In Addition Rockefeller Summary

Throughout her lifetime, Ida Tarbell served as an outspoken, strong-willed and controversial figure in American History. Her harsh exposés of the Standard Oil Company in McClure’s magazine, later culminated into The History of the Standard Oil Company (1904) earned her volumes of attention as an investigative journalist, also known as a “muckraker”. As a Progressive Era reformer she acted out of her appetite to change society, and in her case, squash trusts which were hurting America’s independent businesses. Directed by her father’s experience of being driven out of the oil business by the Standard Oil Company as well as her persistent persona, Tarbell was able to disclose Rockefeller’s corrupt trust through her incessant investigations leading to general awareness of corporate trusts and a major supreme court ruling utilizing the Sherman Antitrust Act. Above all, Ida Tarbell’s ruthless muckraking resulted in society’s awareness of toxic trusts and Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company to be crushed.

After the rise of the Standard Oil Trust, other companies began to form trusts as well. Soon after this, trusts controlled every industry, which was detrimental to the economy. Progressives began to view trusts as evil and wanted to break them up to increase competition in the economy. Ida Tarbell was an activist in this movement, especially after her publication of the novel The History of Standard Oil, which cast Standard

Ida Minerva Tarbell was born on November 5, 1857, in the oil-rich region of northwestern Pennsylvania. Her father was an oil producer and refiner whose livelihood—like many others in the area—was negatively impacted by an 1872 price-fixing scheme concocted by the Pennsylvania Railroad and HYPERLINK "http://www.biography.com/people/john-d-rockefeller-20710159" John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company, who were operating under the guise of the South Improvement Company. Like many young journalists of her era, Tarbell had become concerned by the proliferation of monopolies and trusts. In 1900, she proposed a series of articles in which she would use her experiences as a child during the South Improvement scandal to illustrate her points and

In our society today there are numerous issues that go around on social media,the news,in the newspaper,etc. An issue I sense has become a bigger and bigger problem in America today is that people of higher power have more power than someone of a lower class. A big topic is american greed which lead me to find this quotes that extremely stuck out to me.The quote is “I think it’s greed and power at its very worst.” by Mary Lundby. Frequently in our world many people believe money is the root of evil that can destroy the soul.Karl Marx believed that human activity is paralyzed by the capitalist system.These strong opinions lead me to be fascinated by why in our world today people have an obsession over money.I believe that it has something to do with the advantages and power, people receive from having money.From an early age many children hear in life to exceed you need

John D. Rockefeller, last but not least, came from a fairly poor family life just like Carnegie did; his father was a vendor while his mother was the primary housekeeper (Folsom, 1988, para. 3). After high school, Rockefeller studied such subjects as finance and bookkeeping in college and soon put them to work as an assistant, and eventually head, bookkeeper for a produce and commission business (The Linux Information Project, 2006, John D. Rockefeller section, para. 1; The Rockefeller Archive Center, 1997, para. 3). Once Rockefeller was in the oil industry, he revolutionized it by presenting new uses for by-products of the refining process (Folsom, 1988, Discovering Crude Oil section, para. 9). The other main strategy employed by Rockefeller

These titans faced at times withering public criticism of their financial dealings, but they also succeeded to a great extent in persuading the American public to follow and adapt Benjamin’s Franklin system of moral balance in judging their business ethics (Terris, 2005, p.25). This

By the time Rockefeller died in 1937, he controlled 90% of the world’s oil, $336 billion dollars, and 1.5% of the US national economy. Rockefeller did not only own the oil business, he revolutionized it. And by doing so, he cut thousands of people from their jobs. Rockefeller could have made oil prices whatever amount he desired because he had no competitors and no one to tell him how to run his company. Is this much power in the hands of a single man good or bad for the nation and it’s people? As a philanthropist, Rockefeller changed millions of lives worldwide by donating millions of dollars to charities. Rockefeller built numerous colleges for the good of other people. Looking back on his actions, do all of the beneficial actions that

It was estimated that 1 in every 65 dollars in the economy belonged to Rockefeller. Based on this and other high profile examples, a case can be made against any government regulation.

Taylor’s ideal of a “high-priced man”, set apart from his fellows by the desire for premium pay,

BibliographyBakan, Joel. The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power. Viking Canada: 2004Bowman, R. Scott. The Modern Corporaton and American Political Thought: Law, Power, and Ideology. The Pennsylvania State University Press. US: 1996Chamberlain, W. Neil. Social strategy and Corporate Structure. MacMillian Publishing Co. New York: 1982Cohn, Jules. The Conscience of the Corporations: Business and Urban Affairs. The Johns Hopkins Press. Baltimore and London:1971Klien, Naomi. No

Exxon-Mobil is the world’s largest privately owned multi-national oil and gas company (Skjaerseth 2003). For companies as large as ExxonMobil, which possess considerable capital resources and are able to exert considerable power and influence, society is increasingly demanding that they behave in a socially responsible manner (Diara, Alilo, and McGuire 2004). There is a growing expectation that companies will adopt a business approach that illustrates responsibility to society above and beyond the economic function and legal performance of the firm (Gibbs 2009). This expectation can be understood as an implicit social contract. One of the underlying

Oil, stockholders, drama, racism, government and death are all words that come to mind when the Case Study of Caltrex are exposed. This controversy that occurred was one of the most horrific yet historic events in our pastime. This showed many examples of how management of companies has the responsibilities beyond normal duties to ensure a high return for stockholders. Investments should always carry high criteria before making the investment because people’s livelihood depends on it. In this case, stockholders Texaco and SoCal invested in an oil company named Caltrex to give them a high return of its investment although the trust was severed by racism and government greed lend to an end result of sense of unjust ethics

At the same time, there are some people who still believe in the maxim of Milton Friedman (1970) that the only objective of a corporation is to increase profits and to build wealth for investors, with reputation seen as something that is “nice to suffer”, merely an expendable cost.

Living an ethical life rests upon an assumption of both identifying and acting upon the good. If humankind identifies the instrumental means to attain the ultimate good, then consistency and reason should motivate a responsibility to pursue the ethical end. Paralleling the desire for individual 'good', evaluating the aims and actions of business necessitates developing an organizational ethics system, otherwise the objective pursuit of profits appears as the only prima facie guide. However, in the context of morally questionable business activities and government deregulation, Milton Friedman's famous indictment of corporate social responsibility, that, "there is one and only one social responsibility of business to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud," emerges unconvincing, although logically consistent.

19). Hungry and greedy individuals who act upon short-term gains through the use of shareholder primacy are supposed to provide the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people, but how can they be expected to do so if they attain their interests through the use of downsizing that damages long-term prospects of corporations and society 's welfare? Especially given the fact that the inefficiencies of conglomerates formed in 1960s was the doing of these same individuals. According to Ho (2009) “...breaking up the conglomerates that Wall Street had helped assemble in the first place created a whole new source of profits.” (p. 137). Wall Street institutions made profits by first creating the "inefficiencies" and then solving these same "inefficiencies, while the general public has to suffer the consequences. From the moral perspective, overall good will not be achieved as long as greedy individuals and institutions are responsible for providing social welfare and as long as shareholder primacy will be the dominant model of corporate governances.