3 ms·
If the summation of the popular view is at odds with the facts of the man, is that a flaw, or perhaps the natural contradiction of Rockefeller as a human being?
by arkis22 3y ago
If the summation of the popular view is at odds with the facts of the man, is that a flaw, or perhaps the natural contradiction of Rockefeller as a human being? The title is "Titan", but he dies just like all of us. I can't help but think of the ending of Barry Lyndon or The Seventh Seal
- WalterBright 3y agoSince Chernow never explained this, I suspect he just couldn't break free of the conventional view. For example, in the chapter on the anti-trust trial, Chernow concluded that Rockefeller had an unstoppable monopoly that needed the government to reign it in (the conventional view). Yet in the text he wrote that throughout the trial, Standard Oil's market share steadily declined and Rockefeller was unable to stem the retreat. There was no explanation of the discrepancy. A different take on this is "Nothing Like It In The World" by Ambrose. It's about the building of the first continental railroad. Ambrose writes in it that he fully embraced the conventional view of it, but his research for the book turned everything on its head, and he came out of the experience with a very different view. I do have copy of Chernow's tome on Hamilton, but haven't got around to reading it yet.
- macintux 3y ago> Yet in the text he wrote that throughout the trial, Standard Oil's market share steadily declined and Rockefeller was unable to stem the retreat. The general consensus seems to be that the antitrust trial against Microsoft had a significant impact on the company's behavior long before it concluded, forcing it to stop acting like a bull in a china shop. I don't see the two views on Standard Oil as necessarily being contradictory, but I'll freely admit I'm completely ignorant of the situation.
- WalterBright 3y agoSO never did charge monopoly prices. The consumer price of kerosene dropped 70% during the rise of SO.
- arkis22 3y agoFrom what I remember he did have an unstoppable monopoly. It helped that he could push around the railroads. But remember this is oil. When he was in charge Pennsylvania at one point was the oil capital of the world. That is obviously a position that is impossible to keep right?
- WalterBright 3y agoChernow's explanation was that his competitors had learned how to compete with him.
- arkis22 3y agoHe bought all of the domestic competitors. Which is why they broke up standard oil into different oil companies. Then they all floated on the stock exchange and made him monstrously richer. Or at least he tried to. The idea was once you discover a lot of oil, its harder to control. but then what happened was international oil companies came around. Venezuela was very rich until they ruined it. RDS was immortalized by Tony Curtis in Some Like It Hot. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udZgIsIKU30 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udZgIsIKU30
- WalterBright 3y ago> He bought all of the domestic competitors. I don't think that's correct. He never had more than a 90% market share.
- patmorgan23 3y ago90% is pretty damn close to all, just like 10% is close to zero.
- WalterBright 3y agoThe 10% is good enough to prevent monopoly pricing.