I don't know. The info I'd really like to have is mkt information from the very early 20th century because as I understand it there was a recession in the US in 1900 after the roaring 80s and 90s "guilded age". Might be some cool comparisons there.
Now you just gave me a thought... it would have been a sight to witness J P Morgan, or Commodore Vanderbilt, or the villains of villains... Jim Fisk & Jay Gould against King Bill -g
The advantage the Barons had, was the small (and conveniently corrupt) government they had to deal with.
Whereas King Bill has done it almost single handedly and under the watchful (and hostile) eye of a collection of zealots-for-hire, namely State attorneys of all stripes -g...one would have to hand it to King Bill, as he has certainly out-witted (or outlasted, or outspend every single gobblin, troll, or Klein, or *aghast*... politician...) and in short beaten them all....
___________________
<snip>
Twain's satire was merely a prologue; the play followed, and the main characters are all well-known names. There was Commodore Vanderbilt (who conferred that naval distinction on himself because he ran a ferryboat between Staten Island and the Battery); and Jay Gould, who built himself a mansion just up the road from the property which now houses The Foundation for Economic Education. There were Daniel Drew, and Jim Fisk, and Andrew Carnegie; there was Huntington, Stanford, Harriman, Rockefeller and Morgan. I've listed here ten names; add ten more if you wish, or a thousand more. The point is that these "robber barons," as they've been called, were a mere handful of men whose deeds and misdeeds have been lovingly chronicled by three generations of journalists and muckrakers.
Conniving with Politicians >>[Ah that must be where Congressmen come from]
These extravagant characters have been represented as exemplars of unrestrained individualism at its worst, fiercely competitive, practitioners of undiluted laissez faire capitalism. They were nothing of the sort. So far were they from wanting a genuinely free market economy that they bought up senators and paid off judges in order to stifle competition. They did not want a government that would let them alone; they wanted a government they could use. Had they been able to understand the original idea of laissez faire they would have opposed it. They were not individualists; they did not believe in a fair field and no favor; they stacked the odds against their competitors.
The last thing Vanderbilt, Gould, Carnegie and the others wanted was open competition in a game where the best man wins. To the contrary! They connived with politicians to obtain advantages for themselves by controlling government and the law; they manipulated the public power for private gain. And the government was eager to oblige.
This was done openly, and virtually everyone knew about it. Witty commentators referred to certain politicians as the Senator from coal, or the Senator from railroads, or the Senator from steel. Observing the situation in Pennsylvania, one critic was led to remark that Standard Oil had done everything with the legislature-except refine it! [*] Such political practices were a far cry from the vision of James Madison, who had declared that "Justice is the end of government, and justice is the end of civil society." The Gilded Age was a throwback to the age-old practice of using political power for the economic advantage of those who hold office, and for their friends.
<snip>
libertyhaven.com
[*] roflol !!!! |
