3 ms·

John D. Rockefeller used all kinds of illegal, anti-competitive tactics to put other companies out of business. He manipulated politicians and bankers of his ti

John D. Rockefeller used all kinds of illegal, anti-competitive tactics to put other companies out of business. He manipulated politicians and bankers of his time to implement his illegal schemes. It was so much corruption that the congress was forced to create anti-trust laws to break up his businesses. In summary, he was one of the biggest white collar criminals of the world. 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.

bluedevil2k 10y ago
They weren't illegal at the time
uiri 10y ago
These tactics were not illegal when he used them. Although they may be considered anti-competitive, Standard Oil's monopoly waned after the turn of the 20th century. By the time that its monopoly was broken up in 1911, its market share had fallen to under 70%. 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.
- ArkyBeagle 10y ago
  Or - "trust" became a curse word used by critics of that sort of business practice at the time. The world was all-new-and-all, and this was the base layer for legal strictures to follow. It's still all rather incoherent, as anyone who followed the Microsoft monopoly case can attest.
WheelsAtLarge 10y ago
He was a man of his time. All of the books I've read of the era talk about corruption as part of doing business. Many of the things we consider corrupt now where very legal at the time. The Standard Oil monopoly was legal at the time. It's not an excuse but you can't exclude it when evaluating his actions. At the time he was just being a smart business man. He was no saint but it's possible to learn from what he did. 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.
- coliveira 10y ago
  It was not just a "criticism about him". His business practices were PROVEN to be crooked, with a number of witnesses testifying about what happened in front of the courts. And the fact that big companies sometimes do the same nowadays is a sign that they are doing something that is ethically very fishy, not the other way around.
lend000 10y ago
As many other commenters pointed out, this is completely misinformed -- he didn't break any laws. He also makes for an interesting case study on monopolies, because he did not actually attain as much rent-seeking as many people think, or even compared to today's companies. Natural, malevolent monopolies cannot exist without rent-seeking, and Rockefeller was a great example of that. His empire was very close to a monopoly, but it was not malevolent to the consumer -- he had driven down the price of kerosene by over 50% after 30 years.
- Animats 10y ago
  Er, no. See "Ludlow Massacre".
  - ArkyBeagle 10y ago
    As I recall, the Rockefellers ( both Jr. and Sr. ) at least took pains to be seen as part of the solution rather than part of the problem.
ArkyBeagle 10y ago
It is all only technically illegal once you invoke legal work done well after the fact. It was all done under a Terminator-style relentless focus on reducing the end cost to consumers.

bluedevil2k 10y ago

They weren't illegal at the time

uiri 10y ago

These tactics were not illegal when he used them. Although they may be considered anti-competitive, Standard Oil's monopoly waned after the turn of the 20th century. By the time that its monopoly was broken up in 1911, its market share had fallen to under 70%. 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.

ArkyBeagle 10y ago
Or - "trust" became a curse word used by critics of that sort of business practice at the time. The world was all-new-and-all, and this was the base layer for legal strictures to follow. It's still all rather incoherent, as anyone who followed the Microsoft monopoly case can attest.

WheelsAtLarge 10y ago

He was a man of his time. All of the books I've read of the era talk about corruption as part of doing business. Many of the things we consider corrupt now where very legal at the time. The Standard Oil monopoly was legal at the time. It's not an excuse but you can't exclude it when evaluating his actions. At the time he was just being a smart business man. He was no saint but it's possible to learn from what he did. 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.

coliveira 10y ago
It was not just a "criticism about him". His business practices were PROVEN to be crooked, with a number of witnesses testifying about what happened in front of the courts. And the fact that big companies sometimes do the same nowadays is a sign that they are doing something that is ethically very fishy, not the other way around.

lend000 10y ago

As many other commenters pointed out, this is completely misinformed -- he didn't break any laws. He also makes for an interesting case study on monopolies, because he did not actually attain as much rent-seeking as many people think, or even compared to today's companies. Natural, malevolent monopolies cannot exist without rent-seeking, and Rockefeller was a great example of that. His empire was very close to a monopoly, but it was not malevolent to the consumer -- he had driven down the price of kerosene by over 50% after 30 years.

Animats 10y ago
Er, no. See "Ludlow Massacre".
- ArkyBeagle 10y ago
  As I recall, the Rockefellers ( both Jr. and Sr. ) at least took pains to be seen as part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

ArkyBeagle 10y ago

It is all only technically illegal once you invoke legal work done well after the fact. It was all done under a Terminator-style relentless focus on reducing the end cost to consumers.