Rapacious Bullies?

I'll always applaud the Farmer Jones types but I think that I am in the minority in society: class warfare is always, and always has been, alive and well.

"Without getting into history here..."

Details, details...

I'm as big a champion of capitalism as you'll find, but the simple truth is that the robber barons of that era were for the most part not the kind of "capitalists" you portray as Farmer Jones.

The great names of that age were, as a group, generally crooks at best and thugs at worst. They routinely engaged in fraud, extortion, bribery, theft (as opposed to creation) of intellectual property, stock swindling and -- occasionally and when necessary -- flat-out violence and even murder.

The socialists and anarchists of the time were no better. Neither were the labor leaders and certainly not the politicians. But to portray people like Carnegie, Frick, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Morgan, Gould, et al, as "noble and virtuous capitalists" is to denigrate true capitalists -- including all the Farmer Jones throughout history.

I concede that Gould was a scoundrel. But exactly what were the sins of Carnegie and Rockefeller?

re Bon at 2:10:25

First. Carnegie didn't create a monopoly and sold to a consortium who formed U.S. Steel. As far as I know Carnegie had nothing in common with the "robber barons".

Second. Rockefeller did achieve a monopoly and said frankly that monopoly was good for the public in some businesses. Oil, he felt was one - sort of convenient. But he seemed to have believed what he publicly said.

Standard Oil did repeatedly break the antitrust laws. The tactics began before such laws were passed. They continued later until it became clear the laws would be enforced.

The Gilded Age saw two types of immense wealth. Some were builders - Rockefeller, Carnegie. Others were manipulators who used watered stock, market corners, stock panics, bribery, and sometimes thuggery.

Vanderbilt was the most interesting. He was a builder, but also tough as nails. And willing to do whatever it took.

Monopolists raise price and restrict output. There's no evidence that Rockefeller's Standard Oil firm acted in this way.

i can see why you don't want to get into history. that way you're free to come up with contrived examples that prove your point in an alternate reality of your choosing.

I'll present an alternate thought experiment. Suppose your farmer jones is actually in competition with another local farmer, farmer smith. farmer smith is equally hard-working, and equally inventive. Now for the catch: the two farmers live in a country with a political system that is susceptible to corruption. (this requirement would be fulfilled by any country on Earth, i believe). Which of our enterprising farmers will be more successful, financially? The one who is more eager to take advantage of opportunities for corrupting the system (e.g. bribing politicians).

Mark, your argument can be distilled to "the richer you are the more corrupt you are." Is this really what you are trying to say?

Mr. Boudreaux:

You're not describing a monopolist correctly but are conflating with monopoly price.

Monopoly prices are those at which a seller will realize greater total profit from the sale of less of his product than from more.

A monopolist is one who is in position (by virtue of degree of ownership of the product under consideration) to realize a monopoly price (whether he does or not).

As the law stands, the monopolist is charged with its violation by virtue of his position (rather than his practice). There can be no doubt that, during Rockefeller's heyday, he sought the position of a monopolist. But his methods (larger and more technically-efficient processing) brought petroleum products to the consumer at the lowest prices in history, whether measured absolutely or relatively.

Technically, every business aimed at greater and greater sales can be said to be aiming at the position of a monopolist; the laws are structured so that prosecution may ensue when that business seems to meet certain characteristics (such as market share) that might, if allowed unchecked, result in such monopolistic position, whether or not it can be shown that monopoly price is a likely result. Whether for good or ill, there seems relative consensus (even among the relatively informed) that monopoly itself is not a good thing (apart from whether monopoly pricing plays any role). In general, people seem hardly to notice that the major instances of monopoly (and monopoly pricing) liable to affect their lives are all government or quasi-government entities at different levels, in everything from mail delivery to trade licensing.

Mark:

In your world, I suppose that anyone with the slightest ambition or energy in excess of some "decent" or "appropriate" average

is a source of criminal behavior?

I guess you'd probably look somewhat askance even at the guy who didn't do anything different from his neighbor except spend his earnings differently, buying less in the present and saving for some future time. It's obvious he must have some nefarious purpose in mind