In addition to an incredibly thorough (and even-handed, IMO) treatment of Rockefeller, I found it an interesting perspective on the post-war period in the US.
Rockefeller was relentless in ferreting out ways to cut costs. During an inspection tour of a Standard Oil plant in New York City, for instance, he observed a machine that soldered the lids on five-gallon cans of kerosene destined for export. Upon learning that each lid was sealed with 40 drops of solder, he asked, "Have you ever tried 38?" It turned out that when 38 drops were applied, a small percentage of the cans leaked. None leaked with 39, though. "'That one drop of solder', said Rockefeller,...'saved $2,500 the first year; but the export business kept on increasing after that and doubled, quadrupled--became immensely greater than it was then; and the saving has gone steadily along, one drop on each can, and has amounted since to many hundreds of thousands of dollars"' (Chernow 1998, pp. 180-81). Over the course of his career at the helm of Standard Oil, "Rockefeller cut the unit costs of refined oil almost in half" (Ibid., p. 150)."Rockefeller was relentless in ferreting out ways to cut costs. During an inspection tour of a Standard Oil plant in New York City, for instance, he observed a machine that soldered the lids on five-gallon cans of kerosene destined for export. Upon learning that each lid was sealed with 40 drops of solder, he asked, "Have you ever tried 38?" It turned out that when 38 drops were applied, a small percentage of the cans leaked. None leaked with 39, though. "'That one drop of solder', said Rockefeller,...'saved $2,500 the first year; but the export business kept on increasing after that and doubled, quadrupled--became immensely greater than it was then; and the saving has gone steadily along, one drop on each can, and has amounted since to many hundreds of thousands of dollars"' (Chernow 1998, pp. 180-81). Over the course of his career at the helm of Standard Oil, "Rockefeller cut the unit costs of refined oil almost in half" (Ibid., p. 150).
The man loved money. He loved keeping track of it down to the last detail. He even used to chant "one day I will be rich, rich, rich"!
Very interesting man. Given his character and the conditions he was in, it wasn't at all surprising he amassed so much wealth.
Completely fascinating history of the home furnishings industry and how globalization completely upended it.
Zuck is just a manipulator and as he is so young, I don't expect his actually legacy to take hold for at least 40 years. But musk is much more a Titan than zuck. Zuck isn't really doing anything outside his comfort zone - but that doesn't mean that oculus won't be a thing in 20 years - but I wouldn't credit that to zuck.
I recommend that you read "Titan" by Chernow. Rockefeller is mostly guilty simply of being very rich. During his career, he caused the price of kerosene to drop 70%, and stay down. This was good for the expanding country.
During the anti-trust trial, Rockefeller was steadily losing market share to nimbler, aggressive competitors. There was no need for the government to break it up, it was coming apart anyway.
All businesses rise and fall over time. The popular narrative that, unchecked by government, a business will eventually rise to absorb everything is not borne out by practice.
Interesting assertion, do you have any books/data to back that up?
Businesses do rise for a period of decades, however, and can do a lot of damage along the way should they decide to leverage monopoly or otherwise kill competitors unfairly.
There is no such popular narrative-that's merely a strawman you've created-the popular narrative is that monopolies can and do form (not always, but can) in the absence of government rules to prevent them and that such monopolies are bad for capitalism. That is a fact borne out by history.
> Rockefeller is mostly guilty simply of being very rich
No, he's guilty of abusing the power of his near monopoly to sabotage competition just as the OP said. He's not reviled for his wealth, but for the unethical ways in which it was maintained.
I get your point, but there are exceptions. In particular, utilities come to mind. All locations I've lived except 1 provided exactly one option for high-speed internet. I don't see that changing in most parts of the US any time soon. Ditto for water and electricity, depending on locality. Even temporary monopoly abuse in either of those two sectors can have devastating humanitarian impacts.
He was a complicated man, no doubt, and he tended to gloss over some of the consequences of his actions when recalling his past, but he was, mostly, just vilified for being a brilliant businessman at a time when it was popular to do so.
People have learned from this by having a settlement (or rainy day fund) specifically for the government.
You can use it as educational, as a cautionary tale, but there isn't need to pass any retroactive judgment on it, in my opinion. No need to either rosy it up, or highlight something you would rather consider abominable.
I used Netscape in the 90s. It was a crummy product that crashed if you looked at it. IE was much more stable. IE was better, much better. Opera was also available, but there wasn't much to recommend it.
As for Apple in the 90s, Apple nearly destroyed itself all by itself. Check any of the innumerable books on the history of Apple.
Oh, and by the time Netscape 4.7 and IE 4.01 were released, Microsoft had already destroyed Netscape's business.
Until Microsoft stopped keeping up with everyone else. You're reinforcing his point, Microsoft would have put everyone else out of business had it not been for antitrust issues. Competition is vital even when it's sub-par because it won't always be.
"Coming on the eve of the muckraking era, Rockefeller’s alopecia had a devastating effect on his image: It made him look like a hairless ogre, stripped of all youth, warmth, and attractiveness, and this played powerfully on people’s imaginations. For a time, he wore a black skullcap, giving him the impressively gaunt physiognomy of a Renaissance prelate. One French writer wrote that “under his silk skull-cap he seems like an old monk of the inquisition such as one sees in the Spanish picture galleries.” 46"
Stock updates were also sent automatically over telegraph starting in the 1870s for anyone that owned a ticker tape machine[1]. There were also teleprinters that sent news stories and other information to those that owned them.
Fax machines were also invented in the mid 19th Century and allowed for the transmission of signatures and drawings over telegraph[2].
The basics for an asynchronous, global communication system have been around since the 1800s, just not as cheap and user friendly as what we enjoy today.
back to the good ole' dats
i thought it's common strategy played in AOE....
this post makes a great companion with another recent post about Uber on Lyft.
This is not accurate. BP stands for British Petroleum and has never been part of Standard Oil. BP has bought a couple of companies that used to be part of Standard Oil.
You can't beat it.