‘Often wrong but never in doubt’ is a phrase that summarizes much of what was done a century ago by Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, the two giants of the Progressive era.
Their legacy is very much alive today, both in their mindset — including government’s picking winners and losers in the economy and intervening in foreign countries — as well as specific institutions created during the Progressive era, such as the income tax and the Federal Reserve System.
Like so many Progressives today, Theodore Roosevelt felt no need to study economics before intervening in the economy. He said of “economic issues” that “I am not deeply interested in them, my problems are moral problems.” For example, he found it “unfair” that railroads charged different rates to different shippers, reaching the moral conclusion that these rates were discriminatory and should be forbidden “in every shape and form.”
Advertisement
It never seemed to occur to Roosevelt that there could be valid economic reasons for the railroads to charge the Standard Oil Company lower rates for shipping their oil. At a time when others shipped their oil in barrels, Standard Oil shipped theirs in tank cars — which required a lot less work by the railroads because they didn’t have to load and unload the same amount of oil in barrels.
Roosevelt was also morally offended by the fact that Standard Oil created “enormous fortunes” for its owners “at the expense of business rivals.” How a business can offer consumers lower prices without taking customers away from businesses that charge higher prices is a mystery still unsolved to the present day, when the very same arguments are used against Walmart.
The same preoccupation with being “fair” to high-cost producers who lose customers to low-cost producers has turned antitrust law on its head, generations after the Progressive era. Although antitrust laws and policies have been rationalized as ways of keeping monopolies from raising prices for consumers, the actual thrust of antitrust activity has often been against businesses that charged lower prices than their competitors.
Theodore Roosevelt’s antitrust attacks on low-price businesses in his time were echoed in later “fair trade” laws, and in attacks by the Federal Trade Commission, another agency spawned in the Progressive era against “unfair” competition.
Woodrow Wilson’s Progressivism was very much in the same mindset. Government intervention in the economy was justified on grounds that “society is the senior partner in all business.”
" What to make of a president who never bothers to reach outside his academic or political bubble to examine what others believe, and why?"
Annie, Dr. Sowell does a fairly good job of explaining this in his very readable book, "Intellectuals and Society." The short answer would seem to be that there is never a shortage of busy-body know-it-alls who are blinded by there conceits and driven by an unhealthy desire to control others.
I have always liked TR, but I wonder if his and President Obama's concern from the down trodden is born from huge egos that cause them to believe the lower classes could not possibly be as intelligent as they, and therefore need a leg up from the state.
But, then as now, those using noble-sounding rhetoric are seldom judged by the consequences of their ideas.
That's right. Never judge libprogs by results, only intentions. Only conservatives are to be held responsible. That's why the Bamster will still be blaming Bush for the lack of an economy through 2012.
I had not thought of the anti-trust impulse as being upside-down now, but it makes sense. Something from Mr. Sowell's "Conflict of Visions" that really stuck with me and seems relevant to this subject was his explanation for why people with different visions of human nature can possibly--indeed must--disagree about something so fundamental as the definition of "power." Some see Wal-Mart as having undue power over consumers because its business model and practices change consumer behavior by making them switch to Wal-Mart from higher priced competitors. Others would say that Wal-Mart doesn't have power over consumers because it only increases the number of options available to them, it doesn't limit their options.
When it comes to government, the urge to meddle in every aspect of people's lives is an aggressive impulse, not progressive.
The link to this article was simply "Uninformed". The title of the article is "Well-Intentioned and Uninformed". I think the link is more apt than title to the article.
When this country,The United States of America, was growing in boundaries, the fraudulent land ownerships were aided and abetted by then a very young government. Because those early land grabbers happened to be government and friends whom had no intentions of settling the land themselves. They were speculators seeking immediate profits. Such scenario repeats itself today through mortgage, technology, and education booms.This is an informed, well-informed, government that partake and benefits financially. After all, government is a selected group of men/women whom expressed superior know-hows while filling their coffers. Barf.
I think you may be making some good points, but your grammar is getting in your way. You might want to re-read your post(s) from a structural view after you make your case. Subject-verb agreement would be a good place to start. Thanks.
"Although antitrust laws and policies have been rationalized as ways of keeping monopolies from raising prices for consumers, the actual thrust of antitrust activity has often been against businesses that charged lower prices than their competitors."
Not exactly what I was taught in AP American History in high school...
I would love to see Dr. Sowell write an article on the idea that corporations take advantage of people. One of the biggest progressive talking points is that large companies take advantage of their workers by not paying them enough and they take advantage of their customers by charging them too much. However, they never complain that customers constantly "discriminate" against the most expensive products and demand the cheapest price or that employees seek work that gives the highest wages, greatest benefits and most free time they can find. In none of these cases do progressives ever assume that either the corporation, the employee or the customer have any form of free will or that they are choosing the best options that they have available.
Ultimately corporations cannot take advantage of a customer who is poor by offering them goods at a lower price, they are helping them. This is true whether it is for benevolent purposes or just for the sake of profits. Corporations cannot take advantage of low skilled workers by employing them if their skills would received higher wages elsewhere. They help low skilled workers by giving them employment. My favorite Thomas Sowell quote is that "The real minimum wage is zero."
It would just be great to hear Dr. Sowell's take on the idea of "taking advantage" of people.
Wal-Mart is a perfect example, and I'm glad Dr. Sowell mentioned it. Wal-Mart may be the most reviled corporation in America in spite of the fact that it has brought good quality products to lower-income consumers at very low prices, has employed huge numbers of workers with minimal skills to start, and then trained them to advance and better themselves, and has been at the forefront of innovations to help the environment, reduce energy consumption, and improve efficiencies in transportation and commerce.
But gosh, they're non-union and they trade globally--two things for which the irrational and uninformed public seems destined to continually misunderstand to the huge detriment of all of us.
"then as now, those using noble-sounding rhetoric are seldom judged by the consequences of their ideas." - The yardstick and litmust test should be a politician's grasp of reality. In the final result it matters little whether one was a conman or a cluless idealist. Two very decent men in recent western history are responsible for things spinning out of control, to put it mildly. George W. Bush's illegal immigration and free trade for China policies and his support for the corrupt Sharon's "disengagement" ruse and "democratic" elections leading to Hamas in Gaza, to name just a few things, have been terribly misguided. The late Menachem Begin in his noble optimism single-handedly created the never-before-heard-of "Palestinian people" whose only purpose is to occupy the Jew-free Palestine.
Thank you, Dr. Sowell, for keeping the hope alive. Another area I would like to see addressed in your column is free trade and comparative advantage. There is so much bad information and opinion about this.
As someone I once read states,
There are two ways to produce automobiles in America. One way is to manufacture them in Detroit or elsewhere, which hasn't been working out too well lately. The costs are high and the process has been filled with waste, excess and inefficiencies
The other way to obtain automobiles is to grow them in Iowa or Kansas. Plant lots of seeds, wait a few months, then fill ships with grain and cast them off over the seas. Wait a few more weeks and they return filled with Toyotas.
The other way works better because we can concentrate on doing what we do better than anyone in the world, and use that comparative advantage to get what we want.
