Why the Gilded Age Was Golden | 5-Minute Videos

[@cominatrix]

The thing that bothers me is that Amazon is able to undercut practically all competition by going into a deficit in one department funded by other departments, which the competing entity almost certainly cannot do. They are literally in just about every business at this point and taking a cut of almost every small guy that remains. (And let's not ignore the huge section of their business model driven by the sale of cheep Chinese trash to again undercut other businesses.) I don't know what the answer is, but it simply seems off to me.

[@SabbathSOG]

With respect. What destroyed the railroad indudtry was when they tried to increase the shipping rates for oil. That's when Nelson rockefeller created the first oil pipeline. And that destroyed the railroad system . that's documented.

[@barryraymond9004]

It didn't destroy it, but it did break its monopoly.

[@WaltzingAustralia]

Something else worth telling folks is that Carnegie started out dead poor and built all the wealth he had through hard work and ingenuity. Then, he used his money to build libraries (more than 2,500) and medical facilities all over the world. And he built Carnegie Hall. And more. He wrote that the wealthy had “a moral obligation to distribute [their money] in ways that promote the welfare and happiness of the common man.” So everyone benefited from his success.

[@graciecat7389]

Exactly, there were robber barons, but there were also captains of industry.

[@johnlevin4567]

Yes, and he also exploited his workers, putting them under terrible conditions and working hours, as well as promoting social darwinism

[@walterbyrd8380]

@@johnlevin4567 When steel workers went on strike, he went to the governor to use the national guard to attack the striking workers.

[@SavingCommunitiesDS]

He got his wealth by partnering up with Frick, who had massive iron-or grants, and Phipps, who had a massive coal grants. He did give much of it away, unlike Frick and Phipps.

[@melonlabe]

@@johnlevin4567 i hate that argument. you have a mutual relationship with an employee and you are exploiting them? People like Carnegie that created huge wealth from industries like the steel industry gave such incredible opportunity for the industrialization of the US. Just the influence of steel production on commerce through the railroads, alone, grew the economy in profound and unimaginable ways. A middle class that had never really existed in human history was formed because of men like Carnegie. It is intellectually dishonest to just consider these business men exploitative without acknowledging their unprecedented contributions to civilization.

[@DonTruman]

Great video. And her book Coolidge is highly recommended. Read it myself a few years ago.

[@Nekulturny]

Shes a clown.

[@TheDude0fLife]

Yes, there was unregulated pollution and business practices, monopolies and robber barons, poverty, starvation, disease, shanty towns, mud roads, child labor, little or no education, poorly funded and disorganized military defense, then, the Great Depression. Expecting everyone with wealth to voluntarily "chip in" to fix those things would never happen. That's why taxation is necessary, so we're not still like a third world country. The issue is how to do it the most effectively and equitably for society.

[@williamjameshoffer4405]

Though I disagree with some of the details, the overall point is a good one. For the record: 1875-1890s not 1880-1900, railroads weren't superseded, poor didn't become poorer, there were just more of them, the middle class grew immensely, immigrants flocked to the US in record numbers and largely escaped poverty, and the income tax prior to the New Deal was likely irrelevant compared to other things like stock bubbles crashing and the end of World War I.

[@jimdavies6764]

This is a very good video, well worth the time to watch. The rich got richer, but so did almost everyone else - I didn't know that in this 20-year period, REAL wages grew 45%!

[@maxschreck4095]

It was still a shit time for a lot of people. Also, who did the actual real work, the rich robber barons or the workers and scientists? That so many who actually lived through it could already see it seems more poignant than the words of a historian who doesn´t hide her conservative bias. You are slaves to the rich.

[@RealSemiComp]

Ya because its a misleading claim and underminds what gilded actually meant in context. Gilded was a term used to descrbe the experence of the migrants not the overall market. Did you do poorly in history class? Migrants legal or not (even some today although not as bad as back then.) were taken advantage the market and monoplies were built on there backs & as a result many americans faced hardship due to this cheap labor source. Of course real wages look like they raise when you have a massive under the table cheap labor souce. Look at unemployment between 1877 and 1900

[@RealSemiComp]

This is like the claim people lived better during the great depression, then today. Someone miss something and the larger overall picture, while only looking at certain stats. Like did you know real wages were higher in the great depression then today ya because it didnt factor in how long someone worked and neglacted the unemployed out right.

[@randymiller2460]

They used to have a saying: "A rising tide lifts all boats."

[@randymiller2460]

​@@RealSemiCompthe proper phrase to use is "than today" not "then today". Than is used to compare two things. Then denotes a sequence of events. I'd rather eat fish than chicken. First comes love and then comes marriage.

[@scottnielsen1553]

I read her book on President Coolidge. Well researched.A great book, highly informative.

[@LDR1100RS]

Great to see you again, Amity!

[@starjet4343]

If you enjoy your 8ish hour work day, lunch break, weekends off, labor day weekend, health care, sanitation, clean drinking water, safe working conditions, nutrition facts labels, food inspection, drug inspection (to name a few) please thank a Progressive.

[@foristrothbert568]

It's not that I have a problem with rich people, big businesses, or even businesses that through their own merits and cutthroat competition turn themselves into monopolies because they're the best around. My problem is that our current monopolies are far more corrupt, utterly entwined with government, often doing the government's bidding and holding the exact same beliefs so they can't even claim to be having their arms twisted by government stooges - they're happily colluding with them! And against us. I would much prefer if big businesses didn't care who I was so long as I paid money for (ideally) a good product that was reasonably priced.

[@walterbyrd8380]

It was the same during the gilded age. When Carnegie's steel workers went on strike, Carnegie used his influence to get the governor to send out the national guard. Seems that big government and big industry have long been in bed together.

[@seanmetzer9575]

I agree with some of this, but I am staunchly against monopolies because they have vast reservoirs of cash to throw at politicians via lobbyists meaning they can influence policy far more than the average citizen can.

[@elliottmiller3282]

The government itself is a monopoly. So I take it you have a problem with that.

[@seanmetzer9575]

@@elliottmiller3282 Governments aren't businesses and don't have the ability to generate wealth/value. Plus the US government does have competition in every other country in the world. Sure we're at the top, but, as we've been seeing in recent years, that can change very quickly with incompetent leaders.

[@Dennis-nc3vw]

I think the point is there were no real monopolies.

[@cleaterose5914]

I disagree, at least in the case of Standard Oil. You could not open a gas station in a market that they wanted. If you did, your choices were to sell SO or have them build a competing station next to yours with predatory pricing so low that both of you would lose money. Size wins in that scenario. My father recalled tales of this happening.

[@ChrisFoxWrites]

Completely agree. Competition isn't possible when companies form trusts / monopolies. Look what happened to Parler. Amazon, Apple, and Google locked ranks and destroyed them. The point of anti-trust laws is to keep a free market free.

[@Individual_Lives_Matter]

😢

[@PhilBagels]

Things take time. Standard Oil is certainly not a monopoly today.

[@sirellyn]

Stuff like that still happens. Problem is they can't beat out everyone trying to do that, and they lose money trying to do that. Do it for too long and they sink. Competition still wins in the end. No one said it would be an easy ride. Hell, it's happening to Disney and other media producers right now.

[@patrickbateman1660]

Conservatives need to pick. Is big tech bad or is it good and shouldnt be regulated. You cant have both.

[@steveguti6452]

TAKE TiME TO PRAY praise God praying for everyone everyday God bless you all

[@mikebaker6804]

Anti Trust is good thing. Big companies should be broken up.

[@sirellyn]

No, you remove the laws favorable to only them and things work out.

[@MrCuttysark1982]

Okay I am 100% pro capitalist and defend it vigorously but even I am going to LMAO at the notion that the Guilded Age was golden.

[@barryraymond9004]

One has to realize that the defacto living conditions before the Gilded age were no better or even worse. Industrialization started in an era with a horribly low standard of living and a low regard for human life.

[@Individual_Lives_Matter]

Wealth expansion, stable currency, actual liberty… I’d say it was pretty good. Everything we have now is because of those things

[@MrCuttysark1982]

@@Individual_Lives_Matter Wealth expansion....not sure I agree until Henry Ford. That guy hit the picture perfect balance of high profitability, innovative thinking, and fair worker treatment. Wages actually nosedived from a previous high pre 1880 and hadn't recovered to previous levels until after the turn of the century. Now that I think about it, PragerU is playing the same trick Biden is playing right now. Pointing to a period of progress when wages were increasing, and ignoring the crash before it, trying to give the impression of actual progress rather than a struggle to return to where you were previously. I freely agree everything we have now is thanks to innovation from that time period and I'm grateful for it. But I don't romanticize the era. It was hard living. That hard living would give men the drive to develop the things we have now but it was a crucible, make no mistake. One could argue that we have what we have today *because* of how much life sucked in the Guilded Age. 😉

[@barryraymond9004]

@@Individual_Lives_Matter Capitalism liberated technology and technology liberated labor.

[@markmunroe-hz8rf]

The term Gilded Age came from the novel The Gilded Age co-written by Mark Twain. That period did look prosperous, but sadly underneath lay political corruption, stark inequality between races and class, monopolies and anarchy. Ironically, African Americans many did prosper and helped each other, despite the nasty racial attitudes at the time and despite the discriminations against them, not to mention against Italians, Irish, Asians and the Jewish, they strove for equality. Sadly, most have fallen into the mind group victim mentality and choose to ignore the true victories of their ancestors.

[@yukihirasouma4691]

You mean despite Democrats blocking policies that advanced blacke when Republicans dominated the national politics. 😂

[@jackprescott9652]

the gilded age was the age where mafia lords became powerful.

[@claudechase1648]

Thank You PragerU for using basic common sense and logic to share truth 😊💖💖💖

[@johnpolitis7929]

@claudechase1648 Praeger U common sense and logic? I don't think so. Just spouting 1950s Eurocentric garbage like a bot. Nothing creative. Heard it all before and no rational person will accept as truth but propaganda masquerading as history.

[@bruvnowae]

It's literally the biggest lie possible. The gilded age was one of the worst times in American history, Teddy Roosevelt is famous and beloved for a reason. He ended it.

[@charlesseelye3528]

Many years ago I read that one of the so called 'Robber Barons' (can't remember which) stated that he had not broken any laws but that there had been many laws made because of him. The country learns as it goes and has to relearn at times but retain what was and is good.

[@007.M-D]

This proves again that " the road to hell is paved with good intentions" is still a valid ancient wisdom ( not always but very often )

[@PhilBagels]

And the railroad to hell is paved with government regulation.

[@gregoryferber3231]

All hail the corporate overloards.

[@jadoyon]

The gilded age was an amazing time in this country's history. Inequality is not a problem if it is because different people contribute different economic value to society.

[@Nagoragama]

A monstrous sentiment

[@CitizenKate]

@@Nagoragama Respectfully, please explain why. Everything I've ever gotten in life, I've had to work for by the hour, or acquire/create/develop something of economic value for. I've always accepted that as a reality of life. You have a better idea?

[@PlayboiMaui]

You sound very naive. So um... today China has slaves, India has slave, America still basically have slaves in prison. Slavery is extremely lucrative, it's free freaking labor. So what you said about inequal value warrants inequal treatment... that's silly. How can you assume how much someone contributes to society just by their outward appearance?

[@PlayboiMaui]

Bro, I'm assuming you're a guy cuz literally every conservative white guy I know says, "I've worked for everything I had in my life". No you didn't, you has friends and family to support you physically, mentally, and maybe financially. But you didn't do everything on your own. You didn't build your own house, sew your own clothes, and craft your own cell.

[@PlayboiMaui]

And also Inequality has never once in human history been about economic value to society. It's about outward appearances, culture, and social class.

[@dankmeme9600]

Hmm I wonder why the wages increased

[@karenclark266]

Because there was competition for skilled labor by the expanding industries.

[@WilliamCooper-l6f]

What the perpetual complainers fail to grasp, is that they have "played" no role in the creation of this nation. They "played" no role in the building of their schools, many of which are fabulously built, with beauty designed into their layouts. They "played" no role in job creation, no role in food production, no role in absolutely anything, having been totally dependent on this and every preceding generation, just for them to find no appreciation for those who suffered and sacrificed before them, to give them multitudes of blessings. In spite of this obvious reality, there are no thank yous, no days of reflection, no gratitude, nothing but anger, distrust, envy, and victimization. This is so prevalent, that it can only be explained by wide scale negative indoctrination.

[@rogercarroll8764]

Gee, Government tries to improve things, yet failed miserably. Who'd thunk it. Government is worse than private business. What a shock!

[@adamcrookedsmile]

please add source citations in the description of the video for added transparency and those who wish to learn more

[@darbyheavey406]

John Rockefeller saved the whales by introducing petroleum gas…thank God. These titans of industry built almost every library in the US.

[@steveguti6452]

Jesus Christ died for our Sins according to the scriptures and that he was Buried and that he Rose again the third day praise God praying for everyone everyday God bless you All

[@johnpolitis7929]

@steveguti6452 Ever hear of separation of Church and State!

[@maxpayne044]

@@johnpolitis7929which is a lie how it’s told today.

[@johnpolitis7929]

@@maxpayne044 Nope not a lie. We don't need a theocracy here, which is what you want.Why don't you go to Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, or ISIS if you don't want separation of Church and State.

[@johnpolitis7929]

@@maxpayne044 Jesus was a crazy deluded guy who thought he came from the sky!

[@samuelnunes2641]

Amem!

[@SabbathSOG]

Great info.Thx

[@hejouxah1269]

This video glaringly misses the mark, painting an overly rosy picture of an era riddled with severe hardships and gross inequalities. While it's true that the U.S. economy boomed and factory wages climbed from 1870 to 1900, these statistics obscure a grim reality: by 1900, a mere 10% of the population hoarded around 75% of the wealth, thrusting the majority into precarious economic conditions. Let's peel back the layers of this gilded narrative. The touted drop in food prices, for instance, hardly touched everyone; urban residents and rural farmers bore the brunt, grappling with high living costs and meager earnings. Moreover, the celebrated social mobility of the era was largely a myth, barely touching the lives of most people-especially minorities and women, who faced towering barriers. The drive to expand public education was primarily fueled by industrial needs, aiming to mold a disciplined, skilled workforce perfect for factory labor. This educational shift, stressing punctuality, obedience, and practical skills, catered to the desires of industrial tycoons, ensuring a smoothly running labor machine. Yet, strides like the proliferation of high schools and improved literacy rates didn't reach everyone equally. African Americans and immigrants often found themselves on the fringes of these educational benefits. Likewise, while health and life expectancy did see general improvements, these were not uniformly felt, with poorer communities lagging far behind. Labor conditions were brutal, marked by endless hours, dismal pay, and perilous work environments, particularly in burgeoning sectors like steel and railroads. This ignited numerous worker strikes and protests. Additionally, pinning the Panic of 1907 on President Roosevelt's antitrust efforts is a drastic oversimplification. The real culprits were reckless investment tactics and banking instabilities, not the government's crackdown on monopolies. This period, far from being golden, was tarnished with strife and inequality. It strikes me as incredibly odd that PragerU would characterize these obvious anti-competative practices as a good thing.

[@SHARKVADERS]

PRAGERU!!!!!

[@Antraeon]

Meanwhile, the grammar skills of the average American have sharply declined, babies are getting aborted on a regular basis, life expectancy is falling and mental health issues are rampant, and the quality of life we once had is now impossible to maintain for most. What a time to be alive, indeed.

[@JohnDoe-lc9yj]

IN the 1950's, the good old days. the top tax marginal rate was 90%. It was also the decade of highest growth in GDP growth rate. President Eisenhauer started the biggest infrastructure project, the Interstate highway system. Tuition to public colleges was free. Unions were thriving and there was a vibrant middle class. CEO's made only about 50X the workers salaries back then. Good times...

[@gregoryferber3231]

Hell yes!!

[@mrhitisnumberone]

Did people pay that tax, if so how many?

[@JohnDoe-lc9yj]

@@mrhitisnumberone look it up for yourself. It's called Google, you should try it.

[@Dennis-nc3vw]

The poverty rate was also 22% in 1959.

[@Dennis-nc3vw]

Also show me evidence the economic growth rate was high in the 1950s. All the tables I've looked at show it was about the same the following ten years, if not a little slower. It was 1940 - 1950 that was the big explosion due to WWII, which was due to the production of things like weapons and tanks and not things that make life better.

[@JosephJamesB]

One might say it was the golden age arc 😄🥲

[@yukihirasouma4691]

lol

[@steveguti6452]

God is in control praise God praying for everyone everyday God bless you all

[@johnpolitis7929]

@steveguti6452 There is no God! Religion is the opiate of the people!

[@constantinuslefug2874]

What did the Jews do to Jesus again?

[@johnpolitis7929]

@@constantinuslefug2874 They had Him crucified for blasphemy and had the Romans do it for them.

[@constantinuslefug2874]

@@johnpolitis7929 And what religion does Mr Prager subscribe to? What do you call people who reject Jesus?

[@johnpolitis7929]

@@constantinuslefug2874 Mr. Praeger is a Zionist, not a Jew. Those who reject Jesus as God are rational people who see him as a good person who was killed because he was seen as a revolutionary.

[@Alte.Kameraden]

A great example of this great lie in history is actually the Hudson River Steamboat Association. A monopoly by very wealthy riverboat owners who bought out, or bullied out competition on the Hudson River. They limited traffic, and hiked prices. It was terrible to live along the Hudson River as a result. Cornelius Vanderbilt came along and bought one riverboat, and charged lower prices than the Cartel (Union/Syndicate). Forcing them to lower prices, when he bought more boats, and lower prices even more, a price war rose. Cornelius Vanderbilt eventually lowered prices to "Zero" and made money by selling food/drinks/buzz, on the riverboats he owned. He utterly destroyed the Hudson River Steamboat Association. Tragically this story in history was twisted of evil Rich man came in and hurt people riverboat captains who had a Union. Ignoring the fact that this Hudson River Steamboat Association was a Monopoly, of "RICH" men who were making other people's lives along the river terrible, even weeding out any competition whatsoever. Cornelius Vanderbilt on the other hand opened the doors wide open for competition and even proved that it was "profitable" to charge "ZERO" fees for people to ride his boats.

[@CitizenKate]

This sounds like a great story... can you cite sources close to first-hand that I can follow up on?

[@crowmob-yo6ry]

The best part about 1890-1929 by far was that every US city back then was walkable, connected by frequent passenger trains, and served by comprehensive public transit systems. Today, US cities are completely unrecogniseable, all because we hastily destroyed our cities and their rail/transit infrastructure in the 1950s to make way for terrible sprawling suburbs, highways, stroads, parking lots, and other car-centric design items. Good cities are designed for people, not cars.

[@jade_is_youtube]

ik its so sad when I wanna push for walkable cities but then get called a liberal like it benefits everyone tf

[@constantinuslefug2874]

No one wants to risk walking through a city any more than anyone wants to risk walking through Somalia. The simple truth everyone is skirting around is that no one wants to get mugged, spat on, raped, and stabbed. No one will invest anything in making cities walkable if there is no reason to walk in a city. And so long as XXXXXX make cities unlivable for normal people, no one will bother investing the time and money to make cities worth walking in.

[@ladywisewolf3942]

​@@constantinuslefug2874 Yep, exactly. Or this constant push to take public transit everywhere when it has become just as, if not more dangerous than walking on the street.

[@ShaneStilwell]

The rich were richer because there was an opportunity to prosper. However most poor even today, rarely seek after the doors of opportunity. The opportunities are still there now, but you have to chase after them.

[@SolaceofSnow]

When Rockeffeller was around, you actually couldn't seek an opertunity for a buisness of your own relating to oil. Infact, if you were in the gilded age, you would be aproached by a Rockeffeller agent to buy out your store. If you refused, they would simply open up a new store, undercut your prices, and bankrupt you before buying the buisness.

[@SSmotzer]

So... we should bow at the feet of Disney, Google, and Amazon?

[@watching7721]

It was like rusting gold, pretty at first, but ultimately eroding

[@Greywolf-91]

It was called “The Gilded age.“ Which means, plated with gold leaf, but otherwise was worthless, because it wasn’t even close to being pure gold.

[@RodDMartinJD]

Yes, leftists did lie about it that way. But if you want to go back to living without indoor lighting, making a living as a sharecropper and walking literally everywhere, be my guest.

[@johnpolitis7929]

@@RodDMartinJD Wrong answer! Problem is the corruption, not technology buddy!

[@badwolf6735]

Envy, by far is the most dangerous sin of all. Just ask yourself what happened in the 20th century alone.

[@Novusod]

Envy and its' evil sister jealousy are terrible sins who destroy anyone who indulges them. People spend too much time envying the rich they don't have any time to improve their own lives. This is why many are poor.

[@arnabkumarbanerjee8150]

I love that period of time. This period is portrayed well by Fitzgerald in his novel the great Gatsby. Great time.

[@BenHopkins1000]

I thought Gatsby was a commentary on the excesses of the 1920s?

[@jyu467]

Great Gatsby was the Roaring 20's, not Gilded Age

[@zerozeroone4030]

Maybe you can explain to us how Blackrock is good for us?

[@patrickbateman1660]

They just did

[@nickcovington8005]

How in the world does a historian mention the quality of life for poor Americans in the late-1800s without mentioning the experiences of groups, like Black sharecroppers, Native Americans, and Chinese immigrants in particular, whose exploitation enabled the fabulous wealth of a few. Robber barons are labeled as such because they were involved in extractive industries, whether they were extracting labor or other resources.

[@constantinuslefug2874]

Because no one cares about your attention seeking.

[@barryraymond9004]

Before the robber barrons industry was not efficient enough to pay well as too much labor was needed per unit of product produced. This did not mean injustice didn't happen nor did it mean that injustice was new. Robber Barrons did not force anyone to work. How bad was the world outside of the robber Barron owned enterprise for workers to choose to work in such horrible conditions? How bad were the labor conditions in China, Germany, Ireland, and for the native Americans for the alternatives to working for standard oil or Carnegie. When the socialists in the Soviet Union decided to industrialize their nation their conditions were such that working for an American Robber Baron would have been consider luxurious. As the efficiency of industry increase and the amount of labor per unit of production decreased things like the labor unions and labor laws could come into play. Its ignorant not to realize that the true contribution of the Robber Barrons were that they lowered the price of commodities and products so that they became affordable for a greater part of the population and that laid the ground work for the modern economy. I terms of labor unions, they were the most racist of all as they excluded other races willing to work for less.

[@Individual_Lives_Matter]

Hahahahahaha. BS

[@sgassocsg]

‘Whose exploitation made them wealthy". What? Ridiculous. Slave labor anywhere made no one wealthy over time. Slave labor lead to war and utter devastation for the south..they still have not recovered. Slavery prohibited the Romans from initiating the modern world. Slave labors always lead to misery and economic poverty compared to free people working for wages.

[@buddytrueblood]

It's only 5 minutes, it's just enough time to make a couple of points, and those were not within the scope of the video which was to illustrate the importance of industry and how things are warped out of context today.

[@jackcarraway4707]

"If you work hard you will achieve your dream of me being richer." -Capitalist proverb

[@sirellyn]

Communist cherry picking while endlessly saying "that wasn't true communism!"

[@jackcarraway4707]

​@@sirellyn*Corporation rips off the public* Capitalist simps: dats not real capitalism reeeee

[@sirellyn]

@@jackcarraway4707 Caveat Emptor is capitalistic. DEI social credit programs for companies is not.

[@xryphon]

The script writer must have been smoking something when they made this... - Railroad industry was still dominant all the way until the Model T by Henry Ford. There wasn't anything else to rely on, so all the way up to World War II trains were still prevalent. - Immigrants were the backbone of most of the labor successes. Speaking about labor, worker's rights did advance but were quickly shut down by union busters, leading to events like the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory. - Theodore Roosevelt ended the monopolies right after the Gilded Age; the rich didn't stop until they were forced to (like today...)

[@TickedOffPriest]

I have never met a poor person who offered me a job.

[@sirellyn]

They why do you keep asking communists?

[@nndjkn9255]

Buddy, missing up to the ultra rich won’t make you rich haha. They don’t care about you

[@SavingCommunitiesDS]

This portrayal is simplistic to the point of dishonest. It pretends these captains of industry got their wealth by producing, when, in fact, they got them through government-granted monopolies and collusion to restrict production. Also, Henry George did not call for antitrust legislation, which he regarded as treating the symptoms while ignoring the causes. Instead, he called for shifting taxes off of production and onto land titles, exactly as the classical liberals had advocated. Famed libertarian Albert Jay Nock (founder of _The Freeman_ and author of _Our Enemy, the State_) had to say, "The only reformer abroad in the world in my time who interested me in the least was Henry George, because his project did not contemplate prescription, but, on the contrary, would reduce it almost to zero. He was the only one of the lot who believed in freedom, or (as far as I could see) had any approximation to an intelligent idea of what freedom is, and of the economic prerequisites to attaining it.... One is immensely tickled to see how things are coming out nowadays with reference to his doctrine, for George was in fact the best friend the capitalist ever had. He built up the most complete and absolutely impregnable defense of the rights of capital that was ever constructed, and if the capitalists of his day had had sense enough to dig in behind it, their successors would not now be squirming under the merciless exactions which collectivism is laying on them, and which George would have no scruples whatever about describing as sheer highwaymanry."

[@sirellyn]

They largely DID get their wealth by producing. Or are you arguing the government went no no name people with no money and offered them SPECIFICALLY the exact legislation they knew they'd use to grow their empire before they earned anything?

[@SolaceofSnow]

​@@sirellynActually, yes. The Gilded Era was also known as the era of the Political Machine, where large companies would lobby huge amounts of money to influence legislation for their own benefit, from the Camerone Republicans, to Tammany Hall Democrats. Rockefellar was one of the prominent donors to the Republican Political Machine, capturing most politicians, except for Teddy Rosevelt.

[@sirellyn]

@@SolaceofSnow You are failing to tell me where these already LARGE companies got HUGE amounts of money from BEFORE they did their lobbying.

[@SolaceofSnow]

@@sirellyn Rockeffeller himself was successful somewhat through innovation and production, first helped by other friends to get started in buisness. He was successful, and after becoming successful, began cutting off competition through harmful buisness practices. This included his friends that helped him began. He also ran a country wide espionage scheme against competitors, prevented smaller buisness' from growing, frequently bypassed anti-trust laws in numerous states and federally, and clamped down hard on anyone that tried to unionize through the help of the Pinkertons.

[@SolaceofSnow]

@@sirellyn For Rockefeller, they did it by getting help from friends, and then undercutting said friends and rivals into unprofitablility. Don't get me wrong, he made some innovations, but his practices were criminal.

[@freedomwriter1995]

What about how the Robber Barons used the Pinkertons to break up strikes by threatening and beating anyone who spoke out against poor treatment.

[@GenX_-um2ct]

We live in a gelded age, not a gilded 1...

[@johnbrown4568]

These so-called Robber Barons created a way for my grandfather to make a good living in the steel industry.

[@maxwellthehero]

Ironically for an average American at this period of time, while wages and life expectancy and even the quality of food improved, working conditions did not. This is why many workers formed unions to advocate for better working conditions and even more improvement in wages because many of these workers were envious of the wealth of their bosses which led them to strike.

[@jackprescott9652]

The rich were richer because they didn`t have competirion, the workers have almost zero rights, they didn`t have to pay a great quantity of taxes like today and because the money really have value.

[@OhLookItsJonBoy]

The irony is that this video is gilded covering rot

[@LbrtyNJustus]

Excellent!

[@freedomwriter1995]

What about the Pinkerton's and how the robber barons used them to threaten anyone who tried to strike, unionize, or call out poor worker treatment.

[@sirellyn]

I guess that's why we have no unions... Oh wait... We have amazingly corrupt unions now, many make Zimbabwe look like bastions of fairness.

[@stevethompson1060]

Amity Shlaes is golden too!

[@danieldpa8484]

Well, inflation soars and wages stagnant since 1970, no, it’s not the 2nd gilded age. It’s the repetition of 1920/1930s currently sliding into 9/1/1939 - WW3 on the horizon.

[@jors3028]

Capitalism is the best system, but Game Theory says those with the most assets end up with all the assets at the end. If you want only a handful of people to own everything, then continue to make excuses for the ultra wealthy. We currently have very unfair taxation, which targets the Middle class, who pay up to 17 times more than the 1%, according to the Federal Reserve. For example, a worker will work till May for the government, whereas, a billionaire to somewhere in January. The billionaires have most of the wealth, and can easily pay their fair share, but definitely do not, if you measure fair share in terms of wealth (ability to pay), not income (ability to earn). This is reason for increasing disparity. Not capitalism, but taxation. Talk about that please.

[@lisafeck1537]

We need some many new men, railroad, bridge, infrastructure builders.

[@blamoism]

Eat the rich

[@colinmontgomery1956]

Prager U - fighting misinformation one day video at a time.

[@daveknight3940]

"fewer babies died" and "life expectancy" = the same thing. That's why uninformed folks think 45 was an average life expectancy for people in the 1700's. Great video, though.

[@Kuldirongaze1]

Just like saying the average life expectancy for stone-aged people was 25. That gives the impression that people died between the ages of 20-30. But all those 0 year Olds brought down the average. Humans who lived to become adults lived much longer than 30.

[@karenclark266]

No. Life expectancy is how long you should expect to live. Currently life expectancy is roughly 74 years. It is not the number of infants who fail to survive their first year. Two different measures for the same population.

[@hellodolly9879]

Why do we keep repeating the same mistakes?

[@sirellyn]

Red (Communist) washed education.

[@theotherguy6951]

The real purpose of antitrust legislation was not to protect consumers from the ‘evil monopolies’, but to protect inefficient firms from their larger, superior, and more efficient competitors. The general case against monopolies is that they restrict output and raise prices, yet many of the industries that (according to the Sherman Antitrust Act) were ‘monopolized’ were expanding output and lowering prices in the decade prior to the law’s passing. In fact, output in these industries grew much faster than the average economic expansion while their prices were falling faster than the general price level of that period. This is great for consumers but obviously bad for competitors. As Rep. William Mason, who supported the Sherman Act at the time, argued, “trusts have made products cheaper, have reduced prices; but if the price of oil, for instance, were one cent a barrel, it would not right the wrong done to the people of this country by the ‘trusts’ which have destroyed legitimate competition and driven honest men from legitimate business enterprises.” But this is exactly the desirable outcome in a competitive market, the most efficient and productive firms who make the best products at the lowest prices will stay in business and even expand while the least efficient firms will go out of business. Additionally, the same congress that passed the Sherman Act, also passed a tariff bill a few months later which would raise tariffs on imported goods. If we want less competitive markets, then protectionism is the perfect way to go by artificially making foreign products more expensive and unable to compete against domestic producers. Consumers be damned.

[@raito1239]

Found the boot licker

[@noskalborg723]

What about planned failure cartels? And what about the Edmunds Act? What about horizontal intigration and the Pinkertons? What about fathers sent to jail for loving and caring for the mother of his children?

[@ep4169]

Another great defense of this era is found in the book "The Myth of the Robber Barons", which carefully differentiates between monopolies attained by superior service and monopolies guaranteed by government protections. The former often succeeded in defeating the latter, despite its disadvantages, by the discipline of cost cuts and responsiveness to customers, delivering value and prosperity to consumers across the country.

[@dragonhold4]

#AbolishIncomeTax

[@donaldkingsbury5614]

this is hilarious rewriting

[@sirellyn]

Yes, the communist text books really are hilarious rewriting.

[@donaldkingsbury5614]

@@sirellyn nah... this video is. yinz know nothing about communism or libertarian socialism! !! yinz are so obsessed with marx- it's hilarious. but i digress-

[@sirellyn]

​@@donaldkingsbury5614 I've read Marx, Hegel, Derrida, Foucault, Rousseau, Bell Hooks, Marcuse, Freire, and too many others to count. I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about. "Yinz" don't seem to. Iron law of woke projection strikes again.

[@donaldkingsbury5614]

@@sirellyn sure sure- watch a prageru video doesn't count as reading- it is bell hooks...but i digress

[@sirellyn]

@@donaldkingsbury5614 More woke projection with the evidence that you don't read. In addition to Gloria Ladston Billings (Bell Hooks) I also wrote: "and too many others to count." You obviously don't read.

[@1320pass]

I am envious of none.

[@pranaymalhotra7883]

Bro prageru is actual political brainrot. I feel my neurons actively atrophying in my brain from all the fallacies and fear mongering/name calling.

[@ronriesinger7755]

Very true.

[@drstevej2527]

Remind me who you are in the scholarly community?

[@sirellyn]

Remind me why the scholarly community is being laughed at constantly now and people are refusing to hire from Harvard, Standford and most of the other "esteemed" schools? Please, cite your feminist glaciology papers again please.

[@drstevej2527]

@@sirellyn According to whom? Cite your sources and methodology. Where is there a shortage of hiring for Harvard graduates who continue to top the list of highest income earners and top in their respective fields? Let me guess you don’t know anyone who is actually part of the scholarly community and instead think that Fox News is telling you the truth. Hint 90% of degree programs from elite universities are apolitical. No one is teaching gender studies in an engineering class, IT, accounting, chemistry, finance or business schools…. Remember this lesson in epistemology.

[@sirellyn]

@@drstevej2527 I both do hiring myself and work with business owners who do as well. I don't watch Fox news, nor do I care for your ad-hominem assumptions. I can tell you both from the hires we have and from others going on now that even the STEM fields are getting filled with this DEI nonsense, which is just rough entryism for activists. Since schools have adopted Paulo Freire's pedagogy, saying 90% of degree programs are apolitical is an outright lie. My methodology is the philosophy of science. Testable, falsifiable, deductive. You might want to re-read Karl Popper, and note what he held in higher esteem. Peer review, or falsifiability.

[@drstevej2527]

@@sirellyn Meaning that you know nothing about what is happening at these schools. I hold a doctorate in Political Science from the University of Chicago and I know that the vast majority of what is taught at the most elite schools is apolitical. Secondly I hate to break it to you but students forget most of what they heard and read a week after the final exam. Additionally movements like DEI are a shadow of what they were only 3 years ago. Trends come and go and that’s all it was for most departments and never defined the value of a degree from an elite school. You have cited absolutely nothing! You clearly have no credentials in the field and yet are proclaiming the value of Poppers position. Hint Pooper is largely dismissed in the scholarly community given the value of the work he questioned has had in modern society. By his logic education is not connected to the betterment of a society which has been thoroughly discredited over the last 150 years. This is scholars assign John Rawls rather than Popper. Now stop making unsupported claims and CITE the actual scholarship that supports such assertions. See anecdotal evidence vs quantitative analysis. The world is not flat because I declare it’s true given I’m in Chicago. Popper presents falsifiability as both an ideal and as an important principle in a practical method of effective human problem solving; as such, the current conclusions of science are stronger than pseudo-sciences or non-sciences, insofar as they have survived this particularly vigorous selection method. He does not argue that any such conclusions are therefore true, or that this describes the actual methods of any particular scientist. Rather, it is recommended as an essential principle of methodology that, if enacted by a system or community, will lead to slow but steady progress of a sort (relative to how well the system or community enacts the method). It has been suggested that Popper's ideas are often mistaken for a hard logical account of truth because of the historical co-incidence of their appearing at the same time as logical positivism, the followers of which mistook his aims for their own. Sound familiar? Who would argue in 2024 that the relationship between investment in education and educational outcomes?Pooper had limited access to modern research methods and scholarship especially to the research of the last 50 years. He came of age when the world believed that women, POC and select ethnic groups lacked the capacity to excel in modern society. This does not mean that there are not fringe elements which gain traction during social upheaval but those always fade. DEI was all the rage 3 years ago. Try selling it today. It still exists but it’s in an ever shrinking space and never defined such institutions despite what partisan right wing elements claim. Kuhn argues in The Essential Tension that while Popper was correct that psychoanalysis cannot be considered a science, there are better reasons for drawing that conclusion than those Popper provided. In Science Versus Crime, Houck writes that Popper's falsificationism can be questioned logically: it is not clear how Popper would deal with a statement like "for every metal, there is a temperature at which it will melt". The hypothesis cannot be falsified by any possible observation, for there will always be a higher temperature than tested at which the metal may in fact melt, yet it seems to be a valid scientific hypothesis. There is literally a mountain of peer reviewed replicated research that by your logic should not be considered valid despite meeting every standard of a valid scientific hypothesis.

[@franciscolaureano7703]

She is a brilliant author

[@nataliapaembonan785]

What was the peak of USA golden age? A. Roaring 1920's B. Prosper 1950's C. Morning Again 1980's D. Cool 1990's

[@joerhile4883]

This is a moronic, ahistorical take.

[@corrdude]

sponsored by the GOP and the corporate overlords

[@sirellyn]

You mean all the corporations that put BLM logos on? I don't think they like PragerU

[@sirellyn]

@allergy5634 When the world was sane that used to be the case, but sadly no, they don't just care about profits. Disney is a great example. They are bleeding like a stuffed pig. Everyone sane is telling them what's wrong. If they wanted money they could get it hand over fist. But they won't. They have a new religion to follow. The cult has near total institutional capture, that's the only reason it's getting this far. But they only represent about 10-12% of the population at best. Everyone hates them. Hell they even hate themselves.

[@David-f8p3z]

Totally ridiculous revisionist history.

[@Nagoragama]

Anyway eat the rich

[@merlinwizard1000]

15th, 8 January 2024

[@frizzneil2590]

I'm sure Teddy is rolling in Heaven hearing your Heresy...next to Trump he's maybe our best...

[@Peace-ju9us]

...BS...tax the rich and corps...take back all the tax breaks given to the corps...tax the rich...

[@user-lt4ty5ij6z]

What is this garbage argumentation, competition will eliminate monopolies? The entire danger of a monopoly is that it suffocates competition.

[@sirellyn]

Only a government granted monopoly can do that. That's precisely what the word monopoly originally meant. I suppose that's why woke Disney is falling like a dump truck while alternate entertainment seems to be earning higher profits every year.

[@user-lt4ty5ij6z]

@@sirellyn Government granted monopolies like JPMorgan and Anaconda Copper, which monopolized steel and copper in an environment of government nonintervention? Why was your word used to describe companies completely contrary to its "original" meaning in the middle of its genesis? There is no invisible rulebook saying a company needs government assistance to buy out and undercut its competition, you just made that up. Both a well-regulated economy and a regulation-free economy are completely screwed if they excuse monopolies, and both you and Amity Shlaes posses the kind of naivete that impoverishes nations.

[@sirellyn]

@@user-lt4ty5ij6z "There is no invisible rulebook saying a company needs government assistance to buy out and undercut its competition, you just made that up." No, there's no rule saying they can't do that, but to stay in business they can't KEEP doing that without government assistance. And there is a rule on that. It's called Math. You simply can't keep spending money endlessly in a loss and stay in business. If you are gigantic, you can do it a lot longer, but in the end you still run out of money. (Unless you have a government spigot.)

[@user-lt4ty5ij6z]

@@sirellyn did you get shadowbanned or something? It says 3 replies here but I only see the one from yesterday and my retaliatory response.

[@sirellyn]

@@user-lt4ty5ij6z Yeah I responded twice. I can see them just fine.

[@IndianaJoe0321]

A poor man never gave you a job. - selah

[@sirellyn]

That's right, and never ask a communist how capital works. For some reason foolish people seem to go to poor communists for answers to money problems.

[@FatCatFanatic]

So many non sequiturs it ends up being complete nonsense. A parody, surely? ☹

[@bocates8569]

This video has oversimplified, misunderstood, and ignored how complex and multifaceted those 20+ years were. It was a very interesting time period but definitely not a Golden Age.

[@_steffix_2156]

40 minutes ago

[@cjr4286]

I have always refused to call it the "Gilded Age," as I believe this is a leftist term.

[@raito1239]

So basically you’re admitting you lack an education and simply parrot what a right wing video tells you to think. Good to know.

[@humantacos9800]

We have corporatism now, thanks to politicians and lobbyists

[@rev.stephena.cakouros948]

I have for years believed that Teddy Roosevelt should be removed from Mount Rushmore.