Talk:John D. Rockefeller

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John D. Rockefeller article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments
Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion.
This article has been tagged since January 2007.
Portal:Business and Economics
 Business and Economics Portal
This article is within the scope of Business and Economics WikiProject.
B rated as B-Class on the assessment scale
High rated as high-importance on the assessment scale
To-do list for John D. Rockefeller: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh


Here are some tasks you can do:


    +++I'm interested to know of any awards John D. Rockefeller Sr. received, either during his life or posthumously. Please include on this page if you know of any. If you can provide a link to further related content. Thanks.


    Contents

    [edit] 200 Billion?

    The Swedish version of Wikipedia says that he (in today's worth) owned 200 Billion Dollar , and therfore making hime the richest of all time! Is it true?

    maybe--it is conceptually very difficult to compare wealth across long periods of time.
    Rjensen 20:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
      • There is an old article on the BBC News website that says " In 1910 Mr Rockefeller's net worth was equal to nearly 2.5% of the whole US economy, the equivalent of nearly $250bn in today's terms, or at least twice as much as Bill Gates " BBC News

    DAMN he was one rich *** mofo...

    [edit] US 5 Billion?

    That's confusing. Is it 5 billion on current money or 5 billion in the money of 1937? If the latter, how much would it be in today's money (and why would it obviously be less than $900 of 1901 money)?

    --- Its 5 billion in todays money, after it was adjusted to inflation Wakita 16:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

    The article linked to on the page says $200b. Just $5b, compared to Gates's $51b, wouldn't make him so wealthy. -Calamari 19:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    Rockefeller controlled much more of the (far smaller) US economy in his day than Gates does today. Besides the dominance in oil, Rockefellers controilled major Wall Street banks. Gates controls Microsoft, but not much else. Gates seems to be copying the Rockefeller philanthropy model ,however Rjensen 00:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    This should be made very clear in the article. It says he had 1.4 billion dollars. At a growth of 2.5% interest (which is kinda close for the last 40 years), that puts his wealth at 1.4*1.025^68 = 7.5 billion. The $5 billion figure comes from using 1.02 which I think is less accurate. To get it to be worth $200b would require using 7.5% interest. Has america's GDP grown by this much? The numbers need to be made clear
    I don't get this comment. What does this $5B / $7.5B calculation suppposed to add to the article, or what, exactly, is it supposed to reference?--DocGov 06:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    How rich is rich: the key point, and the one that attracted all the attention in 1900-1930, is JDR's $$$ in relation to the size of the US economy. The economy was MUCH smaller then, so JDR controlled a much larger proportion than Walton or Gates today. Adjusting for inflation is not especially relevant in terms of how much of America he controlled. Rjensen 18:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    I agree with the source of Rockefeller's notoriety. The version you keep changing, however, makes two, distinct points; the first is the absolute level of wealth, which is only meaningfully related in real (i.e., inflation adjusted) dollars; the second is the proportion of national wealth. Both of these points are made in the prior rendering:
    Adjusted for inflation, Rockefeller's net worth over the last decades of his life would easily place him among the very wealthiest persons in history. As a percentage of the United States economy, no other American fortune, not Bill Gates' or Sam Walton's, would even come close.
    Neither of these two points can be considered more "key" (unless one is trying to introduce a POV) so why not simply include them both? Next, you keep introducing two other points: his "control" of large banks, and "no personal control" over operations after 1897. Neither of these are "Legacy" issues. They belong in the description of his life in earlier periods, where they already appear:
    By 1896, Rockefeller had shed most of his day-to-day involvement in the affairs of Standard Oil, though he retained his title as president until 1911. By then, he also had significant interests in banking, shipping, mining, and other industries.
    So repeating them in the "Legacy" section is both redundant and out of place (not to mention incorrect--can you name one of the "largest" banks that he "controlled" either in terms of majority holdings or operating management?). Your final comment that "He just collected dividends and watches the stocks soar in value" is ungrammatical and gratuitous; it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.--DocGov 21:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    You're right and so I tried to fix article accordingly, adding some actual numbers. Rjensen 21:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    My objection wasn't about the precision relating to the second point, it was about distinct content of the first. Once again, you eliminate the point of his being among the richest in absolute terms, and simply provide numbers supporting the point of highest proportion of national wealth. How does this help the article? Why won't you simply leave both points intact as simple facts?--DocGov 23:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    The article says that his wealth in 1902 was $200 million out of $101 billion and eventually reached $900 million; so I assume it reached that before the total size of the US economy grew much. Since he was worth $1.4 billion by the time of his death, I assume his control of the economy had dwindled. So, when did he have that $900 million?--80.186.59.177 18:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Rockefeller Centre?

    How come this article doesn't mention the Rockefeller centre in New York? because it was named after him and was not named by him.

    he had little to do with it,. It's named after the family. Rjensen 08:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] rail connection

    What is the connection between JDR and the rail industry - see "Categories"?

    Syd1435 00:27, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

    Standard Oil was the rail industry's most important single customer and it's manipulation of the rebate system was one of the most significant of its controversial business practices. Wincoote 13:15, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] john D rockefeller thoughts on suffrage

    [edit] Bibliography

    there are important scholarly studies that Wiki readers can use for further research. I have included some of the better ones--none are especially controversial.

    Rjensen 21:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Man, this page attracts the jerks

    I don't know if this is a recent phenom or what, but this bio seems to attract a lot of vandalism. I'm grateful the Wiki police seem to be on it, but I wonder if this isn't a coordinated attack, at least recently?--DocGov 22:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

    He's one of the most famous of the "robber barons", and that probably leads to a lot of it. Other than that I don't really know. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 23:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Concerned about tenor of changes

    It seems like the overall thrust of the recent changes by Rjensen is to dilute the emphasis on Rockefeller's philanthropy in lieu of a greater emphasis on his personal or family wealth with terms like "complex system of trusts" which don't really say anything (is this to imply something about his wealth or his descendants other than they inherited a lot of money?) and replacing objective, concrete terms like "Vice President" with subjective, notional terms like "major figure in national affairs. Where is this going?--DocGov 23:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

      • I made the changes because I think they more accurately capture what this is all about. If you think NR was not a "major figure in national politics" then let's discuss it-- I say that's what's important. (There were dozens of unimportant VP's and the VP years were not important for NR.) The family trusts are quite important because they were set up to guarantee the family would be around a very long time AND that no one could give the $$$$ away faster than it accumulated. (Compare Carnegie or Morgan for $$$$ families that faded away). As for Philanthropy that is now given more detailed emphasis in the summary. The business about dimes is an old joke & should be deleted.
    I'm not sure what you mean by "what this is all about," but I'm willing to take this one step at a time. First, I am still interested in hearing your response to the note above concerning his absolute and relative wealth (BTW-I'm not sure about your reason for doing so, but I agreed with nixing the $200B number). Regarding family trusts, I don't think their complexity is a relevant historical fact. The Rockefeller wealth didn't dissipate in a much different pattern than the Vanderbilt, Astor, or Ford wealth, even considering its size. Carnegie was the exceptional one in deliberately leaving little to his heirs. Next, I don't know what you mean by Philanthropy being given "more detailed emphasis in the summary." If you said it was given sufficient emphasis in the body of the article, I would understand and, to an extent, agree. In the summary, though, I think that the general scope and nature of his philanthropy, which goes far beyond U of C, deserve more than a generic mention of "foundations." The "dimes" stories are historically true and part of his 'legacy'--I don't see any problem with that, but will cut it down a bit to a more sober entry. DocGov 04:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    The issue is not how much money JDR had --five billion -- ten billion--100 billion --how can that matter? The issue is how much of the economy he controlled. I tried to add numbers that told us that for 1937 when we have a will that can be added up. Philanthropy: yes please add more details. It is very important (though I think his son and a couple aides did the actual giving out of $). The dime story is true but it was retold to ridicule JDR. The trusts are important part of his legacy and he worked hard to make sure they would be. Nelson R had some interesting discussions at his Congressional hearings for VP in 1974. He explained that he only controlled the annual income from the trusts, while hundreds of people had control of more capital than he. Rjensen 05:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    How can it matter? Why does Forbes sell out it's "400" issues faster than any other? I'm with you that there is no point in quantifying how much, exactly, he had; it's a moving target with inflation. Still, I can't see any reason to leave out any mention about how much he had in general terms relative to modern moguls by pretending it doesn't "matter" and that only the "proportion of GDP" matters. I don't think it's necessary to get into details of national wealth or "annual GDP" (which is not a real term, by the way) in support of what was plainly stated as "the highest proportion of national wealth."
    As for the dimes, here is what Chernow says:
    It has been estimated that Rockefeller distributed between 20,000 and 30,000 coins, and many recipients cherished these mementos, wove them into amulets, or displayed them at home.
    Though I don't doubt there was the ridicule you chose to highlight in some quarters regarding this practice, there is no mention of it by his biographers, and I don't think it's historically relevant.--DocGov 07:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    You're right to keep the dimes! But the money question is another matter. JDR matters a great deal to people because of the issue that great wealth is dangerous. (especially his) Ford by contrast was popular and people did not begrudge his money. I think it really does matter how much of the economy JDR's funds controlled, and the usual measure is % GDP and % national wealth (I give both). In fact his money has been tied up in trusts since the 1920s and can not be used to influence the economy--the way Gates can right now, say. Rjensen 08:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    I'm not disagreeing with you about the relevance or importance of "the money question." I agree it's important, and for the reasons you state. I'm just suggesting that it is no more interesting than the "absolute level of wealth" statement that you kept deleting. I'm also suggesting that the exact proportion of GDP is probably not as important as the fact that his level of control was far higher than anyone else's. The particular issue I had with specifying a number is that any number is bound to be squishy (I'm an economist, so I know about squishy numbers), and how much Rockefeller actually "controlled" is, as you intimated about his heirs, a bit uncertain.--DocGov 08:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    I think we're pretty well agreed. There is no "absolute level of wealth" here--it is really quite meaningless to talk about what $1m could buy in 1906 versus $100m or whatever in 2006, and to put it in Wiki misleads people into thinking it is meaningful. On the other hand the issue "does wealth = power" is alive today: Congress is now debating repeal of the inheritance tax which was designed to deal with JDR and his cohort. After 1920 JDR's $$$ was mostly so locked up that nobody controlled it or could use at whim. Rjensen 09:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    I give up. I keep saying absolute and relative wealth are both historically interesting and relevant, and you seem to keep saying that only the latter is "meaningful." Hopefully, we're close enough on this to leave the current passage as is. With regards to your significant additions overnight (my night, anyway), I think they're very good. They beg the age-old question in historical writing about how to balance chronology and themes, which necessarily invites a point of view about what is important. I had written most of the version you had altered, tyring to stick largely to the timeline of his life. You have re-arranged some of the material in terms of themes. Overall, I think you did a good job of balancing these while maintaining NPOV, but I'm concerned that, with the overall amount of content being added, it begins to get confusing to the reader. Alas, I have no better answer. As I said, I think you did the best one could, and the additional info is good.--DocGov 15:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks for the nice words!! I agree with the problem of balancing chronology and topics--of course there is no "perfect" solution. But I think the article will help readers whatever their interest. To boost the philanthropy issues I added details and also added articles on Frederick T. Gates and the General Education Board which did not exist before. 21:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

    Who cares if the man gave away a dime?? what's the big deal about listing it in this article?? i say the more info the better. I had included a quote from JDR,jr about his father that is known fact and of course it was deleated from the article as i thought it would be by the WIKI POLICE!! I don't write ANY articals for wiki anymore!! what's the use!! I now use world book.

    [edit] Free use pics available

    There are a number of free use pictures available at the Florida Photographic Collection[1]. You need to credit the FPC on the image. They use the tag {{Flphoto}}. I ran across them while looking for images for WikiProject NASCAR. Enjoy! Royalbroil 05:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Added See also entry

    I am curious why there is no mention of the Ludlow massacre here. Travb 11:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

    There were many controversies around Rockefeller during his career, and it seemed inappropriate to highlight this one among others, especially given his remote and indirect participation. His son was more directly involved, especially in the aftermath. It was arguably a defining moment in Jr's life, particularly in setting him apart from his father.--DocGov 03:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] His IQ

    Has Rockefeller taken iq test, or was there any study about his iq? Its interesting to compare his iq and iqs of other intellignt people.

    [edit] Death

    Did he really die of AIDS like Nas said or is that just a rumor?

    • He died long before AIDS was known. Rlevse 22:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] article title should be changed to John D. Rockefeller

    The man was always known as John D. Rockefeller and the article should be so titled. any objections? Rjensen 16:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

    John D now has his middle initial back. (Note there is even a JDR foundation), Rjensen 21:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    concur with adding the middle initial "D." I also noticed the earlier change and thought it inappropriate. Vaoverland 03:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Weirdness in infobox

    What on earth does it mean when it says "$855 MillionUSD(38Billion)"? I leave this to someone else to sort out; I haven't been following this article, and just came over here following up more or less arbitrarily from an edit made elsewhere. - Jmabel | Talk 06:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

    it's garbled in the infobox (and clearer in the text). So I dropped it and added two major roles as investor & philanthropist. Rjensen 08:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Weirdness in intro

    Hi folks. I'm a wiki reader, but don't know much about the editing process. However, there appears to be some vandalism in the introduction -- something about "wendy" and "dale" and "omg" and "bleeeding." But it's only visible on the page -- when I went to the "edit this page" link to remove it, I didn't see it there.

    Hopefully, smarter wiki editors than I will know what to do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 163.192.21.43 (talk) 22:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

    [edit] monopoly

    was Rockerfeller a good or bad monopoly? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.113.43.68 (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

    [edit] monopoly

    describe the good and bad effects of monopoly during rockerfeller era? whas he a good monopoly bussiness man or a bad one? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.113.43.68 (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

    Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/o/h/Talk%7EJohn_D._Rockefeller_89ca.html"