Is the American industrial age the ultimate proof that free market capitalism is the fastest way to grow a country's...

Is the American industrial age the ultimate proof that free market capitalism is the fastest way to grow a country's economy, Sup Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Russia#Industrialization_and_Collectivization
artir.wordpress.com/2016/03/26/the-soviet-union-gdp-growth/
youtube.com/watch?v=4Vw6uF2LdZw
theverge.com/2016/6/1/11836816/iphone-vs-android-history-charts)
statista.com/statistics/232790/forecast-of-apple-users-in-the-us/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Idk. Didn't Stalin manage the same with socialism in less time?

>free market capitalism

We were a managed market then. What you're seeing today is the result 40yrs of free market capitalism.

Did he?
>We were a managed market then.
How so? What regulations were imposed that are absent today?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Russia#Industrialization_and_Collectivization

Looks like it

The 5 Year Plans did manage to rapidly industrialize the Soviet Union but the advances came at the expense of the workers.

The government didn't create policies to support industrialists -- not as the intent anyway. Policies the government adopted were to foster economic independence. Tariffs also didn't lead to lower prices, it just allowed domestic industry to thrive. However, there being a lack of regulations at the time in the 1800s weren't necessarily a good thing.

We weren't a managed economy and what we've seen since the 80s is market fundamentalism -- at least until 2008ish, since then it seems as though most western nations have been largely directionless as far as economic policy ideals go. If anything, we're running on the fumes of the sewage that is market fundamentalism.

But standards of living were absolute shit and millions of people died of starvation

>manage the same
Not even close. USSR was midget in 1939 comparing to the US. US produced like half of teh world oil and cars. It was just insane industry giant.

You asked if capitalism was the fastest. I only provided proof to the contrary. Morality is a different matter entirely.

I'm not familiar with the industrialisation of Germany, but it reached its zenith under Hitler's socialist regime, iirc - I could be wrong. They might be more comparable to the US in terms of morality.

The US had been industrialised for 75 years by that point, though. I don't think that's a fair comparison to make.

I live next door to one of the Vanderbilt properties. Factually speaking our street was where their Equestrian trainer lived and horses were stabled. I love visiting the main house this time of year, always decked out for Christmas.

They only went to this house a few times a year but had dozens of paid staff year round living there. These particular Vanderbilts died childless so willed the house to a niece, who couldn't afford the taxes on it, so she sold it to FDR for $1.

He in turn donated it to the American people as a National Park and Historic site. I walk my dog there every morning.

Pic related.

Also...these people made fortunes because they were geniuses. Intelligence or lack thereof is the only reason why people in 1st world countries are poor.

I'd say Germany reached its industrialization Zenith with Otto Von Bismarck using a very similar system of protectionism as the US at the time.

>...these people made fortunes because they were geniuses. Intelligence or lack thereof is the only reason why people in 1st world countries are poor.
Goodest goy

Yeah, just read up on it.

Disregard , OP

The fastest way to grow an economy. Since 'the economy' by itself is not quantifiable, you need a proxy and standards of living or GDP per capita are one. I don't think the Soviets grew as fast as the US did.

Germany had a great wartime economy under Hitler, but was in complete and utter shambles after the war. The recovery of (west) Germany after the war is commonly referred to as the 'wirtschaftswunder' (economic miracle) and was achieved primarily through complete deregulation.

Oh I posted before I read this. Retroactively disregarded.

Soviet Union probably had more available manpower during the time of Stalin than the US did in the gilded age.

Why aren't you a billionaire with a Monopoly?

>Intelligence or lack thereof is the only reason why people in 1st world countries are poor.
I suppose if we're painting with really broad ideological brushstrokes, maybe. It's more about a historical lack of meaningful industrial policy, most of these nations had extended soirées into socialism which maintained their poverty for most of the 20th century, then most of them fell prey to the free trade meme which continues to ensure their poverty and dependence. The only countries that have broken free (relatively) are the ones which adopted industrial policy and protectionism (mostly administrative in these modern times).

No, it proves unbridled access to cheap resources, lack of pollution controls, and cheap immigrant labor can make overnight millionaires.

Rockefeller
Ford
Vanderbilt
Carnegie

The fastest economical growth was The Soviet Unions industrialization under Stalins command.

Why didn't Africa develop this much?
They had resources and cheap labour

Makes you think

Muh zebras

The Soviet Union really didn't do that well.

artir.wordpress.com/2016/03/26/the-soviet-union-gdp-growth/

Doesn't this graph prove that the USSR was able to achieve the same rate of GDP growth as the US pre-WWI, though?

Meant as a reply to

Being there when it happened doesn't make you responsible for it happening.

Industrial revolution, post industrial development, etc. One can only imagine what would have happened without Stalin murdering his own people and hogtying private development.

That doesn't really mean anything since the Soviet union only formed post WWI (well, 1917 but you get my point).

It wasn't the Soviet Union pre-WWI
It had a Tsar

I meant that the post-revolutionary (socialist) rate of growth is comparable to that of pre-WWI US.

That it is unusual, since I didn't know the USA grew much faster post WW2.
I thought the fastest US growth would be in the 19th century / 1920s

>I didn't know the USA grew much faster post WW2.

Post WWII economy was fueled by soldiers coming home with cash in pocket, the housing boom where every family had their own house (ending multigenerational housing), the shift from war manufacturing to consumer goods (govt paid for lots of factory expansion for war goods, and they just gave the equipment away to the companies that used it), the advent of two income families because a lot of the women who worked during the war wanted to keep working, all driven by the desire to return to consumer based instead of war based economy.

No, the US grew much faster and consistently did so for more than a century. The chart in the article only starts at 1870 but the industrialization of the USA started way earlier.

Secondly, it's not really fair to look at growth in one period and disregard the stagnation right after. It's like looking at a particularly good day of the S&P500 and saying 'on that day we averaged 750% annual growth', or as the article puts it: "Stopping our analysis when the planning system stopped working well seems to me like stopping an analysis of the Spanish economy just when the housing bubble was about to pop."

Yeah, women entering the workforce must be a big difference

>The US had been industrialised for 75 years by that point, though.
In 1864 US had 20% of urban population. Not even close to stop been agrarian shithole. US crossed 50% mark in the 1920.

No, they were all geniuses that created monopolies through genius investment abs strategy based development. They also exclusively competed with one another and found ways to either shorthand or bankrupt each others businesses for fun. Period.

There is absolutely nothing keeping anyone from becoming a billionaire in America.

No. we were the only ones with factories still standing after the war. Once they caught up we languished (1970s)

USSR and China both rapidly industrialized with state control of industry. These systems were good at putting unused capital into use but it was bad at being productive with it. That's why the USSR tanked the East German economy but did really well with undeveloped areas further east.

The Chinese model to my mind is the fastest way to grow your economy because they're very practical. They use the state when they need to and companies when they need to. Now whether their authoritarian political system is good or bad I'll leave to you.

We weren't managed in the sense of a command economy where a centralized government controls everything. We were managed in the sense that we weren't a liaise fair free market system. Even OP's pic shows that. We protected fledgling industry, we promoted infrastructure, we created a system which allowed big industries to flourish.

Other countries being industrialised is in general good for each given country.
People can only buy things if they're making money

All of China should have followed the model of Hong Kong.
Hong Kong is a lot richer.
China is still third world

Are high tariffs good for businesses at home?

Hong Kong and China are very different though. Do you really think they could both follow the same plan?

Tons of states have done a good job at industrializing.

Fair enough.

Why would it make much difference?
All you need to do is let businesses set up easily and don't tax them too hard
Cuba was arguably doing better under the mafia than under the communists, since at least they didn't mess around in industry

>Is the American industrial age the ultimate proof that free market capitalism is the fastest way to grow a country's economy, Sup Forums?

No, proof doesn't work like that. You can't "prove" any economic theory empirically as it's impossible to repeat experiments, control variables, quantify millions of subjective variables, etc.

That being said, you do see a tremendous amount of growth and success from people who started with very little and made incredible countries that benefited all of mankind. If you don't drink the high school history teacher kool-aid and actually study the specifics of the "gilded age" and the people, it comes off as generally pretty good. Literally nothing leftists teachers say is true, and most of Sup Forums posters are legit retards who think they're redpilled because they realized niggers are dumb, but they don't bother studying shit either.

youtube.com/watch?v=4Vw6uF2LdZw

Plz watch.

You're implying they owned literally all industry and business which is preposterous. Railroads, banking, steel, and oil weren't the be-all, end-all of American business.

You're also factually incorrect about them having any direct competition. At most, they had some spats with each other or cross-industry deals.

Furthermore, it doesn't take a genius to use anti-competitive monopolistic practices. It takes money and size, sure, but not genius. Virtually all of the time, it's just the obvious thing to do if you're not barred by regulation.

>Furthermore, it doesn't take a genius to use anti-competitive monopolistic practices.

You're right, it doesn't take a genius. In fact it usually takes idiots because nearly every historical example of businesses trying to use "anti-competitive monopolistic practices" shot themselves in the foot.

>No. we were the only ones with factories still standing after the war.


Yes, and no. The Marshall Plan put Europe back together as goods producers, and teh Soviets after entering Berlin, had a second line of invaders right behind the troops. The had an army of trucks moving into Germany and surrounding areas and disassembled every factory they could find and trucked the equipment back home.

The stagnation of Soviet development post war wasn't due to lack of machinery, but lack of entrepreneurs to startup and run factories.

Simply having the means to produce goods doesn't make you productive unless you allow the factories to produce. The incentive for production is called profit. Something not allowed.

Not so at all -- at least not before anti-trust legislation became a thing.

>gilded age
>ignoring the fact that it led to the great depression
>free market capitalism is best

Lol, phew lad. You're retarded.

That doesn't work in places where there is no capital yet. It could develop through a free market but it's just easier if the state does that in the beginning.

Also Castro Cuba did better in other respects.

High tariffs aren't good. Or free market.

> it led to the great depression
There's a 40 year gap between the end of the gilded age and the great depression. That seems like a very peculiar correlation you're drawing.

They did own practically everything important. Needed their steel to make tracks, needed oil and kerosene to heat homes and light lamps, needed to transport all of this to different places. Through sheer genius and tenacity they undercut all competition and created mega empires. Gates and Jobs followed their business models to a T and became insanely wealthy. Ford and Mills did the same thing.

There is no such thing as a poor genius. A poverty stricken genius is this way by choice, like the Unabomber.

>the gilded age caused the great depression
>le gilded age meme
is that what they are teaching in school now? or are you just a retard?

I'm an undergraduate in economics btw

It's true though. The sectors supposedly dominated by monopolies had rapidly falling prices

The Central Bank created the crash and then it was prolonged by a decade by uncertainty and regulations

Again, why aren't you a billionaire?

Absolutely nothing is stopping you.

>Not so at all -- at least not before anti-trust legislation became a thing.

1.)Define monopoly that is not just "lol they were a big company"
2.)Give a specific example of a monopoly and show how it met the above definition
3.)Explain it's negative externalities on the economy and how it definitely outweighed any positives it brought
4.)Also demonstrate that the example was not a result of some government law
5.)Show how the government then solved this problem, and without creating unintended consequences causing more damage in the long run

Gigantic inner market + european rationalism

The government would only be getting its resources from the people anyway.
Doesn't grow on trees.
You could say the government should force people to invest money instead of spending on consumption, but that's a bit mean and could hurt them

What circumstances led to Sir Richard Branson's wealth?

>pls do my homework

>youtube.com/watch?v=4Vw6uF2LdZw
Cool, thanks.

>what is burden of proof?
kek. You got BTFO

IDs exist for a reason.

This is why you're not wealthy...

>income stopped rising because of free market capitalism
>n-not because we doubled the supply of labor
>you sexist!
feminist communists will never convince anyone that capitalism led to wage stagnation

>>pls do my homework

No, please do YOUR homework. I already know you can't answer it as I've studied literally every example given in depth, but I thought it would be fun to see you dodge the question.

Sure it could hurt them but so is being in a country that relies on its exports of natural resources. Japanese and Chinese were extremely hard on their workers but they got something out of it. Whereas it just sucks being in a lot of African countries and you have the same or other problems but no advancement.

Industrialization sucked everywhere really but now those countries have better lives. Although yes the government can only get resources from taxation (other than rent collection which is another issue in itself) so having full state control poses some (obviously) problems

By regulations which actually made the Great Depression great in the first place. Hoover and FDR are both guilty of this.

See
You weren't talking to me.

Do your own homework.

thank you kek for marking this mason
that was a good number to identify him
now everyone understands
that he understands nothing

I understand enough to know nothing, literally nothing is stopping you from becoming wealthy.

>make an incredible claim
>someone asks for the necessary evidence
>"no"
>you got BTFO
>your response to me pointing this out:
>This is why you're not wealthy.

hahahhaha cummunists are such pretentious deadbrains.

you're really falling apart at this point

name a single monopoly then. I did my homework and still have not found a single one not supported by statism (the opposite of market capitalism)

ancaps ARE wealthy
people just like you said the exact same things when bitcoin was one dollar
well they're not laughing now

>We were a managed market then.

We're a managed economy ever since the FED, and then coming off the Gold Standard.

Things like mandated minimum wage is just propaganda to appease the lower and middle classes. What's the point of the same people controlling the minimum wage when they also control the value of each dollar in that wage.

Here's a 3 dollar raise we passed into law. But don't pay attention to that three dollars actually making your wage 1.50 less than 5 years ago because of inflation and an unchecked increase of Dollars put into circulation.

Yeah, I would accept an argument for forced saving
A lot of people don't save enough money and actually report on surveys that they aren't saving enough
The government could take their money and invest in stock market / infrastructure, and pay them back with interest

>The government could take their money and invest in stock market / infrastructure, and pay them back with interest

You're new to this planet, aren't you...

>high tariffs lead to lower prices
There really is no bottom when it comes to stupidity on this board

They already do it, but they should do it more

>Through sheer genius and tenacity
M&A to consolidate most notable competition, replace higher margins with higher volume (until you've attained the mass majority of the market), suppress wages and benefits to help fuel more M&A within the same industry. They didn't provide any particularly unique product to beat competition, they just ensured there was none.

>Gates and Jobs followed their business models to a T
Lolno. If they did, they'd have had anti-trust legislation rammed so far up their ass, they'd have exploded.

Prices aren't necessarily indicative of total profitability. Wal-mart and Costco are good examples of replacing margins by pushing volume.

Attainment of the vast majority of the market share. Standard oil. Rent-seeking behavior, eventual higher prices compared to competitive markets, dependence on a single group for a necessary item (power consolidation) leading to undue political pull, fewer people employed due to the elimination of redundancy from formerly competing companies, etc. What's to demonstrate; there was no law preventing mass market consolidation. Standard oil was broken into over 100 different companies (which eventually reconsolidated over time into ExxonMobil and chevron).

>>high tariffs lead to lower prices
>There really is no bottom when it comes to stupidity on this board

Let me tell you a story.

Back in the 80's Hitachi started to import the frst compound sliding miter box. They sold a ton of them.

They were so successful, that Black and Decker filed a class action against them with the FTC and accused them of dumping. Dumping is where you sell a product for less than it's cost to manufacture to drive competition out of the market. Now at the time, Black and Decker had no competing product, so was technically was ineligible to file, but they had lots of lawyers and succeeded.

The FTC placed a 175 dollar import fee on every single unit imported. Guess what the product was so in demand, people paid the higher price.

At that point, Hitachi said "Fuck it, lets keep that extra 175 for ourselves." So they bought a factory and imported the parts and assembled them here. Now since they were no longer an imported item, the tariff no longer applied.

Hitachi sold the units at the higher price and pocketed the difference.

tl;dr: A high tariff artificially raised the price on goods, and forced consumers to pay more.

Uh huh....

>muh gubmint conspiracy

How many ISP options do you have where you live?

>you said

I never said. I support Capitalism, I've benefited from it a great deal.

What "proof" did you provide?

Diferent eras same timespan?

Is that supposed yo be an "argument" or a "comparison"? Because it is niether.

>far surpassing Germany's pace of industrialization in the 19th century and Japan's earlier in the 20th century.[citation needed]

Fucking uppity snownigger

You weren't alive when Gates was brought up on Federal charges...were you...

>They already do it, but they should do it more

Examples?

maybe like Social Security where people actually paid into a fund that the Government used as their private piggy bank.

Or the NJ Parkway or Turnpike where the tolls were supposed to be temporary until the construction costs of the roads were paid off. That happened over 50 years age, but we still have those tolls.

Once the Government gets their hands on a source of money, they never let go.

Of course low prices indicate low profitability, but the whole point is to have low prices.
They got a large market share by pleasing consumers.

If they stopped pleasing consumers, they would have lost the market share.

They had already lost a third of it when they got broken up

Microsoft, you mean. But that was related to Apple dying at the time which would have left Microsoft as a monopoly in the OS market. So, in an effort to salvage the situation, they tried to inject capital into Apple to keep it afloat. It was really a lose-lose situation but I can see where they'd have thought they had a better chance of dodging anti-trust problems otherwise. A similar situation could be described if AMD went bankrupt and left Intel as a CPU monopoly and NVidia as a GPU monopoly; it's kind of a lose-lose no matter what they might try to do.

One single invention rescued Apple. The iPod. The Newton is what bankrupted them...much like Blackberry's Storm.

>Of course low prices indicate low profitability
Huh, weird, wal-mart and Costco make billions a quarter.

>If they stopped pleasing consumers, they would have lost the market share.
Unless you have a monopoly (consumers have little to no choice). You can just raise prices if you do and buyout any notable up-and-coming competition.

>The Newton is what bankrupted them
Don't forget Lisa.

But the iPod and the associated music licensing kept Apple from the big 11.

The iPhone is where their money came from. 7/10 people who own cellular phones have an iPhone (in developed countries). Their marketing campaigns are always inticing. I enjoy my Android more than the iPhone thoughm

I didn't say Microsoft necessarily 'rescued' apple in any long-term sense, just that at the time the capital Apple got from Microsoft helped stay bankruptcy for a time to prevent Microsoft from getting broken up from anti-trust legislation. If apple didn't start producing those weird colorful desktops and a few other things, Microsoft would have been in the same situation later on down the road.

fastest doesn't mean best

Doubtful, Unix, Linux and Unbuntu aren't "user friendly" OS's. Nearly all government computers depend on Microsoft. Hence the word Monopoly was used in my previous statements. They have nearly all the world by its balls.

>The iPhone is where their money came from.

iPhone was post iPod. iPod profits paid for it's development.

Also, MS makes a huge profit on each iPhone because of patent licensing. (even more from Android phones).

But I'd like to see a source on the 7/10 figure.


(img source: theverge.com/2016/6/1/11836816/iphone-vs-android-history-charts)

I think you misunderstand the point of the anti-trust legislation. The idea is to maintain sufficient choice for consumers. Before the 2000s, apple had even less market share but it was there. If apple went under, it was basically just Microsoft that consumers had left. Sure, there was Linux but their market share was practically microscopic and I don't think any computers were made with Linux loaded onto it innately as an OS.

statista.com/statistics/232790/forecast-of-apple-users-in-the-us/

Voodoo PC used Linux as a default, bought out by Lenovo like IBM in the mid 2000s. Great lappys, loved mine.