If you actually look at the Dow 30 from 1965, you might be shocked. The effective companies and their products are quite alive and dominating. Post, no longer Post, was Phillip Morris, then Altria, now Kraft and another company. Don’t Kraft and Post products pretty much own one of the aisles in most supermarkets. Little known firms like united Aircraft, still around, you may recognize their new name United Tech. UTX. $64B in revenue, total slouches. AT&T recently booted from the Dow, still around. In 1965, they were huge, $3.1B in revenue, those losers barely rake in $132B today.
GM now they imploded a couple years ago, still around. After a massive political shuffling of who owned it, profit in 1965, $1.7B, today, $5B with a $10B cash flow.
Sure, anaconda copper is gone after close to a century, sort of, Arco bought them, then BP bought Arco, but effectively, the assets have been sold off and operations ended. The principal owners, the Rothchilds and Rockefellers, well we know how down on their luck they’ve been.
[quote=livinincali][quote=scaredyclassic]im less concerned with inequality. in equality by itself seems neither bad nor good, since it doesn’t in itself describe the conditions of the lower end.
I am more concerned with the endgame. capitalism, does it necessarily end in the desctruction of our souls, our planet, our society?[/quote]
It doesn’t seem too. How many companies that were in the DOW 30 50 years ago still around today or as big as they are today. Kodak was a huge company that dominated photography now it’s gone. Walmart and McDonald’s have both been struggling recently. Apple would never be here today if Steve Jobs didn’t come back in the late 1990’s. The visionary leader that built these companies eventually leaves and dies and the next round of Wharton business grads eventually grinds the company into the ground because they don’t know how to innovate. All the wealth doesn’t eventually end up in the hands of the few because they die and their heirs eventually squander it.[/quote]
