I read this book too. A few things that standout in addition to the article are: 1) His never ending frugalness, he counted every penny he ever spent. He did this from the very start and wrote it down. He was a very rich man yet his kids did not grow up as your typical rich kids. To the point of wearing hand me downs. He really had respect for money. Which is important specially if you don't have much. 2) He financed the founding of University of Chicago one of the most respected universities worldwide. 3)Never selling any of his stock in Standard Oil. That's why he became so rich. One of his brothers had a similar share of standard oil but he sold part of it over time so John D. was far wealthier that his brother because of it. 4) He started as a bookkeeper, no college. 5) He worked hard but made sure he rested. Short bursts of hard work followed by rest. Never worked on Sundays
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 2) He financed the founding of University of Chicago one of the most respected universities worldwide.
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.
He was distrustful of doctors for the course of his life, and subscribed to herbal/folk medicines. The reason why he funded so much medical science is mostly that Frederick T. Gates, the manager of his philanthropic affairs, managed to persuade him to do so.
Being distrustful
of doctors is still largely a winning strategy, depending on the area that you distrust them in. Regardless, blind obediance to the dictates of your local GP is a good way to find yourself in a pine box.
I read that book. What struck me about it was with all the complaining about Rockefeller being rapacious and evil, there was very, very little backing that up. Mostly it boiled down to being very rich, and a tough competitor.
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.
IIRC, Chernow's main criticism against Rockefeller is that he was extremely suspicious of his critics motives, but at the same time couldn't fathom that other people might honestly question his motives in using the immense power that he'd accumulated via his collusion with the railroads.
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.
Do you mean the book made Rockefeller look evil or generally viewed as such? I personally didn't feel the book made him look evil, but that might be just me.
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.
I meant that Chernow would regularly list facts and anecdotes about Rockefeller, then sum up with some negative opinions about him that seemed to come out of nowhere (being unjustified by the facts presented). I suspected that he'd come into the project with the popular evil caricature of Rockefeller, and couldn't shake it.
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) A subset of the language had to be developed to describe Rockefeller. This subset translates poorly into present-day English. The language used had its own rules.
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.
It is a fascinating read, although the book is a little thick. It tells the life story of one of, if not the greatest American industrialist. John D. Rockefeller built an empire in 20 years. He was self-made (although he did not grow up poor as his father was a snake-oil salesman, he had no money to start his business and had to take loans from his father, unlike Trump), self-taught (no college, no mentor in business other than his father), and devoted to religion. He donated the majority of his wealth away. He abstained from smoking, drinking, and partying for his whole life.
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.
"I cheat my boys every time I get a chance. I want to make 'em sharp. I trade with the boys and skin 'em. I just beat 'em every chance I get." -- John D Rockefeller
I'm not sure I'll ever understand this:
"Rockefeller leaves me with the problematic impression of a benevolent dictator: positive outcomes for society by distressing means, enacted by a man with tunnel vision."
He said that everything he did for the industry and for humanity was good. So why is this distressing?
Shouldn't someone who is ruthlessly good be seen as a hero?
It's like when you handed in a math problem and you got the right answer but didn't show your work. Reinforcing that behavior is troubling because yes, we want good, but we want consistent and explainable good that is auditable by society.
But then it's also like when the student who shows his work, but gets the answer wrong, rises to the top of the class, gets the girl and a highly paid job in management consulting, because we ended up caring more about the process than the outcome. While the student who gets the answer right every time but can't be bothered to show his work ends up in a cubicle, endlessly berated for not putting cover sheets on his TPS reports (as mandated by the management consultants).
I tried to show that Rockefeller was essentially a zealot: unwilling to ever admit to any nuance, and impossible to bring off his course.
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.
You're right: A monopolist that unleashes economic bounty for the American consumer with always increasingly lower prices for the principle input to the new world economy. Quite worrisome. Could be bad.
We'll ignore the saving the whales thing, because it was purely an incidental side effect.
Or, maybe, you've missed the point that I disagree with the sentiment of the author of the comment to which I was responding. The only negative I could find in the article was that he was a "monopolist" (whatever that means to the author) and hence, that's bad. Was he using his monopolist power to cheat widows and orphans, or to deliver cheap heating oil to New York City?
No, because the point of the comment above you was precisely that, while he did so some good things in the end, and that was positive, he could just as easily been evil. And I shudder to think what a man with such power and ruthlessness and resources could do. He didn't do any major harm in the end, but he could very easy had, had he just been as ruthless and efficient and unwaveringly certain of the justness of his cause as he was, but with more sinister ends instead.
Benevolent dictators are bad, even if they did good, because them existing means a bad one could just as easily appear.
But I disagree that he could have done anything bad. What's the worst thing a monopolist can do? Charge unfairly large prices. By the time his the government got around to breaking up his "empire" for the politicians' own venal reasons, the global market had grown so large, that he already couldn't service it all himself. If he had raised prices as his end-game, the forces necessary to capitalize on that opportunity were already deployed and ready to strike at his market share.
The only dictator I see in the picture are the politicians/regulators who broke it up for their own political gain. Those are the dangerous ones because no matter what they do, we can't shop elsewhere.
> What's the worst thing a monopolist can do? Charge unfairly large prices.
It's not so much about Rockefeller being a monopolist as it is about him being a private citizen with truly enormous economic power, while being zealously devoted to a simple cause, and having the ability to rationalize away all doubts. These are worrying personality traits that facilitate doing great damage.
In the case of Rockefeller, these personality traits led to constructive outcomes, but the point I was trying to make toward the end was that it seemed a chance event that he would use his power for the philanthropic projects that he chose.
Here's a hypothetical: what if, for instance, Rockefeller had supported eugenics rather than medical science? How would that have turned out?
I also read the book, and think everyone should -- it seems like everyone has a different takeaway from the book, it really is a fascinating read.
* 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.
I also read the book (listened to it while swimming.) I must mention it was listed on YC’s Winter Reading List [1] right above 48 Laws of Power which I also read, however, that book has since disappeared from the list, presumably due to some of its non-PC and brutally honest manipulative methods to power it prescribes. How can I unread it now YC?
48 laws of power is a great book. In the same way that Machiavelli's "The Prince" is great. For the most part it's not a "how to" book but a book that opens up a view of how the world works. I see a reflection of the rules in many of the famous people that run the world. Steve Jobs was a master of some of them. I highly recommend it. It should go back on the list.
Machiavellianism (willingness to manipulate and deceive others), Narcissism (egotism and self-obsession), Sociopathy (lack of remorse and empathy), Sadism (pleasure in suffering of others);
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.