates. Presidential reigns were marred by scandal (especially Grant), and many of the issues facing America were deep and dark issues. The very name of the gilded age, coined by Mark Twain, implies in its very nature a sense of covering of gold-- everything is covered in this illusion of wealth. What is being covered up are the issues such as wage slavery, maltreatment of workers, corruption, and poverty. How the government and other organizations would deal with those issues was a major theme of the coming progressive era.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I found interesting was the debate of why people are rich or poor. Some say people were poor or wealthy because of systemic reasons. Others, such as Herbert Spencer, cited Social Darwinism and natural selection. Another issue that arose was how to go about helping the poor. Andrew Carnegie, who believed in Social Darwinism, felt a moral obligation to use his wealth to help educate the poor. If he gave the poor the tools to succeed, and they remained poor, then he concluded that it was their fault and they are not the fittest. I find this to be a better alternative to welfare programs we have that keep the poor afloat, but doesn't help them out of poverty. Educating the poor and giving them the opportunity to succeed and escape poverty can have a greater impact on the economy, if the people work hard enough. My question is though, can we actually expect the poor to thrive in these education programs while dealing with the daily struggles created by poverty?
ReplyDeleteOne theme that stood out to me this week was that of Social Darwinism, the idea that those who were less wealthy were somehow weaker and that Americans did not have any obligation to one another. I also found the conflicting and opposing viewpoints on this interesting, such as Carnegie's obligation to philanthropy and Henry George’s view that poverty was something of a crime.
ReplyDeleteOne of the themes that I found interesting this week was the subjugation of the poor to poverty through systemic factors. Proponents of Social Darwinism, like Carnegie, believed that poverty was a result of weakness. They neglected to realize that poverty only aggregated as their wealth augmented because corporate leaders, again like Carnegie, tried to cut costs by paying workers less denying them a living wage. The attitudes of Social Darwinists towards wage laborers thrust many Americans into deplorable conditions of poverty, the effects of which were long lasting. My question is what role did the U.S. government play in the solidification of systemic factors leading to poverty?
ReplyDeleteOne theme that stood out to me this week was the divergent views of money and economic policy. I think the struggle between soft and hard money, and the competing desires of debtors and creditors are very interesting because they emphasize the growing difference between the poorer classes and the wealthier classes.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, I think that the changing social thought and the emergence of opposing ideas like Social Darwinism and the notion of poverty as a crime speak to this growing divide. Social Darwinism, which rejects the idea that poverty is a systemic problem and rather attributes economic failure to the individual was popular among wealthy businessmen who felt as though they had earned their money entirely due to their own ambition and intelligence.
The lectures and readings this week made me question the role of political reform and an expanding electoral base on changing government policies relating to poverty and systemic economic limitations.
An idea that stood out to me this week was how systemic factors determined how wealthy a person would become, not the amount of work they did. Factory workers would do backbreaking work all day and only receive a fraction of what the factory manager or owner would be paid. I found this interesting because many migrants moved to America to pursue the American Dream, which was based on labor resulting to success, when in reality they were living in the opposite situation.
ReplyDeleteA theme that stood out to me this week was the money question. The government could either aid the side of big business and keep the gold standard. Or they could chose to help the farmers by inflating some of the money supply with silver coinage, thus decreasing the amount they owe in debt.
ReplyDeleteA major theme that stood out to me was the debate between social Darwinists and those who believed that poverty was a result of systemic factors. These opposing beliefs shaped people's political beliefs at the time. For example, the wealthy, who tended to believe in Social Darwinism, supported the gold standard and limiting the amount of money in circulation. The poor and middle class tended to believe that poverty was a result of corruption and systemic factors, and supported a bimetallic standard.
ReplyDelete