Assignment #16: Industrialization Seminar - engine of souls

Date: Jan 2, 2008

RE: Assignment #16: Industrialization Seminar

Date: Jan 2, 2008

Calisa wrote:

hi i don't know what to do. i want to try 5 i think. im not ready to be back in school yet.

Think of it as a balancing scale. Which tips the scale more, the costs (bad things) or the benefits (good things) of industrialization. Think of specific examples like more jobs or pollution.

Date: Jan 2, 2008

What is the relationship between humanity and machines?

The relationship between humanity and machines. I think in a sense that now with how far we are that you could almost say human and machines co-exist. We rely so much on everyday technology that if we were to go back in time I think that what people have no now they wouldn't take for granted. The simple things we use everyday make life easier and with out them sure some could survive but it would be a struggle bc humanity has gotten so used to better things in life. Electricity, phones, cellular devices the internet. Some of humanity wouldn't know what to do with there life if they didn't have machines. Who's really looking at what they can do in nature instead of cooped up in a house playin video games and talkin online for instance?

Date: Jan 2, 2008

Patrick wrote:

The machines that replace peoples jobs are if you think about it just replacing jobs that were only there in the first place because of the machines. I think the development of machines are like a growing child when they were started they needed humans to guide there every move but as the machines get older (more advanced) they need less and less help.

Add a little something in the relationship between people and machines they more they dont need us the more we need them.

Date: Jan 2, 2008

Alexa wrote:

5.
During the Industrial Revolution cities grew in number and population. In 1860 there were only 9 American cities with more than 100,000 inhabitants. By 1900 there were 38. Many workers were finding themselves being replaced by new machines. The balance tipped in businesses favor over labor force, as their firms grew larger. Maximum 8-hour workday and 40-hour workweek were part of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

So, like I said to Calissa, which side do you think is tipping? The good or the bad as a result or consequence of industriaization. You could think of the answer either then or now.

Date: Jan 2, 2008

2. Is capitalism a socially responsible economic theory?

I dont think capitalism is a stable way of economy. Its a way of economy that fluctuates depending on what business or property right you are dealing with. Capitalism seems to apply to only some businesses and not others. It doesnt seem like a consistent form of economy.

Date: Jan 2, 2008

Erin wrote:

10) The only connection I think that they have is that wealth enables progress. For example in order for us as a country to make progress in medicine a huge amount of money goes into reasearch and development of new drugs.

Even if the economic, social, or technological progress doesn't reach everyone it doesn't mean we aren't making any.

Erin, do you know that almost all of that money for R&D comes from the federal government, and therefore our taxes?

Date: Jan 2, 2008

1. Were industrialists robber barons or captains of industry?

For this question an argument could be made for either depending on how you look at it. Im going to say that they were both to certain extents. Examples of how they were Robber barons can be seen in the railroad industry were people went in to make a quick buck via fraud. Jay Gould was a speculator and used watered stock to make millions and the Credit Mobilier company using scams and congressman to obtain its goal. Another example of a robber baron is J.P. Morgan where he started to make his money off of the military by selling over-priced and faulty equipment to them. The way they think also makes them look like robber barons as in one example where James Mellons father writes to him saying that a man doesnt have to serve to be a patriot while there are less valuable lives to take their place showing that at least some of these wealthy business owners thought their lives were better and more important than the average mans. In another case Rockefeller practiced un-ethical business practices by driving them out of business purposefully by lowering prices until they sold out and then driving the prices right back up and in one case arranging an accident to happen at another oil companys refinery to cripple them.

Date: Jan 2, 2008

Yes, having the choice to decide something does not necessarily mean it will be right or moral. However, if someone doesnt have the ability to decide something then how can ones actions be considered moral (or unmoral)? Under socialism, the powers that be (leaders in political office) control many aspects of government and the economy (for example how many of a certain type of car can be made in one year). The general people are much more likely to govern justly and morally than a handful of politicians who hold almost absolute power. (Absolute power corrupts absolutely)

Date: Jan 2, 2008

anna wrote:

2. Is capitalism a socially responsible economic theory?

I dont think capitalism is a stable way of economy. Its a way of economy that fluctuates depending on what business or property right you are dealing with. Capitalism seems to apply to only some businesses and not others. It doesnt seem like a consistent form of economy.

I think you are getting a couple of things confused. Capitalism is like the rules that govern all transactions of money in the US (and most of the world). It is an economic theory advanced by Adam Smith in 1776 in his groundbreaking book, the Wealth of Nations. So the question refers to the ability of capitalism (as a set of rules) to look out for the general welfare of society.

Date: Jan 2, 2008

Without humanity, machines would never have been invented. And in relation to humanity, machines do most of the work to produce things nowadays. Without machines many factories would not be in existence, and industrialization would never have taken place. Also, once machines were invented, there was a greater need for factory and mill workers in the United States, calling for immigrants from other countries, and adding to the country's diversity. <hr /></blockquote>What about either machines that replace human labor or machines that make humans just another part in them (like assembly lines)? I think that machines that replace human labor took away jobs for many people, so in some cases, machines affected humanity in negative ways. Sometimes, machines dominated people in factories, and the people were just part of a process in the production of goods. <hr /></blockquote>I agree with Breanne if it weren't for humans we would have machines. I do think in present day we rely on machines to much. Some jobs were taken away but on a pos. note production gets done at a faster rate, so impatient people can get what they want, when they want it.

Date: Jan 2, 2008

mre wrote:

baldo wrote:

4. Can alternative political philosophies operate in a democracy?
Yes, I think different political philosophies can operate in a democracy. Actually I believe that different political philosophies have to exist for a democracy to really exist. If there were only one idea and everyone agreed with it, the country would be more of a monarchy, there would be no voting if everyone had the same ideas. There need to be separate ideas to run a country as well, some ideas are better than others and working it out with people who dont think exactly like you do can be beneficial because their ideas can help form solutions you might not have thought of before. So not only can different political philosophies operate in a democracy but I think they more than likely need to exist.

Well, in our democracy, different political ideas were considered threats to the US in general. Think of communism or socialism or anarchism. All were considered threats to democracy. What if people in a democracy decided democratically not to be democratic anymore? huh? Another example is in Palestine, where a former terrorist group was democratically voted into power. Do you think that's still democratic?

But then, Mr. E, arent the ideas of these still seen or felt in the democracy. The ideal communism isnt really that bad. We see the idea that classes do not matter in our democracy, in the fact that anyone can be elected into office despite their means, and the classless ideal is communist. Then there are socialist ideas arent welfare and the projects of this city a way to help equalize land ownership and helping to share the wealth like the socialists want. Finally there is anarchism, in a way a democracy can help mild anarchism, we can vote to exclude the government from some aspects of our lives. In response to the Palestine thing, it is still democratic if they were voted into power. Even if they coerced people to vote for them, they still had a choice.

Date: Jan 2, 2008

mre wrote:

Erin wrote:

10) The only connection I think that they have is that wealth enables progress. For example in order for us as a country to make progress in medicine a huge amount of money goes into reasearch and development of new drugs.

Even if the economic, social, or technological progress doesn't reach everyone it doesn't mean we aren't making any.

Erin, do you know that almost all of that money for R&D comes from the federal government, and therefore our taxes?

I knew a portion of it does.(I thought more came fromprivate corporations though). But that wasn't really my point in bringing it up...My point was that it takes a lot of money to make progress, and thats why I felt that the only connection is that wealth enables progress.

Date: Jan 2, 2008

mre wrote:

Breanne wrote:

#9
Without humanity, machines would never have been invented. And in relation to humanity, machines do most of the work to produce things nowadays. Without machines many factories would not be in existence, and industrialization would never have taken place. Also, once machines were invented, there was a greater need for factory and mill workers in the United States, calling for immigrants from other countries, and adding to the country's diversity.

What about either machines that replace human labor or machines that make humans just another part in them (like assembly lines)?

I agree with Breanne if it weren't for humans we would have machines. I do think in present day we rely on machines to much. Some jobs were taken away but on a pos. note production gets done at a faster rate, so impatient people can get what they want, when they want it.

Oops messed up before... sorry

Date: Jan 2, 2008

Dan S. wrote:

1. Were industrialists robber barons or captains of industry?
For this question an argument could be made for either depending on how you look at it. Im going to say that they were both to certain extents. Examples of how they were Robber barons can be seen in the railroad industry were people went in to make a quick buck via fraud. Jay Gould was a speculator and used watered stock to make millions and the Credit Mobilier company using scams and congressman to obtain its goal. Another example of a robber baron is J.P. Morgan where he started to make his money off of the military by selling over-priced and faulty equipment to them. The way they think also makes them look like robber barons as in one example where James Mellons father writes to him saying that a man doesnt have to serve to be a patriot while there are less valuable lives to take their place showing that at least some of these wealthy business owners thought their lives were better and more important than the average mans. In another case Rockefeller practiced un-ethical business practices by driving them out of business purposefully by lowering prices until they sold out and then driving the prices right back up and in one case arranging an accident to happen at another oil companys refinery to cripple them.

Dan, well done. Thanks.

Date: Jan 2, 2008

5. Industrialization brought more people to the cities. In 1860 there were only 9 American cities with more than 100,000 inhabitants and in 1900 there were 38 citys with more than 100,000 inhabitants. Also many skilled workers begin to lose a lot of money to the new machines. Many craftsmen lost their home businesses and had to work for shops. This damaged the working class but sped up production of many items 10-fold and made goods cheaper and better produced. It also made transport much faster with the development of cable cars, trolleys, and subways in 1880. The fair on these were more expensive than the slow horse-drawn carriages of the 1850s 60s and 70s.

Date: Jan 2, 2008

1. One last example is that they did cause the people that worked for them to suffer just to maintain profits and to be able to pay dividends to their stockholders. They had to keep wages low, which made it hard for the worker to have his family live off of his income alone, in order to keep the profits up as in Carnegies corporation. In addition since most of the companies that controlled monopolies like Carnegies controlled industry prices, they could then basically make the rules and anyone who opposed them would be dealt with harshly.

Date: Jan 2, 2008

ashbaldo wrote:

mre wrote:

baldo wrote:

4. Can alternative political philosophies operate in a democracy?
Yes, I think different political philosophies can operate in a democracy. Actually I believe that different political philosophies have to exist for a democracy to really exist. If there were only one idea and everyone agreed with it, the country would be more of a monarchy, there would be no voting if everyone had the same ideas. There need to be separate ideas to run a country as well, some ideas are better than others and working it out with people who dont think exactly like you do can be beneficial because their ideas can help form solutions you might not have thought of before. So not only can different political philosophies operate in a democracy but I think they more than likely need to exist.

Well, in our democracy, different political ideas were considered threats to the US in general. Think of communism or socialism or anarchism. All were considered threats to democracy. What if people in a democracy decided democratically not to be democratic anymore? huh? Another example is in Palestine, where a former terrorist group was democratically voted into power. Do you think that's still democratic?

But then, Mr. E, arent the ideas of these still seen or felt in the democracy. The ideal communism isnt really that bad. We see the idea that classes do not matter in our democracy, in the fact that anyone can be elected into office despite their means, and the classless ideal is communist. Then there are socialist ideas arent welfare and the projects of this city a way to help equalize land ownership and helping to share the wealth like the socialists want. Finally there is anarchism, in a way a democracy can help mild anarchism, we can vote to exclude the government from some aspects of our lives. In response to the Palestine thing, it is still democratic if they were voted into power. Even if they coerced people to vote for them, they still had a choice.

"Even if they coerced people to vote for them, they still had a choice." Really??? Is this like Saddam getting 100% of the vote before we invaded?

Date: Jan 2, 2008

mre wrote:

ashleyb wrote:

10. What is the relationship between wealth and progress? Wealth and progress are deeply related with each other. When there is progress there is more wealth because progress often benefits the economy of the country the progress is occurring in. Such as the progress of industrialization. Then, from the wealth earned from the progress, more progress can be made because there is money backing up the work that creates the progress.

Wealth and progress are not shared equally. Still in the US today, 1 in 5 children is born in poverty. Not all people in the US has access to the net. What about people who can't afford medicine or health insurance?

I was not speaking about those forms of progress. I was more talking about industrial progress because that was what the chapter was about and where my mind was at this time. But, today the country is losing money and in massive debt, so progress is not being made well because there is no wealth to back it up.

Date: Jan 2, 2008

I feel that class stratification unequally distributes power and influence. Not only that, but it breeds conflict and animosity, and cultivates a cultural divide. Class division was a threat to American democracy like it is for any nation with social stratification.

America at that time housed and bred numerous anarchist and socialist movements. I feel that much of this came about due to the economic practices and class structures of the time. These movements helped to reinforce the point of the many Marxist and anarchist thinkers before them; that as wealth and power begins to concentrate around a smaller amount of people a strife begins between opposing classes, as a class divide occurs and perceptions blur and misconceptions grow, a class war manifests itself, which is a direct product of capitalism.

Date: Jan 2, 2008

mitchell wrote:

5. Industrialization brought more people to the cities. In 1860 there were only 9 American cities with more than 100,000 inhabitants and in 1900 there were 38 citys with more than 100,000 inhabitants. Also many skilled workers begin to lose a lot of money to the new machines. Many craftsmen lost their home businesses and had to work for shops. This damaged the working class but sped up production of many items 10-fold and made goods cheaper and better produced. It also made transport much faster with the development of cable cars, trolleys, and subways in 1880. The fair on these were more expensive than the slow horse-drawn carriages of the 1850s 60s and 70s.

Alexa: "In 1860 there were only 9 American cities with more than 100,000 inhabitants. By 1900 there were 38. Many workers were finding themselves being replaced by new machines."

Mitch: "In 1860 there were only 9 American cities with more than 100,000 inhabitants and in 1900 there were 38 citys with more than 100,000 inhabitants. Also many skilled workers begin to lose a lot of money to the new machines."

hmmm...

Date: Jan 2, 2008

mre wrote:

ashbaldo wrote:

mre wrote:

baldo wrote:

4. Can alternative political philosophies operate in a democracy?
Yes, I think different political philosophies can operate in a democracy. Actually I believe that different political philosophies have to exist for a democracy to really exist. If there were only one idea and everyone agreed with it, the country would be more of a monarchy, there would be no voting if everyone had the same ideas. There need to be separate ideas to run a country as well, some ideas are better than others and working it out with people who dont think exactly like you do can be beneficial because their ideas can help form solutions you might not have thought of before. So not only can different political philosophies operate in a democracy but I think they more than likely need to exist.

Well, in our democracy, different political ideas were considered threats to the US in general. Think of communism or socialism or anarchism. All were considered threats to democracy. What if people in a democracy decided democratically not to be democratic anymore? huh? Another example is in Palestine, where a former terrorist group was democratically voted into power. Do you think that's still democratic?

But then, Mr. E, arent the ideas of these still seen or felt in the democracy. The ideal communism isnt really that bad. We see the idea that classes do not matter in our democracy, in the fact that anyone can be elected into office despite their means, and the classless ideal is communist. Then there are socialist ideas arent welfare and the projects of this city a way to help equalize land ownership and helping to share the wealth like the socialists want. Finally there is anarchism, in a way a democracy can help mild anarchism, we can vote to exclude the government from some aspects of our lives. In response to the Palestine thing, it is still democratic if they were voted into power. Even if they coerced people to vote for them, they still had a choice.

"Even if they coerced people to vote for them, they still had a choice." Really??? Is this like Saddam getting 100% of the vote before we invaded?

no thats called a rigged election. Then that is not democracy. I'm saying that if people voted and if they had other candidates that were not being brought down by the terrorists that were running than the people had options. Saddam was terrifying and no one would really seriously oppose him without there being threats of death or actual death.

Date: Jan 2, 2008

Val wrote:

I feel that class stratification unequally distributes power and influence. Not only that, but it breeds conflict and animosity, and cultivates a cultural divide. Class division was a threat to American democracy like it is for any nation with social stratification.

America at that time housed and bred numerous anarchist and socialist movements. I feel that much of this came about due to the economic practices and class structures of the time. These movements helped to reinforce the point of the many Marxist and anarchist thinkers before them; that as wealth and power begins to concentrate around a smaller amount of people a strife begins between opposing classes, as a class divide occurs and perceptions blur and misconceptions grow, a class war manifests itself, which is a direct product of capitalism.

Does that threat still exist?

Date: Jan 2, 2008

Erin wrote:

mre wrote:

Erin wrote:

10) The only connection I think that they have is that wealth enables progress. For example in order for us as a country to make progress in medicine a huge amount of money goes into reasearch and development of new drugs.

Even if the economic, social, or technological progress doesn't reach everyone it doesn't mean we aren't making any.

Erin, do you know that almost all of that money for R&D comes from the federal government, and therefore our taxes?

I knew a portion of it does.(I thought more came fromprivate corporations though). But that wasn't really my point in bringing it up...My point was that it takes a lot of money to make progress, and thats why I felt that the only connection is that wealth enables progress.

Ah, but what good is progress if it only benefits a select few? This is one of the basic questions concerning wealth. Wealth could possibly deny progress to many.

Date: Jan 2, 2008

8. Can the pace of technological innovation be controlled?

No matter how hard we try, I dont think the pace of technology can be controlled or even slowed down. Every day, people are working harder and harder to create things that will make life easier, make things more compact, or speed up the process. Stopping or controlling the process will only cause us to go back in technological history and slow us down and will prove to be a major setback.

Date: Jan 2, 2008

this subject

Date: Jan 2, 2008

RE: Assignment #16: Industrialization Seminar

Date: Jan 2, 2008

Kelby wrote:

I feel that the democratic process is altered by the lower class but not necessarily in a bad way. They vote for change and a way out of their current situation and sometimes that isn't always a bad thing. The lower class shakes the process up a little per say. Obviously wealth matters it determines the current economical state of the country and sometimes patriotism and even democracy. It is easy to get along when everything is going well, it takes a lot of work to keep the process undercontrol when everything is crazy and everyone is afraid of their current situation. Wealth does infact matter, depending on the current distribution wealth it can or cannot be in a bernefitial way. In the '08 presidential election the democratic process is infact being influenced by the current financial state of the country.

Do you think that there is any evidence that the rich participate politically more than the poor, or the other way around? Look it up.

Date: Jan 2, 2008

Number 5

Some costs{bad things} that were caused by industrialization were strains on family life. The money families had was earned by men, women and sometimes children. Some benifits{good things} that happened because of industrialization were better job opportunities and medical breakthroughs.

Date: Jan 2, 2008

Inequality through exploitation:
If "exploitation" means increasing the standard of living of the masses, tripling the life span of the average man, and bringing wealth and prosperity to all those who live under it, then capitalism is a system of "exploitation." If "exploitation" means making the masses slaves -- then I refer one to Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and Communist China.

Date: Jan 2, 2008

anna wrote:

8. Can the pace of technological innovation be controlled?

No matter how hard we try, I dont think the pace of technology can be controlled or even slowed down. Every day, people are working harder and harder to create things that will make life easier, make things more compact, or speed up the process. Stopping or controlling the process will only cause us to go back in technological history and slow us down and will prove to be a major setback.

Well, look at the organic movement against genetically altered food? Or the laws that the US government set against human cloning. What about those?

Date: Jan 2, 2008

Thanx Mre!

is it ok if i come after school for dbq

help?

Date: Jan 2, 2008

Chris wrote:

Inequality through exploitation:
If "exploitation" means increasing the standard of living of the masses, tripling the life span of the average man, and bringing wealth and prosperity to all those who live under it, then capitalism is a system of "exploitation." If "exploitation" means making the masses slaves -- then I refer one to Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and Communist China.

There are two sides to every coin. Pun INTENDED.

Date: Jan 2, 2008

minus 3 and add 10

Date: Jan 2, 2008

Calisa wrote:

Number 5

Some costs{bad things} that were caused by industrialization were strains on family life. The money families had was earned by men, women and sometimes children. Some benifits{good things} that happened because of industrialization were better job opportunities and medical breakthroughs.

Can you think of some examples from history?

Date: Jan 2, 2008

1. Despite all the bad or unethical practices and things that they did, they helped create new innovations and inventions to make life easier like A/C current to provide electricity to entire cities and steel which was stronger and more durable than iron. They also helped create the telephone which allowed people to connect to one another faster and from farther away and other essential inventions which everyone uses nowadays like cameras, fountain pens, and razors. Many of them also became philanthropists doing good to the nation as a whole by funding universities, libraries and other places of education even though these in turn were used for their benefit by controlling the masses through teachers.

Date: Jan 2, 2008

My position
I think technology overall is a good thing. It makes life easier. I personally enjoy not thinking and using computers and registers and other stuff. Without this I have no idea where I would be or what I would do. Or if I would even be capable of surviving.

Date: Jan 2, 2008

3. Labor movements were effective in that they brought better working conditions in some places; better pay, health and welfare protection, and vacations. They have also worked to push equal opportunity employment. They have strived to get better representation for employees. Ill post more once I find more. The internet apparently hates labor movements.

Date: Jan 2, 2008

mre wrote:

Val wrote:

I feel that class stratification unequally distributes power and influence. Not only that, but it breeds conflict and animosity, and cultivates a cultural divide. Class division was a threat to American democracy like it is for any nation with social stratification.

America at that time housed and bred numerous anarchist and socialist movements. I feel that much of this came about due to the economic practices and class structures of the time. These movements helped to reinforce the point of the many Marxist and anarchist thinkers before them; that as wealth and power begins to concentrate around a smaller amount of people a strife begins between opposing classes, as a class divide occurs and perceptions blur and misconceptions grow, a class war manifests itself, which is a direct product of capitalism.

Does that threat still exist?

Yes, I feel it does exist. As long as stratified nations continue to exist and there is still conflict between opposing classes then I dont see how it cant. Humans are interesting. When oppressed, or disregarded, or enthralled by desperation, humanity has tendency of acting without thought. I could definitely see it happening in the future.

Date: Jan 2, 2008

9. I believe that some people can take it to the extremes and lose there humanity by becoming too entangled with technology, for example some people live their lives on the internet and communicate through emails and Forums. But if used in moderation and control technology will not be a problem and people will keep their humanity.

Date: Jan 2, 2008

Dan S. + More Coconuts wrote:

9. I believe that some people can take it to the extremes and lose there humanity by becoming too entangled with technology, for example some people live their lives on the internet and communicate through emails and Forums. But if used in moderation and control technology will not be a problem and people will keep their humanity.

"for example some people live their lives on the internet and communicate through emails and Forums"...

Not anyone I know, right?

Date: Jan 2, 2008

Joanna wrote:

My position
I think technology overall is a good thing. It makes life easier. I personally enjoy not thinking and using computers and registers and other stuff. Without this I have no idea where I would be or what I would do. Or if I would even be capable of surviving.

That position might be a good example of the problem, don't you think? What happens when high school students can't do simply subtraction or division without their calculators? What's lost?

Date: Jan 2, 2008

mre wrote:

Joanna wrote:

My position
I think technology overall is a good thing. It makes life easier. I personally enjoy not thinking and using computers and registers and other stuff. Without this I have no idea where I would be or what I would do. Or if I would even be capable of surviving.
That position might be a good example of the problem, don't you think? What happens when high school students can't do simply subtraction or division without their calculators? What's lost?

I think common sense is lost. My parents say I have none because this world is all digital. I dont have the experiences they have, instead of talking to people one on one I just im Them. I see where they are coming from but I like how I live, and i am Successful . So in one way it is a problem but in another way it isnt.

Date: Jan 2, 2008

9. I think that humans are somewhat dependent on machines in that we use them a lot as aids for different things, whether it be through researching via computer, running utilities like water or electricity via generators or building things we rely on in our every day life. We've become used to machines making things easier and quicker, that if one day the machines were to disappear, we'd probably be a lot worse off. There is also the possibility of machines putting humans out of jobs, however. Sometimes, a machine might do something more efficiently than humans. You could almost compare it to immigrants coming to a country and being hired for less wages than citizens.

The film "The Matrix Reloaded" has a scene which this question reminded me of, with two characters discussing the machines that run utilities in their city. (I know the movie's situation is a lot different, but it makes you think)

Councillor Hamann: Down here, sometimes I think about all those people still plugged into the Matrix and when I look at these machines I can't help thinking that in a way we are plugged into them.

Neo: But we control these machines; they don't control us.

Councillor Hamann: Of course not. How could they? The idea is pure nonsense. Butit does make one wonder... just... what is control?

Neo: If we wanted, we could shut these machines down.

Councillor Hamann: Of course. That's it. You hit it. That's control, isn't it? If we wanted we could smash them to bits. Although, if we did, we'd have to consider what would happen to our lights, our heat, our air

Neo: So we need machines and they need us, is that your point, Councilor?

Date: Jan 3, 2008

Andrew Lackie wrote:

9. I think that humans are somewhat dependent on machines in that we use them a lot as aids for different things, whether it be through researching via computer, running utilities like water or electricity via generators or building things we rely on in our every day life. We've become used to machines making things easier and quicker, that if one day the machines were to disappear, we'd probably be a lot worse off. There is also the possibility of machines putting humans out of jobs, however. Sometimes, a machine might do something more efficiently than humans. You could almost compare it to immigrants coming to a country and being hired for less wages than citizens.

The film "The Matrix Reloaded" has a scene which this question reminded me of, with two characters discussing the machines that run utilities in their city. (I know the movie's situation is a lot different, but it makes you think)
Councillor Hamann: Down here, sometimes I think about all those people still plugged into the Matrix and when I look at these machines I can't help thinking that in a way we are plugged into them.
Neo: But we control these machines; they don't control us.
Councillor Hamann: Of course not. How could they? The idea is pure nonsense. Butit does make one wonder... just... what is control?
Neo: If we wanted, we could shut these machines down.
Councillor Hamann: Of course. That's it. You hit it. That's control, isn't it? If we wanted we could smash them to bits. Although, if we did, we'd have to consider what would happen to our lights, our heat, our air
Neo: So we need machines and they need us, is that your point, Councilor?

Awesome quote!

Date: Jan 3, 2008

Is capitalism socially responsible?

Capitalism has a history of being quite reckless. I feel unregulated capitalism is socially irresponsible. Not only does it widen the discrepancy between rich and poor, it creates a permanent underclass, a blue collar working culture forced to endure the worse end of the societal spectrum. Capitalism is socially irresponsible in that it disregards the equality of the people of a nation. How is it possible for equality to exist, nevertheless thrive, with such a large chasm between the social stratification? Personally, I would like to know. Reckless growth breeds severe disparity, if exploitation ensues, any sense of responsibility and equality vanishes.

[changed topic of question, other question (nine) seemed to be too popular]

Date: Jan 12, 2008

question 10

just because you have made more money in a endevor doesnt mean that you have made progress in what you have tried to do. during the industrial revolution the people made weath by continueing their businesses that were already making money. but the new technological inventions were what helped the progress of this time period. inventions such as the telephone, the telegraph, and the typewriter were some of the technological growths of the time.

Date: Jan 16, 2008

Wealth and progress are closely related with each other. You cannot have industrial progress without money to support it. For example if an intercontinental railroad is being built and the US Steel Corporation is supporting its funds if the government does not have the money to pay US Steel then the railroad will not be built. Also inventions such as the telephone and the telegraph did not come cheap when they first came out and only the upper class could afford such inventions, which required wealth, which is part of the economy. Wealth keeps the economy thriving by buying and selling good.

Date: Jan 18, 2008

Kelby

#5 What were the costs and benefits of industrialization?

Industrialization was beneficial to the U.S. but along with those benefits came some social costs. There are many advantages that can be drawn from the period of industrialization which helped the United States move from a primarily agricultural economy to one of the major industrial powers of the world. The period of industrialization brought an increase in the U.S. economy and with that came the investment of money from business men outside of the U.S., primarily from Great Britain. The period brought with it many new ideas that led to new inventions with a record number of patterns being registered with the U.S. government between 1860 and 1890. Some of the new inventions were instrumental in lessening the work load and increasing the production of goods. They also provided new quicker means of communication and transportation.

New processes were also developed during this time which again like new inventions helped to reduce production time and increase supply of the needed material or products. One of the processes was the Bessemer Process, which was responsible for the mass production of high quality, heavy duty, lower cost steel in the United States. This later led to a change in the construction of bridges and high rise buildings. The development of the assembly line was also a benefit to the consumer. An example of this is the Model T Ford. When the car was assembled by a team of people one car at a time it took twelve and a half hours to complete one car. With the addition of the assembly line a car could be produced in less than six hours and the cost was decreased so that more people could afford one. http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/ford.htm. The assembly line reached other industries also and provided work for unskilled workers who only had to do one simple piece of the job and led to more factory produced goods in the homes.

Industrialization also provided a means for an increase in the middle class, due to the need for more white-collar workers. Other benefits of industrialization were an improved public education system and an increase in the amount of colleges in the U.S. New works of literature, art, architecture and music were also created by people living in the U.S.

Along with the many benefits there were also some costs. The great influx of immigrants to this country during industrialization and the migration of people from rural areas to the city in order to enter the industrial work force presented some social problems. This was the first time that this country saw ghettos with poor and unhealthy living conditions. There were not enough houses for everyone so the landlords used the space that they had to fit extra people which caused overcrowding in the houses. There was not enough clean water for everyone and no way to get rid of waste. Not only were the living conditions bad but the working conditions for the factory workers was also bad. They were unhealthy and unsafe. Most worked for 10 hours a day six days a week in poorly ventilated areas under dangerous conditions. There was great risk of possible fires in the factories and also accidents caused by machines and other unsafe practices. Child labor was also a problem and there were many children from poor families working long hours in dirty, poorly ventilated dangerous conditions.

Along with the poor working conditions, there came a need for worker reform and that sometimes caused violence, which led to murders and injury to many protesters and to the people trying to break up the protests. Even though the push for labor reform was at great costs to some and it was a long struggle, in the end it was beneficial to all workers because it helped to establish better working conditions, lower amount of work hours in a week and a fair wage. In addition, child labor laws were created such as the Keating Owens Act of 1916, the first act regulating child labor. Living conditions improved over time also with the implementation of sanitation laws set up in large cities. So although there were some costs of industrialization I believe that the benefits outweighed the costs. Without a period of industrial progress the U.S. may have remained an agricultural nation with a weak economy. Some other stronger nation may have looked at us as they did other undeveloped nations and may have tried to force their political and economic influence over us as a nation.

#6 Was growing class division a threat to American democracy?

I believe that the growing class division was a threat to American democracy because the upper class was becoming too powerful and the civil liberties and human rights of some of the lower class were being violated. Wealth carries a lot of power. They can influence elections and the passing of legislation because they have the money to lobby and even bribe politicians. This was the case during the 19th century industrial period. The large business leaders were becoming very powerful and using tactics to put the smaller businesses either out of business or all under one umbrella corporation. The wealthy were building their fortunes at the expense of the workers. The workers were being taken advantage of and being used to work long hours for low pay under horrible conditions with no laws to protect them. The U.S. government seemed to be on the side of business claiming Laissez-Faire beliefs in terms of government and business. Even Supreme Court was on the side of big business in their ruling on United States v. F.C. Knight Co.

The rights of the majority seemed to be ignored. The government did not show a lot of interest in the suffering and difficulties that the working class faced. For example, during the Presidential campaign of 1884 it seemed that candidate Grover Cleveland was opposed to monopolies and corporations but once he was elected, his policies favored big business. He named a millionaire as his chief advisor. In 1887, he vetoed a bill to give relief to Texas farmers but used gold surplus to pay off wealthy bondholders an amount above the actual value. During his second term as President Cleveland used troops to break up demonstrations and strikes. When states tried to pass laws to help farmers the Supreme Court said that they couldnt and the Court did away with many state laws that had been passed to regulate corporations. The 14^th amendment was passed to protect Negro rights but the Supreme Court used it to protect corporations. I believe that all of this unfairness and inequality was a threat to American democracy. This kind of politics and the difficulties faced by the workers led many to believe that a change was needed and their was some growth of revolutionary movements in the country. Many anti government groups formed such as The Socialist Labor Party, which was formed in 1877. There were radical newspapers written and circulated and people began to assemble. This movement gave rise to efforts to organize labor. People who were unhappy with the way big business was treating the workers started an Anarchist movement also. One of the strong voices of this movement was Emma Goldman. The nation was ripe for revolution at the time but no one group was strong enough to effectively organize a strong revolt against the government and democracy but they did demonstrate that class division was creating a threat to American democracy.