Industrialists

1. Of who you researched was worse?

1.1. Stanford only for the reason that he didn't give back to the community like Andrew Carnegie did

1.2. Carnegie gave money to education.

2. In what way did my industrialist make conditions better?

2.1. Stanford made railroads and that helped people travel faster and easier.

2.2. He also became gov. of California which helped politics.

2.3. He owned a store in California during the gold rush.

3. Do you think the Industrial World is "cutthroat" by nature, or was this due to the individuals behind the movement financiers?

4. How much money would an industrialist need to donate to make up for greed and corruption.

4.1. I think it would be okay to be mean and cruel to people if you give back to the people to took something from, even if it means giving more than you took.

4.1.1. Stanford would have to give back to the place where he took from, like the other railroad companies.

5. How many rules would a person need to break before becoming unethical or immoral?

6. Would the turn of the century be possible if Robber Barons didn't exist?

6.1. Probably except it would probably have been more difficult and it wouldn't have happened the way it did.

6.1.1. Goal 1

6.1.2. Goal 2

6.2. For example Stanford railroad companies made it easier to travel so it would have slowed people down.

6.2.1. Session Rule 1

6.2.2. Session Rule 2

6.3. Andrew Carnegie's company made steel which helped with building things so it would slow the cities down.

6.4. Without Robber Barons the turn of the century wouldn't have happened the way they did.

7. How do you think robber barons could have conducted businesses differently to be more accommodating to the workforce/average american?