While one make argue that people such as Andrew Carnegie, Vanderblits, Morgan, and Rockefeller did not truly do anything unlawfully wrong because there were no laws regulating or restricting monopolies, unfair investments, or commercial trade in the post-Civil War era, worker's strikes and wide-spread poverty show a call for change ignored by these big-money companies.
Many workers strikes occurred under these big money companies. An example of one of these strikes was the Homestead Mill Strike of 1892. It was a peaceful protest that quickly turned violent. This strike happened under Andrew Carnegie's Steel company, who was a millionaire who "advocated" for worker's rights. But under his company, he paid his workers "starving wages", or wage that was just enough to keep that worker alive. On top of that, he made his workers work 12 hours a day with only ONE day off a year. This was a common theme during the time due to the huge population of emigrants and the just freed black population. Because there was so much available labor force, workers were easily replaceable and could not really compete for higher wages. Andrew Carnegie is also an example of how the rich keep getting richer, and the working class was stuck with unfair treatment and poverty.
So how did these monopolies exist for so long? Along with the lack of laws restricting their trade, these companies often paid people in the Congress and government to allow them to keep their businesses running, whether it was pure bribery or helping them fund their campaigns. At one point, Vanderbilts, an early capitalist that held created a monopoly over the Ferries in Manhattan, was richer than the United States government. Another time, Rockefeller, who owned an oil refinery, created a monopoly that had 90% of the world's trade. As in, he controlled 90% of the world's Oil refinery, making him one of the richest men at the time. This just goes to show the amount of money monopolies had, and how it was hard to break them apart due to their huge financial advantages and power. It was only when these companies started to pose a threat to the government's power did these conditions start to change.
Sources:
http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-16-2-b-rockefeller-and-the-standard-oil-monopoly.html
"Wealth and Power" worksheet
Tanshi, I liked how your post explained the actions which monopolies took as well as their effects on society. In particular, I was interested by your explanation of how monopolies forced workers into poverty through low wages and long hours. Although monopolies clearly took advantage of these workers, I was wondering if the benefits to society outweigh these injustices. Monopolies often got rid of competition by lowering prices, which meant much cheaper products for consumers. In the end, were monopolies actually largely beneficial for people in the United States by reducing costs?
ReplyDeleteTanshi, I think that your post content was truly interesting. It is true that the prevalence of monopolies did have a large effect on mass society. However, it would be interesting to examine other conditions that caused these monopolies, and how they ended. I agree that corruption and trade laws helped to create monopolies, but the government side of things was more complicated. For instance, the prevalence of big US companies helped to boost the economy, however, these companies also posed a threat to the government. So, the government allowed companies like Standard Oil to get large, but when it got to a point where they got dangerous, the government exercised power to break them up. For instance, as we discussed in class, in 1911, the US prevented Standard Oil from gaining power over the country by breaking them into smaller entities because of an anti-trust violation. The power dynamic between the companies and government is interesting to examine.
ReplyDeleteI think that this summary of the main industrial minds of america was very interesting. One thing that was interesting was when you pointed out that Rockefeller at one point in time controlled 90% of the global market for oil. One way that he did this, was through vertical integration. This is when a company controls multiple stages in the process from raw materials to putting the product on the market. This allows companies to reduce the cost of producing goods to the market because they can use, for example, trucks at cost (initial cost, maintenance, gas) and not have to pay for another company's profit.
ReplyDeleteSource: https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-vertical-integration-3305807
This post was very interesting to read because of the insight to how the powerful citizens like Rockefeller came to power and were able to maintain that power. I think it would've proved helpful to mention how the bribes to the government benefited the companies. Whether it was preventing bills against large corporations or giving the companies the inside track on profitable property. I think it would be interesting to draw parallels to how that no longer can exist in the present day business.
ReplyDelete