www.archive-org-2013.com » ORG » Q » Q-AND-A

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".

    Archived pages: 628 . Archive date: 2013-09.

  • Title: Q & A
    Descriptive info: May 16, 2010.. Joyce Appleby.. Historian and Author of "The Relentless Revolution: A History of Capitalism".. Q&A Podcasts.. Program Details.. Info.. : Our guest is Joyce Appleby, historian and author.. Her newest book is a history of capitalism entitled "The Relentless Revolution.. " Joyce Appleby taught at UCLA from 1981 to 2001.. She is past president of the Organization of American Historians as well as the American Historical Association.. Her books include: "Capitalism and a New Social Order: The Republican Vision of the 1790s," "Liberalism and Republicanism in the Historical Imagination," "(co-author) Telling the Truth About History," "Inheriting the Revolution:The First Generation of Americans," "Thomas Jefferson.. ".. Uncorrected transcript provided by Morningside Partners.. C-SPAN uses its best efforts to provide accurate transcripts of its programs, but it can not be held liable for mistakes such as omitted words, punctuation, spelling, mistakes that change meaning, etc.. CSPAN April 16, 2010.. BRIAN LAMB, HOST: Joyce Appleby, why did you call the book on the history of capitalism The Relentless Revolution ?.. JOYCE APPLEBY, AUTHOR, THE RELENTLESS REVOLUTION: Because that s really what the history of capitalism has been, one revolution in social arrangements, technologies, workplaces, areas of profit, production centers.. It s just been one revolution after another.. I think Schumpeter, Joseph Schumpeter, the Austrian economist, said it well.. Capitalism is about creative destruction.. And we get the creative part, which is wonderful and all this new technology and but you sometimes forget the destructive part.. Every invention that succeeds wipes out its predecessor, and this means a change in where people work, and the skills they have to have, so and it never stops, I mean, as we know, having lived through 2008 and 2009, sort of this whammy out of nowhere.. I mean, now we realized it wasn t out of nowhere, but that s what it seemed like, and that s a part of it the relentless revolution, going from a boom time to a burst bubble.. LAMB: Define capitalism.. APPLEBY: I define capitalism as a system in which private individuals take initiatives with their own capital to usually to enhance production, but to produce something that they can sell on the market for a profit.. And I give that definition, and it seems so ordinary, and yet every element in that definition was an affront to the established customs and traditions of the society in which capitalist practices began.. LAMB: Give us an example of what was an affront break it down.. APPLEBY: Well, individual initiative.. In a society of scarcity, which all traditional societies were, they were always under the threat of famine.. They didn t have a lot of individual initiatives.. It was like a sinking ship.. You stayed in your place, and you did what you were told, because they were so close to the edge in their capacity to produce food, so that individual initiative, it seemed very dangerous.. And then the idea that s being private, extending the private sphere, this is a traditional economy in which the government didn t produce things.. It produced on land.. It was owned by yeoman or lords or whatever and worked by tenants and some private farmers, so it was privately owned, but the government controlled it.. There was great laws against regrading, forestalling and regrading, forestalling, and one other, which is meant that when the crop was in, you couldn t hold it off the market for a better price.. You couldn t sell it to brewers if the government said that they needed for food.. You had to take it to the market on a certain day and sell it, so that was a lot of control.. But now you have private capital going where the owner of it wants it to go.. And those are just very disruptive things.. Enhancing production is another way.. You don t enhance production without assaulting old customs and ways of working.. LAMB: So go back to the very beginning.. Is there can you put a date on it, when it started and where did it start?.. APPLEBY: No, I can put a century on it.. It started in England.. And as you know, I don t think capitalism was inevitable.. I think it was a very propitious convergence of trends and developments and some fortuitous events.. I put it in the 17th century before the core of capitalism was discovering new developing new machines on the basis of a new science that greatly accelerated the amount that could be produced by any worker.. And this work was done in the it s what we, you know, think of in the natural philosophers of Galileo and Newton and Boyle, and they discovered that atmosphere had weight, and they discovered that there was no that there was a vacuum, that natural laws are uniform.. And these ideas, as I say, might have just maintained within an intellectual elite, but England had a very open society, and so these advances in science just advanced right into the workshops of a Thomas Newcomen or a James Watt, who perfected the steam engine.. I mean, I just think, how many people through the ages must have seen boiling water push up top? So you and yet it took all these centuries for what? For the theories that explained it, for the mechanics who had the ingenuity and desire.. It was a propitious linking of technological advances with economic opportunity in a very supportive social environment.. But England had already solved the problem of food shortages, and that was key.. It didn t cause capitalism, but it made it possible.. LAMB: You also throw not the way you say it a bone to the Dutch.. APPLEBY: Oh, definitely.. LAMB: Why? What role did they play?.. APPLEBY: The Dutch were great innovators, but the Dutch were financiers and traders.. That s what they did well.. In Amsterdam, the cities of the Netherlands, they just had storehouses of everything beautiful that was made in the world, as well as timber and grain.. They made themselves the great carriers of the world.. And they innovated with banking and finance.. They had interest rates of two, three, four percent when everybody else in the world it was twelve percent.. Well, of course, this is what start-up companies need.. They need access to capital at a low rate.. So the Dutch were important, but the Dutch had one problem.. They could only feed themselves through nine months of the year, so they had to import for three months of the year.. And this I think it crimped their imagination.. I don t think they could see the possibilities of the systems that they had started, whereas the English exported food.. They were well enough developed in agriculture that they didn t have to worry after they d gone through this century of improvements.. The Dutch also were satisfied.. They were they were, you know, fat and happy, so they weren t pushing to change what they did well.. What was remarkable about England and why it had capitalism is that, once they started, they never stopped.. They kept innovating with new developments, applying it to different productive processes, you know, everything from filling mining shafts to making porcelain.. LAMB: Let s review your background.. When we talked on this program it was 10 years ago, the year 2000.. APPLEBY: Was it 10 years ago?.. LAMB:.. for one of your books.. And you pointed out you were born in Omaha, Nebraska.. APPLEBY: Omaha, Nebraska.. LAMB: But you ve lived in Kansas City, Missouri.. You ve lived in Dallas.. APPLEBY: Dallas, Evanston.. LAMB: Evanston, Illinois.. What were doing in your father was in corporate.. APPLEBY: My father was a worked for United States Gipson (ph), and he was in sales, and he was actually moving to be a (INAUDIBLE).. LAMB: But you ended up in California and went to Stanford.. Where did you get your master s degree?.. APPLEBY: I got my master s degree at the University of California, Santa Barbara.. I was there living there with my husband, and we had an ad agency in Santa Barbara, and I was very lucky, because they just initiated a master s program or I would not have been able to get it.. LAMB: And what about your PhD?.. APPLEBY: I got that at Clement Graduate School.. And, again, it was within 10 miles of my house, where at this time we had three children, so I had a very short tether.. But fortunately it extended to a place that provided graduate education.. LAMB: Didn t you have a son who played a role in this book?.. APPLEBY: I did.. I do.. LAMB: What did he do?.. APPLEBY: He s a sort of man of leisure.. He learns and remembers it s kind of fantastic what he knows.. And, you know, it was just wonderful.. He lives near me.. It was wonderful to be able to talk to him about this, because he never, ever lost his curiosity in capitalism, and I would bring up some subject, and he would go on to amplify.. I think I mentioned that Sarnoff was went to Japan, it was celebrated.. Frank (ph) was the one that told me that he was the one that received the message from the Lusitania.. I mean, there s always these little things that are kind of fun.. LAMB: The founder of RCA and NBC.. APPLEBY: Yes, yes, right.. LAMB: But go back.. You taught at San Diego State University.. APPLEBY: I taught there for 14 years, and then I came to UCLA.. LAMB: And 1981, and you are you still teaching?.. APPLEBY: No.. No, I retired seven years ago.. LAMB: So go back to this.. How did you go about when did you start this book and how d you go how d you go about researching?.. APPLEBY: I started it it took me two years, and then there was the copy-editing process, so I guess I started now maybe four years ago this summer.. I knew a lot about the first part, because I m a historian of early modern Europe, and I d done a book on economic thought in England, which meant that I had to understand economic developments, as well.. And then after that, when we got into-get into the industrial revolution, by no means an authority on that, I simply read.. I did what scholars did.. But the interesting thing was that I I never thought of it as a book for scholars.. I thought of it as a book for a general public.. And that was so liberating.. I didn t think of all those critics who were going to be arguing with my thesis.. I just thought of general readers, eager to learn about the history of capitalism, and it truly was fun to write.. LAMB: You remember when you were surprised that you didn t know I mean, you ve studied history all your life, you didn t know something you found out about capitalism?.. APPLEBY: Yes, there were a lot of things, a lot of things.. I mean, I didn t know, for instance, much about Germany in the 19th century, and yet when I saw that both the United States and Germany had passed the front leader, the pioneer, England), I became very interested in how the Germans did this.. And what was curious and what made a real impression on me as I developed the book was how different the United States economic development and political development, too, was from that of Germany.. So here were these two different paths towards capitalist leadership with excellent (ph), with different strengths, different leaders, truly a different M.. O.. And that made me realize that because capitalism, as I stress, is a cultural system, it wears a different face in every country.. LAMB: Well, explain the difference between the Germans and the Americans.. APPLEBY: Well, the Germans, for instance, were struggling the Prussians were struggling to create a nation in Germany, and they started off as-started off as a customs service.. And so they used the economy to create this unity, which they finally through Bismarck, they finally achieved with Prussia, which was by far the largest of the 300 principalities and states that composed Germany.. And because they were led by aristocrats that s one of the interesting features the well, let me just back up.. The aristocrats were not particularly interested in industry.. They were interested in German prosperity, but they had a rather contempt for these industrial magnates.. And they so the industrial magnates couldn t count on the government for financing or banks, and so they arranged to have investment banks the first investment banks were in Germany in a couple of major cities.. The other thing was that the Germans the center of industry was in the northwest, and they had to pool people from the poorer parts of Germany as workers in these factories, in the steel factories and the like.. But there began to be an arrest among the leaders.. And here s one of the big differences I m getting to.. I haven t forgotten the question.. There was an attack attempted assassination of the Kaiser, and so there was a cramp down on radicalism, but Bismarck initiated a social welfare program in 1880s, workers insurance, workers compensation, pensions and the like.. He wanted to buy off, as it were, the radicals.. And because he had power, he wasn t stopped by the industrialists who hated this sort of thing.. They weren t interested in securing all these benefits for workers.. Well, you look at the United States, and we have a very porous safety net.. We never have had strong unions, and that means that our social welfare, as we know going through health care debate, has been very it s been very hard to push on this front.. So that s one of the big differences.. LAMB: What other than farming started capitalism? What were the what was the first industry?.. APPLEBY: Mining.. LAMB: Where?.. APPLEBY: In England.. Mining was important, and they needed they needed pumps first to get rid of the water.. And then the steam that fills, you know, in mines, and steam engines were more they could as effective pumps.. The initial use of steam, the Newcomen steam engine, consumed enormous amounts of coal, so you couldn t leave (ph) the coal fields very far.. You had to have your industry there.. And mining was there.. What James Watt does a half-century later, as someone said, he took an awkward contraption and turned it into the engine of the industrial revolution, is he got a way of getting rid of all that steam and conserving on the coal.. Then you could take the steam engines and put them anywhere, in boats to drive the machinery in Wedgwood s famous porcelain factories.. So I m you know, the first is in the late 17th century, and I m carrying it forward to the end of the 18th century.. And it doesn t really change the standard of living until well into the 19th century.. LAMB: What was next? I mean, you had mining?.. APPLEBY: Mining, and then.. LAMB: Steam?.. APPLEBY:.. the great bonanza of the steam engine was textile making.. Textile making, there were cotton was a lot easier to mill than wool, and cotton was in demand all over the world.. And the English perfect through the spinning jenny, the power loom, the spinning newel (ph), these various inventions, improve the number of spindles that can be run at the same time in the same engines, and, you know, greatly accelerate the output.. So most of England s industrial workers worked in textile factories.. And that s one of the sort of poignant moments in American history, jump ahead to the 19th century, is that in the civil war, the English were cut off from southern cotton.. They refused to recognize the Confederacy.. And the workers are all, you know, thrown off, you know, out of the factory, no jobs.. And there is a pressure to get the government to recognize for manufacturers to recognize the South.. And the workers stand fast, even though they are suffering.. They do not want to help slavery.. And Lincoln wrote a wonderful letter to them, and it s on the base of a statue of him in Manchester.. Getting a little off the field, but there are so many kind of fascinating stories inside this epic.. LAMB: You wrote this.. I have to say, I was surprised only because you don t normally a historian doesn t normally say things like this.. I should also place myself in the contemporary ideological continuum.. I am a left-leaning liberal with strong, if sometimes contradictory libertarian strains.. Why did you put that.. APPLEBY: Put that in?.. LAMB: I mean, somebody reading this, all of a sudden, you ve labeled yourself.. APPLEBY: I guess I thought that it would be well for the person to know who was talking to them and telling them this story.. And as I said, I wrote it for a general audience.. I think people are curious when you deal with a subject like capitalism.. I went on to say that I very much wanted to write this without having characters with black hats and characters with white hats and sing the virtues of capitalism or lament its abuses.. I wanted to give not even-handed.. I just wanted to give an account that I m like Friday, Sergeant Friday, that told the facts, though obviously I interpret the facts all the way through to give it a coherence.. What, did it seem strange to you? I mean.. LAMB: The only reason so often either journalists or historians will say, I m just a historian.. I m not on one side or the other.. And you never know until somebody says what they are here.. Well, let me probe you a little bit on the both left-leaning liberal and libertarian.. Where do you come down on what makes you a libertarian, on what issues?.. APPLEBY: Well, welfare reform.. You say, what s that got to do with libertarians? I dislike the dependency that I felt was implicit in our welfare system, and that I see as a libertarian, wanting people to be free with kind of dependency.. There are a quite a few issues in which freedom would be more important to me than social justice in some instances.. Social justice is very important.. What was I reading about today? I was an issue that oh, this issue about the the school is yes, Hastings.. A case is coming before the Supreme Court.. Hastings told the Christian League, students Christian League, that they could no longer have university facilities or law school facilities because they excluded people whose sexual life was immoral.. And I was thinking, you know, I think they ought to have the right to exclude.. You know, I think that s a right of free association.. It doesn t seem to me that it s damaging a lot of people.. I know if that seems like a libertarian issue to you, but I weight against the institution.. LAMB: How about the other side, left-leaning?.. APPLEBY: Oh, well, left-leaning is a lot easier.. I m really, really concerned with social justice.. I think it s abominable that we don t pay a living wage.. That is when we start paying a living wage to workers all over the world, I bet half of our social problems will be gone.. Poverty is such it s just a bane of people s lives, and there are a lot of people who are poor.. I mean, it s not a small number.. And I so I guess I guess being for the living wage is different from not wanting welfare.. I want people who work to be able to earn a  ...   our Constitution to get them to read the Constitution.. This was a simple 20-thing list element.. Everybody voted.. It was purely democratic, through and through, only one house, a legislature.. And then I would give it to them in advance and tell them to read both constitutions and come into class and be prepared to take defend which one you want.. I had to beg people to take my constitution.. And when they debated, they came up with all the answers, all the statements that were made in the Federalist Papers, which I don t think they d read, but they knew why, in their view, a bicameral legislature was better, and they knew why you had an independent judiciary, and they knew and it was very impressive.. Now, that told me something more than these polls did, that there is a general understanding of our institutions, but it s not something you can spit out when someone asks you a question.. LAMB: I mentioned that you had run these two or had been elected to run these two historical institutions.. It explained them.. What s the difference between the Organization of American Historians? And when were you, what, chairman or president?.. APPLEBY: President.. LAMB: President.. When were you president?.. APPLEBY: I was president in 88, I guess, 89.. That is an organization for all scholars whose field is American history, so it has people in France who study American history, and Germany who study American history, and Japan, and China.. The other is the.. LAMB: American Historical.. American Historical Association, and that s an organization for all the historians in America.. LAMB: And when were you what, were you president of that, or chairman?.. APPLEBY: Yes, I was president of that.. I was trying to think when I was president of that.. I think it was 97, yes, it was, 97.. LAMB: And what do these organizations do for history?.. APPLEBY: They do a lot of good things for history.. They obviously do two things that are important to their members.. They have an annual meeting where there are all kinds of panel discussions, the latest scholarship is discussed, and they put out terrific journals of history scholarship, and the one is just American history, and the other is all kinds of history.. But the American Historical Association in particular does a tremendous job of defending history in America, whether it might be an historian who is going to be fired because of some provocative study or access to the archives.. There have been lots of legal issues in which they have become a party to a case which is going to open up the archives to the public or something to do with the Library of Congress.. So they re always they maintain an office here, and they re always alert to what it is that scholarship needs, and they do a tremendous job.. LAMB: Back to your book on capitalism.. How many countries in the world are not capitalists?.. APPLEBY: Well (INAUDIBLE) there are 57 failed states.. Now, whether they are not capitalist, I don t know, but they re probably not doing it very well if they re failed states.. So I ll give you those 57.. I.. LAMB: But you call China a capitalist country?.. APPLEBY: Yes, definitely.. LAMB: When did it become a capitalist country?.. APPLEBY: Well, it started in the 78, with the liberalization program.. It s, you know, kind of very hard to say when it became, but when you have them allowing peasants to sell their land and put their land up for collateral and farm individually, which happened about within the last 12 years, I mean, they said they can only do it for 30 years, but no one thinks they ll ever resume it, that s a major change, when you farming is always key, because it involves the most people and the most traditional element in the society.. They ve expanded their, you know, free trading zones, their banks.. You know, China gets an enormous amount of what do they call it private money from Chinese all over the world.. And so they have this as a source of investment.. They have I think they call money clubs for start-ups.. They still run the big industries, but even those big industries are now being run on a profit basis.. And they actually, they re pouring their profits back into the pension funds, which they don t have.. So I would say it might be the last 10, 12 years.. LAMB: So, from what you know about capitalism, can they continue to be a communist country for very long?.. APPLEBY: I think it s going to be hard.. And the reason it s going to be hard is because a part of their communism it s not so much a communism, but their authoritarianism is controlling information.. And information is absolutely critical to capitalist development.. This is a fast-moving technological world, and you need to have access to it, and you need you don t know where innovations are going to come from.. Your people need to have access to these things.. And I would say the next foreseeable future, the next quarter century, we re going to see more and more of an easing up.. Whether if they have a biparty system, I don t know, but they re going to ease up on the control of individual lives, as they are already.. LAMB: Go back to what you said about your own interest about poverty and eradicating poverty and having a more equal society.. Is there a country in the world that s more equal than this one?.. APPLEBY: Well, I think yes, I think Sweden and Finland, I think these countries put in a have a tremendously strong social net.. The Gini coefficient, as they say, measuring the inequality I was looking at The Economist last night on the plane it s very low in Finland as compared to United States and Britain s more than the United States and China and India are worse than the United States in the spread of wealth.. But a part of that is the function of the fact that there s so much wealth at the top.. Before, everybody was poor.. It s not that the poor have gotten poorer.. It s just that there are many more well-off people, so you have this spread of inequality.. Yes, I would say those Scandinavian countries, probably the Netherlands, where they do a much better job of much stronger support of labor, labor participating on corporate boards.. And they re economically strong and getting stronger.. LAMB: What about the fact they re more homogenous than this country?.. APPLEBY: Yes, that s true.. LAMB: By a long shot.. APPLEBY: By a long shot.. They all have now some pocket of guest workers that have stayed put and offer some variety of the vanilla which dominates, but that is a very important factor.. But I don t think it s insurmountable.. LAMB: And you go to Japan, it s the same thing, they re.. APPLEBY: Yeah, Japan is pretty extreme, because they really are xenophobic, I think.. They really I don t they really are uncomfortable around strangers.. But look at this way.. We re heterogeneous, but we re used to that.. Does it bother me that I go on the UCLA campus and I can see every skin color in the world? Not at all.. I mean, it doesn t it isn t threatening.. So that, over time, once we I shouldn t over time, that s going to be like homogeneity.. Now we re still having some difficulty with immigrants and concern about them in some parts of the country.. LAMB: So you ve mentioned Adam Smith, and then we went to Thomas Paine, and we ve talked a little bit about the Declaration of Independence.. I want to go back to that time.. What role did capitalism play in the creation of this country?.. APPLEBY: Well, this country was tied to the absolute frontrunner, Great Britain, and so they had been economically active and innovative from the very beginning, in Massachusetts, in Virginia and Virginia, unfortunately, was a slave system, but it s highly capital intensive Massachusetts is much more plucky entrepreneur.. And this meant that it fostered this individualism, and individual initiative and individual responsibility.. Those are kind of the moral the moral bedrock of capitalism.. You have to take care of yourself, and you have to act on your own.. So I think they had a lot to do with causing the revolution.. People felt confident.. They when the British try and change the rules, they re not at all happy about it, and they re not afraid to oppose it.. And so I would say that economic initiative, you know, the economic initiative was widespread economic initiative was critical to the revolution and to the founding of the country.. LAMB: What about slavery? You mentioned that, talk about it in your book, slavery not just for this country, but from around the world.. APPLEBY: But in the Caribbean, right.. Slavery is a terrible thing.. It shows what greed will do.. There were these profits to be made in the tropics by growing sugar.. Imagine a world without sugar, and all of a sudden they could get sugar, and this led to this really vicious exploitation of labor.. What really to me is tragic about slavery is that it weighed on the conscience of these European countries.. So what did they do? They blamed the condition on the slaves.. It was their qualities.. They were sort of Aristotelian.. They were meant to be slaves.. And this has left this bitter legacy of prejudice, which is put in there in the first place to salve the conscience of the slave-owners.. LAMB: And tobacco.. Tobacco played what role in capitalism in this country?.. APPLEBY: Well, tobacco was the underpinning of the Southern slave economy, tobacco and rice in South Carolina in the 18th century.. It was then replaced by cotton, which was even more valuable as an export, more demand for it, so it gave slavery a lease on life.. You know, slavery was going strong all the way up to 1860.. But by this time, the conscience of the world and the North was such that there was an absolute insistence this not be spread.. That s what the Civil War was about, was not slavery where it was, but it was the spread of slavery.. The North said no, and the South did not accept that.. So I think it had an, in the long-term, a very malign impact.. In the short term, it was very important to Northern prosperity, because the South concentrated their labor and their land on cotton, and they bought everything else from the North.. So this is you know, you ve got this giant buyer, as it were, cheap clothes, cheap shoes, food, barrel staids, the works.. LAMB: Unions.. When did they first start in this country? And why and you mentioned this earlier it was not a very unionized country overall.. What is there, about 12 million, 13 million out of 309 million people?.. APPLEBY: The second half of the 19th century, you have the Knights of Labor, and then you have the AF of L, Gompers in 1886, I think, starts it.. And then you had the Wobblies.. You had anarchists who were involved in labor agitation.. I think there are lots of reasons why it didn t succeed in this country.. One of them is this individual initiative that I talked about.. That s just hard-wired in the American psyche.. There s a dislike of collective action.. We all hang together and do this thing.. It just seems sort of un-American.. The other thing is that America had this incredible flood of immigrants starting in the 1880s, and these immigrants came and took the jobs in the factory and pushed up people who were born in America into white-collar jobs or into foremanships or one so you to organize the basic labor, you had to organize people who were just trying to get assimilated in this country, just trying to learn the language.. It s extremely hard.. Someone like Gompers was successful because he specialized not initially, but then he specialized in skilled labor, and he discriminated.. They discriminated against blacks.. They looked upon women as nothing but strike-breakers.. And so he had a group of unions that were looking out for themselves.. I mean, he was a master psychologist, and he understood capitalism.. His view of what he wanted was more.. And when we get more, we re going to want more.. And he shrewdly saw that the workers were the best customers for America s industries.. Here was a mass market.. And if you pay them well, you ll have a great group of consumers.. People had not recognized that.. It had been brooded about before, but the sense that if you re always driving down wages, you are destroying your market, and Gompers seized on that, and that s why he succeeded.. And, of course, then later we had the John Lewis and the CIO, which is more unskilled laborers.. And eventually you do have the labor unions doing well, but really not until the late 1930s.. LAMB: If you take, though, the 3 million teachers out of the unions and the state workers and all, you ve got very few unions left in the industrial world.. APPLEBY: I think it s something like 7.. 5.. LAMB: Yes, why do you think that s happened?.. APPLEBY: I think competitiveness.. I think because the major employers what is the major employer? It s Wal-Mart.. And they have made a success from a lot of things, from their fascinating use of technology, but also keeping wages low.. It s very different from Walter Reuther s day, in which wages were high and there were all those good jobs in the steel mill and the auto plants, but America was protective.. It wasn t the same competition.. There wasn t this flow of capital around the world.. So while I wish Wal-Mart would change its ways and pay more, I recognize that it was sort of a different economic environment, and it succeeded brilliantly in that economic environment.. LAMB: Has there ever been a country in the world that s succeeded without capitalism, from a you know, from a.. APPLEBY: An economic point of view?.. LAMB: Yes.. APPLEBY: No, I don t think so.. I mean, there are countries that succeeded.. You know, probably if you went to New Guinea and to tribes or in the Amazon Basin, there are groups that feed themselves and have enough of the way of life they want, and that those are economies.. But in terms of prospering, getting more goods, enjoying a higher standard of living, no.. LAMB: So how do you explain how does I know you did a segment on Wal-Mart.. How do you explain Wal-Mart in the capitalist system? How does that happen?.. APPLEBY: Well, you had a brilliant, brilliant strategist who saw all Sam Walton was just a master of introducing efficiency.. He s just like Henry Food.. They re just brilliant organizers.. They re not just businessmen, but they see these possibilities.. You know, there s a lot of squeezing over prices and wages, but there s also this use of technology, never sending out trucks that don t come back full.. They ve got you know, they used information technology to be constantly telling the trucks where to go.. I mean, they discovered that one system of tagging boxes in their yard where they have their inventory isn t as effective as another, they replace the other.. And if someone said, Wal-Mart keeps every employee on a very tight technological leash, you know, that every sale goes into the accountant s office, the inventory, the planning.. I mean, there s just no slippage there.. That s a you know, it s kind of a brilliant plan.. LAMB: We re going to get more of Wal-Marts or less in the future?.. APPLEBY: I think we re going to get more Wal-Marts.. I think it s very interesting that Home Depot and Target and one or two others are in the top 50 Fortune 500 companies, so Wal-Mart has had successful imitators, too.. LAMB: So where do you put the stock market on all this?.. APPLEBY: Costco.. Where do I put the stock market in all that?.. LAMB: In a capitalist system?.. APPLEBY: Well, I think it s absolutely essential for the companies to when they want to raise money.. It also gives it an enormous number of people a chance to participate in the profits of that are generated by companies.. I don t know how you could I don t know how I suppose there s another way to do it.. I don t think there s a more efficient way to share the ownership and to have access to the capital.. LAMB: In studying the history of capitalism, where does the recent 2008-2009 financial problems we had fall into history?.. APPLEBY: Well, I think it s another one of those panics, bubbles burst that has resulted in the fact that no one is in charge and you had a very strong sense of incentives that were pulling people into riskier and riskier behavior.. And you had a government that was complicit, one de-regularizing the banks and also pushing for homeownership in a kind of mindless way.. When I heard that there were NINA loans, no income/no assets, I realized that they really had, you know, just thrown all caution to the winds.. So I think it s a convergence.. Capitalism does not correct itself.. It needs regulation.. And that it was a great failure.. I think we ll always have panics, but as someone pointed out very recently, we had controlled most of the recessions up until 2008 since the recession, and we d done it because of the Federal Reserve system, we d done it because of mechanisms we had in place.. It just didn t work this time around.. LAMB: So if you had to nominate somebody to be the most successful capitalist in history, who would you put there on top?.. APPLEBY: Oh, I don t maybe Josiah Wedgwood.. LAMB: Who was?.. APPLEBY: Well, he was a ceramics maker, china maker in England, and he took a very lazy kind of organized set of pottery workers, of potteries in England, was composed of all little workshops.. He brought them together.. He had he made this lovely china.. The queen of Russia wanted 1,000 plates with different scenes from Greek mythology on them, and he was just desperate, because he didn t have the artists to produce this, and he did finally produce the order, but then he realized, I need to have a school, and I need to get gifted teenagers to begin to design and paint.. So, you know, he s like Walton or Ford or one of these people that see the industry whole, from the very beginning of making the product and then marketing it.. Ford would probably have to be another one, because Ford I mean, not only did he see the possibility of a cheap car, but he saw the possibility of selling his own cars.. He set up 7,000 dealerships by 1910, I think.. So I think that s the really impressive capitalists, is the where you have the integration of the whole system in one person.. Tom Watson was another one, IBM.. LAMB: There are more that you can read about in Joyce Appleby s book, The Relentless Revolution: A History of Capitalism.. And we re out of time, and I thank you very much.. APPLEBY: I thank you.. It s been a pleasure talking to you.. END..

    Original link path: /Transcript/?ProgramID=1283
    Open archive



  •  


    Archived pages: 628