Andrew Carnegie And John D Rockefeller example essay topic

Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller; Captains of industry, or robber barons? True, Andrew Carnegie and John D Rockefeller may have been the most influential businessmen of the 19th century, but was the way they conducted business proper? To fully answer this question, we must look at the following: First understand how Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller changed market of their industries. Second, look at the similarities and differences in how both men achieved domination. And third and lastly, Look at how both men treated their workers and customers in order achieve the most possible profit for their company. Let us first look at Mr. Andrew Carnegie.

Carnegie was a mogul in the steel industry. Carnegie developed a system known as the vertical integration. This method basically cut out the 'middle man'. Carnegie bought his own iron and coal mines (which were necessities in producing steel) because purchasing these materials from independent companies cost too much and was insufficient for Carnegie's empire. This hurt his competitors because they still had to pay for raw materials at much higher prices. Unlike Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller integrated his oil business from top to bottom.

Rockefeller's system was considered a 'horizontal' integration. This meant that he followed one product through all phases of the production process, i.e. Rockefeller had control over the oil from the moment it was drilled to the moment it was sold to the consumer. These systems helped both men in acquiring their fortunes. These tycoons exercised their genius in finding ways to cancel out competition. Although Carnegie liked to be the tough businessman, he was not a monopolist and did not like monopolists. On the other side of the pool, Rockefeller was dominating the oil industry with no mercy.

He believed in primitive savagery in the world of business, where only the fittest survived. He helped coin the term 'ruin or rule. ' Rockefeller had a great belief in ruthless business, yet Carnegie did not. But in the end both had the most successful companies in their industries. Although their industries were booming, customers and workers felt the cruel and harsh treatment the two leaders had to offer. Rockefeller treated his customers as Carnegie treated his workers, cruel and harsh.

Rockefeller wanted desperately for every company to buy his product. He would use ruthless tactics such as start his own chain of grocery stores to put local merchants out of business if they did not buy from his standard oil company. Carnegie dealt with his customers better than Rockefeller did but Carnegie dealt with his own workers like ants on an ant farm. Carnegie treated his workers as nothing; he gave them nothing but a cold lack of diplomacy and consideration. Carnegie encouraged rivalry amongst his workers for he thought it helped turn a better profit. These rivalries became so important to the workers that many involved would not speak to each other for years.

Although both Carnegie and Rockefeller used tactics that may have been successful, they were not moral nor would they stand up in this day and age. Captains of Industry, or Robber Barons? It seems this question may be un-answerable. It is quite apparent that there are two sides to this debate that could be argued to the end of time.

Yes these two men changed the world as we know it and yes they helped the U.S. economy in the worst of times, but is it possible to justify their actions? These men were able to turn a considerable profit from the loss of other companies and the sheer miss-treatment of their workers. In the end it is hard to find even a personal opinion in this matter, but one must ask themselves if these tactics were necessary or plainly to find profit.