PaperclipGod
Banned
I'm looking at this from a somewhat abstracted cultural perspective, and I'd really like to avoid getting into a debate on actual political issues (rich vs. poor, etc).
So, the idea is that 100 years ago, when there was less stringent regulation of monopolies and uncompetitive business practices, society had more cultural depth. With wealth concentrated in the hands of fewer people, and profits more easily made, we saw these moneymakers pour a lot of their money back into the area in which they lived. Architecture, for example, was much grander. Compare the "McMansions" of today with Victorian's of 100 years ago -- the craftsmanship and attention to detail in those early houses was lightyears beyond the stuff built today. Even your average "suburban" house of 1900 was a much more unique, interesting, appealing structure than the mass-produced houses we use today. Philanthropy, too, seemed to be much more common -- think of all the colleges, universities, hospitals, and libraries which were founded by a "robber barron".
Because money was controlled by fewer members of society, and the smaller amount of competition, more money could be spent on things which did not have a direct relation to profit-making. More money could be spent by the wealthy on "prideful" items, such as local parks or grand architecture.
Today, however, the global nature of the economy combined with companies who are competitive down with every cent, has reduced the amount of "discretionary" money available to these companies and wealthy individuals. If you spend money on anything which doesn't directly improve a companys bottom line, your competitors will capitalize on that misstep, and your company will be no more. I think the easiest way to see the truth in this is to look at modern architecture. There is barely any creativity or purely artistic design -- it's function over form. No elaborate facades, no rich materials, just a utilitarian design which maximizes the use of the space. I mean, look at the skyline of NYC today -- it's all big glass towers. But you can still pick out the old, iconic skyscrapers of decades ago -- the empire state building, the GE building, etc. Those buildings have a cultural value which modern equivalents do not.
Again, if you want to reply, please stick to this narrow topic I'm trying to explore. Replying with "but now we have a more equal distribution of wealth" isn't relevant, because I'm really just trying to look at this from a cultural point of view. I mean, what we remember about Rome isn't how equal or inequal her citizens were, but her legacy of grand architecture, art, and literature.
So, the idea is that 100 years ago, when there was less stringent regulation of monopolies and uncompetitive business practices, society had more cultural depth. With wealth concentrated in the hands of fewer people, and profits more easily made, we saw these moneymakers pour a lot of their money back into the area in which they lived. Architecture, for example, was much grander. Compare the "McMansions" of today with Victorian's of 100 years ago -- the craftsmanship and attention to detail in those early houses was lightyears beyond the stuff built today. Even your average "suburban" house of 1900 was a much more unique, interesting, appealing structure than the mass-produced houses we use today. Philanthropy, too, seemed to be much more common -- think of all the colleges, universities, hospitals, and libraries which were founded by a "robber barron".
Because money was controlled by fewer members of society, and the smaller amount of competition, more money could be spent on things which did not have a direct relation to profit-making. More money could be spent by the wealthy on "prideful" items, such as local parks or grand architecture.
Today, however, the global nature of the economy combined with companies who are competitive down with every cent, has reduced the amount of "discretionary" money available to these companies and wealthy individuals. If you spend money on anything which doesn't directly improve a companys bottom line, your competitors will capitalize on that misstep, and your company will be no more. I think the easiest way to see the truth in this is to look at modern architecture. There is barely any creativity or purely artistic design -- it's function over form. No elaborate facades, no rich materials, just a utilitarian design which maximizes the use of the space. I mean, look at the skyline of NYC today -- it's all big glass towers. But you can still pick out the old, iconic skyscrapers of decades ago -- the empire state building, the GE building, etc. Those buildings have a cultural value which modern equivalents do not.
Again, if you want to reply, please stick to this narrow topic I'm trying to explore. Replying with "but now we have a more equal distribution of wealth" isn't relevant, because I'm really just trying to look at this from a cultural point of view. I mean, what we remember about Rome isn't how equal or inequal her citizens were, but her legacy of grand architecture, art, and literature.
