If the correct analogy is to the Gilded Age, then isn't the obvious political
problem how to ensure that the coming version of the "Progressive Era" does more
than merely rationalize the marketplace?
Joel Blau
Jim Devine wrote:
> At 10:17 AM 9/29/00 -0400, you wrote:
> >Keeping an eye on protesters International authorities are sharing
> >information -- not all of it accurate -- about anti-globalization activists.
>
> speaking of which, I've noticed that the media make a lot of comparisons
> between the last 20 years or so and the US "gilded age" of the late 19th
> and very early 20th centuries. I think there's a lot of validity to these
> comparisons (though no analogy is perfect). In the last gilded age, the US
> saw a transition from the prevalence of local monopolies or oligopolies to
> the prevalence of nation-wide monopolies or oligopolies in manufacturing,
> along with a radical increase in the degree of wealth and income
> inequality. Now, not only do we see the latter, but there's a transition
> from nation-wide monopolies or oligopolies in many countries to world-wide
> monopolies or oligopolies in manufacturing. (Inside the US, we see a shift
> from monopoly/oligopoly banking on the local level to similar on the
> national level, inexorably creating a small number of super-banks that will
> all be "too big to fail," so the Fed will prop them up. Likely, the
> international concentration and centralization of banking will happen
> later. The differences in banking laws between countries slows the process.)
>
> The story that Louis posted points to another parallel. Back in the old
> "gilded age," there was an elite panic about "anarchists" (until 1917 or
> so, when the commies picked up the torch). In the new gilded age, we again
> see an elite panic about "anarchists."
>
> I expect someone to do a remake of the flick "Front Page," but there will
> be a Seattle demonstrator hiding in the roll-top desk.
>
> Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
