Tech billionaires have a lot in common with previous capitalist titans | Hacker News Reader

Tech billionaires have a lot in common with previous capitalist titans

economist.com

63 pointsneel898614 comments

Even though I normally would agree with the premise in the headline, the article is a waste of time. The author goes on many tangents and doesn't seem to have a coherent point besides the title. "Some tech billionaires have some things in common with previous capitalist titans". If you find that point facile, like me, then you're better off not wasting your time.

Agreed. The article doesn't seem to have a strong case to make, and so has to cut corners on its evidence to make it seem right. A beautiful example is

> The silicon sultans are some of the few businesspeople who can compete with the robber barons in terms of ownership. Today most firms are widely held by large numbers of shareholders: the largest individual shareholder in Exxon, is Rex Tillerson, the company’s chief executive. He owns 0.05% of the stock. Together Sergey Brin and Larry Page and Eric Schmidt control two-thirds of the voting stock in Google. Mark Zuckerberg owns 20% of Facebook shares but almost all of its “class B” shares, which have ten times the voting power of ordinary shares.

So it makes a point about ownership, then compares Exxon's CEO's low _ownership_ with Facebook and Google founders' high _voting rights_. Not the same thing. For comparison, Schmidt has 2% of Google at the moment. And let's not forget Standard Oil started in 1870. How much stock shall we expect Google's CEO in 120 years to have?

> Today Google and Apple between them provide 90% of smartphone operating systems

These are two large companies competing heavily, investing billions of dollars for something that they give away free (Google esp, though apple makes its money on hardware so I would claim it doesnt charge for the OS).

To say that this is an "unparalleled concentration of power" is ridiculous. Specifically, it is a lesser concentration of power than Standard Oil, which was the comparison the article was trying to draw. If you take a group of competitors and put them in a single group and declare them to be the same, then of course you're going to mistake it for a monopoly. But that doesn't make it one.

I really expected better from the economist.

> while egotistically proclaiming that they alone can solve mankind’s problems

source? o_O

> As Peter Thiel, PayPal’s cerebral founder, put it in “Zero to One”: “All failed companies are the same: they failed to escape competition.”

Interesting to contrast that with PG's essay about how startups die primarily of starvation. Is it inevitable for all companies to go from the "startups need to focus on their own customers" to "big companies need to worry about competition" stage? What does that shift look/feel like?

Ultimately kind of a pleasant stating-the-obvious-in-an-artful-way read. Powerful people with power and influence seek to increase that power and influence, etc.

What I'm really curious about are the personal perspectives and opinions of those folks, and their early lives, minus all the mythbuilding. Also, the various changes of heart they might have had along the way, what they changed their mind about, etc.

Completely agree, somewhat typical Economist article, not bad, but nothing spectacular either.

Any alternatives to suggest?

In terms of media? I used to be subscribed to both Economist and WSJ but eventually found WSJ to be better.

The WSJ has some good journalism, but the editorials are often extremely disconnected from reality ( like the infamous "$120000 middle class family" bit). The Economist usually fills the articles with data, so you can disagree with the conclusion and still have a takeaway.

Yes. But it could be less mainstream.

It's worth noting that the breakup of Standard Oil brought more wealth to Rockefeller than he'd ever dreamed of.

He made a series of incredibly smart investments, each taking him to new heights (financially). I believe his first business was a food distribution company. He used the small gains there, along with borrowing money from his father, to invest in oil. He invested a large amount of money in becoming hyper-efficient in refining. During the Great Depression, he bought a large chunk Manhattan (yes, the island) at dirt cheap prices. He did a lot more than just sat back and watched his money grow. He made smart decisions at the right times.

People always give him crap about his pushy business tactics (exclusive pricing with railroads, bullying competitors into selling), but he was MUCH more than just a mobster.

I was referring to the fact that the total value of the Standard descendants far exceeded that of Standard prior to the breakup. Part of that is attributable to the growing American economy at the time but also the intense competition that flowered between the baby Standards.

I would say I have a more favorable opinion of Rockefeller than most. Some of his tactics were certainly dirty but he was also a brilliant businessman and his philanthropy was responsible for some major medical advances. Note that Gates has consulted with Rockefeller's descendants in that arena.

I am 40. Now it seems to me like humanity is the meta layer - their greed, desire etc manifesting through varying sub-strata like technology, wealth etc.

I do work now and then with some non-profits in the USA, Sub-Saharan Africa and India and they all seem to contend for grants from Rockefeller, Ford, Clinton and Gates foundations. I am yet to see someone preparing a grant request proposal for any of the tech company foundations. I am slotting Gates into "old money", but I am ok with it going either way.

I just got done reading Tim Wu's Master Switch and it covers this theme. Excellent book on the future of the information age.

False. With technology the means of production are in every one's hands. Not even strict marxists would attempt such a similarity.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com