The Progressive Era as a Steppingstone in the Correcting of Democracy and the Eradicating Issues Spawned by Monopolistic Industrialists

The Progressive Era as a Steppingstone in the Correcting of Democracy and the Eradicating Issues Spawned by Monopolistic Industrialists

An era seeing vast social, political, and economic changes, the Progressive Era from 1890 to the 1920’s was a steppingstone in correcting democracy and eradicating widespread issues spawned by monopolistic industrial figures. A precursor in laying the framework for WWI and the Roaring Twenties, the Progressive movement saw a dramatic rise in industrialization as movement supporters were avid modernizers. Nonetheless, despite its prosperous economic growth, the rise of unionization and economic/ social public policy posed as a threat towards many industrial giants and the progressive modernization. Through analyzing economic and political setbacks and break throughs, the changes within the progressive period saw a rollercoaster of peaks and fallbacks from economic panics to and heavy federal political and social regulation of industrial monopolists; society emerging from an agrarian and calm lifestyle, to an industrial and crooked capitalist playground.

Progressive Economics saw an extensive amount of changes domestically, revitalizing the struggling conditions America was submerged in. During this era of innovation, industrialization and railroad expansion led the pack in bolstering a heavy effect on domestic economic prosperity. In Gary Walton and Hugh Rockoff’s ‘History of the American Economy’ they go on to note how during this period, the production of steel for railroads doubles, highlighting how a sudden halt on railroad development would simply have postponed growth for two years. However, despite fiscal success, the renaissance of economic growth stemmed from the Panic of 1893, taking a direct blow and monumental detriment to the Philadelphia Reading Railroad, the National Cordage Company, and following this, a lingering wave of bank failures across the South and West (Walton & Rockoff, 333). With America in economic turmoil, railroad’s and their monopolist leaders were sent into dismay, becoming financially strapped, however “when the long period of falling prices reversed itself in 1896, the ICC disallowed rate increases sufficient to match rises in the general price level. Railroads reacted by slowing their repair and replacement of capital stock and equipment” (Walton and Rockoff,276). Concluding the 19th century and entering a new decade, its evident to distinguish how the American economic landscape relied so heavily on an industrial society as opposed to an agrarian dominance. Railroads and their manufacturing companies amassed such power that they in an essence dictate the flow of fiscal success. Nonetheless, their superiority in the market created an intensive monopoly, and without government intervention, regulation of business practices continued to go unrecognized, creating a ruthless laissez faire economic system. However, despite having railroads under a private ownership, their contribution to other markets was beneficial. Looking at the agricultural sector, the railroad “had saved at most only about 1.4% of GNP in the transportation of agricultural products…an upper-bound estimate of the social savings came to about 7.3% of GNP in 1890” (Walton and Rockoff, 278). Unethically, railroads were placing a detriment on labor conditions with the exploitation of underpaid workers, yet the efficiency and exponential expansion of the railroad system assisted in a minor yet, reliable mode of boosting economic conditions.

While the railroads were an external measurement of how Progressive Economics shifted, internal measurements of currency had a dramatic impact on international relations. Beginning in the late 19th century, until 1920’s the U.S. came into its own as a dominating economic power, with a net balance of goods and services quoted at $7billion (Watson and Rockoff, 251). As to what the pandora’s box to economic growth laid low and behold in the implementing gold standard, a notable international currency. In previous efforts to successfully adherence to the gold during financial crises, it put a massive strain to supply additional money to financial markets. However, with a reversal in international capital flow, the Progressive economy and its fixed exchange rate of gold promoted “the free flow of goods and capital across international borders… Bonds sold in London there sent streams of capital into the less-developed parts of the world” (Watson and Rockoff, 329). As America had entered a heavily industrialized era, relations with foreign countries grew. Metaphorically it acted as the key holder into international markets. The iteration of the gold standard as a dominant currency allowed for a reduction in volatile inflation amongst input and output of goods yet stimulating the supply of goods for an ever-expanding population. As a growing manufacturing economy and with a vast and stable international market, the United States saw itself as a massive nonreproducible power, producing an extensive portion of petroleum, copper, coal, etc. (Watson and Rockoff, 350). Nonetheless with WWI begging in 1914, the gold was a viable source of paying off debt to America from Britain and France, allowing industrial businesses to soar. European surplus granted the feasibility for gold as acting as more than just a resource for payment, but as a staple in financing politics, changing the direction of international relations.

With the surge in economic fluctuation, the Progressive Era sought out to make sure that dominating industrial forces wouldn’t implement any unethical practices in order to satisfy capitalist greed. With prior tariffs established from the Civil War, tariffs were established in order to pay off any war debts. With the early implementation of the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1887, it began the period in which domestic policies, primarily economic ones, became more utilized (Watson and Rockoff, 275). With congress attempting to pass a form of tax legislation in 1894, it was found unconstitutional in 1895 (Watson and Rockoff, 354). However, while this initiative to introduce an income tax initially failed, it laid the framework in establishing acts including the Elkins Act of 1903, Hepburn Act of 1906, and the ratification of the 16th amendment in 1913. In examining the effects of these Poli-Economic policies, entering the Progressive Era saw a motive in protecting the wellbeing of the laborer, and maintaining the economic regulation amongst manufacturers and capitalists. As a Progressive government took form, the ratification of amendments and tax reforms, nonetheless, shifted the paradigm of tax income, realizing that the worker was being heavily taxed despite low income. Mean to mention the high industrial prices exuded a strenuous force on low and low middle-class Americans. Hence the transformation had adopted a more regulated system for democrats and republicans and workers and capitalists .

Within every century, the United States economy is seemingly booming and subtilling deflating all the time. Shifting into the 20th century, its evident how economics and politics crafted a landscape for industrialists. Walton and Rockoff note how “the beginning of the twenty-first century looks very much like the beginning of the twentieth century”. Looking at the framework of industrialists and laborers, the degree to which this statement is valid is high. In the Progressive and Roaring Twenties era, the emergence of industrial monopolists dominating the private sector found itself intertwined in a hotpot of labor rights and unionization. Yet in 21st century, despite more federally regulated labor laws, there are excessive loopholes in which the rich evade taxes, nonetheless, outsourcing international labor as mode of profiting off cheap labor, second favoring the domestic labor market. Moreover, preserving the cycle of monopolistic greed and labor exploitation.

Analysis of Advantages and Disadvantages of Monopoly Through Own Professional Experience

Analysis of Advantages and Disadvantages of Monopoly Through Own Professional Experience

A monopoly is an exclusive possession of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service. After being offered the position of Junior Executive and thinking about the pros and cons of each side, I have concluded to accept the role of Junior Executive at Mega Avocado Corporation. Three main points that support my claim are the data from our 2008 and 2009 production, our general knowledge about what a monopoly is and how it works, and the power of the patent.

My strongest point about why joining a monopoly is the best decision is the data and research from our production in 2008 and 2009. In 2008 our data reflected our place in a competitive market, while our 2009 data depicts our place in a monopolistic market. Our costs per avocado were lower in 2009, making our sales increase. The 2009 data makes my point valid because it is ethical for our producers and our consumers. Most people think that a monopoly causes prices to be higher for consumers; however, our data shows explicitly that we did not price gauge and that our prices were fair. According to this data, our profits were higher, being a monopoly versus being in a competitive market. Therefore, joining MAC as a Junior Executive is ethical and fair.

Although this data from 2008 and 2009 highly supports monopolistic markets, the common thread with monopolies is that prices increase for consumers due to price-fixing and price gauging as the profit increases as well. “Monopolies face inelastic demand and so can increase prices-giving consumers no alternative” (economicshelp.org). Many believe this action to be unethical because it creates an unfair market place with no competition, so consumers must pay high prices. However, in our MAC monopoly, our prices are fair and even below the competitive market prices the year before.

“Monopolies are firms that dominate the market” (economicshelp.org). Many people, without clarification, automatically assume that monopolies are bad because they hurt consumers. However, they can lower average costs, which, in theory, help the consumers. Think about natural monopolies. The long-term investment can gain lower long-run average costs. Having one primary firm produce the good or service limits the amount of infrastructure and investment. This process makes it more efficient for a monopoly to exist. The Sherman Anti-Trust Acts make monopolies legal and able to run their firms without using their power to gain advantages. As long as companies follow these laws, then there is no reason for a company not to be allowed to gain control and have a competitive advantage.

There are a few disadvantages of a monopoly that come into play. In some instances, it creates a decline in consumer surplus because fewer consumers can purchase the goods at the inflated prices. All of these advantages and disadvantages depend on the market type. For instance, if factors such as a contestable market, ownership, and government regulation take hold, it depends on the structure and type.

My final point that brings my statement the most strength is the power of the patent. “A patent is a government authority or license conferring a right or a title, for a set period, especially the sole right to exclude others from making, using, or selling an invention”. The patent in a monopoly provides incentives for firms to become innovative. The development of new technology and knowledge betters our society. This innovation causes high profits allowing companies to invest and fund further projects and funnel some of the profits back into the community.

While some see monopolies as a positive use for innovation, others see it as a lack of innovation. People believe that there is a lack of motivation to create new products because there is no competition to beat out. Since many are not able to compete with a monopoly, the motive for innovation is business and market demands, not ingenuity.

In modern American societies, monopolies are generally considered to be harmful because they cause markets to fall. The main concern is that monopolistic firms can charge any price they want for a good or service because they know that people need their items. However, there are situations in which the positive advantages outweigh the negative disadvantage. This Junior Executive position at Mega Avocado Corporation is one of them. This monopoly helps the consumer and the producer. The prices are low, and the profits are up. What more could be wanted? I can prove that my role as a Junior Executive is ethical and fair through production data in 2008 and 2009, the basic understanding of the pros and cons of a monopoly, and finally, the power of the patent and innovation.

Difference of Monopolistic Competition from Monopoly with Oligopoly

Difference of Monopolistic Competition from Monopoly with Oligopoly

I had taken two introductory economics courses prior taking the ECON 310 course this semester, and I had learned a lot about the different markets including monopoly, oligopoly and monopolistic competitive markets. However, I always had trouble understanding the difference between them and it has always been very confusing to me until I got the opportunity to further learn them in this course. So, I decided to explore it in more details in this essay. In a monopolistic competitive market, there is no perfect information as in a perfectly competitive market. In this business environment, consumers can be deceived by perceiving that the products are different when in fact they can be interchangeable with their counterparts. Like oligopolies, they also depend heavily on marketing strategies to achieve product differentiation but differ by having unlimited competition that is not favored by entry barriers, as in the perfectly competitive market. Monopolistic competitive features, therefore, generally include differentiated products, large numbers of vendors and no entry restrictions.

In this environment, there is a great variability of the product, which justifies the millions of shampoo bottles in a hallway. Stunned by the number of bottles, the question comes to one’s mind is that weather there can be only one predetermined shampoo. Well, thanks to the monopolistic competitive companies like Aveeno, Garnier, Neutrogena, Pantene and the all too many to list, for trying to convince the consumers like us that their shampoo provides ‘silkier’ hair. Whether it is true or not, it does not necessarily matter as long as the consumer believes that it is true. Take conventional toothbrushes that like shampoo, they all have the same purpose. However, if a supplier of a ‘one-of-a-kind’ toothbrush with a softer handle believes that the feature is worth more and the consumer agrees, then the toothbrush will be sold at a higher price. A softer handle will not provide whiter or cleaner teeth, but it will help the variability of the product that gives the consumer a wide variety of options.

Unlike oligopoly, monopolistic competitive companies must worry about competing with unlimited competition. Competition can be so extensive that it can be across the road or even neighbors. So why can companies decide to compete so closely when operating in less competitive places? The answer lies in the economist concept of spatial interpretation, that is, the company competes with consumers in the form of convenience by attracting more consumers by establishing more physical stores. If there is a total number of potential consumers within a certain range, companies will compete in an accessible environment. This explains the establishment of a gas station on the way to San Francisco. The gas station wants to compete for space and customers within the same exit because it does not want to create any distance from the convenience of competitors. If Chevron is to be pumped at a convenient exit, drivers trying to reach San Francisco will not want to drive more than a mile away to pump Arco gasoline.

Usually, there are a large number of independent companies competing in the market. The most common examples of monopolistic competition are fast-food burger companies such as McDonald’s and Burger King. Both companies are selling similar products, but it depends on their favorite consumers. They sell burgers or any kind of food, such as fried chicken, french fries and soda. There are similarities, but no consistency. Another characteristic that distinguishes a monopolistic competitive market is that, unlike a perfectly competitive market, there is no barrier to entry for monopolistic competition. There can be ten food trucks on a street, and no one limits entering another one into the market. As long as revenue can be recognized, profits can be shared. The same cannot be said for pure monopolists and oligarchs, who lobby and indirectly prevent competitors from entering.

Monopolistic competition has a large number of sellers, but each seller acts independently and has no influence on others. Just like sellers, there are a large number of product buyers in the market, and each buyer acts independently. Monopoly competitors try to differentiate their products so that consumers cannot make alternative efforts. In this model, each company will have a product similar to its competitors, but it is not a perfect substitute. Only small differences between them allow competition. A monopolistic competitive market is essentially a mashup between an oligopoly and a perfectly competitive market.

References

  1. Monopolistic Competition. (2016, Oct 13). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/monopolistic-competition-essay
  2. Pettinger, Tejvan, and Reagan Ottawa. “Tejvan Pettinger”. Economics Help, 29 Oct. 2019, https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/311/markets/monopolistic-competition/.