The Robber Barons' Bum Rap

When learning about US history, all students are taught about the oil, railroad, and banking tycoons, such as Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, and Gould, respectively. It is most commonly discussed how these businessmen accrued massive fortunes by buying out competitors and forming trusts. Due to these actions, the government created new laws specifically to prohibit the formation of monopolies in order to protect competition. Consequently, these industrialists were branded with the title "Robber Barons" and were accused of twisting business practices in unethical ways at the expense of the economy just to amass their personal fortunes. Upon deeper inspection, however, it becomes apparent that these business savvy entrepreneurs were actually the cornerstone of American industry and revolutionized the economy. Through ruthlessness, diligence, efficiency, and an uncanny business sense, they were able to organize and run their companies in the most efficient manner possible. By doing so, not only did they increase profits, but also managed to greatly lower prices for consumers. Many choose to portray these entrepreneurs as immoral, unpleasant villains, but in actuality, these men made America what it is today by revolutionizing industry and taking risks when others would not. They recognized that there was an opportunity to take advantage of cheap labor and resources and the lack of government restrictions, and so, they formed some of the largest enterprises America had seen. What truly drove these men was the game itself, or competition in business so to speak. Large personal profits were a by-product of their policies, but not what the industrialists cared about. Big business always was most important to them, as evidenced by the fact that many of the millionaires donated significant amounts of their vast fortunes. Primarily they were business men, but after that they were philanthropists. For example, Rockefeller gave away over half of his fortune, and as a result, Rockefeller Center bears his name. Likewise, dozens of other landmarks, such as Carnegie Hall, New York University, the Morgan Library, and the Metropolitan Museum of Art were only made possible by the charitable endowments these entrepreneurs provided. Despite being called greedy, unethical, and ruthless, these men were some of the most charitable philanthropists to come along in American history and should be remembered for their generosity, brilliance, and motivation above all else.

Economics: Science or Art?

Economics is a social science in that it focuses on the study of society and the social relationships that individuals have within it. Like other sciences, economics relies on the scientific method of forming a hypothesis and testing situations and developing models in order to support or refute the hypothesis. After studies are conducted, then theories and generalizations can be made. While an important part of the field is deriving theories and principles from information arranged in cause and effect order, these conclusions will not always hold true for every participant in the economy. Generalizations can be made about the tendencies of the typical consumer or firm, but there will always be a few who do not fall perfectly in line with economists' conclusions. This being said, however, economics is still a crucial science and helps explain real-world situations. It can be used to aid: politicians and governments in making policies; consumers in attaining maximum satisfaction of their wants; and businesses to reach full efficiency so no asset is under-utilized. Because economics is such an important field in explaining the way society works to fulfill the wants and needs of people, its achievements deserve to be recognized through the Nobel Prize foundation.

Home Ownership for All?

In America, the government has put great emphasis on owning a home being a crucial aspect in achieving the American dream and contributing to society. Government has encouraged ownership through tax deductions on mortgage payments. Companies sponsored by the government also provide cheap financing for those looking to buy a house but don't offer this opportunity to people renting. There are various advantages to owning a house not just for the homeowners, but also society itself. Home-owning encourages people to save more money in order to pay off the mortgage, and this saving in general enables them to accumulate wealth. The economy also tends to do better when housing prices are up because people feel as though they have more money and are willing to buy more goods and services. Social benefits also arise from house ownership. Those who own homes tend to be more involved in their community, have more stable lives, and their children perform better in school.
Despite the many advantages of owning a home, it is accompanied by drawbacks as well. The risk of negative equity can be detrimental and may result in a person losing their entire savings and having their credit destroyed. This is because homes are bought on margin and consume mass amounts of money. Once you own a house, it is quite difficult to make money off of it since housing is not a liquid asset. The entire house must be sold, not just a room or two, making it hard to make a profit. But in the end, it would seem as though the benefits outweigh the disadvantages of owning a home. This is not to say, however, that renting is necessarily bad. Renting can be very helpful and practical for young adults who are just starting out. It enables them to move from place to place more easily without being tied down to one area. Later on in life, home ownership becomes more practical when a family and permanent job come into the picture because it provides a sense of stability and security.

Does Money Buy Happiness?

According to Sharon Begley, the conventional wisdom that money buys happiness is false but crucial to the survival of the economy because it persuades people to continue buying goods and services that they either want or need. She states that the only time when money can significantly impact one's happiness is when it brings him across the threshold between poverty and the middle class. I agree with this statement because enough money to live comfortably drastically changes how one views everything if he was previously living in poverty and struggling to make end's meet. The things that give life meaning, such as family, friendship, good health, and enjoyment, contribute far more to overall happiness than any amount of wealth. However, for many income still plays a vital role in their lives and often determines what direction they will take. Some will choose the job with a higher salary over the one they get more enjoyment out of. Money is an extremely persuasive thing, and since it is necessary to have in order to survive, many figure that their best option is to do whatever will provide them with the most of it. While wealth does enable one to live comfortably and prevents him from worrying about putting food on the table, it is also accompanied by drawbacks. Money expands one's choices, but this means more time spent over second-guessing if the product you bought was really the best choice compared to other brands. Additionally, wealth can consequently make someone more materialistic, and he will always be waiting for the next best thing to buy but never truly be content with what he already owns. Begley brings up many valid points in the article, all of which I agree with. Too much emphasis is put on wealth and income; however, people will always want frivolous things that they think will bring happiness and will buy them if they can be afforded.