Living in the Age of Tycoons

The industrial age of the nineteenth century saw the rise of the tycoon.  Men who by the strength of personalities, good fortune, and willingness to take risks rose to control the economy of the United States.  They acquired great wealth in a time when most of the country was struggling to make ends meet, and support themselves.

They have left an unmistakable imprint on the America of today, but in their time, they were feared and despised by those whose lives they controlled and the politicians they had not bought.  Names like Andrew Carnage, John D. Rockefeller, and Cornelius Vanderbilt controlled the critical industries of steel, oil, and transportation, and did everything within their power to eliminate competition, and gain a monopoly.  This became such a central issue to our economy that Theodore Roosevelt set out to break them, and their stranglehold on the nation through the courts, after Congress wrote anti-monopoly laws to force competition.

Andrew Carnegie

John D. Rockefeller

Cornelius Vanderbilt

In the 20^th Century we saw a similar pattern with the likes of Henry Ford and John Paul Getty, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Sam Walton and the Koch Brothers.  Men who saw a need, created a product, and through strength of personality grew their businesses, while they amassed billions of dollars in wealth.  Their vision, their willingness to take risk, and ability to dominate their competition stands as a testament that no matter the rules or hurdles placed before someone, a select few will find a way to separate themselves from the average man or woman.

John Paul Getty

Warren Buffet

Bill Gates

As if proof of this statement is necessary, here we are in the 21^st Century and who do we find as this age’s industrial tycoons.  We are in the age of information and advanced technology so it seems fitting to recognize Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Eric Schmidt of Alphabet Corp (owns Google), and Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook.  Are these men any different than the tycoons of the 19^th century?

Jeff Bezos

Eric Schmidt

Mark Zuckerberg

Although I am sure they would cite their pure humanitarian interests I think the answer is obvious by how they run their corporations.  Just like the tycoons of the 19^th and 20^th century they will do whatever they can get away with to dominate their market and eliminate, or at least minimize, the potential for a rival to take away market share or profit.  They, like their role models of the earlier times, will also make their profits on the back of the average employee and will side with whatever causes they believe will improve market share.  A recent case study with Google serves as a good illustration.  Despite Google’s discrimination in its hiring, promotion, and pay for women, when an employee had the gall to justify why this might be the case he was immediately fired for questioning the public position of the company.  The only true difference I see is those 19^th century tycoons would probably have had the employee beaten to show him or her who is really in charge.

Today we see Google coming under increasing anti-trust litigation, and attacks from various governments for its failure to pay, what they believe to be, appropriate taxes.  The same is true for Amazon.  Facebook is just a bit different, but we frequently hear how it, as a private organization, will make a determination on what speech it will allow, and what speech it won’t.  Since Facebook has not been classified a public utility I believe they have a right to do so here in the US.  Of course, in China, Russia, and much of the rest of the world, how Facebook edits content is more in the hands of the host nations.  It’s willingness to modify its standards to ensure national access and government support is in the finest traditions of the industrial tycoons.

At the end of the day the central focus of a rising tycoon is on the accumulation of wealth, it is only later in life do they try and figure out how to leave a favorable legacy.  For those who condemn the 1%, tell me how that condemnation will alter the drive and desire of those who strive to be in that group?

What the Heck?

On ABC this morning there was a panel discussion where George Stephanopoulos asked the panel if the President should distance himself from his million-dollar donor, Bill Maher.  All the learned journalists talked about how his comments were playing into the hands of the Republican’s who were attempting to paint the Democrats as out of touch with the average American, and were elitist snobs.

Then Katrina vanden Heuvel said something in passing that caused me to question who is really out of touch with Americans.  She said this country has “inequality akin to Egypt.”   Really?  Has she ever been to Egypt?  

Opposing Views

Tonight, as the lawnmowers growl in the distance, and the house vibrates from a CV-22 Osprey passing over I wonder what are the important issues for the remainder of the year.  Tomorrow our President will speak to a joint session of Congress, and probably use it as a campaign speech to the nation, about how he will use government funds to create more jobs.

But today there is a foolish column by Douglas Rushkoff in CNNOpinion suggesting we really have more than enough of everything to support everyone we just need to distribute it and do away with the concept of full employment.  It is a column that will be loved by those who agree with the President that the real problem is all those rich millionaires not sharing their wealth.

Then on the other front we have Robin of Berkley writing in American Thinker on the cult of Obama and how he is pulling the strings leading to cultural breakdown, much as Charles Manson did with his followers.  He has encouraged the attacks on women, the thugs of the labor unions and is making sure there is an increasing supply of persuadable followers by keeping unemployment high.

As I look at these two opposing views I am more sympathetic to Robin of Berkley but I believe she has, like most psychologists placed too much faith in that black art called psychology.  She goes so far as to build a vast Liberal conspiracy in the government.  Having worked 37 years for the federal government I am dubious we can actually coordinate well enough to achieve that vast conspiracy.

So who is Douglas Rushkoff, is he the same “trusting fool” as Alan Gross?  The Maryland native who was recruited by the administration to distribute satellite telephones and other communication equipment from USAID to people in Cuba, a communist country that, with the exception of Alan Gross, everyone in the country knows is not the place to preach free speech.  Or is he part of this vast liberal conspiracy Robin sets out before us?  Since he is writing for CNN, a liberal main stream media outlet he must be part of the liberal conspiracy, or as I believe just an idiot with a column.  So here we have a witting accomplish pushing really unsupported and unthought out ideas that a vast majority of “something for nothing Americans” will wrap their hands around.