Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Epic Rise of John D. Rockefeller

thehustle.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 95 posts

Re: The Epic Rise of John D. Rockefeller

#41

Post by allisthemoist »

ncd wrote: post #22
neaanopri wrote: post #9

It's shocking that they present this story as a tale of virtue. If being an entrepreneur is a noble calling, then we should be ashamed of Rockerfeller for his ruthless tactics, not praising him for it. If we want to praise capitalists and capitalism, then we should be villifying Rockerfeller for his monopolistic tactics. He was too clever by half as a CEO, since his tactics eventually brought down the ire of the gove…

In addition to the other comments, I would also note that it's untrue that Rockefeller started doing philanthropic work as "atonement" for his business practices. Even as a young man just getting his start as a bookkeeper at a small merchant, he gave a significant portion of his then-meager pay to charity. He was a complicated man, no doubt, and he tended to gloss over some of the consequences of his actions when rec…

I imagine this complexity comes from his combination of economic and religious values. Interestingly, it was not uncommon for Protestants to have this kind of dilemma - they were encouraged to work very hard (see "The Protestant Work Ethic") for having success in life was the only indication that one was in god's favour. However, it was forbidden to actually spend one's earnings on selfish pursuits thus many Protestant businessmen reinvested the money into their enterprises which only increased their earning power.

Re: The Epic Rise of John D. Rockefeller

#42

Post by samstave »

dharmon wrote: post #2

If this short bio is interesting, you may enjoy the much more in-depth biography, _Titan_, by Ron Chernow. 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.

That seems like the same author who wrote about Alexander Hamilton from which a lot of the research for the Broadway play "Hamilton" came from...

Re: The Epic Rise of John D. Rockefeller

#43

Post by samstave »

saryant wrote: post #21
jhwitham wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Titan is a great read. For a more throughout book of the oil industry there is also Yergin's The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power.

Follow that up with Private Empire: ExxonMobil and American Power by Steve Coll and you've got a fascinating and compelling look at the last ~120 years of oil and American history.

If I were to read all of these - where will I end up mentally? In awe or in prison?

Re: The Epic Rise of John D. Rockefeller

#44

Post by samstave »

markdog12 wrote: post #33
dharmon wrote: post #2

If this short bio is interesting, you may enjoy the much more in-depth biography, _Titan_, by Ron Chernow. 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.

Highly recommend. One of the best bios I've ever read. The man had an iron will.

I wonder, who in our day is Rockefeller - as it would seem that it might be musk but without being an asshole.

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.

Re: The Epic Rise of John D. Rockefeller

#45

Post by samstave »

aerovistae wrote: post #28
dharmon wrote: post #2

If this short bio is interesting, you may enjoy the much more in-depth biography, _Titan_, by Ron Chernow. 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.

Cool anecdote from Titan, one of countless: 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…

Please explain

Re: The Epic Rise of John D. Rockefeller

#46

Post by WalterBright »

gnaritas wrote: post #40
WalterBright wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Microsoft would have put everyone else out of business Nobody knows what might have happened. The point is, it didn't happen and never did. And today Microsoft finds it very difficult to compete in the phone, search, and cloud market, and none of that difficulty is due to the Justice Dept's actions.

> The point is, it didn't happen and never did. Wrong, it did happen, to Netscape. Microsoft's bundling of IE for free destroyed Netscape as a viable business.

Every device I buy comes bundled with a free browser, along with a long laundry list of other bundled utilities. The idea that a browser is somehow special doesn't stand up, and special if it comes with Windows even less so. Linux also comes with tons of free software that is hard to compete with.

I know for a fact that Netscape was an inferior product to IE. I downloaded IE and uninstalled Netscape. I made an extra effort to not use Netscape anymore, because it was nearly unusable due to crashing. Maybe if Netscape had a better product, I'd be sympathetic.

It's not a conspiracy if an inferior product fails in the marketplace. Happens all the time.

Re: The Epic Rise of John D. Rockefeller

#47

Post by WalterBright »

gnaritas wrote: post #38
curious_fella wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does matter. Monopolies are not "good for capitalism" if they prevent honest competition from battling the monopoly for business. If, as argued above, monopolies naturally "self-destruct" in favor of newer, more ferocious competitors, then regulation isn't necessary.

> If, as argued above, monopolies naturally "self-destruct" in favor of newer, more ferocious competitors, then regulation isn't necessary. Absolutely incorrect as it allows for the abusive monopoly to exist for an undetermined amount of time possibly preventing competition more than long enough to do harm. This argument is equivalent to saying all murders die eventually so there's no need to outlaw murder. Just beca…

I'm curious what harm you accuse SO of. Keep in mind that SO dropped the price of kerosene by 70% and kept it down.

Re: The Epic Rise of John D. Rockefeller

#48

Post by barrkel »

WalterBright wrote: post #12
neaanopri wrote: post #9

It's shocking that they present this story as a tale of virtue. If being an entrepreneur is a noble calling, then we should be ashamed of Rockerfeller for his ruthless tactics, not praising him for it. If we want to praise capitalists and capitalism, then we should be villifying Rockerfeller for his monopolistic tactics. He was too clever by half as a CEO, since his tactics eventually brought down the ire of the gove…

> horrific business practices 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 wa…

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.

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.

Re: The Epic Rise of John D. Rockefeller

#50

Post by nostrademons »

hammock wrote: post #39
narag wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Netscape was best until about version 3. It had some niceties that IE lacked, actually IE was not even acceptable. Netscape 4.7 was "not so nice" and IE 4 was faster so, although terribly unsafe, it dominated market for years. Oh, and by the time Netscape 4.7 and IE 4.01 were released, Microsoft had already destroyed Netscape's business.

Netscape 4.0 was the peak as I remember. Came with a shiny new logo

I preferred 3.0.3 SE. The standard editions seemed more stable and faster than the gold editions, and I really didn't need the extra functionality. Unfortunately with the 4.0 series everything was folded into the Communicator suite.

One big problem a lot of people forget is how quickly the web was moving back then. 3.0 came out in mid-1996, and soon there were many sites that wouldn't work with 2.0. 4.0 came out in mid-1997 (technically before 3.0.3), and by late 1998 I had to upgrade to the 4.0 series, because a lot of the web didn't work in 3.0.

It was actually DoubleClick that made me switch to IE - they started serving Javascript that hung every version of Netscape, which broke a lot of the web.

Post reply on HN