[image source: https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/american-robber-barons-vanderbilt-410203635]
This week we listened to Professor Burton Folsom Jr. talk about the so-called myths of the robber barons and the problems with government subsidies. I found the talk very interesting and he painted the robber barons and the idea of entrepreneurship in U.S. history is a different way than I had previously heard it. I'm a big fan of history and I've taken my fair share of history classes and I can't think of a single one that talked about people like Vanderbilt and Rockefeller as anything other than greedy businessmen. To hear them in a better light, as people we should look to and an example of prime American ingenuity was interesting, at the very least.
His comparison between Vanderbilt and Edward Collins was pretty good, with Vanderbilt creating a steamboat production much better than Collins could, even though Collins had basically the full financial support of the United States. Folsom's argument being that subsidies are a waste of government money, especially when there has been a history of advancement brought on by those who without the help of the government.
I'm torn between two trains of thoughts with this. For one, I fully agree and I think we need to stop subsidies; especially for companies that don't even pay taxes and only work to generate profit for one person, Telsa being the big example that comes to mind when I think of this. I fully support the idea of focusing on putting money into domestic policies like infrastructure, health care, and even environmental policies. However, I also believe that not everyone has the money to not have subsidies and by cutting this funding could lead to a narrow group of entrepreneur's who control the market and economy simply because they have the money to do so. Subsidies should be used to help small-time inventors create something for the good of the country and its people, not for already rich people to get even richer. If the government wanted to put money into looking into renewable energies or healthcare research, I think that would be a very different story. They aren't though, they're giving money to the wrong people and that's why it is such a massive loss for everyone (except those receiving it).
I really liked his quote, where he said, "we rise and fall based upon the creativity of the people in the United States", but I also think it's about the resources those people have access too that can promote and allow for that creativity to show up. It's not about the subsidies, it's about who is getting them and how (and why) the government is giving it. While I agree with his argument that subsidies can sink the government and create a much bigger burden than just allow the market to be competitive, subsidies can be used for good and government funding has brought about advances as much as free market entrepreneurs have (they put a man on the moon first, remember). The key is accountability and regulation: ensuring that those who get money either hold up their end of the deal or are immediately cut off (no digging deeper holes) and picking good businesses to invest in that are truly by the people, for the people - not just rich businessmen who are invested in politics.