Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : MSFT Internet Explorer vs. NSCP Navigator -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Charles Hughes who wrote (21540)	11/18/1998 3:34:00 PM
From: Scotsman	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

Well, the Rockefeller and Standard comparisons are very similar. I have posted these in the past. However, it is not entirely true there were no competitors. Standard made their money on Pennsylvania crude oil. They dominated there, and you are correct in the tactics they used. But around 1901 Texas started to come on line with the discovery of Spindletop. These independent minded Texans couldn't stand Rockefeller and Standard, and they wouldn't play ball. Since Standard didn't have a foothold down there being so rural, Rockefeller couldn't make headway. In Europe, Standard was quite powerful, but Russia came on line and pretty soon oil was flowing from areas Standard couldn't control. So there was competition in the oil production area. Standard continued to dominate the transport and retail areas, and the tactics they used were ruthless, very similar to those MSFT used to gain its dominance. The best comparisons were the threats of cutting off a retailer that would sell another brand, or the Kick Backs that Standard made railroads pay to carry other peoples oil. Overall very similar. And I also agree that the breakup of Standard was probably pretty good. Although Standard was a good company and provided a good quality product, their innovations were not that great. For years prior to the break up the people in Indiana had been trying to get money to develope thier catalyst method of cracking petrolium. They couldn't get it. After the breakup they became Standard of Indiana, introduced it, increased gas production by 7 times because of it,and actually helped win WW11 because they could produce high octane gas. If Standard had stayed intact, they probably wouldn't have gotten it off the ground.

To: Charles Hughes who wrote (21540)	11/18/1998 3:40:00 PM
From: rudedog	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 24154

Chaz - Great post, thought provoking. But - since oil was needed for the hardware of that day, the automobile, to run You are misinformed on this point. Standard Oil never had anything like a monopoly in gasoline and didn't think it was an important product. Gasoline was never an issue in the anti-trust case. The discussion was around sale and distribution of kerosene, which was the primary fuel for lighting and heating in much of the country. You are about 20 years too early for the other part of the discussion. The amazing practices of GM in buying and breaking up metropolitan light rail to eliminate cheap transportation and force working people into cars was a 1930's effort. Standard Oil had been broken up for years by the time that particular piece of work was well under way. You missed Goodyear as one of the other key players in the scheme. Now old Rockefeller would have people beaten or killed Rockefeller did not engage an any direct strong-arm tactics - even the predatory pricing which many scholars attribute to Rockefeller had no basis in fact. With more than 80% of the market, Rockefeller rightly determined that it was more expensive to Standard Oil than to competitors to engage in a price war. Instead he used a variety of more subtle means to drive up his competitors' cost of doing business and waited for them to dry up, then bought them. But the general tone of your post is well taken, especially the networking part. The idea of cutting a sweet deal with common carriers if they would only rebate standard oil for shipping competitor's products (thus raising transport costs for everyone but defraying the cost to Standard through the rebate) is a trick that many of the internet jocks are trying to emulate. Never too late to try a proven scam. Unfortunately MSFT is hardly the leader here - the cable companies are way ahead of Bill in terms of clever hidden taxes.