• lemmyvore@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    The difference is that it used to be harder to concentrate massive wealth in the hands on one individual. It used to require very large companies, which were controlled by multiple people through shares and board positions. Companies themselves weren’t allowed to grow too massive or achieve monopolies.

    Lately all checks have gone out the window which has resulted in single individuals having control over mind-boggling amounts of resources. This changes the dynamics a lot because an individual will act very differently from a large board or shareholders.

    • Lovable Sidekick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      24 hours ago

      Depends on what you mean by “recently”. Think Rockefeller, Getty, Rothschild, Carnegie, Vanderbilt, Morgan… all the classic mega-wealthy families were built around companies with one man at the top, who made or approved all major decisions and either owned the company outright or had a dominant majority share. That didn’t really change until around the 1930s. Modern corporate structure with distributed participation made it possible to get extremely wealthy without starting or inheriting your own company.