Standard Oil: End of a Free Market

My thoughts on Standard Oil, Monopolies, and free markets.

My Sources:
THE HISTORY OF THE STANDARD OIL COMPANY
http://www.history.rochester.edu/fuels/tarbell/MAIN.HTM
Standard Oil - Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil
Supreme Court decision breaking up Standard Oil - UPI
http://100years.upi.com/sta_1911-05-16.html

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Standard
• Oil
• Free
• Markets
• Libertarianism
• Capitalism

[xoxgodofgodsgodxx]

Infrastructure?

Like Rail, built privately (and arguable more efficiently and cheaply than their publicly funded counterparts at the time )?

or electricity and its flow?

or the privately built roads?

Now there are things that truly disturb me about Rockefeller, Edison and Vanderbilt, but it wasn't their "monopolistic tendencies."

[trilerkiler]

@AhYaOk ROFL lololo.lllllololololol

[fringeelements]

lol standard oil can be so easily seen as not a monopoly with just two pieces of evidence:

1. The price of oil - that went down precipitously in absolute terms all throughout standard oil's tenure

2. Standard Oil's market share - that went down to 60% in 1911 after peaking at 90% in 1880 IIRC.

[AhYaOk]

That is the most simpleminded and idiotic statements I've ever heard. Kill yourself.

[ifatglassman]

Rockefeller didn't force anything on anyone. He lighted the homes of millions cheaply, and invented gasoline. The government had no right to tear down his company. He made his way to the top by providing good products at low cost, fair and square. As for the railroad company - they could deliver his products more cheaply because he came up with a method to allow it with reduced cost. What was done to standard oil is an embarrassing monument for human envy and suspicion.

[eotto2001]

Thanks for the video. I found it at the right time. When you listen to the official economists from the ivy league universities, they always are big on the notion of efficiency even over profitability. That sounds crazy but that is what they say. What I have been meditating on is whether the issue is control of market or market share is the objective and thus supply and production.

The libertarian are hitting the same political walls in the last 8 months as their brothers did 100 years ago.

[poopstreek]

You are drunk.

[sabot96]

Census data show that without Social Security, nearly half — 47.6 percent— of the U.S. population age 65 and older would have been poor in 1997.(1) Social Security reduced the poverty rate among elderly people in 1997 by three-quarters, to 11.9 percent. Social Security lifted 11.4 million elderly people out of poverty in that year. In 1997, the poverty level for a single elderly person was $7,698 and the poverty level for an elderly couple was $9,712.

[rumcho]

Since you mention them all the time - can I see these statistics for 47.6% & 11.9%? Besides, I'd never trust the government for giving me a correct statistics on poverty levels. It would be like trusting the fox to install a good security alarm on the chicken pen.

Oh, I see - so 12.4% income tax over my career life would not help?! gee! Maybe the fact that the SS trust has a bunch of IOU's as opposed to dollars would explain why we have that shortage. Did you think about that?

[rumcho]

Oh, I am wrong again? have you checked the GM stock price today? $12. ROFL! The greatest monopoly of the world, the epitome to world automobile domination costs $12/share. ROOOOOOFL! GM is struggling to gather some cash to save its poor soul right now. Too bad the government subsidies during all those years didn't help a bit.

Do you see how ridiculous your argument for GM's domination is? GM was never a prepared company. And now that gas prices are up, GM is really fucked!