Good Evil and Bad Evil?

The issue on the docket for this blog post is the first in a series of posts which debate a point made in an average United States history textbook. The statement: "He (Theodore Roosevelt) saw a difference between "good trusts" and "bad trusts"." Is this statement really true? Is there any difference whatsoever between a "good" trust and a "bad" one?

I have a few points to make on the side for the statement. As everyone has heard, the Wall Street compensation is outrageous. The people who are skilled (or deceptive) enough to land a position in with one of the big funds receive enormous salaries and giant bonuses. However, because of the recent economic downturn, some funds have done much worse than years past. But, regardless of that, the amounts earned on Wall Street are infinitesimally diminished. How is it that even when someone drives a company or fund into the ground, they still get paid and retain their position? In a perfect world, shouldn't people only be rewarded for doing well? This view of the financial world implies that we are in a very bad situation right now. Only a Progressivist President like Roosevelt would be brave enough to tackle this huge issue of compensation.

On the other side of the debate, there are also a couple of points to be made opposing the previous statement. First of all, the trusts themselves are not to blame for their issues. It is the people running them that are to blame or reward. Also, if we discourage any institutions in bad financial situations, we will have less individuals willing to take a risk in the markets. This would drive our economy down even more than having a few bad trusts and create a fear of the financial world in all of the citizens. It would be like a mass holocaust of investors. That's a very radical view of it but it makes sense. Another reason why there is no difference in trusts is because trusts provide more investors into the American market which in turn helps our country's economy. Even if the trust goes down, the person's investing in that trust pulls up the market and helps others.

Overall winner of debate: You decide. This matter can be somewhat biased because, of course, those who benefit pecuniarily from either side would support it.