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 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'...
Like flag
Isaac’s Previous Updates
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 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.
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
is associated with big business and libertarianism! What has changed?
The progressive Morgan partner George W. Perkins (formerly an executive at New York Life Insurance b4 joining Morgan) is also an interesting case study. He openly advocated socialism as a Morgan partner, but this was not so startling, for the House of Morgan preached socialism for the rich (Pierpont championed industrial cooperation of the railroads to kill price competition), thus it had a 'partial affinity for those who preached it for the poor'.
Perkins saw that trusts, with their centralized production and distribution, were already a form of private socialism. So why not go for socialism directly - government licensing of interstate companies and extended worker benefits? According to Perkins, this would be 'socialism of the highest, best and most ideal sort'.
This is a familiar argument and I can spot a fallacy in its reasoning. Today's progressives often deride capitalists by claiming that we don't have a free market anyway, with a powerful central bank who floods the market with liquidity and washes out price signals, and with mega corporations who hold lots of monopsony power, etc. But this premise does not have a point: it does not follow that 1) we do not have a free market anyway, 2) we should thus go further to the left towards a planned economy. Likewise, Perkins's reasoning is spotty to me: it does not follow that 1) the market is already dominated by private socialism, 2) we should thus embrace public socialism completely.
One can observe the gradual enticement of a planned economy around this period. It is interesting that even a high-ranking executive at US Steel (the first billion-dollar corporation), Judge Elbert Gary, testified that he would be very glad if they had some governmental authority that they could go to, show the authority all their facts and figures, and then be told what to do and what prices to charge. So, even such an esteemed businessman did not have the economic knowledge to know that such central economic calculation is impossible.