cmac3721 Posted February 10, 2013 Posted February 10, 2013 Isn't the "the standard oil trust" an example of a dangerous cartel or monopoly that was able to thrive without the help of government intervention? Didn't government aid in busting up this monopoloy instead of enhancing it???
DoubtingThomas Posted February 10, 2013 Posted February 10, 2013 The answer to both of your questions is "no."
cmac3721 Posted February 10, 2013 Author Posted February 10, 2013 How did the government aid the standard of oil trust, any specifics?
DoubtingThomas Posted February 10, 2013 Posted February 10, 2013 The answer to the first (compound) question is "no," because SA was not a "dangerous cartel, " and in-fact had competiton who went and used the government as a means to become competetive again. Second "no," due to the fact this was an example of unscrupuous politically connected people using violence to solve their problems, not the tale of a benevolent state defending the public from a tyrant business. SA was great for consumers, terrible for it's competition, and yes, it had competition.
cmac3721 Posted February 10, 2013 Author Posted February 10, 2013 How wasn't it though, they used thugs threats and intimidation to get their needs. (Much like government does with everything) sorry I'm battiling with a statist, and I had trouble with this one.
DoubtingThomas Posted February 10, 2013 Posted February 10, 2013 Yes, the government used thugs and threats and pro-statist propaganda to get their needs. To the extent that 19th century industrialists also did this, is to the extent that they also purchsed government thuggery. In both cases it is government power causing violence against the average person, with very little effect on the businessmen themeselves. Rockafeller died as one of the richest men in history.
Magnus Posted February 10, 2013 Posted February 10, 2013 The Mises Institute has a lot of resources about the economic and political history of Standard Oil, and monoplies generally. Here, here and here.
Recommended Posts