NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, I have a question that has been bothering me. What could have been done about the Industrial Revolution? I am sure that many here know about the conditions of that time-period and many know more than I do as well. The thing is that I am not sure what government policy should have been around that time, now of course being that I am from America I probably refer mostly about the American Industrial Revolution but I am sure that many other countries went through some similar problems as well.

Anyway, I am just curious because there must be some policy that would be relatively good for that time-period but I can't figure out what that is. I mean, we both suffered from high unemployment and low wages and I cannot think of anyway to fix both unless immigration was reduced but I don't know if immigration limits would have been good either. Anyway, I appeal to the wisdom of the board for whatever good it will do.

Ok, I have a question that has been bothering me. What could have been done about the Industrial Revolution? I am sure that many here know about the conditions of that time-period and many know more than I do as well. The thing is that I am not sure what government policy should have been around that time, now of course being that I am from America I probably refer mostly about the American Industrial Revolution but I am sure that many other countries went through some similar problems as well.

The Industrial Revolution revealed that without the government intervening in business everyone will be poor. :( :(

The Industrial Revolution revealed that without the government intervening in business everyone will be poor. :( :(
How is it a sign of that? Before and after the Industrial Revolution I do not see that people would necessarily be poor without large government intervention.

Generally the best policies for a government in a time of industrial birth are limited protectionist policies, espescially when dealing with other, more developed industrialized nations. For example, when Britain industrialized it had no need for protectionist policies for the simple reason there were no industrial competitors. But don't be autarchist. A country, espescially an industrializing country, cannot support itself without the outside world. As such, the protectionist policies should be targeted to key industries in which the country would have an advantage.

Encouraging foreign investment is also key in strengthening an industrial revolution. Foreign Direct Investment and Foreign Indirect Investment are both vitally important to the industrialization of a country. FII was vital in building the transcontinental railroads that drove American industrialization on the east and west coasts.

DOMESTIC FREE MARKET POLICIES ARE EXTREMELY VITAL! PROPERTY RIGHTS, BOTH REAL AND INTELLECTUAL, ARE EXTREMELY VITAL! They drive economic growth at a rapid pace, and while income inequality may be resultant from that, I'd rather see industrial growth than such a hindrance as wage controls and excessive taxation. I want investors to feel that it's time to grow their businesses, not suffer from diminishing returns due to excessive taxation. Building capital is beyond vital.

Other good government policies include providing infrastructure. Maintain roads and highways to maximaze the effectiveness of transportation. Build a strong coast guard to catch smugglers and pirates and such. Maintain local bus/trolley services to and from primary industrial areas to residential areas.

The Industrial Revolution revealed that without the government intervening in business everyone will be poor. :( :(
Before the Industrial Revolution, everyone was poor, except for the slaveowners of the agrarian south. And the end of slavery is very much related to the growth of the industrial revolution in the north.

Hell, by the early twentieth century, people in the US were living longer, happier, better lives than the kings of old.

I think central banking would have done a lot to help. Remember, many of the "panics" and bank runs of the period were due to the confusing web of state banks, private banks, and regional banks all of which issued their own currencies in a bewildering variety of forms without the security that a fractional reserve system or central reserve bank provide. That meant even the smallest crisis could spiral out of control if a bank run occured and cause huge economic problems disproportionate to the influence of the bank.

The economic instability of the period and the boom-bust cycles of the major industries (mainly railroads, textiles, and coal) produced the unemployment and instability of the Industrial Revoultion, and those factors also made it easier to abuse workers and pollute without any real penalties. Protectionism also affected the economy of the period; if you compare the economy of the heavily protectionist US with the much more open UK during the 19th century, you see that the UK had larger gains in living standards and lower unemployment despite being a much more mature economy.

Ok, so it seems like nobody thinks that the popular ideas of minimum wage and legalized labor unions would have been effective(at least not enough to post about them). That makes sense. I was trying to understand the issue because it seems to me that the problem wasn't protecting the workers so much as it was the need for growth to increase the demand for labor.

I think central banking would have done a lot to help. Remember, many of the "panics" and bank runs of the period were due to the confusing web of state banks, private banks, and regional banks all of which issued their own currencies in a bewildering variety of forms without the security that a fractional reserve system or central reserve bank provide. That meant even the smallest crisis could spiral out of control if a bank run occured and cause huge economic problems disproportionate to the influence of the bank.
I would have to agree, and associate with that responsible fiscal policy, and tie down a gold standard. If you do that, an industrial revolution becomes far less painful

Before the Industrial Revolution, everyone was poor, except for the slaveowners of the agrarian south. And the end of slavery is very much related to the growth of the industrial revolution in the north.

Hell, by the early twentieth century, people in the US were living longer, happier, better lives than the kings of old.

Well, that didn't really happen until FDR started sharing the wealth!

Ok, so it seems like nobody thinks that the popular ideas of minimum wage and legalized labor unions would have been effective(at least not enough to post about them). That makes sense. I was trying to understand the issue because it seems to me that the problem wasn't protecting the workers so much as it was the need for growth to increase the demand for labor.

Well, recall that labor unions and the minimum wage stemmed from the Industrial Revolution; it took the Revolution to create the sizable working and middle classes capable of getting involved in politics and forming labor movements. The demand for workers became steep enough in the later parts of the Revolution and beyond that the employed had enough leverage with their employers to safely unionize.

That in turn enabled them to demand those kinds of improvements in conditions and wages and eventually expanded to the political realm with legislation like the minimum wage, OSHA, Social Security, etc.

I would have to agree, and associate with that responsible fiscal policy, and tie down a gold standard. If you do that, an industrial revolution becomes far less painful

The main problem was that the US had a habit of switching around its monetary system; the currencies of banks could be tied to a gold standard for a decade and then suddenly run dry when the government suspends specie payments or begins to print huge quantities of money. Also, the gigantic surpluses from the collection of tariffs/excise taxes artificially reduced the money supply at times and made it hard to borrow money to expand investment.

Another issue was the lack of regulations on investment and chartering of government corporations; this led to gigantic gluts and shortages in infrastructure capacity that caused growth to swing wildly depending on whether the nation was on the upslope or the downslope of investment bubbles.

Well, recall that labor unions and the minimum wage stemmed from the Industrial Revolution; it took the Revolution to create the sizable working and middle classes capable of getting involved in politics and forming labor movements. The demand for workers became steep enough in the later parts of the Revolution and beyond that the employed had enough leverage with their employers to safely unionize.

That in turn enabled them to demand those kinds of improvements in conditions and wages and eventually expanded to the political realm with legislation like the minimum wage, OSHA, Social Security, etc.
I know that they stemmed from the revolution, however, some say that those policies would alleviate the revolution. Do you think that such legislation could have solved the problems so easily? Ultimately I am asking about what intervention would improve things, some say that those policies would fix things by looking out for the laborer, however, I think that they would worsen unemployment and hurt growth.

Well, that didn't really happen until FDR started sharing the wealth!
Are you delusional? What history books do you read? The eighteenhundreds and early twentieth century were marked by the rapid growth of the middle class in America. Average people bought homes, automobiles, radios, indoor heating, indoor plumbing. Have you ever heard of the roaring twenties? Leisure time for the common man made its first appearance in the late eighteen-hundreds, prior to that, people spent all their time working on their farms, just to get enough food to get by. Industrialization shared the wealth pretty damn well, and far more effectively than some quasi-socialist scheme from the thirties. Hell, the New Deal never ended the depression, it just gave people false hope. The War ended the depression.

I know that they stemmed from the revolution, however, some say that those policies would alleviate the revolution. Do you think that legislation could have solved the problems so easily?

No, because at the start of the Revolution suffrage in the UK and US was severely limited both legally and practically; that meant the people passing these laws were most likely elected by the industrialists, landowners, and merchants who stood to lose from seeing these policies enacted.

Effectively, the Revolution produced the expansion of political rights and economic prosperity that allowed workers to curb the abuses of their employers.

No, because at the start of the Revolution suffrage in the UK and US was severely limited both legally and practically; that meant the people passing these laws were most likely elected by the industrialists, landowners, and merchants who stood to lose from seeing these policies enacted.

Effectively, the Revolution produced the expansion of political rights and economic prosperity that allowed workers to curb the abuses of their employers.
Ok, but pretty much I know that corporations try to subvert the law to serve their own aims and such, but I am not as concerned about the political solutions necessary but rather the economics. Where did we need to regulate and where would it have been bad? I am seeking more of an ideal solution than necessarily one that would have worked in the political climate of the time. The political rights were expanded but was such populism a good thing? Were the business regulations championed a good thing?

Are you delusional? What history books do you read? The eighteenhundreds and early twentieth century were marked by the rapid growth of the middle class in America. Average people bought homes, automobiles, radios, indoor heating, indoor plumbing. Have you ever heard of the roaring twenties? Leisure time for the common man made its first appearance in the late eighteen-hundreds, prior to that, people spent all their time working on their farms, just to get enough food to get by. Industrialization shared the wealth pretty damn well, and far more effectively than some quasi-socialist scheme from the thirties. Hell, the New Deal never ended the depression, it just gave people false hope. The War ended the depression.

I support free speech, but you are wrong, I learned about FDR in school, and he definitely created the middle class with his policies.

LBJ tried to make it permanent but the Republicans in Congress sabotaged all the programs and they haven't work.

We need federal programs to be FULLY FUNDED, and finally poverty will be gone. I won't tell you who you need to vote for, but the more Democrats, the more rights we get!! A higher minimum wage, free healthcare, and free childcare, as well as food and housing FOR ALL CHILDREN!

I support free speech, but you are wrong, I learned about FDR in school, and he definitely created the middle class with his policies.
FDR is great because of how effectively he fought the second world war. Not because of his failed, and often unconstitutional economic policies. Hell, the US economy was beginning to recover under Hoover even.


LBJ tried to make it permanent but the Republicans in Congress sabotaged all the programs and they haven't work.

His programs didn't work for all the many years before Republicans got ahold of Congress either. Have you ever heard of Jimmy Carter's "American Malaise" speech? The Republicans didn't get ahold of Congress until 1994. 28 years since Johnson left office.

We need federal programs to be FULLY FUNDED, and finally poverty will be gone. I won't tell you who you need to vote for, but the more Democrats, the more rights we get!! A higher minimum wage, free healthcare, and free childcare, as well as food and housing FOR ALL CHILDREN!
Most certainly not!