They're probably tapped out after paying extortionate income and inheritance taxes. Seriously, what about the Bosch, Bertelsmann, Else Kröner (Fresenius), Hans Riegel (Haribo), Dietmar-Hopp (SAP), Klaus Tschira (SAP), Kärscher, Joachim Herz (Beiersdorff/Nivea, Tschibo) and Reimann (JAB Holding) Stiftungen?
I am no expert in the setup of the Stiftungen of wealthy germans, but I know, that the Bosch Stiftung e.g. owns the industrial corporation.
I think, this is something different to what Buffett does, i. e. to donate more than 99% of his Berkshire shares to other organizations and therefore to completely give up control on the Funds.
But maybe I am wrong and I do not want to start a long discussion...
Great piece, Thanks! I would put a lot of responsibility for this on Robert Bork. Bork's 1978 book, The Antitrust Paradox, introduced the "consumer welfare standard" as the primary framework for antitrust enforcement. This standard emphasizes that antitrust laws should maximize consumer benefits, typically measured through low prices and increased output, rather than broader concerns about market structure or firm dominance. Lina Kahn wrote about this in "Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox", which gave her the job as head of the FTC under Biden, but not much happened under here rule. Now, with the Trump admin. and a very conservative Supreme Court I would expect the robber barons to sleep safely at night....
Well put, Joachim. A society should be judged by how it treats its weakest members. It seems that we live in an age where the weakest are demonised and the richest are accorded the status of gods. But, as the Greeks - who knew a thing or two about gods and human nature - reminded us, gods are often capricious, jealous, vengeful, vain, self-serving and dishonest.
Thanks, Joachim, for this article. I have been following you for quite some time and have always found interesting insights in your writing. This time is no different: how Standard Oil compares to the Mag7 today, the wealth distribution and gap then and now, and, as usual, how the US is leading the trend in every aspect. Also, how CAPE has stopped working in the US while still being useful in Europe.
On market power and competition, I may agree that new tech—especially social networks—tends to concentrate power in what is known as “winner-takes-all” market structures by their very nature. In some instances, more traditional industries, such as automotive or media, have also taken advantage of this dynamic by applying similar features (network effects). Still, the lack of competition in many cases is either self-induced—e.g., European automakers sleeping at the wheel—or penalized by unfair or misguided regulations (e.g., ESG policies).
In media, while Netflix is defending its dominance, huge players such as Disney, Amazon, and Apple have created alternative offerings. Nvidia faces competition from AMD and big tech firms developing their own chips. Apple is not the sole maker of smartphones—there are others with comparable financial firepower that have never reached the same level of design and technical excellence. Alphabet, I will concede, truly dominates many of the apps we use daily. And under the claim that its products are "free," it hides the fact that, through advertising revenues, consumers are still footing the bill—albeit indirectly. A bit like corporate taxes. The separation between Google Search and the rest of the company can be seen as a mere attempt to obscure its real market power. And don’t get me wrong—I am very much in favor of government intervention to break up monopolies wherever they exist.
What I don’t understand is your point about today’s tech billionaires not giving back. The culture of philanthropy is very much an American one. I have rarely seen a European billionaire donating to a good cause. But frankly, maybe it’s better if they don’t. The way I see it, entrepreneurs like Elon Musk reinvest nearly all of their wealth into their companies. He is not hoarding cash somewhere—his wealth is tied to the value of his shares. His capital serves the companies that are actively doing business. The alternative, as in Bill Gates’ case, is to sell part of his holdings and invest in new ventures, such as his foundation’s work to vaccinate people in Africa. Either way, the money is being used—to build companies, create jobs, pay taxes, and, most importantly, drive societal progress.
In summary, setting aside the concentration of wealth, I find it difficult to judge whether giving back or further investing is ultimately better for society—though I would tend to lean toward the latter. Likewise, I am in no position to determine whether past entrepreneurs were more or less infamous, skilled, or creative. Perhaps it’s just the usual tendency to romanticize the past. But frankly, would you rather live today or 100 years ago?
Thanks a lot Stefan for your thoughtful comments. I absolutely agree with you that american companies are more dynamic and have grown as big as they are today party due to the inventiveness of their founders and partly because europeans and Asian competitors were asleep at the wheel. As a German whose dad worked for Mercedes-Benz his entire life I am particularly dismayed by the German carmakers who have completely missed the boat on EVs, for example.
I think where I disagree with you is your point about US entrepreneurs recycling their capital into their businesses. Yees, they do that. And yes, as a share of GDP charitable giving is larger in the US than in Europe, but this is due to two important differences. Charitable giving in the US is larger than in Europe mostly because the US does not have the same social safety net as European countries have. Thus, there is a much larger need to raise funds for poor people or to help people affected by illness etc. It's a form of private substitute for government inaction.
And when it comes to entrepreneurs recycling their capital into their businesses that is true in Europe as well as in the US. Young, fast-growing companies require a lot of capital and founders typically only shift to philanthropic activities when their businesses have matured. But in my view, companies like Apple, Amazon, Meta and Tesla have matured (Tesla has hardly any growth anymore), yet their owners keep on hording cash. Plus Bill Gates started his foundation with a huge pile of Microsoft stocks that the foundation could not sell. How did they finance their philanthropic giving? By borrowing against the Microsoft shares, which is very well established in major private banks everywhere. Why do elon or Jeff not do that?
Interesting piece (as always)! One underlying question is whether moral values can be in any sense “objective,” by which I mean true independently of what anyone thinks is the case. For example, is it objectively true that material wealth should not be hoarded? Or are moral propositions—unlike empirical or scientific ones—ultimately a matter of personal preference? Some variants of Utilitarianism imply the possibility of “objective moral judgement” on these questions. But in practice, whether or not objective moral judgement is possible, most of us—in our actions and practices—would appear to believe that it is not. So monopolistic capitalism in its most extreme form is not generally believed to be “actually wrong.” It’s believed by many to be a subjective question, in other words, a matter of personal preference whether the concentration of extreme wealth is a bad thing.
Interestingly, old Charlie Marx, like Hegel before him, held that class conflict was historically inevitable (at least some folks read him that way), and indeed an “objective” feature of human evolution. And as we know, that class conflict, he thought, entailed more human productivity as well as a more equitable distribution of wealth.
Whether or not the objectivist thesis about moral claims is right, there does seem to be growing anger about wealth disparity, especially among the middle class (doctors, lawyers, small business owners, administrators) as well as among the “working classes” (factory workers, office workers, etc.). Folks are genuinely angry that home ownership (one example) is now restricted to the upper middle and above.
So the excesses of monopoly capitalism may yet be reversed should these disenfranchised people get politically organized. FDR-type legislation may yet come to pass, and let’s note that FDR was no raving socialist. Capitalism was reconfigured so that it could live to see another day.
Well, the question whether moral values are relative or absolute and objective has been debated by philosophers for thousands of years. You can start with the Nichomachean ethics and follow the thread to today's Effective Altruism movement. Your point that these moral values may not be objective is well taken and I am not going to enter a debate about that (what chance do I have to figure that out after all).
But I do think that humans have evolved as social animals and that evolution has ingrained in us (as it has in primates and many other animals) 'a sense of fairness'. And I do think that this sense of fairness informs our moral values and in that sense there is an objective core that is in essence driven by our desire to survive as a special. Or to put it more bluntly: No man is an island but if you act like an island, you will soon find out that islands tend to be devastated by hurricanes.
Excellent as always, but I struggle to understand the negative externalities of the quasi-monopoly power of Apple, Facebook, Nvidia et al. There is vigorous competition between the Android and Apple worlds, consumer prices are low and the level of technological progress is high. Who cares that shareholders have gotten rich -- what's the negative to that? )In contrast, I see a strong case for splitting up Google). My point would be that wealth is not an accurate indicator of a societal negative and hence, neither need inequality be.
Well, the problem is you cannot define monopoly power by simply measuring consumer prices. That is the big mistake antitrust regulators have made since the 1970s.
The problem with the big tech companies of today is that they kill competition by creating walled gardens and simply 'catch and kill' upcoming competitors that could undermine their profit margins.
The negative externalities are hidden because they accrue not with consumers but with businesses that have to pay more for advertising (Meta, Alphabet), computing power and software (Apple, Microsoft, AWS) or cannot sell their products and services on different platforms but have to obey the rules and costs of a dominant platform (Apple, Alphabet, Amazon).
And as the example of DeepSeek could show (I know the jury is still out if it really is cheaper and less energy intensive), the lack of competition means the products of US big tech are worse than they would be in a competitive world.
Put simply, in early 20th C we still had common moral values. Yes, some broke them, but knowing it was wrong. Elephant in the room - for nearly 2000 years we had Christianity. For all the bad action by some, we knew there are universal values.
Today the ‘objective’ has been replaced by ‘my truth’, relativism, DIE and warped values. Individual belief and self prevail.
This is not the place to debate, but it is time we stopped the lie that ‘science disproves religion’ - it does not. The Hierachy of Christianity bears blame: they do not put forward ‘the good news’.
Can this be reversed? Speaking to my grandson, he has adopted ‘individual belief’, but certainly has a moral compass. I believe young people can bring change.
The 0.01% didn't sound right to me, so I asked ChatGPT - it said Standard Oil's profits were around $60m in 1904-1906 (Deepseek said $80-100m) versus a GDP of $34b, which would put it between 0.18% and 0.29%.
I also have to disagree somewhat with your discussion of billionaires of today vs then. First, I think today's richest people are pretty widely hated - even Bill Gates catches an enormous amount of flack. Of course, there are people (men) who idolise these businessmen, but I'm sure that was the case then too. Also, the guys you mention - Musk, Bezos, Zuck - aren't that old yet. You said yourself that Rockefeller literally used lethal force to put down a strike. Then he basically got nice in his old age. So it's yet to be known if these guys are different.
You say without debate that effective altruism is "hare-brained", but that just reflects your opinion that utilitarianism is stupid.
And you also omit examples such as Buffett and Munger. So really quite a misleading section.
The articles states 'net profits' of $9.5m for 1906 which is 0.028% of US GDP, so I am not correct with 0.01% but it most certainly is anywhere near where chatGPT puts it.
As for Rockefeller, getting better in old age, that is not correct, as far as I know. He was ruthless against his workers at the same time as he was one of the biggest philanthropists. that was pretty much at the same time. Besides the tech bros of today have more than enough money to be philanthropic today rather than wait until they are in their sixties or seventies.
Furthermore, utilitarianism is stupid is my opinion and not a statement of objective fact. And I have no problem with people who disagree with that opinion and are fans of utilitarianism. But then again, that;'s the problem with philosophy and philosophers. They'll never agree on anything 😂
Do you know that you talk to everyone like they’re a moron? You and James Emanuel both.
I did check the numbers. Couldn’t find official stats, but I did find something saying they made $500m in the 23 years between 1885-1907, which works out to slightly over $20m per year. It also said they made the vast majority of it in the last 9 years. So it’s clear that their profits around 1904-1906 were well upwards of $10m, and $60m seems like a not-unreasonable guess. I also came across the $9.5m figure, but I’m guessing that’s after some large non-cash write-down or something like that, which should obviously not be considered when comparing the dominance of companies then vs now.
I googled the strikes thing too. Turns out it was Rockefeller Jr that was generally blamed for orchestrating the massacre, not Sr.
Rockefeller talked about making immoral-seeming decisions for the greater long-term good. That sounds an awful lot like something a utilitarian would say.
I’m not going to argue the virtues of utilitarianism versus other philosophies with you. It’s a debate that’s been had enough times and at the end of the day, any philosophy has to come down to something you take to be self-evident, and that’s entirely subjective. But you talk about it (effective altruism on the surface, but really utilitarianism) as if it’s so objectively stupid that how could anyone believe it, and what a bunch of dicks the philanthropists of today are.
First of all, I apologise for coming across as aloof or condescending. That wasn't my intention, and I am sorry for that.
I got the same average number for the 23 years myself when googling it but the sources are essentially hearsay, as far as I can tell. Plus the New York Times article is a source from the time, so more trustworthy to me.
As for the debate about utilitarianism, there is nothing new I can say about that. I just am not a 'the ends justify the means' kind of guy, which is what utilitarianism boils down to (and I admit, I am oversimplifying here).
But I am not going to convince you that utilitarianism is bad and you are not going to convince me that utilitarianism has any utility (sorry for the pun). It's just a case of which argument (for or against) you put more weight on.
Again, sorry for sounding condescending earlier. I hope this post made my intentions clear.
A very telling piece! Good to be reminded of Rockefeller's words from time to time!
Thank you for this eye opening perspective. Wow.
You forgot to mention Warren Buffett. He gives almost everything of the wealth he created back to society.
And please mention a single wealthy german, that does something comparabile. I am sure, you won't find one.
They're probably tapped out after paying extortionate income and inheritance taxes. Seriously, what about the Bosch, Bertelsmann, Else Kröner (Fresenius), Hans Riegel (Haribo), Dietmar-Hopp (SAP), Klaus Tschira (SAP), Kärscher, Joachim Herz (Beiersdorff/Nivea, Tschibo) and Reimann (JAB Holding) Stiftungen?
I am no expert in the setup of the Stiftungen of wealthy germans, but I know, that the Bosch Stiftung e.g. owns the industrial corporation.
I think, this is something different to what Buffett does, i. e. to donate more than 99% of his Berkshire shares to other organizations and therefore to completely give up control on the Funds.
But maybe I am wrong and I do not want to start a long discussion...
Not to mention, Reinhold Würth
Or a single wealthy Britisher, royalty included.
Great piece, Thanks! I would put a lot of responsibility for this on Robert Bork. Bork's 1978 book, The Antitrust Paradox, introduced the "consumer welfare standard" as the primary framework for antitrust enforcement. This standard emphasizes that antitrust laws should maximize consumer benefits, typically measured through low prices and increased output, rather than broader concerns about market structure or firm dominance. Lina Kahn wrote about this in "Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox", which gave her the job as head of the FTC under Biden, but not much happened under here rule. Now, with the Trump admin. and a very conservative Supreme Court I would expect the robber barons to sleep safely at night....
Well put, Joachim. A society should be judged by how it treats its weakest members. It seems that we live in an age where the weakest are demonised and the richest are accorded the status of gods. But, as the Greeks - who knew a thing or two about gods and human nature - reminded us, gods are often capricious, jealous, vengeful, vain, self-serving and dishonest.
Thanks, Joachim, for this article. I have been following you for quite some time and have always found interesting insights in your writing. This time is no different: how Standard Oil compares to the Mag7 today, the wealth distribution and gap then and now, and, as usual, how the US is leading the trend in every aspect. Also, how CAPE has stopped working in the US while still being useful in Europe.
On market power and competition, I may agree that new tech—especially social networks—tends to concentrate power in what is known as “winner-takes-all” market structures by their very nature. In some instances, more traditional industries, such as automotive or media, have also taken advantage of this dynamic by applying similar features (network effects). Still, the lack of competition in many cases is either self-induced—e.g., European automakers sleeping at the wheel—or penalized by unfair or misguided regulations (e.g., ESG policies).
In media, while Netflix is defending its dominance, huge players such as Disney, Amazon, and Apple have created alternative offerings. Nvidia faces competition from AMD and big tech firms developing their own chips. Apple is not the sole maker of smartphones—there are others with comparable financial firepower that have never reached the same level of design and technical excellence. Alphabet, I will concede, truly dominates many of the apps we use daily. And under the claim that its products are "free," it hides the fact that, through advertising revenues, consumers are still footing the bill—albeit indirectly. A bit like corporate taxes. The separation between Google Search and the rest of the company can be seen as a mere attempt to obscure its real market power. And don’t get me wrong—I am very much in favor of government intervention to break up monopolies wherever they exist.
What I don’t understand is your point about today’s tech billionaires not giving back. The culture of philanthropy is very much an American one. I have rarely seen a European billionaire donating to a good cause. But frankly, maybe it’s better if they don’t. The way I see it, entrepreneurs like Elon Musk reinvest nearly all of their wealth into their companies. He is not hoarding cash somewhere—his wealth is tied to the value of his shares. His capital serves the companies that are actively doing business. The alternative, as in Bill Gates’ case, is to sell part of his holdings and invest in new ventures, such as his foundation’s work to vaccinate people in Africa. Either way, the money is being used—to build companies, create jobs, pay taxes, and, most importantly, drive societal progress.
In summary, setting aside the concentration of wealth, I find it difficult to judge whether giving back or further investing is ultimately better for society—though I would tend to lean toward the latter. Likewise, I am in no position to determine whether past entrepreneurs were more or less infamous, skilled, or creative. Perhaps it’s just the usual tendency to romanticize the past. But frankly, would you rather live today or 100 years ago?
Thanks a lot Stefan for your thoughtful comments. I absolutely agree with you that american companies are more dynamic and have grown as big as they are today party due to the inventiveness of their founders and partly because europeans and Asian competitors were asleep at the wheel. As a German whose dad worked for Mercedes-Benz his entire life I am particularly dismayed by the German carmakers who have completely missed the boat on EVs, for example.
I think where I disagree with you is your point about US entrepreneurs recycling their capital into their businesses. Yees, they do that. And yes, as a share of GDP charitable giving is larger in the US than in Europe, but this is due to two important differences. Charitable giving in the US is larger than in Europe mostly because the US does not have the same social safety net as European countries have. Thus, there is a much larger need to raise funds for poor people or to help people affected by illness etc. It's a form of private substitute for government inaction.
And when it comes to entrepreneurs recycling their capital into their businesses that is true in Europe as well as in the US. Young, fast-growing companies require a lot of capital and founders typically only shift to philanthropic activities when their businesses have matured. But in my view, companies like Apple, Amazon, Meta and Tesla have matured (Tesla has hardly any growth anymore), yet their owners keep on hording cash. Plus Bill Gates started his foundation with a huge pile of Microsoft stocks that the foundation could not sell. How did they finance their philanthropic giving? By borrowing against the Microsoft shares, which is very well established in major private banks everywhere. Why do elon or Jeff not do that?
In the case of Elon and some other tech bros I think it has to do with them buying into the idea of Effective Altruism, which is a highly discredited philosophy about charitable giving. See here for my critique of EA: https://klementoninvesting.substack.com/p/the-foolishness-of-effective-altruism
In my view, effective altruism is just a ifg leaf of an excuse to act selfishly and greedily.
Generalize merely economic value to all types of value, and you can truly measure success. TomVeatch.com/benefax.php
Without doing so we get the current moral confusion and nihilism, whether capitalist or communist.
Very true.
Interesting piece (as always)! One underlying question is whether moral values can be in any sense “objective,” by which I mean true independently of what anyone thinks is the case. For example, is it objectively true that material wealth should not be hoarded? Or are moral propositions—unlike empirical or scientific ones—ultimately a matter of personal preference? Some variants of Utilitarianism imply the possibility of “objective moral judgement” on these questions. But in practice, whether or not objective moral judgement is possible, most of us—in our actions and practices—would appear to believe that it is not. So monopolistic capitalism in its most extreme form is not generally believed to be “actually wrong.” It’s believed by many to be a subjective question, in other words, a matter of personal preference whether the concentration of extreme wealth is a bad thing.
Interestingly, old Charlie Marx, like Hegel before him, held that class conflict was historically inevitable (at least some folks read him that way), and indeed an “objective” feature of human evolution. And as we know, that class conflict, he thought, entailed more human productivity as well as a more equitable distribution of wealth.
Whether or not the objectivist thesis about moral claims is right, there does seem to be growing anger about wealth disparity, especially among the middle class (doctors, lawyers, small business owners, administrators) as well as among the “working classes” (factory workers, office workers, etc.). Folks are genuinely angry that home ownership (one example) is now restricted to the upper middle and above.
So the excesses of monopoly capitalism may yet be reversed should these disenfranchised people get politically organized. FDR-type legislation may yet come to pass, and let’s note that FDR was no raving socialist. Capitalism was reconfigured so that it could live to see another day.
Well, the question whether moral values are relative or absolute and objective has been debated by philosophers for thousands of years. You can start with the Nichomachean ethics and follow the thread to today's Effective Altruism movement. Your point that these moral values may not be objective is well taken and I am not going to enter a debate about that (what chance do I have to figure that out after all).
But I do think that humans have evolved as social animals and that evolution has ingrained in us (as it has in primates and many other animals) 'a sense of fairness'. And I do think that this sense of fairness informs our moral values and in that sense there is an objective core that is in essence driven by our desire to survive as a special. Or to put it more bluntly: No man is an island but if you act like an island, you will soon find out that islands tend to be devastated by hurricanes.
I agree.
Excellent as always, but I struggle to understand the negative externalities of the quasi-monopoly power of Apple, Facebook, Nvidia et al. There is vigorous competition between the Android and Apple worlds, consumer prices are low and the level of technological progress is high. Who cares that shareholders have gotten rich -- what's the negative to that? )In contrast, I see a strong case for splitting up Google). My point would be that wealth is not an accurate indicator of a societal negative and hence, neither need inequality be.
Well, the problem is you cannot define monopoly power by simply measuring consumer prices. That is the big mistake antitrust regulators have made since the 1970s.
The problem with the big tech companies of today is that they kill competition by creating walled gardens and simply 'catch and kill' upcoming competitors that could undermine their profit margins.
See here for the kill zone argument in big tech: https://klementoninvesting.substack.com/p/blame-big-tech-for-the-lack-of-ipos
Here is what that does to venture capital funding etc.: https://klementoninvesting.substack.com/p/how-facebook-and-google-create-a
And here is how the duopoly of Meta and Alphabet causes excessive costs to advertisers: https://klementoninvesting.substack.com/p/and-you-thought-the-finance-industry
The negative externalities are hidden because they accrue not with consumers but with businesses that have to pay more for advertising (Meta, Alphabet), computing power and software (Apple, Microsoft, AWS) or cannot sell their products and services on different platforms but have to obey the rules and costs of a dominant platform (Apple, Alphabet, Amazon).
And as the example of DeepSeek could show (I know the jury is still out if it really is cheaper and less energy intensive), the lack of competition means the products of US big tech are worse than they would be in a competitive world.
Put simply, in early 20th C we still had common moral values. Yes, some broke them, but knowing it was wrong. Elephant in the room - for nearly 2000 years we had Christianity. For all the bad action by some, we knew there are universal values.
Today the ‘objective’ has been replaced by ‘my truth’, relativism, DIE and warped values. Individual belief and self prevail.
This is not the place to debate, but it is time we stopped the lie that ‘science disproves religion’ - it does not. The Hierachy of Christianity bears blame: they do not put forward ‘the good news’.
Can this be reversed? Speaking to my grandson, he has adopted ‘individual belief’, but certainly has a moral compass. I believe young people can bring change.
A great article JK, the best I have read from anyone in a long time !
The 0.01% didn't sound right to me, so I asked ChatGPT - it said Standard Oil's profits were around $60m in 1904-1906 (Deepseek said $80-100m) versus a GDP of $34b, which would put it between 0.18% and 0.29%.
I also have to disagree somewhat with your discussion of billionaires of today vs then. First, I think today's richest people are pretty widely hated - even Bill Gates catches an enormous amount of flack. Of course, there are people (men) who idolise these businessmen, but I'm sure that was the case then too. Also, the guys you mention - Musk, Bezos, Zuck - aren't that old yet. You said yourself that Rockefeller literally used lethal force to put down a strike. Then he basically got nice in his old age. So it's yet to be known if these guys are different.
You say without debate that effective altruism is "hare-brained", but that just reflects your opinion that utilitarianism is stupid.
And you also omit examples such as Buffett and Munger. So really quite a misleading section.
First of all, never trust chatGPT and the like with numbers like the profits of Standard Oil in 1906. Here is a link to the New York Times on 4 October 1907 in their archives: https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1907/10/04/104709618.html?pageNumber=10
The articles states 'net profits' of $9.5m for 1906 which is 0.028% of US GDP, so I am not correct with 0.01% but it most certainly is anywhere near where chatGPT puts it.
As for Rockefeller, getting better in old age, that is not correct, as far as I know. He was ruthless against his workers at the same time as he was one of the biggest philanthropists. that was pretty much at the same time. Besides the tech bros of today have more than enough money to be philanthropic today rather than wait until they are in their sixties or seventies.
Furthermore, utilitarianism is stupid is my opinion and not a statement of objective fact. And I have no problem with people who disagree with that opinion and are fans of utilitarianism. But then again, that;'s the problem with philosophy and philosophers. They'll never agree on anything 😂
Do you know that you talk to everyone like they’re a moron? You and James Emanuel both.
I did check the numbers. Couldn’t find official stats, but I did find something saying they made $500m in the 23 years between 1885-1907, which works out to slightly over $20m per year. It also said they made the vast majority of it in the last 9 years. So it’s clear that their profits around 1904-1906 were well upwards of $10m, and $60m seems like a not-unreasonable guess. I also came across the $9.5m figure, but I’m guessing that’s after some large non-cash write-down or something like that, which should obviously not be considered when comparing the dominance of companies then vs now.
I googled the strikes thing too. Turns out it was Rockefeller Jr that was generally blamed for orchestrating the massacre, not Sr.
Rockefeller talked about making immoral-seeming decisions for the greater long-term good. That sounds an awful lot like something a utilitarian would say.
I’m not going to argue the virtues of utilitarianism versus other philosophies with you. It’s a debate that’s been had enough times and at the end of the day, any philosophy has to come down to something you take to be self-evident, and that’s entirely subjective. But you talk about it (effective altruism on the surface, but really utilitarianism) as if it’s so objectively stupid that how could anyone believe it, and what a bunch of dicks the philanthropists of today are.
First of all, I apologise for coming across as aloof or condescending. That wasn't my intention, and I am sorry for that.
I got the same average number for the 23 years myself when googling it but the sources are essentially hearsay, as far as I can tell. Plus the New York Times article is a source from the time, so more trustworthy to me.
As for the debate about utilitarianism, there is nothing new I can say about that. I just am not a 'the ends justify the means' kind of guy, which is what utilitarianism boils down to (and I admit, I am oversimplifying here).
But I am not going to convince you that utilitarianism is bad and you are not going to convince me that utilitarianism has any utility (sorry for the pun). It's just a case of which argument (for or against) you put more weight on.
Again, sorry for sounding condescending earlier. I hope this post made my intentions clear.
No worries, I appreciate you changing your tone.
Re. the $9.5m figure - as I say, it's probably true for that year, but it also probably doesn't reflect underlying profitability.