Those are just some of the points that stuck in my mind. The book is a great read. In school, I only got the bad side of Rockefeller. But this book gives a better balanced view of his life. It is long but it's worth the read.
He also paid a bunch of people to write favorable stories about him, concerning his supposed "frugality" and "industriousness". If you don't believe, read a very interesting and revealing book written by one of his close associates: "Frenzied Finance", by Thomas Lawson.
It's interesting to note that one of the biggest criticisms about him was that he would force companies to sell themselves to him or be put out of business by his monopoly power. Now, 100+ years after, it's still a business practice. I know it happened when Amazon bought diapers.com. Amazon threaten to start it's own diaper service and put them out of business, if they did not sell. Was it a smart business practice from Amazon's view or was it corrupt? I guess it's up in the air since it's still happening.
If you read Teddy Roosevelt's bio you get a view of what politics and business where at the time.
Rockefeller literally put the "anti-trust" in "anti-trust law" when he created the Standard Oil Trust. Standard Oil's lawyer conceived of a scheme whereby shareholders put their shares into a Trust whose Trustees held the shares for their benefit. This scheme was widely imitated by other businesses to the point that the word "trust" was about as tainted at that time as the word "corporation" is in our own.
A trust, like a corporation, is not in and of itself illegal or immoral. However, both are legal devices which can be used to further nefarious ends.
Not to mention that when he founded it, he didn't actually believe in modern medicine. His father was essentially a snakeoil salesman, and some beliefs were imprinted in Rockefeller. But he believed in the pragmatic approach to medicine. I think later in life he eventually decided modern medicine was superior.
It's good that his actions were constructive, but they very easily could have been destructive (e.g. had he held slightly different values, had malicious advisors). That inspires worry in me.
We'll ignore the saving the whales thing, because it was purely an incidental side effect.
During the anti-trust trial, Chernow wrote that Rockefeller was steadily losing market share due to competitors getting better. I.e. the anti-trust ruling was unnecessary, Rockefeller was unable to manage such a large enterprise efficiently. (Though Chernow did not write that specifically, that's what the facts he presented suggested.)
It's still a great read, I just found that Chernow's conclusions were not supported by the facts he presented.
I don't think this was evil exactly (does Chernow actually call it that?). Rockefeller honestly believed in a sort of divine Corporatism, where economic success was a defacto indicator of divine grace. I doubt most people would agree with his premise, given that we have plenty of examples of evil, successful people.
But I think Rockefeller is a good example of how that kind of thinking can be twisted even if the person in question is generous (as Rockefeller certainly was). In his mind, his wealth meant he was a good person, and since he was a good person, there was no problem in his colluding to block other, less wealthy (and thus, less moral) people from taking part of the pie. And people who questioned his motives were obviously being duplicitous. This led to a kind of circular logic, where his wealth justified his actions in accumulating ever more wealth.
I don't think it's surprising him being hated as the most powerful man at the time. His thrive did make lot of progress for humanity.
Contrast that with Ambose's "Nothing Like It In The World" about the first intercontinental railroad. In it he says he started with the usual extremely negative view of the railroad and the people involved with it, but after doing the research was forced to do a 180 and regarded it as a marvelous accomplishment and the people involved were amazing.
[1] https://www.amazon.com/SILVER-WATERPROOF-waterproofed-UNDERW...
I wonder how that worked out...
2) "Anti trust" changed in meaning over time.
3) "Monopsomy" contracts with (what came to be ) common carriers was the thing at issue. We live with countless monopsomies today.
4) People like Teddy Roosevelt and Wm. Randolph Hearst built their own empires partially by opposing men like Rockefeller.
5) You cannot psychologize 19th century people in terms of 21st century thinking. Just disease and hunger made them radically different. Trauma was rampant.
6) SFAIK, this ensconced "competition" as a legal good, which has continued to be problematic. The result of the breakup of SO pretty much confirmed what Rockefeller predicted about competition. The resulting stock was MUCH more valuable after the breakup. If anything, that is a measure of how his extreme parsimony held down costs in a public-goods sort of way.
7) I think the change in price of lighting oil has been radically underestimated in its effect on people's daily lives. The subsequent advent of the electric lamp shifted productivity upward even more.
8) There was no boilerplate for the relationship between mass labor and corporations at the time. A coal shortage may have been life threatening under conditions. See also the 1902 Anthracite Strike w/ Teddy Roosevelt as President.
I suspect the Rockefellers ( Jr. and Sr. ) can be more seen as part of the solution than part of the problem in Ludlow. That might have been calculated and PR oriented on their part but still....
"The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there." - LP Hartley.
His business practices were highly controversial though. Lots of them were banned later for stifling competitions and innovations. For instance he used the scale of Standard oil to get exclusive rebates with railroads, which were later considered to be common carrier and should treat all customers fairly. He also signed lots of exclusive agreements with oil producers, which would starve other refiners.
* As others have said, Rockefeller was very frugal. His son, John Jr., wore his sisters dresses because they didn't want to waste money on new clothes. Seriously.
* Rockefeller Jr tried to run the family business for a while, but decided it wasn't for him. He was a primary contributor (ie, bought and gave land away) for Acadia, Great Smoky Mountains, Grand Teton, Yosemite and Shenandoah National Parks.
Machiavellianism (willingness to manipulate and deceive others), Narcissism (egotism and self-obsession), Sociopathy (lack of remorse and empathy), Sadism (pleasure in suffering of others);
