Reddit reviews How Capitalism Saved America: The Untold History of Our Country, from the Pilgrims to the Present

We found 8 Reddit comments about How Capitalism Saved America: The Untold History of Our Country, from the Pilgrims to the Present. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

Check price on Amazon

8 Reddit comments about How Capitalism Saved America: The Untold History of Our Country, from the Pilgrims to the Present:

u/CaptainFalcon___ · 5 pointsr/Libertarian

How Capitalism Saved America by Thomas DiLorenzo is a fast read that covers all of this well. The Myth of The Robber Barons by Burton Folsom is more in-depth.

u/Goyims · 3 pointsr/badhistory

I just googled his name...

http://www.amazon.com/How-Capitalism-Saved-America-Pilgrims/dp/1400083311

u/lucadarex · 2 pointsr/starterpacks

In the end the republicans and the democrats are extremely similar. I'm going to vote for Rand Paul but there is no chance he will win. I recommend this book it helps show what makes this country work. Good luck!

u/tgjj123 · 1 pointr/Libertarian

u/video_descriptionbot · 1 pointr/Libertarian

SECTION | CONTENT
:--|:--
Title | The Myth of Natural Monopoly | by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
Description | Buy 'How Capitalism Saved America | by Thomas J. DiLorenzo': http://amzn.to/1GUXmEK --- My website: http://www.vforvoluntary.com/ Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/austrian_economics/ The 2006 Steven Berger Seminar: Thomas DiLorenzo on Liberty and American Civilization http://mises.org/events/86 June 5-9, 2006 LUDWIG VON MISES INSTITUTE - CREATIVE COMMONS ATTRIBUTION 3.0 MP3 files of this lecture series 1-5: http://www.mediafire.com/?lol1q61emb1ac98 6-10: http://www.mediafire.com/?bmrem3dswc...
Length | 1:06:14

****

^(I am a bot, this is an auto-generated reply | )^Info ^| ^Feedback ^| ^(Reply STOP to opt out permanently)

u/jbbeefy57 · 1 pointr/politics

Sorry that I couldn't respond sooner, I was pretty busy all yesterday. That being said, I have a couple objections to what you said.

>People lived in absolute grinding poverty during that period

Yes, they did. They also lived in poverty before that and before that and before that and so on. Poverty was never a new thing. Now during the 1800 and 1900s people saw ways out of poverty and that was working in factories.

I am going to assume that you are talking about the industrialization of the United States and the poor living conditions that these people had. Tell me, what sense would it make for people to move to cities from farms, poorhouses or even the streets if they did not think that they could have a better opportunity in the city? Factory owners did not force these laborers to the cities, these people went voluntarily. To quote Ludwig von Mises who says it better than I ever could:

“The factory owners did not have the power to compel anybody to take a factory job. They could only hire people who were ready to work for the wages offered to them. Low as these wage rates were, they were nonetheless much more than these paupers could earn in any other field open to them. It is a distortion of facts to say that the factories carried off the housewives from the nurseries and the kitchens and the children from their play. These women had nothing to cook with and to feed their children. These children were destitute and starving. Their only refuge was the factory. It saved them in the strict sense of the term, from death by starvation."

> women couldn't vote, black people were second class citizens subject to terrorism from the Klan and corrupt public officials, Asians were excluded from entering the country. You call that a golden age?

All of those things that you listed were government regulations that were put on these people. I approve of none of those things. Yeah, it definitely sucked that these people were oppressed, but if the government was smaller or non-existent, none of those things would have happened.

>The entire progressive movement in American sprung to combat the human misery and excesses of the Robber Barons during that period.

No, it wasn't the progressive movement that dealt with human misery and allowed humans to work less, children not to work, etc. It was capitalism that allowed for all these things to happen.

Think about this for a second. Before the industrialization of America and other countries, no one thought that escaping poverty was possible. People worked long hours because they had to work long hours. Children worked because if they didn't, their family would starve. It wasn't the progressive movement that allowed us to no longer be oppressed by nature.

You can’t outlaw starvation by saying “Okay, no more children working and everyone now has a 40 hour work week.” You get time off and children have to stop working once laborers are earning enough money for the work that they are doing.

Look at the situation in Bangladesh. Child labor was outlawed and now look where the children are. They are now taking jobs as prostitutes because they have no other way to make money. Thomas DiLorenzo says:

"Those who deplore "child labor" and "sweatshops" fail to recognize or acknowledge that as deplorable as these conditions may seem by the standards of modern-day America, these people are much better off for having the opportunity to work in a higher paying factory. In many parts of today's world starvation is still the alternative to budding capitalism. To child laborers in parts of the world, the alternatives to "sweatshop labor" are malnutrition and starvation, child prostitution, and begging and stealing."

You also mention the Robber Barons and how they were awful capitalists. I’m going to suggest two books for you to read.

How Capitalism Saved America by Thomas DiLorenzo
The Myth of the Robber Barons by Burt W. Folsom

However, I can sum those two books up for you real quickly. The “Robber Barons” that you know from US History, were definitely not as awful as you think they were. Also, I’m getting all my information from How Capitalism Saved America in the seventh chapter called The Truth about the “Robber Barons”. Everything has citations in the book.

John D. Rockefeller, “Even though John D. Rockefeller’s company, Standard Oil, had at one point 90% of the market share of oil, the company greatly improved the quality and availability of kerosene products while reducing the costs of them by about 80%.” - Burt Folsom. So apparently providing much need products for a cheap price is a bad thing.

He also never purchased insurance on his plants because he knew that they were incredibly safe. His kerosene products were so cheap that it ended up replacing whale oil which was used a whole lot in the late 1800s. He paid his employees significantly more than his competition and he also believed in rewarding his most innovated managers with bonuses and paid time off.

Rockefeller never had a monopoly on oil in fact by the time that government got involved and was “Hey you have too much of the market share”, free market capitalism and competition already did the work itself and Rockefeller’s market share was only at about 60%.

There is plenty more that you can read for yourself in those books, but I really hope this made you think and reconsider.

u/thrashertm · 0 pointsr/atheism

I understood your point perfectly. My philosophy is that competition and a profit motive always yields better results for customers.

Public services can appear to be efficient when they are getting involuntary subsidies by taxpayers (Medicare, Amtrack), when in reality they are run on a deficit. They likely could not exist without the government coercing us into supporting them. Who under the age of 40 would pay into Medicare voluntarily these days, with the expectation of receiving medical care from it in 25 years?

Shelter has also become extremely affordable due to profit motive - look at motor homes and cheap apartments. Same thing with clothing. 100 years ago a decent suit cost $1000 in today's money, but today you can get one for $200-300. People can pay more for increased durability. Companies and entrepreneurs seek out and create solutions for every niche in a free market. In terms of food, a lot is unhealthy, but you can also buy organic or local or make healthier mainstream choices. No one forces people to eat garbage, and the fact that they choose to is one of the costs of a free society. We have to let people make bad decisions, or else suffer the consequences of letting busybodies in DC run our lives. At the very least, we can stop the government from interfering and distorting the market with subsidies, like they give to the corn producers.

In summary: everything that we enjoy today, from your phone to the skyscraper to the car to your shampoo - all were created by the profit motive. I doubt you will ever deign to do so, but you should check out this book - http://www.amazon.com/How-Capitalism-Saved-America-Pilgrims/dp/1400083311/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1256311261&amp;sr=8-2 it counters the mainstream propaganda we are subjected to about how the government should be providing this service or that service.

u/_cianuro_ · 0 pointsr/Libertarian

https://www.amazon.com/How-Capitalism-Saved-America-Pilgrims/dp/1400083311

Differs in that it has a commitment to the truth and isn't agenda-driven.