| (An original musing by Seafarious) With the benefit of hindsight, are we better off long term with the government-mandated breakup of Standard Oil? Discuss. |
| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Essay question | |
| 2006-06-07 | |
| |
| Posted by:Seafarious |
| #3 I gotta shiney new dime for each of youz. Let's break it up again. |
| Posted by: 6 2006-06-07 16:11 |
| #2 The government should stick to their mandate as specified in the constitution. If they have a beef with a business, then act to protect the citizens, not the tax code or their own investments. There is much to be done, but only honest men and women should do the doing. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-06-07 15:41 |
| #1 As told by my late father, John D. Rockefeller was the "Bill Gates" of his time. He had a pretty bad PR image in the MSM of the day, often referred to as a "robber baron." He became a favorite target of the gummit, liberals, have nots, etc. They busted his company up into little Standard Oils, Indiana, Illinois, California, Ohio (SOHIO), etc. Rockefeller kept a small piece of each. The irony is, within a few years the little Stardard Oil companies had grown expedentially and John D. Rockefeller became richer and more powerful than ever. Are we betteer off after the mandated breakup, probably not. But the Rockefellers certainly are. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2006-06-07 04:25 |