HN Books @HNBooksMonth

That's the conventional narrative. But if you read "Titan" by Chernow, it's substantially different.

Rockefeller never had a monopoly. He was accused and convicted not of having a monopoly, but anti-competitive behavior. Also, during the long trial, his market share kept slipping, and he was unable to stop the slide.

His competitors had never been vanquished, and had figured out how to compete with Standard Oil.

https://www.amazon.com/Titan-Life-John-Rockefeller-Sr/dp/140...

What's ironic about the book is Chernow reaches the standard conclusions that you wrote, but his actual text says the opposite. I suspect that Chernow's preconceived notions about Standard Oil were so strong he was not convinced by his own research and narrative of what actually happened.

⬐ scyzoryk_xyz

That’s super interesting. I’m not familiar with the book - but the point about the monopoly doesn’t surprise me. Things are never that simple. From a legal standpoint no one actually reaches a full monopoly unless it is a government instituted/regulated monopoly, no? Like, I mean monopoly as a pursued ideal and total victory state for a business, but not as an achievable goal.

My point mostly related to Amazon - they’re really not a monopoly, but they’re definitely strategically pursuing a direction which left unrestrained would give them that monopoly. In this specific example it is Amazon using their AWS cloud infrastructure to bundle video streaming into Prime to then create a mix that strangles competitors. In the case of Standard Oil what I remember were strategic investments into directly unprofitable rail infrastructure and then SO using that to exert pressure on smaller oil competitors to force them to sell at a loss. I’m no expert but I think this is what makes anti-trust so difficult to prove reliably.

⬐ WalterBright

A few years ago Walmart was the unstoppable monopoly.

⬐ scyzoryk_xyz

Was Walmart not pursuing anti-competitive strategies though? And does it still not do so in certain local markets?

The point the anti-trust people are repeating over and over is that anti-trust has been broken since the early 1980’s. So, this means huge chunks of the economy and many enormous conglomerates competing in it are themselves fortresses because lax anti-trust enforcement. In that worldview it doesn’t matter whether it’s Amazon or Walmart… or RadioShack or whatever. We literally can’t imagine another world because these conditions go as far as most of us can remember.

⬐ WalterBright

> The point the anti-trust people are repeating over and over is that anti-trust has been broken since the early 1980’s.

And yet an endless stream of unstoppable monopolies have collapsed or been humbled of their own accord since 1980.

IBM, Cisco Systems, Intel, Kodak, GE, GM, Microsoft, KMart, Lotus, etc.

⬐ Jochim

That the de facto monopolies tend to collapse doesn't preclude the damage they incur on society/competitors whilst they're at their peak/stagnating.

⬐ WalterBright

The damage you refer to is simply free markets being a chaotic system. Creative destruction is part of it.

A steady state of communism is worse for people. History amply shows that.

But yeah, I noticed you moving the goal posts :-)

⬐ jquery

Was breaking up AT&T communism? The benefits for consumers in the following few years were massive.

I don’t think we need to suffer obvious business monopolies for years until a new paradigm shows up. Who benefits from that except the monopolists?

⬐ WalterBright

AT&T was a monopoly established by the government.

⬐ Jochim

I don't see what the discussion has to do with communism unless you consider anything but the laissez-faire approach to be so. I felt that the main point of my comment was that we need to engage in "Creative destruction" earlier in the lifecycle of these de facto monopolies in order to encourage more innovation and healthier markets by cutting back on rent seeking and anti-competitive behaviour. Allowing Intel/IBM/Microsoft to coast by on rents for years while maintaining market dominance by strangling likely competitors via acquisitions seems like the worst possible approach.

> The damage you refer to is simply free markets being a chaotic system.

That damage has real effects on society. Markets are a tool we shape in order to benefit society. Take restrictions on anti-competitive behaviours, the 40 hour work week, or outlawing child labour as examples of how we've moulded that tool to improve society while keeping it useful.

⬐ WalterBright

Child labor is not covered by free market ideas because children are not consenting adults.

Consider this: free market capitalism enabled child labor laws. The reason is simple. Children had to work because non-free market societies did not produce enough surplus to make it possible for them to not work.

Free market capitalism also enabled 40 hour week laws.

Heck, it wasn't until around 1800 or so that free market agriculture produced enough food to eliminate the constant specter of famine that preceded it, and still haunts every non-free market agriculture system.

⬐ jokethrowaway

> That the de facto monopolies tend to collapse doesn't preclude the damage they incur on society/competitors whilst they're at their peak/stagnating.

That's what they earned by providing value. In a pure free market monopolies are hard to keep up for long.

Unless you can bribe politicians to create regulations and slow competitors, it will be hard to stop younger, fresher and better rivals.

The larger a company, the more inefficient it becomes and the more prone to be dethroned.

⬐ bobdvb

There's lots of different kinds of monopoly, they can be natural or created by government, but they don't require government intervention, more the lack of intervention can create an effective monopoly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_monopoly

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government-granted_monopoly

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercive_monopoly

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementary_monopoly

Then you gotta read this: https://www.amazon.com/Titan-Life-John-Rockefeller-Sr/dp/140...

⬐ noir_lord

Thank you for the recommendation.

Was it by any chance Titan about Rockefeller?

https://www.amazon.com/Titan-Life-John-Rockefeller-Sr/dp/140...

http://www.amazon.com/Titan-The-Life-John-Rockefeller/dp/140...

⬐ caycep

Thanks. The Prize by Daniel Yergin isn't bad either.

⬐ saryant

The Prize doesn't get into Rockefeller's business decisions as much as Titan though. If that's what you're after, Titan is a better choice.

⬐ dredmorbius

It is meticulously researched, though, and the bibliography is as good a place as any to look for further reading on Rockefeller.

Above and beyond that, simply as a history of the most important substance in all of human history beyond sheer biological necessities, it's utterly fascinating. It's principally through Yergin's work that I came to pretty much diametrically opposite conclusions of the future of energy from his.

⬐ WalterBright

I read Titan. Interestingly, it documents how SO's market share was declining steadily throughout the anti-trust trial, and Rockefeller was unable to stop it.

It runs against the conventional story of SO being an inevitable monopoly.

⬐ None

None

⬐ vinceguidry

Well, at the time, the kerosene market was declining and there was nothing bringing it back. Right after the breakup, Henry Ford finally perfected the automobile, and Standard Oil came right back.

⬐ WalterBright

Market share isn't the same thing as market size. The point being, SO was losing to competitors.

⬐ valarauca1

Very true. From 1870 to 1890 SO was 90% of the oil market. By 1907 they were 68%.

Their main competition was from Russia oddly enough.

A great read is Titan, which follows his rise to the "Titan" he was. He was a genius with engineering (re-designing physical oil barrels), operations, finance, scale, industrialization, almost everything.

He is credited with creating modern medicinal research (though he detested it himself), and all around, was a highly unique character in history.

Not withstanding him destroying his competition and consolidating the market, with the goal of lowering kerosene (I may have the wrong oil-type here) by 95% as a goal for "giving to the masses."

Still many, many, many despicable acts, but a multi-dimensional man of course.

http://www.amazon.com/Titan-The-Life-John-Rockefeller/dp/140... * While providing abundant new evidence of Rockefeller's misdeeds, Chernow discards the stereotype of the cold-blooded monster to sketch an unforgettably human portrait of a quirky, eccentric original. A devout Baptist and temperance advocate, Rockefeller gave money more generously--his chosen philanthropies included the Rockefeller Foundation, the University of Chicago, and what is today Rockefeller University--than anyone before him. Titan presents a finely nuanced portrait of a fascinating, complex man, synthesizing his public and private lives and disclosing numerous family scandals, tragedies, and misfortunes that have never before come to light.