Isaac Chan’s Reviews > The House of Morgan: An American Banking Dynasty and the Rise of Modern Finance > Status Update
Isaac Chan
is on page 70 of 812
Note 1/2:
A point here about Pierpont's beliefs disproved my theory about work's capture of the rich - Chernow writes that Pierpont disdained the rich young men in the social clubs of New York for not working. Pierpont, supposedly, believed that the rich had some sort of duty. As superior members of society, they had a moral obligation to set a good example to not live lives of idleness.
— Apr 10, 2026 06:26AM
A point here about Pierpont's beliefs disproved my theory about work's capture of the rich - Chernow writes that Pierpont disdained the rich young men in the social clubs of New York for not working. Pierpont, supposedly, believed that the rich had some sort of duty. As superior members of society, they had a moral obligation to set a good example to not live lives of idleness.
Like flag
Isaac’s Previous Updates
Isaac Chan
is on page 111 of 812
Note 1/2:
I'm increasingly starting to see 'The house of Morgan' as a fertile ground to observe how attitudes towards capitalism have morphed over history.
Chernow writes that 'both Theodore Roosevelt and Morgan disliked the rugged, individualistic economy of the 19th century and favoured big business; they wanted to promote US entry into world markets.'
Interesting turn of events - today, 'rugged individualism'...
— Apr 18, 2026 08:34PM
I'm increasingly starting to see 'The house of Morgan' as a fertile ground to observe how attitudes towards capitalism have morphed over history.
Chernow writes that 'both Theodore Roosevelt and Morgan disliked the rugged, individualistic economy of the 19th century and favoured big business; they wanted to promote US entry into world markets.'
Interesting turn of events - today, 'rugged individualism'...
Isaac Chan
is on page 96 of 812
Note 1/2:
Some reflections on the so-called 'baronial age' of the House of Morgan: did sovereigns of the day not have public bond markets? Why did they have to go so far as to turn to a private banker - Pierpont? Sovereigns of some shitty 3rd-world country, understandable - but even King Edward VII had a relationship with Morgan? The global hegemony of the time had to get finance from a private bank? What was the ...
— Apr 17, 2026 08:17AM
Some reflections on the so-called 'baronial age' of the House of Morgan: did sovereigns of the day not have public bond markets? Why did they have to go so far as to turn to a private banker - Pierpont? Sovereigns of some shitty 3rd-world country, understandable - but even King Edward VII had a relationship with Morgan? The global hegemony of the time had to get finance from a private bank? What was the ...
Isaac Chan
is on page 18 of 812
Note 1/2:
A thought just struck me: since my uni days I had been fixated on the concept that investment banks are the mightiest financiers of the economy - they are the institutions who financed corporations that directly create value for us in the real economy, e.g. General Electric, Apple, Honda and whatnot. They raise capital via ECM and DCM, and a company would go to an investment bank if they need funds either
— Mar 24, 2026 04:53AM
A thought just struck me: since my uni days I had been fixated on the concept that investment banks are the mightiest financiers of the economy - they are the institutions who financed corporations that directly create value for us in the real economy, e.g. General Electric, Apple, Honda and whatnot. They raise capital via ECM and DCM, and a company would go to an investment bank if they need funds either
Of course, this is just Pierpont, a singular example - but this is evidence to me that the rich have been grinding for a long time.
Another interesting point: America's greatest financier of all time was a staunch opponent of free markets, by opposing free competition in the railroads. Chernow writes, the bankers of the time preferred private control over government control over private competition.
Some broader reflections on the nature of the shift of the support base of free markets:
1) Interest groups are not altruistic: they surely maximize their self-interest.
2) Pierpont (and the other contemporary tycoons) supported regulation of the railroads (so that they couldn't engage in ruthless price wars) surely because it maximized their revenue.
3) Big financial companies today are known to be generally supportive of free markets, surely because free competition in today's context maximize their revenue.
So, what has changed in the nature of government regulation? I do not know, but 1 point I can think of is that, as Chernow describes it, the financier-tycoons in Pierpont's day had direct control in their clients' business. Today's bankers do not.