View Full Version: Debate

Apnotes > Miscellaneous > Debate


Title: Debate
Description: Senate Business Regulation Committee


APush student need help - January 7, 2007 06:53 AM (GMT)
The year is 1891. prepare to answer the following questions: should the gov. regulate big business? If not, why not? If yes, what regulations?

The purpose of this committee is to investigate the impact of big business practices and poices on American society. At the end of the hearding, the committee will make policy recommendations for teh entire senate to consider. 4 groups have been invited to make a presentation and to answer questions.
Groups:
1-Entrepreneurs/Big Business leader
-john D rockefellar, JP mordan, andrew carnegie, etc.
-scial darwinism/ gospel of wealth
-new technology
-standard of living
-defend business practices such as vertical intergration and holding companies

2-Middle class Consumers(educated, skilled workers)
-incomes
-standard of living
-prices
-job market
-monopoly pricing

3-Factory workers(low-skilled, manual labor)
-workign conditions
-standard of living
-child labor
-women in the work force
-immigrant workers
-tenement housing

4- Small business owner
-fair competition
-sherman anti-trust act
-criticize business practices such as vertical intergration, trusts, and holding companies.


My Group is the Entrepreneurs/ Big Business leader aka the bad guy and i have no clue in what to say. All i know is that we need the trusts to protect our business and sometimes we can be overpowering. oh an di thought of something, we provide jobs that the poor need to make a living and that pretty much all i know:blink:

Orborde - January 8, 2007 12:33 AM (GMT)
A good case can be made that, since large businesses are more centralized, they are more efficient, creating greater overall wealth.

If all else fails, try recycling something from the Reagan era. Trickle-down economics, anyone?

APush student need help - January 9, 2007 07:54 AM (GMT)
thanks but now i just dont' know what vertical intergration is and i don't know how to defend the bussiness practices such as that and holdign companies.x]

dimmick - January 9, 2007 03:42 PM (GMT)
Vertical integration is when one company controls all aspects of an industry, like how Carnegie Steel owned the mines, the boats that transported ore to the smelting factories, the refining factories, all the transportation needed to get their product from place to place, the production of raw materials to keep their factories running, etc. - I recommend reading up on it.

I would defend this by pointing out that it can save the producer TONS of money by avoiding middlemen and contractors, which then translates to savings for the end consumer (in theory, anyway). The downside to this is that the monopoly might not actually pass the savings on to the consumer.

Orborde - January 9, 2007 03:48 PM (GMT)
Horizontal integration is when a company owns a lot of brands that are similar (such as The Gap, Old Navy, and Abercrombie & Fitch all being owned by one company).

Vertical integration is when a company integrates its suppliers and distributors. A good example would be an oil company, like Shell, that owns not only gas stations, but the refineries to make the gas, the tankers to move the oil, and the pumps that get it out of the ground.

Horizontal
Vertical

EDIT: Dimmick wins.




* Hosted for free by InvisionFree