The History Book Club discussion
This topic is about
Unreasonable Men
PRESIDENTIAL SERIES
>
THE DISCUSSION IS OPEN - WEEK FIVE - PRESIDENTIAL SERIES: UNREASONABLE MEN - May 9th - May 15th - Chapter Five- The Money Power - (pages 107 - 122) - No Spoilers, please
message 2:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 11, 2016 09:49PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Therefore, you may discuss any element or quote, event or person or anything else dealing with Chapter Five and pages 107 though 122. You may also discuss anything that came before in the book - so the Preface through page 122 are the only pages that can be discussed here. Try to read with the group so that you are NOT posting any spoilers.
We do have spoiler threads where you can post anything - glossary, bibliography threads, the introduction and Book as a Whole thread.
But the weekly threads are non spoiler.
message 3:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 11, 2016 09:54PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
The moderators are doing a superb job of putting together explanatory write-ups that they have drawn from a variety of sources with links, citations, books. etc.
For Week Five, they have made the following entries - so please check out the glossary.
1. Aldrich–Vreeland Act
2. National Monetary Commission
3. Rep. Edward Vreeland
4. Senate Minority Leader Charles Culbertson
5. Charles Fowler - Chairman of the House Committee on Banking and Currency
6. Senator Jefferson Davis from Arkansas
7. Governor Charles Evan Hughes
8. Federal Employers Liability Act - 1908 - FELA Law
9. Eugene Hale of Maine
10. Filibustering and Filibuster of 1908 by LaFollette
Link to Glossary:
/topic/show/...
message 4:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 12, 2016 07:45AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
The fifth week's reading assignment is:
Week Five -May 9th - May 15th
Chapter Five - The Money Power - (pages 107 - 122)
"We used to have a mule...We never could figure out if he was braying because he was kicking or kicking because he was braying. But all we did was to keep out of the barn and let him kick and bray all he wanted. That's all you can do with the kickers..let them alone. They are beyond reasoning with."
--Uncle Joe
Chapter Overview and Summary:
Chapter Five - The Money Power
Chapter Five begins with December 18th, 1907 and ends with May 29th, 1908.
The big question that Senate Minority Leader Charles Culbertson was asking was what caused the Panic of 1907. He demanded an immediate investigation but Aldridge knew that there was no hope of passing a resolution for an investigation.
Aldridge knew however that the economy was in shambles and that the currency business was tricky. But he knew to placate the voting public that some kind of currency legislation had to be passed. Aldridge consulted Morgan and other banks as to what to do and how to draft a Senate currency bill. He also solicited the help of German banker Paul Warburg who had an idea for a modified central bank.
In the end, Aldridge enabled banks to issue additional banknotes to expand the currency supply. Aldridge thought that President Roosevelt was an easy sell because he wanted to add currency reform to his list of accomplishments. Fowler had come up with a House version of a currency bill but Uncle Joe did not like Fowler and he had come around to the idea of monetary reform just to keep Bryan out of the White House. He decided to throw in his lot with the Senate.
At the state of the union message President Roosevelt's message was hot and he announced the "campaign against privilege".
He pressed for additional railroad regulation in order to protect the individual against unlawful exaction for the use of these public highways. Roosevelt also argued that the ICC should be able to valuate the railroad and reduce shipping rates. This proposal was very similar to La Follette's from a couple of years earlier.
Taft was a little taken aback at Roosevelt's style and thought that if he was going to run for president that Roosevelt should not be so pugnacious and Taft did not take too kindly to "political combat".
La Follette was delighted with the President's message - he had waited for two years to reintroduce the railroad valuation amendment that had been summarily dismissed in 1906. In fact, La Follette felt that the railroads had a "history of watering their stock, misrepresenting their assets and earnings to artificially inflate share value" and LaFollette thought that this contributed to the panic of 1907.
The opposition was very intense regarding the currency deal so Aldridge made a cagey deal with Beveridge to give him support on tariff reform if he supported his currency bill.
LaFollette was upset by the maneuvering of Aldridge and the banks. He stated - "The emergency currency would not add any elasticity to the currency. The "Money Power" as he called the bankers, would simply exploit the additional capital to accelerate corporate consolidation and spread the dominion across every sector of American industry. As for the 'jack in the box" railroad bond provision, he predicted that they hadn't seen the last of it."
Uncle Joe did not like Charles Fowler and worked the system to bring the Vreeland bill directly to the floor bypassing Fowler's committee.
La Follette began his filibuster but could not stop the Aldrich-Vreeland bill. But his "Money Power" speech would echo through the ages as the Progressive Movement.
message 5:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 12, 2016 12:27AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
This was the most dramatic chapter yet, especially the filibuster story! Even though Michael Wolraich said that Malcolm Gladwell's David and Goliath had no influence on this book, I've got to say that Bob La Follette really is a Goliath battling a David. I loved the quote that he thrived on lost causes, as opposed to TR, who cared about winning. It's the rare politician that cares more about winning for his cause than he does about his own career.Citation:
by
Malcolm Gladwell
message 7:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 12, 2016 10:37AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Topics for Discussion:
1. What do you think of William Jennings Bryan's quote? Who is or are the money power that he was talking about? How did this group or man or men get tagged with that "nickname"? Was it a fair assessment or were they just looking for scapegoats?
2. Who was the "money power" denouncing as public enemies?
3. What crimes were Bryan talking about and/or who questionned their methods (the money power's)?
4. Mr. William Jennings Bryan in his famous election speech: "The money power preys upon the nation in times of peace, and conspires against it in times of adversity, It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies all who question its methods, or throw light upon its crimes. It can only be overthrown by the awakened conscience of the nation".
The above is the full quote. Do you believe that the motivation for this kind of speech was strictly political? Do you think we are hearing the same messages today in this primary? Do you agree with Bryan or not? Are things that bad? Are the politicians trying to make the bankers out to be the bad guys because they want a scapegoat? Without the bankers and Morgan in 1907 - the country would have gone belly up, is Wall Street the problem with government or is the government the problem with Wall Street?
5. Are the money problems that the country is facing a result of our changing culture and what our expectations are as to how much we should be compensated and paid for our labor? Have we become lazy or are the major corporations taking advantage of the people, making outrageous profits while at the same time paying them so little that they cannot afford to live?
Source for cartoons: Hedgeye and Puck
Mod
Very true Kressel.
Kressel wrote: "I loved the quote that he thrived on lost causes, as opposed to TR, who cared about winning. It's the rare politician that cares more about winning for his cause than he does about his own career."Thank you very much, Kressel. I'm glad to hear that you enjoyed the chapter.
I think the question of LF's motive is a very interesting one for the group. Recall that TR called LF a "shifty self-seeker" in chapter 3 (p66). Here is the full quote from a letter to journalist William Allen White on July 31, 1906:
La Follette impressed me as a shifty self-seeker. He is in favor of some excellent things, but his usefulness last winter was very much limited because his real motives seemed to be not to get something good and efficient done, but to make a personal reputation for himself by screaming for something he knew perfectly well could not be had. I have very little more patience with the man who will sacrifice the public good in order to get an increase of personal reputation, than with the man who sacrifices the public good for his own material interest.
TR also called LF's big filibuster "pointless and stupid." (p119)
What do people think? Shifty self-seeker or martyr for his cause?
Mod
At least I can say that LaFollette was consistent for the most part - shifty (maybe not) - self-seeker (there is some of that) - martyr for a cause (hmmm - I would say yes - similar to a Ralph Nader)
message 11:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 12, 2016 08:38AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
This was a very interesting chapter. One thing that impressed me was how TR on page 109, addressed Congress and it was often to their annoyance. Since this was his last year, he said: ”I have such a bully pulpit�. He was no longer content to vent his anger and suspicions at them in private but wanted to retaliate at them out loud. For seven years he seesawed between the Standpatters and reformers but now he focused on them directly. He called them “the most dangerous members of the criminal class-the criminals of great wealth�. He demanded legislation to regulate the stock market, expanded federal ant trust powers, and require employees to pay for workplace injuries. He also pressed for additional railroad legislation. The same proposal La Follette tried to pass 2 years before. This created an uproar much like we see in Congress today. The Standpatters declared the party was ruined and was going to the dogs. Roosevelt set out a vision for the future and since he was not running again felt he had nothing to lose.Roosevelt could express his wishes since he felt he had nothing to lose and he wanted to vent against the “criminals of great wealth�. This is much like today with the 1% and the majority of the people against them and the feeling that they have all the power.
Michael wrote: "Shifty self-seeker or martyr for his cause?"Because of your concluding paragraph in this chapter, I'd say neither. He's savvy, not shifty. He's not self-seeking, but cause-seeking. And he's not a martyr because he's on the path to achieving what he set out to do. He lost this phase of the legislation, but he's winning over the press and public opinion. And as we see in our day and age, that's no small thing.
If anything is shifty, it's the trick his opponents pulled on the blind Senator. Wow, was that sleazy!
Yes, the trick to the blind senator was definitely sleazy. I think LF was saavy, a martyr for the cause. Though he lost when the bill got passed after his filibuster, the public became suspicious of the Republicans who passed it and boasted about it. LF's defeat became a victory of sorts as the public were more inclined to believe him and his cause.
I think we are often inclined to believe that we face way more issues of debate today than we once did in this country. Things like internet privacy, drone strikes, contraception, and America's global force posture (to only name a few) would have either not existed or been minimal points of discussion 100 years ago. As this chapter reminded me, there are also issues from 100 years ago that we have successfully put to bed. Foremost among these was the debate over tying our currency to gold. William Jennings Bryan's place in American history for the most part surrounds his famed "Cross of Gold" speech, pleading for a loosening of currency restrictions, in aid to the poor and at the expense of the monied powers. Up until the 20th century, the dollar was based on the gold standard. This hindered economic growth, as access to credit was as finite as the gold supply. Beginning in the early 20th century, and culminating with FDR (although officially ending with Nixon), America moved off the gold standard. This give the government much more flexibility in dealing with the economic crises that come along from time to time. For the most part (Pauls excepted), this is no longer a debate in America. "We're all Keynesians now!", as President Nixon once joked. No serious politician today would dream of tying the fate of the world's largest economy to the whims of the mining industry, but that was one of the main points of argument in the early Progressive Era.
I really enjoyed this chapter too and as I read the section on the filibuster it reminded me of Texas Senator Wendy Davis and her 11-hour filibuster in the Texas legislature in 2014. She also ultimately lost. I don't think that LaFollette was shifty. I'd agree with Bentley that maybe there is a little bit of both self-seeker and martyr in him. More:
Wendy Davis Filibuster -
Responding to one of Bentley's questions:
Are the money problems that the country is facing a result of our changing culture and what our expectations are as to how much we should be compensated and paid for our labor? Have we become lazy or are the major corporations taking advantage of the people, making outrageous profits while at the same time paying them so little that they cannot afford to live?
I do think it's changing culture and I don't think we've become lazy per se. In our current age, we have so much technology that we rely on that I think everyone is working to afford all these gadgets. Some people may think technology is causing us to be lazy, while others think it makes our society more efficient. I think in some respects, we're working just as hard to afford the things we want, to make us more productive. It seems more like a vicious cycle to me.
From my perspective at the corporate level, I see a lot of Americans hungry for work. A few years ago, corporations were sending a lot of jobs overseas. American corporate workers were demanding more money, so businesses were looking for other ways to save money. Companies had "cost-effective centers" around the world where workers were paid less than Americans and worked off-shift hours. Now some of those centers are closing down and jobs are coming back due to incentives to bring jobs back. But companies are still not willing to pay more and are more concerned with making a profit than about their workers. So we still have layoffs and those that are still working have increased work loads and no raises. It is a different culture, but ultimately, it is still about making money.
message 17:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 12, 2016 10:40AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
The market problems of 1907 are depicted in this political cartoon showing “common honesty� erupting from the volcano and people fleeing with “secret rate schedules,� “rebates,� “stocks,� and “frenzied accounts.� (Library of Congress)
"Morgan and a coterie of other financiers of the leading New York banks began a series of meetings, to which the secretary of the Treasury was invited. By Thursday, not only Morgan but also the U.S. Treasury had begun to make loans to all the major New York banks to ensure that their cash supplies would be sufficient to meet all demands. When these demands increased, threatening to exceed supply, Morgan pressured the other leading financiers to advance additional funds to cover the banks� needs. By the weekend, Morgan had learned that a shipment of gold was on its way to New York from London. The New York clearinghouse banks agreed, on being pressured by Morgan, to issue clearinghouse certificates that could temporarily supplement their cash supplies.
On Monday, October 27, Morgan learned that the City of New York would be unable to meet its payroll obligations. He agreed to buy revenue bonds from the city that would replenish its cash supply, enabling it to pay its employees. By this time, the panic was spreading to Wall Street, and a number of well-known firms such as Westinghouse Electric announced that they would be forced to declare bankruptcy."
Source: The Library of Congress, Business in United States of America, ebusinessinusa.com
Here are some links to write-ups on all of the depressions, recessions, panics: (pretty good brief synopsis on all of them)
Here is a link which the excerpt above was taken from:
Kressel wrote: "This was the most dramatic chapter yet, especially the filibuster story! Even though Michael Wolraich said that Malcolm Gladwell's David and Goliath ..."I like that connection, Kressel, since La Follette was truly known as "Fighting Bob" for a reason. He was a legitimate Progressive, with his opposition to all the Goliaths that troubled him (e.g. railroads and other trusts).
I usually err on the side of moderation in my own battles, so I admire La Follette's tenacity, even as it bordered on extremism.
We all, of course, tend to root for the underdog, and this goes triple when the "David" has a valid reason for taking on his adversary.
Bentley wrote: "What do you think of William Jennings Bryan's quote?..."I would never oppose a man calling for "the awakened conscience of the nation," as Bryan did. However, Bryan was a fabulous orator but not a stellar policy-maker. It's easy for a candidate to vituperate. It's not as elementary to elucidate a solution. Bankers--or the vague "money power"--have long been scapegoats for problems in America. Andrew Jackson's famous castigation of the "Monster Bank" was equally vague and correspondingly effective. Pitting Wall Street against Main Street or drawing a dichotomy between "the establishment" and "the people" is great rhetoric. As Bryan found out, however, it's not always the key to being elected president.
Cultural aside: According to historian Lewis Gould, Jimmy Stewart's famous filibuster scene in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington was modeled on La Follette's filibuster against the currency bill:Some elements of Senate history were incorporated into the film. The Senators� hazing of Smith by walking out during one of his speeches is based on the experience of Robert La Follette. The senior senator, played by Claude Rains, even looks a little like John Coit Spooner in modern dress. The big filibuster scene captures some of the drama of La Follette and the 1908 Aldrich-Vreeland episode.
From
by Lewis L. Gould (no photo), p152.I never found any corroboration of this claim from anyone involved in the film, so I think it's speculation on Gould's part, but it sounds plausible.
Teri wrote: "I really enjoyed this chapter too and as I read the section on the filibuster it reminded me of Texas Senator Wendy Davis and her 11-hour filibuster in the Texas legislature in 2014. She also ultim..."The old-fashioned filibuster was an amazing tool for the minority opinion on an important issue. Today however, I think the tactic has been way overused. I believe there have been over 1300 filibusters history, yet almost half of that number have been in the last decade. And they don't even have to stand and talk anymore. We now have what is known as the "Virtual Filibuster".
I'm torn on my thoughts on these. While I think reform on them is needed, taking this tool away entirely could lead to some poor majority decisions as well.
David wrote: "Teri wrote: "I really enjoyed this chapter too and as I read the section on the filibuster it reminded me of Texas Senator Wendy Davis and her 11-hour filibuster in the Texas legislature in 2014. S..."Thanks for that information. I was actually wondering how often filibusters are utilized. Do you know if that number is on the federal level only or does it include state legislatures?
I had not heard about virtual filibusters. Time for some research.
I would agree that it can be an important "tool" to use, but it likely has been overused, especially if it's been used that much in the last decade. That's a testament to how divided Congress is. Sad.
Three things stood out to me in the chapter, TR's speech, LF's filibuster and the growing power of voters in the West. I had mixed feelings about TR's speech. On a positive note it was a powerful message for the Progressive Movement. However, he waited until he was a lame duck and had nothing to lose. Did he make the speech at this time to force Taft to take up the sword for him. TR's speech became Taft's campaign regardless of what policies Taft wanted to support. I think it was impart to impose his program on Taft and the Republicans.
Second, you have to admire LF for his filibuster and the strength of his beliefs and his stamina in delivering his filibuster. I have never been a fan of filibusters. In fact I dislike them. Most likely because I grew up in the sixties when the filibuster was a weapon agains cilil rights. Strong Thurmond set the record for a filibuster at 24 hours and 18 minutes.
Sinse then I have always thought of filibusters to stop the will of the majority.
Third, (p. 112 at the bottom) Western Senators were worried that their votes would used by LF in a "LaFollette roll call campaign" as he had done in earlier campaigns.
I think that TR and LF were fundamentally different in personality and political style. They misunderstood each other. TR valued pragmatism and getting things done, today or tomorrow or next week. LF valued idealism and making things clear so that progress could be made - next year or next decade.
The two strategies work best when they work together.
Peter wrote: "TR valued pragmatism and getting things done, today or tomorrow or next week. LF valued idealism and making things clear so that progress could be made..."They definitely had different approaches. You are right that the two strategies work best when they are exercised in conjunction with one another rather than alone. You have to be willing to compromise at least a little in order to make any progress.
I admire LFs willingness to take personal losses in order to get his issues noticed by the press and the public, so that, in the long term, there would be change. However, constant bullheadedness on every issue would lead to a stalemate, and eventually, you just become the person that's always yelling about some cause or another. This approach loses its effectiveness over time.
On the other hand, TR yielded way too much. His approach led to a lot of 'throwing the baby out with the bath water', in other words being so eager to reach an agreement that the concessions given to the standpatters in order to get legislation passed would lead to bills so watered down they affected no real change.
1. What do you think of William Jennings Bryan's quote? Who is or are the money power that he was talking about? How did this group or man or men get tagged with that "nickname"? Was it a fair assessment or were they just looking for scapegoats? Bryan’s quote honestly sounds like something we might hear today. The ‘money power� seems to have always been the bankers and financiers of this country, especially big greedy Wall Street, who use their money to not only increase their wealth but also their influence. I find it worrying that people generalize in such a large way but humans seem to do that often. While there are obviously risky ventures and unwise decisions, I do think it’s unfair to lump a large group of people together in such a way.
2. Who was the "money power" denouncing as public enemies?
The people who call them out, whether they do so with or without cause. I think you can see it in this election, particularly on the Democratic side with Clinton and Sanders. Questions like ‘how close is too close?� have come up regarding a candidate’s independence from their contributors. That worry has not really dissipated on the Democratic side and is a huge part of the Sanders message that people are drawn to. But, this is certainly not the first time. I mean, the money power was questioned in the Citizens United case in 2010 as well and, depending on who you ask, the money power seemed to win that fight.
3. What crimes were Bryan talking about and/or who questioned their methods (the money power's)?
I think he’s questioning the riskiness of it and the ripple effect it has on other people outside of those decisions.
4. Mr. William Jennings Bryan in his famous election speech: "The money power preys upon the nation in times of peace, and conspires against it in times of adversity, It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies all who question its methods, or throw light upon its crimes. It can only be overthrown by the awakened conscience of the nation�. The above is the full quote. Do you believe that the motivation for this kind of speech was strictly political? Do you think we are hearing the same messages today in this primary? Do you agree with Bryan or not? Are things that bad? Are the politicians trying to make the bankers out to be the bad guys because they want a scapegoat? Without the bankers and Morgan in 1907 - the country would have gone belly up, is Wall Street the problem with government or is the government the problem with Wall Street?
I think it was political but I think there’s a morality question in there as well. I do think this has been featured in this year’s primary (see answer #2). I think it’s easy to see the money power as selfish, greedy, and (sometimes) even corrupt. But, that’s when people ignore that the true basis of capitalism is self-interest and America holds capitalism as a lofty ideal, a core part of its identity. So, I don’t think Bryan is completely right. There are times when the money power has been helpful to this country and there are times that it has really messed things up. However, I think that can be said about mistakes made by other large organizations in this country too.
5. Are the money problems that the country is facing a result of our changing culture and what our expectations are as to how much we should be compensated and paid for our labor? Have we become lazy or are the major corporations taking advantage of the people, making outrageous profits while at the same time paying them so little that they cannot afford to live?
I think the basis of peoples� problems with the economy has always been a basic issue of being paid enough to live somewhat comfortably. When prices skyrocket or wages fall or unemployment/inflation creeps up, people get upset because their work isn’t worth as much as it either was or could be. When times are not as good, inequality comes into focus and the majority goes against the minority (also historically true, even if it’s an incorrect assumption). There are definitely real issues though. I think the Panama Papers release has stirred up questions about taxation (everyone’s favorite topic) and wealth. It’s certainly come up in the election in the form of questions about minimum wage and the growing tuition bubble. I think there’s a moral question in some of it too, particularly toward the wealthy corporations with underpaid employees: Does the greater profit really help the company so much that they’re willing to make other peoples� lives more difficult?
As an aside, I also enjoyed TR’s speech in this chapter. On page 110 where it talks about TR anticipating not being in politics much longer, it reminded me of how politicians (sometimes) get more honest and frank when their careers are ending. President Obama has certainly seemed that way to me the past year or so.
This was not one of my favorite chapters - just not too interested in fiscal policy/issues. Can't we have a good murder or some other blood and guts?
Bentley wrote: "Other Jason Watts - Week One, please go back and respond to Week Two, Three, Week Four - not yet"Week 2 is there Bentley, unless there is a rule I'm missing about proper posting: /topic/show/...
Mod
I have to agree with my fellow readers. The filibuster section of this chapter was great! I love how LF’s family was there supporting him and he had help from some others on the floor. I was disappointed when it didn’t work out for him. He just missed it! What a valiant attempt though! To Michael’s question, I agree with Bentley that LF was a martyr not a self-seeker. From Robin “I would never oppose a man calling for "the awakened conscience of the nation," as Bryan did.� I have to agree, and well said!Thanks Michael for the additional history lesson about Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. I was definitely thinking about that while reading the filibuster section. Was the book by Gould part of your research?
by Lewis L. Gould (no photo)
message 31:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 13, 2016 06:57PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Every spotlighted book has its own bibliography thread where we enter and research and cite all of the research articles, books, etc and list them on the Bibliography thread. This thread included all of the author's listed research and primary sources that he listed in his Bibliography and now we have it citable on our site for all of you.
Please take a look at this thread - Francie was kind enough to add all of the bibliographical research to this thread.
It is always called the Bibliography thread:
/topic/show/...
Additionally readers and group members can cite other books on this thread that may be of interest to readers and folks discussing this book.
What do you think of William Jennings Bryan's quote? Who is or are the money power that he was talking about? etc.To the risk of sounding stupid, I couldn’t find this quote by Bryan in chapter five. The only similar quote I found was by La Follette on page 115, who called the bankers “The Money Power� and defined the panic “a crime perpetrated by bankers to extend their wealth and power.� I might be missing something. Each chapter is full of information, and this forum provides even more, so it's sometimes hard to keep up.
In any case, I think it’s always easy to blame the financiers and big corporations. I am sure there is more to the story, but I don’t know enough about politics and economics.
Interesting tidbit about Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Now I should watch it again!
message 33:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 13, 2016 09:13PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Tomi wrote: "This was not one of my favorite chapters - just not too interested in fiscal policy/issues. Can't we have a good murder or some other blood and guts? "I wrote a lot more on this post...what happened?
Mod
Bentley wrote: "ŷ has been going up and down so maybe you did an update and it did not take."Dang it. I thought I sounded smart in that one. I'll have to try again, but I used up all my smarts the first time!
Take 2: I agree with Bryan's comment, but you can replace the words "money powers" with any other group - political power, big business, fashion designers, softball coaches - anybody who dares challenge the way one group thinks or acts is a threat. We see "the other" as our enemy and fear losing our power if anyone opposes us. We are still concerned about the money power today but the regulations on banking have taken away its threat. Money power today is more mega-corporations and their owners (? like Warren Buffett?) and foreign money. I hear more concern about China "owning" us or Saudi contributions to political campaigns than about banks.
All in all, it seems like politicians are the same today as then. Aldrich wanted to give in a little on the currency issue so as to "placate the voters." My FB feed has been full of comments about a book by an anonymous congressman who evidently says that all Congress cares about today is getting elected and reelected. The more things change...
I felt sorry for the senator whose blindness accidentally ended the filibuster. I have to admit that my view of the filibuster is based pretty much on the movie "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington."
And a shout-out to Senator Jefferson Davis, the "Arkansas Cyclone!" I"m from Arkansas and am always excited to see my state mentioned!
This was a much more intelligent post before the WWW ate it...
After reading this chapter on La Follette's filibuster, I now understand why . Both men are disliked in the senate and by the Republican party mainstream, and both have done crazy long filibusters. La Follette's marathon filibuster reminded me of a few years ago.
When I began reading the book I was thinking more about the comparison between the democratic party becoming more progressive with leaders like Bernie Sanders, but now I'm seeing how much Ted Cruz is like La Follette. Both men, despite their failures and dislike by the party mainstream, set the trajectory for the Republican party through strong populist support.
Mod
I think Ted Cruz was trying to channel LaFollette. LaFollette had good long range plans and was an original thinker. Cruz not so much.
Bentley wrote: "Remember now what came first - don't put the cart before the horse.I think Ted Cruz was trying to channel LaFollette. LaFollette had good long range plans and was an original thinker. Cruz not so..."
Without getting too political in this thread, I'll just say that I hope he doesn't have any long range plans. Unfortunately, I live in Texas where Cruz is very popular and influential.
Mod
I am beginning to understand more about banking during the era in question. Attempts to buoy up currency by bonds is an option for allowing banks to issue notes backed by bonds in say...railroads. That makes railroad bonds highly lucrative. A commission to evaluate stock prices is a great idea. Cooking the books on stock prices is attempt for industries to make their shares have higher value. Enron happened recently due to Arthur Anderson's illegal activities. SEC investigations, I have noted many times, has not produced much except rulings on a Ponzi scheme that blewup which was going to happen anyway. The whole impetus of passing a bill is to assuage public opinion from the previous meltdown. The Congress acted!! Eerily similar to our recent great recession and the action by Congress. After record debt and bailouts of course.
The money machine is power. Power accrues more money. The machine moves on.
Sorry for the late response. Here are my answers to this week's questions:1. What do you think of William Jennings Bryan's quote? Who is or are the money power that he was talking about? How did this group or man or men get tagged with that "nickname"? Was it a fair assessment or were they just looking for scapegoats?
Bryan's Money Power is referring to the captains of capitalism who ruled the economy during this period. J.P. Morgan, who we just met in this chapter, is one of those men along with folks like John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie (although, Carnegie was mostly retired and devoted to philanthropic causes by this time). They were tagged with that nickname, along with a host of other less flattering ones, because of the exorbitant amount of influence they exerted on the global economy. As we saw in the previous chapter, one man, a private citizen, J.P. Morgan, saved the economy by doing basically what the Federal Reserve does today. I do believe that it is a fair assessment as economic power concentrated in the hands of a few private citizens always rankles American's conscience.
2. Who was the "money power" denouncing as public enemies?
Anyone who wanted to change the economic system, so folks like William Jennings Bryan and Robert LaFollette. Any time that put forward a bold, new way of reforming the finance or the economy, like Bryan's bi-metallism movement or Lafollette's push to reform railroad rates, were denounced as dangerous to the economy and the country.
3. What crimes were Bryan talking about and/or who questionned their methods (the money power's)?
The crimes that come from holding a monopoly power over a sector of the economy. Men like Morgan, Rockefeller, and Carnegie used some rather underhanded and shady methods to squeeze out competition and gain a monopoly power over finance, oil, and steel. And when a monopoly is formed, it allows the monopolists to squeeze the little guy below. Think of the the railroads at this time. They were essential to farmers in the Midwest and Western states. Without them, farmers would not have been able to sell their crops at good enough rates to keep their land. But with the organization of the railroad trusts at the end of the 19th century, railroad rates became astronomically high for small farmers, putting a lot of economic pressure on them. It's no wonder that a lot of Midwest and Western politicians advocated for serious reforms of the economy in general and the railroads in particular.
4. Mr. William Jennings Bryan in his famous election speech: "The money power preys upon the nation in times of peace, and conspires against it in times of adversity, It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies all who question its methods, or throw light upon its crimes. It can only be overthrown by the awakened conscience of the nation".
The above is the full quote. Do you believe that the motivation for this kind of speech was strictly political? Do you think we are hearing the same messages today in this primary? Do you agree with Bryan or not? Are things that bad? Are the politicians trying to make the bankers out to be the bad guys because they want a scapegoat? Without the bankers and Morgan in 1907 - the country would have gone belly up, is Wall Street the problem with government or is the government the problem with Wall Street?
I don't think this was a strictly political quote from Bryan. As I mentioned above, the monopolistic power the Money Men held over the economy at the time put the screws to small farmers and business men throughout the country. There was a deep reserve of righteous anger building over the country and William Jennings Bryan and other politicians like him were voicing that outrage. I don't believe that most of the politicians wanted to use the Money Men as a scapegoat. Even a quick look at the causes of the Panic of 1907 reveals that it started and ended with the Money Men. Yes, the government did not help matters much, but the government didn't have the regulatory rules in place at the time to do anything really. Furthermore, the idea that the federal government should have a larger hand in regulating the national economy had only just begun to gain traction with the public. So, I think you can lay much of the blame for the Panic at the Money Men's feet for this one.
5. Are the money problems that the country is facing a result of our changing culture and what our expectations are as to how much we should be compensated and paid for our labor? Have we become lazy or are the major corporations taking advantage of the people, making outrageous profits while at the same time paying them so little that they cannot afford to live?
I do believe that there has been a cultural shift in the last 40 years or so. Prior to the 1970s, a lot of Americans could be motivated by arguments that would be considered today as talk of class warfare. Think of the example of Congressional pay prior to the 1970s. Before then, any time Congress even thought about giving themselves a pay raise there would be a loud uproar from the country and the issue would either die completely or quietly work through the system at another time. Today, they can do it on a regular basis and Americans won't think much about it. Or think about some of the work of the Muck Rakers. Upton Sinclair openly advocated for socialism in his books and he was a very popular author in his own day and today. Do you think a talented writer or reporter could get away with openly advocating for socialism today? American culture has had a profound shift away from socialist proposals that would have at least been considered. But with the rhetoric of the Cold War and the modern Conservative movement in America, the debate has become openly hostile of any solutions that smack of socialism. Two books to look into on this subject would be Sean Wilentz's recently published book The Politicians and the Egalitarians: The Hidden History of American Politics and The Age of Acquiescence: The Life and Death of American Resistance to Organized Wealth and Power by Steve Fraser.
by Sean Wilentz(no photo)
by Steve Fraser(no photo)
1. What do you think of William Jennings Bryan's quote? Who is or are the money power that he was talking about? How did this group or man or men get tagged with that "nickname"? Was it a fair assessment or were they just looking for scapegoats?ANSWER: I believe that Bryan’s assessment of the situation was very accurate. When LaFollette used that term “money power� he was referring to the bankers. However, I searched online and several sources said that the term was used by farmers after the 1873 panic to describe the power of the railroads. The group, which I believe consisted of the bankers and the captains of all major industries, got this name because the farmers and the factory workers realized that they were being exploited because money bought Congressmen who worked the system to create laws for the benefit of those bribing them. Calling these people criminals is a fair and accurate assessment. They wreaked misery upon the farmers and the factory workers or anyone who was defenseless against their power.
2. Who was the "money power" denouncing as public enemies?
ANSWER: People like La Follette and Bryan and even Roosevelt for his attempted regulations of the railroad.
3. What crimes were Bryan talking about and/or who questioned their methods (the money power's)?
ANSWER: The crimes - railroads charging farmers exorbitant fees causing the farmers to go bankrupt. Major industries where workers were slaves in all but name. The bankers having special fees for those industries giving them kickbacks. Those who questioned their methods were the farmers, the factory workers, the reformers, such as, Bryan and La Follette
4. Mr. William Jennings Bryan in his famous election speech: "The money power preys upon the nation in times of peace, and conspires against it in times of adversity, It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies all who question its methods, or throw light upon its crimes. It can only be overthrown by the awakened conscience of the nation".
The above is the full quote. Do you believe that the motivation for this kind of speech was strictly political? Do you think we are hearing the same messages today in this primary? Do you agree with Bryan or not? Are things that bad? Are the politicians trying to make the bankers out to be the bad guys because they want a scapegoat? Without the bankers and Morgan in 1907 - the country would have gone belly up, is Wall Street the problem with government or is the government the problem with Wall Street?
ANSWER: Not political. This could have emanated from Adam Smith, the granddaddy of capitalism. Smith made many similar statements.
We are hearing a similar message from Bernie Sanders, but the current situation is not nearly as dire as it was at the turn of the century. This is because the government since that time has enacted many controls upon the banking and financial industry. U.S. economy did almost collapse under George W. Bush’s reign because his administration gave the financial industry free range by eliminating as many controls as they possibly could. Fortuitously, Obama reinstated many of those controls and lifted the country out of what could have been a second great depression.
Do I agree with Bryan? I agree with his estimation of the situation which existed at the time he said this. Things were quite horrible for the ordinary people in the era in which Bryan lived. Do I think that the same situation exists today? No. As already stated the government has enacted many policies for the oversight of the banking and finance industry. Do I think that the banking industry can collapse our economy? Yes, this was seen in the George W. Bush administration when the government removed many of the regulations.
I am unsure whether the question regarding bankers as scapegoats is in reference to today’s situation or the situation at the turn of the century. I believe that Bryan’s evaluation was very accurate for the turn of the century. I believe that it is less accurate for our own era. As already stated we have learned from experience that controls must be implemented on the banking and financial industries. We should not eliminate the banking or financial industries, but they must be controlled by government regulations.
5. Are the money problems that the country is facing a result of our changing culture and what our expectations are as to how much we should be compensated and paid for our labor? Have we become lazy or are the major corporations taking advantage of the people, making outrageous profits while at the same time paying them so little that they cannot afford to live?
ANSWER: Although I believe that legislation must be implemented to prevent a CEO from making more than a certain multiple of what the ordinary worker in the CEO’s industry is making, I cannot solely attribute our massive national debt to the greed of those in power. Our debt problems are also equally attributable to the U.S.’s extensive benefits system. The “Great Society� that Johnson touted was supposed to lift people out of a continued dependence upon entitlements. Instead, the number of people on entitlements has grown by leaps and bounds. Greed is pervasive through all classes of society. Just because a person is not wealthy that does not mean they are not greedy. Any able-bodied person who chooses not to work and chooses to live off the labor of another human being is greedy. They just have less ability to implement their greed.
Teri wrote: "David wrote: "Teri wrote: "I really enjoyed this chapter too and as I read the section on the filibuster it reminded me of Texas Senator Wendy Davis and her 11-hour filibuster in the Texas legislat..."I agree with Teri's question as to how often but question more, in my mind, if and how often the concept used in the House to by pass the committee to bring the Vreeland bill to the floor has been used - page 117 para 4.
Tomi wrote: "This was not one of my favorite chapters - just not too interested in fiscal policy/issues. Can't we have a good murder or some other blood and guts? "Then you are together with Teddy - page 109 para 2
Sorry I hadn't yet seen your later post that most was missing
Michael wrote: "Kressel wrote: "I loved the quote that he thrived on lost causes, as opposed to TR, who cared about winning. It's the rare politician that cares more about winning for his cause than he does about ..."I think that LF was focused on his cause and he fought for what he thought was right. He had the option to focus as such, compared to TR, as he did not have executive/administrative responsibility to protect/run the country overall.
TR was pretty disrespectful to call the filibuster foolish - not his business
Teri wrote: "I really enjoyed this chapter too and as I read the section on the filibuster it reminded me of Texas Senator Wendy Davis and her 11-hour filibuster in the Texas legislature in 2014. She also ultim..."It is a different culture, but ultimately, it is still about making money.
-----------
It is a different culture - one in which there is no problem to make - mine - process all needed by society by a fraction of those of working age -
Companies however have to make money - first of all after taxes one needs to maintain inflation adjusted equity position to do the same business. So if one has a 5% inflation rate the first 5% in post tax profits of the equity of the firm is needed to just stay the same in terms of financial strength.
Jim wrote: "Three things stood out to me in the chapter, TR's speech, LF's filibuster and the growing power of voters in the West. I had mixed feelings about TR's speech. On a positive note it was a powerful..."
just a thought - filibusters in the Senate where low population states gets dis-proportional power is just a way of geometrically expanding that power.
Why do population low farm states get so many subsidies for their residents?
Jordan wrote: "1. What do you think of William Jennings Bryan's quote? Who is or are the money power that he was talking about? How did this group or man or men get tagged with that "nickname"? Was it a fair asse..."While there are obviously risky ventures and unwise decisions, I do think it’s unfair to lump a large group of people together in such a way
--------------------------------------
on this point one I have to agree with Jordan - just because bank robbers might use guns all gun owners are not dirty dogs.
The History Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
The Confessions of Congressman X (other topics)The Confessions of Congressman X (other topics)
Blowing Smoke: Why the Right Keeps Serving Up Whack-Job Fantasies About the Plot to Euthanize Grandma, Outlaw Christmas, and Turn Junior Into a Raging Homosexual (other topics)
The Age of Acquiescence: The Life and Death of American Resistance to Organized Wealth and Power (other topics)
The Politicians and the Egalitarians: The Hidden History of American Politics (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Congressman X (other topics)Michael Wolraich (other topics)
Sean Wilentz (other topics)
Steve Fraser (other topics)
Lewis L. Gould (other topics)
More...
For the week of May 9th through May 15th, we are reading Chapter Five of Unreasonable Men: Theodore Roosevelt and the Republican Rebels who Created Progressive Politics by Michael Wolraich.
The fifth week's reading assignment is:
Week Five - May 9th - May 15th
Chapter Five - The Money Power - (pages 107 - 122)
We will open up a thread for each week's reading. Please make sure to post in the particular thread dedicated to those specific chapters and page numbers to avoid spoilers. We will also open up supplemental threads as we did for other spotlighted books.
This book was kicked off on April 11th. It is never too late to start a book here at the History Book Club.
We look forward to your participation. Amazon, Barnes and Noble and other noted on line booksellers do have copies of the book and shipment can be expedited. The book can also be obtained easily at your local library, local bookstore or on your Kindle. This weekly thread will be opened up today (sorry but away on travel).
There is no rush and we are thrilled to have you join us. It is never too late to get started and/or to post.
Bentley will be moderating this discussion and Assisting Moderators Teri, Jill, Bryan, and Samanta will be backups.
The author Michael Wolraich will also be actively participating in the moderation with Bentley. We welcome him to the discussion.
Welcome,
~Bentley
TO ALWAYS SEE ALL WEEKS' THREADS SELECT VIEW ALL
REMEMBER NO SPOILERS ON THE WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREADS - ON EACH WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREAD - WE ONLY DISCUSS THE PAGES ASSIGNED OR THE PAGES WHICH WERE COVERED IN PREVIOUS WEEKS. IF YOU GO AHEAD OR WANT TO ENGAGE IN MORE EXPANSIVE DISCUSSION - POST THOSE COMMENTS IN ONE OF THE SPOILER THREADS. THESE CHAPTERS HAVE A LOT OF INFORMATION SO WHEN IN DOUBT CHECK WITH THE CHAPTER OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY TO RECALL WHETHER YOUR COMMENTS ARE ASSIGNMENT SPECIFIC. EXAMPLES OF SPOILER THREADS ARE THE GLOSSARY, THE BIBLIOGRAPHY, THE INTRODUCTION AND THE BOOK AS A WHOLE THREADS.
Notes:
It is always a tremendous help when you quote specifically from the book itself and reference the chapter and page numbers when responding. The text itself helps folks know what you are referencing and makes things clear.
Citations:
If an author or book is mentioned other than the book and author being discussed, citations must be included according to our guidelines. Also, when citing other sources, please provide credit where credit is due and/or the link. There is no need to re-cite the author and the book we are discussing however.
If you need help - here is a thread called the Mechanics of the Board which will show you how:
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/2...
Also the citation thread:
/topic/show/...
Introduction Thread:
/topic/show/...
Table of Contents and Syllabus
/topic/show/...
Glossary
Remember there is a glossary thread where ancillary information is placed by the moderator. This is also a thread where additional information can be placed by the group members regarding the subject matter being discussed.
/topic/show/...
Bibliography
There is a Bibliography where books cited in the text are posted with proper citations and reviews. We also post the books that the author used in his research or in his notes. Please also feel free to add to the Bibliography thread any related books, etc with proper citations. No self promotion, please. We will be adding to this thread as we read along.
/topic/show/...
Book as a Whole and Final Thoughts - SPOILER THREAD
/topic/show/...
Directions on how to participate in a book offer and how to follow the t's and c's - Unreasonable Men - What Do I Do Next?
/topic/show/...