# Are all economic ideologies aside from free-market/Randian theory obsolete? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 24, 2013, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-all-economic-ideologies-aside-from-free-market-randian-theory-obsolete/656625 "2013-04-24T22:57:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![rogerbox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/76d3ee/32.png) [@rogerbox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rogerbox)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2013, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-all-economic-ideologies-aside-from-free-market-randian-theory-obsolete/656625/81 "2013-04-26T17:02:36Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Regulating pollution doesn’t diminish freedom anymore than regulating stabbing does. > > A market is still free even if heavily regulated. The only thing that makes a market unfree is if the government controls competition directly, which every government does in some industries. That has to stop. I agree with you 100%. Can you tell the crazy people on the internet that? I have seen them say, verbatim, that the corporations will pollute _less_ if there was no regulations prohibiting them from polluting, it’s no different than a homeless guy crapping his pants on the bus in terms of crazy. ---
**Author:** ![rogerbox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/76d3ee/32.png) [@rogerbox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rogerbox)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2013, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-all-economic-ideologies-aside-from-free-market-randian-theory-obsolete/656625/82 "2013-04-26T17:08:07Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > The results were amazing. First of all, when it was founded the USA was dirt poor. By 1900 it had risen to become by far the most prosperous nation in the history of the world. Tens of millions of people in the less free economies of Europe and Asia voted with their feet and moved to the United States. The USA’s standards for health and education became the envy of the world. A stream of scientific discoveries and inventions poured forward that brought huge benefits to everyone on the planet: the light bulb, the telephone, the airplane, electricity, … Before attributing the economic boom of the United States in those years to free-market libertarian principals and exploitation of the workers, you would have to correct for the effects of the country being amazingly huge and flush with natural resources and not burdened with all the baggage of old Europe. Basically, any idiots would’ve been able to make massive wealth if they stumbled upon an entire country back then (with no qualms about genocide). ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2013, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-all-economic-ideologies-aside-from-free-market-randian-theory-obsolete/656625/83 "2013-04-26T17:12:49Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > And, here’s an example of a market that exists without regulation (not saying that this is necessarily replicable, only that for your absolute statement to hold, you need to rebut this) - Well, then, that’s easy. Like video games, television, and movies, they self-regulate because they fear federal regulation. It’s just a second order of effect of regulation instead of a first order effect. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2013, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-all-economic-ideologies-aside-from-free-market-randian-theory-obsolete/656625/84 "2013-04-26T18:12:50Z")
> [@rogerbox](#): > > Before attributing the economic boom of the United States in those years to free-market libertarian principals and exploitation of the workers, I do not attribute the economic boom of the United States to free-market principals and exploitation of the workers. I attribute it to free-market principles only, and where the free market is, there’s little exploitation of workers. A 19th century working poor person in the USA, if he didn’t like his current employer, could walk out and look for a new employer. If he didn’t like any of the employers in town, he could move to a new town. If he didn’t like any of the employers in the entire state, he could move to a new state. Consequently employers in the USA have always had to compete for workers, and this has always been good for workers. By contrast, workers in countries such as France and Italy during those times were not free to move about as they pleased, nor to freely negotiate with employers for what they wanted. The results are plainly apparent in that the standard of living soared upwards for American workers throughout the century. The same did not happen in Italy or most of Europe. Moreover, while American history includes some cases of labor unrest, it does not feature rioting workers taking over entire cities or toppling governments, as happened many times in Europe. (I assume we’re all familiar with [the silk worker riots](http://www.francetoday.com/articles/2012/12/04/lyon_s_traboules.html) in Lyon.) > [@](#): > > Basically, any idiots would’ve been able to make massive wealth if they stumbled upon an entire country back then (with no qualms about genocide) History proves this to be false. 19th-century Brazil had plentiful natural resources but it did not give its people prosperity the way the United States did. What Brazil lacked was a free economy. Likewise for 19th-century China. And Russia. And India. But perhaps the clearest case is Argentina. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Argentina was among the wealthiest nations on earth, and a popular destination for immigrants from all over, just like the United States. It had plentiful open space and natural resources and certainly seemed destined for greatness. But starting in mid-20th century, Argentina went down the path of socialism and today is poorer than its neighbors. It’s also worth noting that many of the world’s richest countries are not blessed with plentiful natural resources and vast open spaces: Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong, Denmark, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Israel, … Open space and natural resources do not produce prosperity. Economic freedom produces prosperity. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2013, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-all-economic-ideologies-aside-from-free-market-randian-theory-obsolete/656625/85 "2013-04-26T19:03:35Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Well, then, that’s easy. Like video games, television, and movies, they self-regulate because they fear federal regulation. It’s just a second order of effect of regulation instead of a first order effect. Right. An interesting example of this occurs when movies start self-censoring after 1934 because of the Hays Code. Except in reality, Will Hays was hired in 1922 to start regulating what was seen as the excesses of Hollywood. He was mostly ignored, and the Catholic Church, then an extremely powerful institution, was offended. A pair of prominent Catholics then wrote a code reflecting these concerns, which was adopted in 1930. This was the famous Hays Code, which was in effect during what is now called pre-Code Hollywood, when the early sound movies included large number of risque scenes. It wasn’t until 1934 that Joseph Breen, another moral Catholic, took over Code enforcement and got the studios to back down. The Code saved Hollywood, but it’s folly to say that no regulation was involved. In 1933 the Church created The Legion of Decency and Catholics, a huge chunk of the audience in the critical Northeast, heavily populated areas, were forbidden to attend films given a C (condemned) under penalty of sin or something. The government was also threatening to step in and the Depression had cut film attendance, so further loss could be devastating. You can talk about this as being responsive to their market, but that’s nonsense. The market loved those pre-Code films. It was only large, repressive institutions that cared and only they who could make their power felt. In reality, the government is one of a competing mass of interest groups that create regulations. You will never have a free market merely by removing the government. That can only occur if your ideology defines out other institutions as meaningless. Which is, of course, what some believe. > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > I do not attribute the economic boom of the United States to free-market principals and exploitation of the workers. The economic boom of the late 19th/early 20th centuries is too complex to be ascribed to free-market principles only. Even if it were, free marketers conveniently overlook all the ways that government aided and abetted one side and repressed the other. The U.S. had instituted a set of protective tariffs to help the growing industrial base that were so onerous that Great Britain was scrape-off-the-ceiling furious about them. The government ignored the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and allowed trusts to control over 300 industries before the tide turned against them. The government actively worked to break union power, often supplying federal troops to break strikes, and denied them support through the courts. The courts also found that most of the things we take for granted today and that were being fought for by the progressives - child labor bans, minimum wages, length of workdays, safer conditions - were illegal bans on contracts. There was no free market in the days of laissez-faire. There was a formal, institutionalized, governmental bias in favor of big and bigger business and against workers and unions. It was as unfree a market as any Socialist paradise. To call it free you have to be willfully blind to the realities of the time. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2013, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-all-economic-ideologies-aside-from-free-market-randian-theory-obsolete/656625/86 "2013-04-26T19:17:09Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > What makes the free market great is that it takes people with bad intentions and makes them act good. And, of course, quite often vice-versa. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2013, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-all-economic-ideologies-aside-from-free-market-randian-theory-obsolete/656625/87 "2013-04-26T20:01:40Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Corrupt? Was Milton Friedman in it for the money? Is Milton Friedman your average economist? He was a rock star economist, he was in it for the ego-boo and all the hot groupies, man! ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2013, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-all-economic-ideologies-aside-from-free-market-randian-theory-obsolete/656625/88 "2013-04-26T21:49:53Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > We’re still arguing about how much capitalism needs to be regulated, but the debate over free markets vs. central planning has been decided, and yes, those still in favor of central planning are dinosaurs. Yeah, the big ones. Want to get stepped on, mammal? ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2013, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-all-economic-ideologies-aside-from-free-market-randian-theory-obsolete/656625/89 "2013-04-26T22:02:16Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > **Economic ideologies are always wrong.** > > Economics, the social science, is quite often right. An _ideology_ is, pretty much by definition, a stubborn oversimplification. This is it, right here. > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Marxist economies were able to function only to the extent that they weren’t truly communist… Ah, the “no true Commie” argument. Here’s a tip: Marx did not advocate either the ends nor the tactics of the Khmer Rouge, therefore they were not the true Marxists. > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Okay, let’s have a look. Of course there has never been a country governed exactly along the lines that Adam Smith proposed, just as there’s never been one governed exactly as Karl Marx proposed. However, some of have come close. In the USA in the 19th and early 20th centuries, we had economic policy pretty close to libertarian lines… The “we’re the True Scotsman” argument? The USA succeeded for geographic and geopolitical reasons. Once fossil fuel technology developed, the USA’s territory was suddenly very fecund. Texas has unusually large natural gas deposits and oil fields, while the eastern US (conveniently purged of indigenous people) has a mountain range full of coal and lowlands suitable for massive fiber-crop production. The Western US had enormous copper seams in the middle of what was practically desert. It’s geology, geography, and geopolitics. I’m not going to spend a day doing the mirror image of puddleglum’s post #73, but it would look something like this: Every significant country that has tried capitalism has either had genocide, slavery, or both. Pure anarcho-syndicalism has been tried once, in Spain, and the fascists ate their lunch. But every country that has tried some _moderate central planning_ has grown. That includes the USA. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2013, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-all-economic-ideologies-aside-from-free-market-randian-theory-obsolete/656625/90 "2013-04-26T22:26:17Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > If I don’t like the way I was treated by a company I can use their competitor. If I don’t like the way a government is treating me, I can sell my house, get a new job, get my spouse a new job, take my kids out of school and away from their friends and move to a place with a different government. > > What makes the free market great is that it takes people with bad intentions and makes them act good. > > […] > > In a free market greed helps most people, in in combination with government power greed hurts most people. Since people are greedy the free market is the better system. Your theoretical “free market” still has to face economic reality. That freedom to walk away isn’t impeded by evil government creating monopoly, unless the very ownership of property is evil government creating monopoly. Society needs laws, or customs, or regulations, that ensure that individual freedom. Remember your Rousseau. > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Moreover, while American history includes some cases of labor unrest, it does not feature rioting workers taking over entire cities or toppling governments, as happened many times in Europe. And those “workers” taking over was a _bad_ thing? Yes, workers’ revolts in the USA were generally defeated by armed conservative action, and died off after the moderate social democracy of FDR and Truman came into power–at the same time central planning became mainstream, and the economy began a 20-year boom. You really think this proves that we need to repudiate FDR and Truman? > [@](#): > > It’s also worth noting that many of the world’s richest countries are not blessed with plentiful natural resources and vast open spaces: Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong, Denmark, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Israel, … > > Open space and natural resources do not produce prosperity. Economic freedom produces prosperity. Those are rich _small_ countries. How many people do they support? Again, scientific economics cares about numbers. Further, Denmark has a massive welfare state, the Netherlands are radically communitarian _(or they all would drown)_, Singapore is authoritarian, Israel is an army with a religion or something (and unstable now), Japan is corporatist and protectionist if not _dirigiste_. None of them are your libertarian paradise. What of the other two? Switzerland is propped by topography–there’s geopolitics again–and crooked bankers. And then there’s Hong Kong. I don’t know much about it, but it’s been a vassal of the British Empire and then China, not really geopolitically self-sustaining, but able to leverage its trade position between great powers. Maybe it is what you’re looking for, but it’s not the USA either. I wonder, how important is HK now that China proper is the world’s manufacturer, and outsiders trade directly with Shanghai and Shenzhen? ---
**Author:** ![rogerbox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/76d3ee/32.png) [@rogerbox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rogerbox)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2013, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-all-economic-ideologies-aside-from-free-market-randian-theory-obsolete/656625/91 "2013-04-26T23:50:18Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > A 19th century working poor person in the USA, if he didn’t like his current employer, could walk out and look for a new employer. …Are you sure about that? Think hard. ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2013, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-all-economic-ideologies-aside-from-free-market-randian-theory-obsolete/656625/92 "2013-04-27T00:36:12Z")
Isn’t this one of those Constitutional Amendments? _A well regulated Free Market being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to buy and to sell shall not be infringed_ 😛 ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2013, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-all-economic-ideologies-aside-from-free-market-randian-theory-obsolete/656625/93 "2013-04-27T01:16:28Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > So the banking industry was deregulated right up to the point where it was on the verge of collapse. At which time it was saved by being re-regulated. > > Or we could give the example of how the savings and loan industry was de-regulated right up the point where it was on the verge of collapse. At which time it was saved by being re-regulated. > > Or maybe how the energy industry was de-regulated right up the point where it was on the verge of collapse. At which time it was saved by being re-regulated. > > Or we could talk about Canadian girlfriends. When was the energy industry re-regulated? Finance, I will concede, has to be well regulated because it poses a systemic threat to the economy otherwise. However, other deregulated industries have thrived, such as the airlines, trucking, energy, telecommunications, and beer. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2013, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-all-economic-ideologies-aside-from-free-market-randian-theory-obsolete/656625/94 "2013-04-27T01:52:51Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > When was the energy industry re-regulated? Finance, I will concede, has to be well regulated because it poses a systemic threat to the economy otherwise. However, other deregulated industries have thrived, such as the airlines, trucking, energy, telecommunications, and beer. This is absolutely hilarious. Thrived? Every major airline has gone bankrupt multiple times since deregulation. They are merging in desperation to create something too big to fail, but they will fail anyway since - I’m paraphrasing here - the merger of two mediocre companies gives you one big bad company. And I don’t know what you think of by energy companies, but the poster child for energy deregulation is Enron. It was not an aberration, merely the largest such. This isn’t an argument against all deregulation. As an MIT Study of the trucking industry notes, “Regulation can help, hinder, or be neutral toward competition.” Deregulation does tend to drive down rates, but it also - necessarily - tends simultaneously to drive down service and customer satisfaction. These are trade-offs of varying importance to varying segments of the economic community. Not including customer reactions to modern airline or telecommunications policies is the same as not including externalities when looking as the effects of energy production. The bottom line is that mindless assertion that deregulation is always a positive is always laughable. It’s an ideological position of the sort we’ve been mocking in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2013, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-all-economic-ideologies-aside-from-free-market-randian-theory-obsolete/656625/95 "2013-04-27T02:14:20Z")
Yes we all remember how workers were being exploited so badly in late 19th and early 20th century United States. That’s why immigrants were flocking here in droves. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2013, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-all-economic-ideologies-aside-from-free-market-randian-theory-obsolete/656625/96 "2013-04-27T02:34:38Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Yes we all remember how workers were being exploited so badly in late 19th and early 20th century United States. That’s why immigrants were flocking here in droves. The U.S. probably did look good in comparison with the opportunities in Europe, just as the slums of London offered opportunities to farm workers who moved there. It’s not much of an argument that bad conditions are better than horrible conditions. Why not look at the actual behavior of the workers, including immigrants, who were there at the time. They were loud and activist in opposition to the owners, across all industries, all immigrant groups, and all locations. And they kept up that continual opposition until after WWII, when conditions finally changed. [You call that an argument? This is an Argument](http://blogs.trb.com/features/family/parenting/blog/dundee1.jpg). ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2013, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-all-economic-ideologies-aside-from-free-market-randian-theory-obsolete/656625/97 "2013-04-27T03:33:32Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > This is absolutely hilarious. Thrived? Every major airline has gone bankrupt multiple times since deregulation. They are merging in desperation to create something too big to fail, but they will fail anyway since - I’m paraphrasing here - the merger of two mediocre companies gives you one big bad company. And I don’t know what you think of by energy companies, but the poster child for energy deregulation is Enron. It was not an aberration, merely the largest such. The big airline companies aren’t thriving, but discount airlines have sprouted up in their place. The airlines needed protection from competition because they had an unsustainable business model. The market is still working that out. But there is no shortage of air travel. Enron isn’t energy, you’re thinking of utilities. And utilities deregulation wasn’t federal, it was state, and different states had different experiences with it. Stupid deregulation, like California did, where you deregulate price on one end but not the other, is of course going to fail. Texas’ much smarter utility deregulation went much better and is still in effect. > [@](#): > > This isn’t an argument against all deregulation. As an MIT Study of the trucking industry notes, “Regulation can help, hinder, or be neutral toward competition.” Deregulation does tend to drive down rates, but it also - necessarily - tends simultaneously to drive down service and customer satisfaction. These are trade-offs of varying importance to varying segments of the economic community. Not including customer reactions to modern airline or telecommunications policies is the same as not including externalities when looking as the effects of energy production. The bottom line is that mindless assertion that deregulation is always a positive is always laughable. It’s an ideological position of the sort we’ve been mocking in this thread. Definitely. Regulation is like any other use of force, sometimes it’s justified, sometimes it’s not. Also, when the term “deregulation” is used, it’s usually not actual deregulation so much as allowing competition and the market to set prices, whereas previously the government set barriers to market entry and used price controls to compensate for the fact that they were controlling competition. The airlines were deregulated only in the sense that discount airlines could not enter the market. Obviously, safety regulations were not abolished. In the case of California’s electricity abortion, they deregulated the wholesale rates, but kept the retail rates regulated. That’s asshattery on wheels and would have resulted in a crisis even without Enron’s crimes. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2013, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-all-economic-ideologies-aside-from-free-market-randian-theory-obsolete/656625/98 "2013-04-27T03:42:57Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Also, when the term “deregulation” is used, it’s usually not actual deregulation so much as allowing competition and the market to set prices, whereas previously the government set barriers to market entry and used price controls to compensate for the fact that they were controlling competition. The airlines were deregulated only in the sense that discount airlines could not enter the market. Obviously, safety regulations were not abolished. This is the problem with this sort of very vague, very general, very absolute discussion of regulation of capitalism (not the above post, the whole thread). A regulation can be a disclosure requirement, a safety standard, a subsidy, or a barrier to entry that favors existing firms (or countless other things). These will all produce wildly different effects, as will removing them. Being pro or anti regulation in a vacuum is meaningless, because regulation (and deregulation) is such a broad spectrum. In short: absolutism of any type in this matter is foolish. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2013, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-all-economic-ideologies-aside-from-free-market-randian-theory-obsolete/656625/99 "2013-04-27T03:48:26Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > The U.S. probably did look good in comparison with the opportunities in Europe, just as the slums of London offered opportunities to farm workers who moved there. > > It’s not much of an argument that bad conditions are better than horrible conditions. Why not look at the actual behavior of the workers, including immigrants, who were there at the time. They were loud and activist in opposition to the owners, across all industries, all immigrant groups, and all locations. And they kept up that continual opposition until after WWII, when conditions finally changed. > > [You call that an argument? This is an Argument](http://blogs.trb.com/features/family/parenting/blog/dundee1.jpg). Ok there’s nothing wrong with unionization and opposition to management per se. For example, the 8 hour work day was already being adopted in most industries before government mandated it. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2013, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-all-economic-ideologies-aside-from-free-market-randian-theory-obsolete/656625/100 "2013-04-27T15:45:22Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Enron isn’t energy, you’re thinking of utilities. Enron was a conglomerate, and had many, probably dozens, of businesses. It’s utility segment was a very minor portion of the company, although the only one that survived whole. Warren Buffett bought it, in fact. What got Enron into trouble was its energy trading business. That’s why I said I didn’t know what you were referring to by “energy” and we seem to have different definitions. It’s not worth the hijack. > [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Ok there’s nothing wrong with unionization and opposition to management per se. For example, the 8 hour work day was already being adopted in most industries before government mandated it. Many people believe that the government just up and passed a law requiring the 8 hour work day and everybody rejoiced. That’s not history, and it’s impossible to tell what you believe. The [8 hour work day](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day#United_States) was implemented slowly and piecemeal precisely because the government needed to step in when too many major industries refused to make those concessions to their own workers. > [@](#): > > The United States Adamson Act in 1916 established an eight-hour day, with additional pay for overtime, for railroad workers. This was the first federal law that regulated the hours of workers in private companies. The United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Act in Wilson v. New, 243 U.S. 332 (1917). > > The eight-hour day might have been realized for many working people in the U.S. in 1937, when what became the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S. Code Chapter 8) was first proposed under the New Deal. As enacted, the act applied to industries whose combined employment represented about twenty percent of the U.S. labor force. This may represent a fundamental gap between the conservative/libertarian principles and the progressive/liberal principles. The former will allow small bodies to claw gains to themselves and scorn any group who is too weak to do so. The latter sees groups as equal under the law and will work to set standards so that accidents of size, type, location, industry, or circumstances don’t keep them from succeeding. That argument per se was thought to be settled over the 20th century. All groups and all individuals will not be treated equally or even fairly, but minimum standards thought necessary to a modern civilized country were placed into law. The fraction of those standards that affect the workforce actually served to improve the economy just as the fraction of those standards that affect civil rights served to improve the society. Neither had the dire effects prophesied by their opponents. I’m suppose that there’s some homily like “the battle for freedom must be continually fought” buried in the current resurrection of these dead arguments. Politics is not, except exceptionally, about rights: it’s always about where the line should be drawn. That’s true even in the most seemingly absolute issues like guns and abortion. (Can an individual own an atomic bomb? No? How about a tank? No? How about an assault rifle? Can an individual have an abortion in case of incest? Yes? If the life of the mother is as risk? Yes? How about if the life and health of the mother is at risk?) The history of the this country is an endless series of moving the lines toward the more progressive side. Moving them back provides few victories and those are normally short-lived. And even those move the line back only to a place that would have seemed wildly extremely progressive at one point. The future always wins. And the future is always progressive. You can never go back home. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-all-economic-ideologies-aside-from-free-market-randian-theory-obsolete/656625.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-all-economic-ideologies-aside-from-free-market-randian-theory-obsolete/656625.md?page=6)