Some great points here for those Hayek/Friedman absolutists is the idea of a "free market" is impossible this side of the Eschaton. What is striking reading the Gilded Age scions of business is their underlying sense of morality. Frankly, their personal writings and lives are much more morally sound than a Sinclair, Bierce, or Henry George.
Regardless, today we see the complete inconsistency of regulations. Dr. Brands mentions Exxon Mobil, but American Telephone & Telegraph would be an even better (and faster) example. The old Southwest Bell swallows up almost every other Bell as well the original "HQ," in less than three decades. Yet, thirty years after the FTC's battle with Microsoft, we see price fixing, acquisition of competitors as "growth" which is totally ignored outside of Big Tech.
Having been on all sides of anti-trust teachings (from the classical/monetarist ideas of a Dr. TA Finnegan and John Siegfried to most historians who cannot seize the means of production fast enough), the only conclusion is not whether to regulate or not, but, similar to Mr. Rockefeller's thoughts, how one does it.
The HHI, once touted as the key to regulation, is laughably manipulated by absurd arguments of "what is the true market?" More spreadsheets and calculations later, four airlines are just small businesses battling cruise ships, cars, and people who might walk across the country...Once again, the economists make alchemists look scientific as if a consumer is taking the Cunard line or lacing up his gym shoes to get from Austin to Chicago.
The solution to regulate is market cap. Create a cap and force businesses to sell off divisions to be underneath it. Cynically, one can call it the "Investment Banker full Employment Act," but industry consolidation has gutted companies of employees of all levels. Easy to discuss the destruction of the working class and ballooning of CEO pay, but mid level employees have been gutted as well. Companies scream of efficiencies gained by these mergers, but was the innovation not from when there were many more companies? As Mr. Rockefeller discussed, there would still need to be partnerships/franchises, and competitive deals to work out, but that welfare loss currently going to corporate lobbyists is not making Americans better off.
Contrasting that argument of small companies, however, does VC Russian Roulette have a better track record than Xerox's PARC? The conglomerates of the 20th century created a lot of great business leaders. Are we making more of them when everyone is some sort of talentless "project manager?"
Lots of regulatory discussions to have, and it would be nice if historians could provide some insights from our past issues with trusts. As usual, It is a shame that few are even asking the right questions.
It seems to me your "regulating market cap" is indistinguishable from the policy of "regulating guns". How does either fit into the rule-of-law in America -- As defined by the US Constitution?
Regulating guns is a whack a mole problem and solves no problem. Discovering exactly why the Uvalde and the Buffalo murderers became the very hateful human beings they were would have a much higher probability of addressing school mass murders.
The same is true for your "regulating market cap" as Professor Brands' Rockefeller quotes attest.
Hello Mr. Bradford- thanks for the thoughtful comment.
Regulating commerce started well before the founding of the country so I see no comparison to the issue regarding firearms. Enforcing private property rights is regulating commerce and that is enshrined in Western jurisprudence, so the question is merely how much and which policies are most effective. My argument is the current policies are ineffective and favor the largest industry players at the expense of the consumers and smaller businesses.
We currently regulate competition with the FTC and DOJ anti-trust division. Both groups have little consistency, and their rules are totally arbitrary and unenforced. For instance, Price Fixing is per se illegal, yet the divisions have prosecuted for conspiracy to price fix (the infamous Bob Crandall incident), and ignored many other current fixing incidences regarding tech.
The current attempt to regulate market share is a legal intensive nightmare with the aforementioned HHI being a laughably arbitrary instrument to determine any issues. Magically, the HHI is quite correlated for low market share determination to large company lobbying efforts and ability to retain Sullivan & Cromwell etc...
Large companies can very much bully the competition. Running a small business for a while eliminated any of my previous beliefs in the almighty "free market" advocates like the Chamber of Commerce (lol) coming to save small businesses like mine.
Having a universal standard like market cap (unlike the HHI) is the key. If you have a better one (e.g. total revenues?), then I am open to ideas. What I cannot agree to, however, is the premise that somehow we can have commerce unregulated, or that the current system attempts to channel Smith's "invisible hand" when it resembles more of a 1990s Russia.
As for the greater issues of Uvalde and Buffalo, we have a decadent society with a cultural rot that can be exposed in almost every institution. Whether you subscribe to Herberg's bouquet finally rotting, the Fosdick final chapter of modernism, or Burnham's Managerial class's revenge, the fact remains: we do not currently have the morally upright society Smith requires for his "free market." Story of man's concupiscence is as old as the Fall. Thankfully, historians like Jacques Barzun predicted this collapse.
The framework is inevitable. What comes next is merely predicting the coloring in the shapes. Have a great day.
Thank you Professor Brands. I've read a lot about a number of 1800's entrepreneurs (Hill, Carnegie, J. Edgar Thompson, Tom Scott, Gould, Vanderbilt, Astor, and more). You have provided first hand testimony for my elementary school depth of knowledge of them (as in jack of all trades, master of none). You have provided Rockefeller's words. He was a
Baptist and believed his Christian values did not conflict with is actions.
From your Rockefeller quotes, his explanations and concerns appear to be totally ignored by
today's politicians. "Big is Bad" is the mantra -- except when it comes to government.
Thank you again, for an excellent post.
PS:
Thoughts on Uvalde? I've heard from several
Uvalde folks who have proposed an amazing idea of how
to dramatically reduce mass murders in all schools immediately
and forever. I don't know how to tell others so Uvalde can
Some great points here for those Hayek/Friedman absolutists is the idea of a "free market" is impossible this side of the Eschaton. What is striking reading the Gilded Age scions of business is their underlying sense of morality. Frankly, their personal writings and lives are much more morally sound than a Sinclair, Bierce, or Henry George.
Regardless, today we see the complete inconsistency of regulations. Dr. Brands mentions Exxon Mobil, but American Telephone & Telegraph would be an even better (and faster) example. The old Southwest Bell swallows up almost every other Bell as well the original "HQ," in less than three decades. Yet, thirty years after the FTC's battle with Microsoft, we see price fixing, acquisition of competitors as "growth" which is totally ignored outside of Big Tech.
Having been on all sides of anti-trust teachings (from the classical/monetarist ideas of a Dr. TA Finnegan and John Siegfried to most historians who cannot seize the means of production fast enough), the only conclusion is not whether to regulate or not, but, similar to Mr. Rockefeller's thoughts, how one does it.
The HHI, once touted as the key to regulation, is laughably manipulated by absurd arguments of "what is the true market?" More spreadsheets and calculations later, four airlines are just small businesses battling cruise ships, cars, and people who might walk across the country...Once again, the economists make alchemists look scientific as if a consumer is taking the Cunard line or lacing up his gym shoes to get from Austin to Chicago.
The solution to regulate is market cap. Create a cap and force businesses to sell off divisions to be underneath it. Cynically, one can call it the "Investment Banker full Employment Act," but industry consolidation has gutted companies of employees of all levels. Easy to discuss the destruction of the working class and ballooning of CEO pay, but mid level employees have been gutted as well. Companies scream of efficiencies gained by these mergers, but was the innovation not from when there were many more companies? As Mr. Rockefeller discussed, there would still need to be partnerships/franchises, and competitive deals to work out, but that welfare loss currently going to corporate lobbyists is not making Americans better off.
Contrasting that argument of small companies, however, does VC Russian Roulette have a better track record than Xerox's PARC? The conglomerates of the 20th century created a lot of great business leaders. Are we making more of them when everyone is some sort of talentless "project manager?"
Lots of regulatory discussions to have, and it would be nice if historians could provide some insights from our past issues with trusts. As usual, It is a shame that few are even asking the right questions.
It seems to me your "regulating market cap" is indistinguishable from the policy of "regulating guns". How does either fit into the rule-of-law in America -- As defined by the US Constitution?
Regulating guns is a whack a mole problem and solves no problem. Discovering exactly why the Uvalde and the Buffalo murderers became the very hateful human beings they were would have a much higher probability of addressing school mass murders.
The same is true for your "regulating market cap" as Professor Brands' Rockefeller quotes attest.
Hello Mr. Bradford- thanks for the thoughtful comment.
Regulating commerce started well before the founding of the country so I see no comparison to the issue regarding firearms. Enforcing private property rights is regulating commerce and that is enshrined in Western jurisprudence, so the question is merely how much and which policies are most effective. My argument is the current policies are ineffective and favor the largest industry players at the expense of the consumers and smaller businesses.
We currently regulate competition with the FTC and DOJ anti-trust division. Both groups have little consistency, and their rules are totally arbitrary and unenforced. For instance, Price Fixing is per se illegal, yet the divisions have prosecuted for conspiracy to price fix (the infamous Bob Crandall incident), and ignored many other current fixing incidences regarding tech.
The current attempt to regulate market share is a legal intensive nightmare with the aforementioned HHI being a laughably arbitrary instrument to determine any issues. Magically, the HHI is quite correlated for low market share determination to large company lobbying efforts and ability to retain Sullivan & Cromwell etc...
Large companies can very much bully the competition. Running a small business for a while eliminated any of my previous beliefs in the almighty "free market" advocates like the Chamber of Commerce (lol) coming to save small businesses like mine.
Having a universal standard like market cap (unlike the HHI) is the key. If you have a better one (e.g. total revenues?), then I am open to ideas. What I cannot agree to, however, is the premise that somehow we can have commerce unregulated, or that the current system attempts to channel Smith's "invisible hand" when it resembles more of a 1990s Russia.
As for the greater issues of Uvalde and Buffalo, we have a decadent society with a cultural rot that can be exposed in almost every institution. Whether you subscribe to Herberg's bouquet finally rotting, the Fosdick final chapter of modernism, or Burnham's Managerial class's revenge, the fact remains: we do not currently have the morally upright society Smith requires for his "free market." Story of man's concupiscence is as old as the Fall. Thankfully, historians like Jacques Barzun predicted this collapse.
The framework is inevitable. What comes next is merely predicting the coloring in the shapes. Have a great day.
Thank you Professor Brands. I've read a lot about a number of 1800's entrepreneurs (Hill, Carnegie, J. Edgar Thompson, Tom Scott, Gould, Vanderbilt, Astor, and more). You have provided first hand testimony for my elementary school depth of knowledge of them (as in jack of all trades, master of none). You have provided Rockefeller's words. He was a
Baptist and believed his Christian values did not conflict with is actions.
From your Rockefeller quotes, his explanations and concerns appear to be totally ignored by
today's politicians. "Big is Bad" is the mantra -- except when it comes to government.
Thank you again, for an excellent post.
PS:
Thoughts on Uvalde? I've heard from several
Uvalde folks who have proposed an amazing idea of how
to dramatically reduce mass murders in all schools immediately
and forever. I don't know how to tell others so Uvalde can
make a difference.