Re: the modern techno-elite types (or elite adjacent)
I don't have any personal acquaintances in the true techno-elite, but I know several with high end jobs in that sector (current AI researchers at Google/OpenAI and such), and was exposed to quite a few more of them socially when living in NYC and some friends of mine were involved in the Effective Altruism community there. Being frank, on the whole I wouldn't actually want these kinds of people anywhere near real levers of power. They're not all bad of course, but at the very best, they take a utilitarian approach to what's good or right in society, or what our goals should be. Utilitarianism can be useful, but it easily becomes unmoored and is fundamentally not grounded in basic principles of right and wrong. Christian morality, specifically, should really be founded on Biblical principles and faith. These might sometimes line up with what utilitarians might want, but often don't. Worse yet, many technologist/utopian types are in fact overtly driven by greed and self-aggrandizement. You find plenty of that outside technologist circles, but as a group they are worse than most in this respect and thus can be great for leading for profit-enterprise but a disaster when leading a state that really should have broader goals and more stable ethical foundations.
Re: the fancy schools
I have some personal experience with this one. I went to a no-name undergrad, then a top med school and am currently at another "elite" place for residency training. Having seen what I've seen (and experienced wall after wall early on in my career before I had a fancy sheepskin that magically made things so much easier), I'm very much of Aaron's opinion on this point: the "name" schools are powerful career accelerators early on. I could practically write an essay on the differences I've seen in both environments. Much like personal investing, the snowball starts early IF you want to "climb the ladder" professionally and in broader secular society. Now, whether that's really a worthy goal or a great route to happiness and well-being is another question entirely (IMO, for some people it is and some it isn't, much like any other big goal in life). I think it's definitely possible to aspire to that and still hold on to religious conviction, but you'll almost certainly run in to cultural friction within certain evangelical circles, especially if your family and friends lean rural (as mine do). Some will almost reflexively presume that you "think you're better than us" regardless of whether that's true or not.
Re: property taxes
I find it strange how many Christian conservatives I've met who are anti-tax on principle. First of all, the Bible itself is actually pretty clear on this point: "render unto Caesar" and all. Now, it's perfectly fair to debate about specific taxes, what the money should be spent on, how tax laws should be enforced, etc. That's what participation in a democracy is all about. But in the end, freedom isn't free: in either blood or treasure. And I, personally, as a 30 something with (I recently learned) a child on the way, wouldn't even consider raising that child in a place with crummy, under-resourced schools, decrepit infrastructure, minimal parks, no libraries, etc. I grew up in a place like that and it took me a decade plus into my adult life to really escape, and I couldn't dream of inflicting that on my own child.
Thanks, Eric. To me the EA movement sounds like code for "I ought to be ruling the world". Some of the rationalist material like Scott Alexander is interesting, but it has a lot of problems.
I think traditionally in the Reformed world, the authority of government is only legitimate when it's for legitimate ends. One does not need to submit to government when it enacts unjust decrees or outside of the proper realm of its authority (e.g., Hebrew midwives refusing to kill the male children).
One anti-tax approach I've heard relies on this distinction. Namely that government taxation is legitimate to fund legitimate purposes, but not for ones outside of the limited, decreed scope of government as outlined in scripture (e.g., punishing the wicked). I'm not saying I necessarily agree, just saying that's the argument.
"To me the EA movement sounds like code for "I ought to be ruling the world". Some of the rationalist material like Scott Alexander is interesting, but it has a lot of problems."
Yes, that was the impression I got from many of them as well beneath the surface. Often with a dose of "I'm smarter than everybody else" to boot. These are precisely the attitudes that make me uneasy about these types of people running the legal and political machinery of this country.
Some food for thought on the importance of where you go to college:
1. The studies that show that doing well (GPA, what you major in, test scores) correlates with future financial success, but where you go to college does not, are limited to undergraduate education. Studies show the opposite for graduate education. Where you get your MBA, JD, MD, or Ph.D. definitely matters.
2. Some of those who go to grad school at elite colleges seek out influential positions rather than the maximizing of income. You gave the example of Secretary of the Army Driscoll, who went to Yale Law School with J.D. Vance. I bet there are a lot of Yale Law classmates who make more than the Secretary of the Army makes, but that is not the point to Driscoll. Influential positions in the federal government are probably disproportionately staffed by Ivy League grads.
3. Grad schools are committed to geographical and cultural diversity, hence doing very well as an undergrad at State Flagship U. can get you into a very good grad school, which is probably a major factor in the studies that show that your undergrad alma mater is not key to future earnings.
4. You had a piece a while back comparing J.D. Vance to Pete Buttigieg, noting that they both went to Ivy League grad schools and ended up being influential in politics. But you somewhat passed over the different undergrad schools that you listed in the article. Buttigieg went to an elite undergrad school, Vance to Ohio State. See point #3 (as well as #1 and #2) above. These two men are almost a case study of every point I am making here. If Buttigieg thought his choice of undergrad college was crucial to his future, he was most likely incorrect.
5. There is probably a limit to the studies about choice of undergrad colleges. Take two students of equal high school background and test scores. Send one to Harvard and one to Ohio State (due to financial and geographical considerations) and they might end up equally successful. But if the second student instead went to community college for two years followed by two years at Youngstown State, they might not end up equally successful. In other words, choosing a second tier school and excelling there is fine, but choosing a fourth tier school could cost you. There are probably not enough pairs of such students available to use in a study, because the J.D. Vances have enough ambition to at least go to Ohio State and not Youngstown State.
Seeing your post here after I wrote my reply above. I'm actually part of the tiny sample who went to elite professional school (a top med school) after working my own way through the undergrad equivalent of Youngstown State. I absolutely believe it cost me dearly in terms of career opportunity early on. The amount of "proving myself" I had to do at each step of the ladder is bonkers and all out of proportion to what it could have been. I know for a fact that I missed out on employment and pre-med research opportunities because of it (was literally told this by friends in a lab who heard it from the hiring PI). Each step of the way took way longer than it really had to. I can remember distinctly a recruiter saying to me once that he "doesn't mean to rain on my parade, but we don't recruit from [your school] for these positions" when I was trying to move into different roles early on and find my way. The fact that I eventually made it is a result of persistence and also one particular stroke of good fortune, but this path would have been dramatically faster, and with much more opportunity along the way, if I had played my early post-high school game differently. I also recognize the role that luck played for me; it easily could have gone some other way at several key junctures in ways that were beyond my control. The whole experience, in the end, gave me a much deeper appreciation for the old phrase "there but for the grace of God go I."
I would recommend to someone in your position, coming out of high school, to seek out a good Honors College within a flagship state school, where you can get some good liberal arts seminar classes in addition to your pre-med major requirements. Such an Honors College also tries to arrange summer internships and generally assist in the long term success of its students. It's nothing like Directional State University in many respects, yet it costs the same for in-state tuition. My two sons followed this path to great effect.
And, if a student does not have the grades and test scores to get into the Honors College at State U, he does not have much hope of getting into an Ivy League or similar school as an undergrad, so he lies outside the bounds of this discussion.
I agree with you in general: honors college at state flagship is generally a good deal. It would have been attainable for me academically back in the day, too, but for personal reasons I stayed local.
I think there's actually quite a bit more to it though than just college selection, or even deciding on college versus trade or ministry or some other path. Identity formation starts early, and I think that things like your high school peer group, and your family's early lessons to you about society and your place in it, matter in ways that you don't see until later on.
With respect to the peer group: do they have good values? are they fundamentally caring, decent types? not saying no disagreements or issues, but quality peers who have dreams and goals in life, and actually think about the world and their place in it beyond just "getting by" or chasing hedonic pleasure makes so much of a difference. Much like building faith, there's a world of difference between those who mail it in and just show up to church and passively listen to their pastor drone on while daydreaming about the luncheon after versus those who actively deepen, challenge, share, and grow in their spiritual experience and understanding.
In terms of your family's early lessons, I think one of the most important is whether parents teach and model for their children that they can not only exist in their world and society, but actively shape it. Many children learn a fundamentally passive approach from their family: follow the script and things will work out. Or maybe they get no guidance at all. Recognizing early on that each human being has real agency, and the potential to shape our world around us, is a massive mindset shift that depends not a whit on where somebody ends up getting their education. An important corollary to this lesson is that it's okay to aspire to a better world, a better society, and a better life for yourself (in all ways, I'm not just referring to material/financial here).
1. Agree with Aaron on elite schools. I sometimes hear a conservative say, "I would never let my kid go to Harvard," and it drives me bananas.
2. I went to Vegas twice for business in 2025, after not having been since probably 2011. I was certainly shocked at the way it has become a high-price city, at least along the Strip. In the past, you had a full range of restaurant price points. But now even the places that seem like they would be cheap are charging you $22 for a burger or a rice bowl.
There were also quite a few homeless people sleeping on the Strip, which I don't remember back in the Bush-Obama years.
I talked to my wife about this tonight. Need to raise our son in such a manner he could go the Harvard and not be corrupted, but be salt and light there and make use of the connections gain there for the Kingdom of God
Alternatively, he could go to a much less corrupting place for the undergrad years, excel there, and do a grad degree at an even more elite college after benefiting from four more years of maturation. See my other comments in this discussion.
Re: I’ve long said that the correct way to define “the Right” is by a commitment to Truth.
Like any ideology the Right's "truth" requires adherence to certain axioms and a willingness to reject any contrary evidence.
Re: The architecture of our industrial civilization was assembled within one lifespan.
Yep. And my great-grandparents who were born around the time of the Civil War and some of whom did live into the 1930s, would have seen that era. My grandparents were born into it and saw its full fruition, and for two of them the beginning of the space age and the omnipresence of TV.
Re: There are people who like to claim that where you go to college doesn’t matter, or even pooh-pooh the idea of college at all. There’s
It depends what you want it to matter for. Ascending into the rarified strats of the ruling class? Yes, definitely matters even if we wish it didn't. Finding gainful employment that allows one a basic middle class life style-- no, not so much. Indeed those who go into the trades, or who have entrepreneurial skills and a bit of luck and access to some capital can also achieve that without a fancy degree.
It's interesting to hear the Civil War described as the crucible that forged the WASP establishment.
One detail that's stuck with me from Ron Chernow's biography of John Rockefeller is the extent to which Civil War procurement launched his startup oil business, and I'm now curious as to how many other industrialists of the time would have been in their formative/young adult years during the time.
Here's what Gemini outputs when prompted with "Generate a list of late 19th century and early 20th century American industrialists, sorted by year of their birth."
The following list of prominent late 19th and early 20th century American industrialists is sorted by year of birth, covering figures who were active during the Gilded Age and the subsequent Progressive Era.
• Cornelius Vanderbilt (1794–1877): A pioneer in shipping who later built his immense fortune dominating the railroad industry.
• Leland Stanford (1824–1893): A railroad magnate, co-founder of the Central Pacific Railroad, and founder of Stanford University.
• Henry Flagler (1830–1913): Co-founder of Standard Oil and a key developer of Florida's East Coast through his railroad expansion.
• James Fisk (1835–1872): A controversial financier who engaged in speculative stock market activities, particularly with railroads.
• Andrew Carnegie (1835–1919): A steel magnate who utilized the Bessemer process for mass production and later became a major philanthropist.
• J.P. Morgan (1837–1913): A dominant figure in banking and finance who consolidated industries and helped stabilize the American economy during financial crises.
• James J. Hill (1838–1916): Known as the "Empire Builder," he was a railroad executive who built the Great Northern Railway.
• John D. Rockefeller (1839–1937): Founder of Standard Oil and America's first billionaire, he revolutionized the oil industry through efficiency and consolidation.
• Gustavus Swift (1839–1903): An industrialist who founded a meatpacking empire and pioneered the use of the refrigerated rail car.
• Henry H. Rogers (1840–1909): A key figure in Standard Oil and later a major player in the copper industry.
• Henry Clay Frick (1849–1919): An industrialist involved in the steel industry, serving as chairman of the Carnegie Steel Company and known for his anti-union stance during the Homestead Strike.
• Andrew W. Mellon (1855–1937): A financier and industrialist with interests in oil, banking, and other ventures who later became U.S. Secretary of the Treasury.
• Henry Ford (1863–1947): Although slightly later than the peak of the Gilded Age, Ford revolutionized manufacturing in the early 20th century with the development of the assembly line and mass production of the automobile. [3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12]
On private equity and Vegas: one of my theses on private equity is that it leads to a lot of overinvestment in the same initially good idea. It probably was a good idea to appeal to the richer demographic in Vegas (underserved market), but once one guy's spreadsheet thesis works out, a bunch of other guys copy it. My small town is now littered with private equity-funded premium car washes and new premium gas stations. The economics of this town can't support all of them, even though the first mover was probably going to make money. But once the copycats move in, none of them will make money.
This phenomenon helps to expose the occult purpose of regulation and zoning: to assign and protect the profits of someone rather than permitting competition to naturally push profits to zero.
It is very rare for business people to be OK with competition. Every business instinct drives them in an anticompetitive direction naturally and inexorably. It takes ideology to blind yourself to it but it is tough to maintain the ideology when all of your experience with real people contradicts it.
Re: the modern techno-elite types (or elite adjacent)
I don't have any personal acquaintances in the true techno-elite, but I know several with high end jobs in that sector (current AI researchers at Google/OpenAI and such), and was exposed to quite a few more of them socially when living in NYC and some friends of mine were involved in the Effective Altruism community there. Being frank, on the whole I wouldn't actually want these kinds of people anywhere near real levers of power. They're not all bad of course, but at the very best, they take a utilitarian approach to what's good or right in society, or what our goals should be. Utilitarianism can be useful, but it easily becomes unmoored and is fundamentally not grounded in basic principles of right and wrong. Christian morality, specifically, should really be founded on Biblical principles and faith. These might sometimes line up with what utilitarians might want, but often don't. Worse yet, many technologist/utopian types are in fact overtly driven by greed and self-aggrandizement. You find plenty of that outside technologist circles, but as a group they are worse than most in this respect and thus can be great for leading for profit-enterprise but a disaster when leading a state that really should have broader goals and more stable ethical foundations.
Re: the fancy schools
I have some personal experience with this one. I went to a no-name undergrad, then a top med school and am currently at another "elite" place for residency training. Having seen what I've seen (and experienced wall after wall early on in my career before I had a fancy sheepskin that magically made things so much easier), I'm very much of Aaron's opinion on this point: the "name" schools are powerful career accelerators early on. I could practically write an essay on the differences I've seen in both environments. Much like personal investing, the snowball starts early IF you want to "climb the ladder" professionally and in broader secular society. Now, whether that's really a worthy goal or a great route to happiness and well-being is another question entirely (IMO, for some people it is and some it isn't, much like any other big goal in life). I think it's definitely possible to aspire to that and still hold on to religious conviction, but you'll almost certainly run in to cultural friction within certain evangelical circles, especially if your family and friends lean rural (as mine do). Some will almost reflexively presume that you "think you're better than us" regardless of whether that's true or not.
Re: property taxes
I find it strange how many Christian conservatives I've met who are anti-tax on principle. First of all, the Bible itself is actually pretty clear on this point: "render unto Caesar" and all. Now, it's perfectly fair to debate about specific taxes, what the money should be spent on, how tax laws should be enforced, etc. That's what participation in a democracy is all about. But in the end, freedom isn't free: in either blood or treasure. And I, personally, as a 30 something with (I recently learned) a child on the way, wouldn't even consider raising that child in a place with crummy, under-resourced schools, decrepit infrastructure, minimal parks, no libraries, etc. I grew up in a place like that and it took me a decade plus into my adult life to really escape, and I couldn't dream of inflicting that on my own child.
Thanks, Eric. To me the EA movement sounds like code for "I ought to be ruling the world". Some of the rationalist material like Scott Alexander is interesting, but it has a lot of problems.
I think traditionally in the Reformed world, the authority of government is only legitimate when it's for legitimate ends. One does not need to submit to government when it enacts unjust decrees or outside of the proper realm of its authority (e.g., Hebrew midwives refusing to kill the male children).
One anti-tax approach I've heard relies on this distinction. Namely that government taxation is legitimate to fund legitimate purposes, but not for ones outside of the limited, decreed scope of government as outlined in scripture (e.g., punishing the wicked). I'm not saying I necessarily agree, just saying that's the argument.
"To me the EA movement sounds like code for "I ought to be ruling the world". Some of the rationalist material like Scott Alexander is interesting, but it has a lot of problems."
Yes, that was the impression I got from many of them as well beneath the surface. Often with a dose of "I'm smarter than everybody else" to boot. These are precisely the attitudes that make me uneasy about these types of people running the legal and political machinery of this country.
Some food for thought on the importance of where you go to college:
1. The studies that show that doing well (GPA, what you major in, test scores) correlates with future financial success, but where you go to college does not, are limited to undergraduate education. Studies show the opposite for graduate education. Where you get your MBA, JD, MD, or Ph.D. definitely matters.
2. Some of those who go to grad school at elite colleges seek out influential positions rather than the maximizing of income. You gave the example of Secretary of the Army Driscoll, who went to Yale Law School with J.D. Vance. I bet there are a lot of Yale Law classmates who make more than the Secretary of the Army makes, but that is not the point to Driscoll. Influential positions in the federal government are probably disproportionately staffed by Ivy League grads.
3. Grad schools are committed to geographical and cultural diversity, hence doing very well as an undergrad at State Flagship U. can get you into a very good grad school, which is probably a major factor in the studies that show that your undergrad alma mater is not key to future earnings.
4. You had a piece a while back comparing J.D. Vance to Pete Buttigieg, noting that they both went to Ivy League grad schools and ended up being influential in politics. But you somewhat passed over the different undergrad schools that you listed in the article. Buttigieg went to an elite undergrad school, Vance to Ohio State. See point #3 (as well as #1 and #2) above. These two men are almost a case study of every point I am making here. If Buttigieg thought his choice of undergrad college was crucial to his future, he was most likely incorrect.
5. There is probably a limit to the studies about choice of undergrad colleges. Take two students of equal high school background and test scores. Send one to Harvard and one to Ohio State (due to financial and geographical considerations) and they might end up equally successful. But if the second student instead went to community college for two years followed by two years at Youngstown State, they might not end up equally successful. In other words, choosing a second tier school and excelling there is fine, but choosing a fourth tier school could cost you. There are probably not enough pairs of such students available to use in a study, because the J.D. Vances have enough ambition to at least go to Ohio State and not Youngstown State.
Seeing your post here after I wrote my reply above. I'm actually part of the tiny sample who went to elite professional school (a top med school) after working my own way through the undergrad equivalent of Youngstown State. I absolutely believe it cost me dearly in terms of career opportunity early on. The amount of "proving myself" I had to do at each step of the ladder is bonkers and all out of proportion to what it could have been. I know for a fact that I missed out on employment and pre-med research opportunities because of it (was literally told this by friends in a lab who heard it from the hiring PI). Each step of the way took way longer than it really had to. I can remember distinctly a recruiter saying to me once that he "doesn't mean to rain on my parade, but we don't recruit from [your school] for these positions" when I was trying to move into different roles early on and find my way. The fact that I eventually made it is a result of persistence and also one particular stroke of good fortune, but this path would have been dramatically faster, and with much more opportunity along the way, if I had played my early post-high school game differently. I also recognize the role that luck played for me; it easily could have gone some other way at several key junctures in ways that were beyond my control. The whole experience, in the end, gave me a much deeper appreciation for the old phrase "there but for the grace of God go I."
I would recommend to someone in your position, coming out of high school, to seek out a good Honors College within a flagship state school, where you can get some good liberal arts seminar classes in addition to your pre-med major requirements. Such an Honors College also tries to arrange summer internships and generally assist in the long term success of its students. It's nothing like Directional State University in many respects, yet it costs the same for in-state tuition. My two sons followed this path to great effect.
And, if a student does not have the grades and test scores to get into the Honors College at State U, he does not have much hope of getting into an Ivy League or similar school as an undergrad, so he lies outside the bounds of this discussion.
I agree with you in general: honors college at state flagship is generally a good deal. It would have been attainable for me academically back in the day, too, but for personal reasons I stayed local.
I think there's actually quite a bit more to it though than just college selection, or even deciding on college versus trade or ministry or some other path. Identity formation starts early, and I think that things like your high school peer group, and your family's early lessons to you about society and your place in it, matter in ways that you don't see until later on.
With respect to the peer group: do they have good values? are they fundamentally caring, decent types? not saying no disagreements or issues, but quality peers who have dreams and goals in life, and actually think about the world and their place in it beyond just "getting by" or chasing hedonic pleasure makes so much of a difference. Much like building faith, there's a world of difference between those who mail it in and just show up to church and passively listen to their pastor drone on while daydreaming about the luncheon after versus those who actively deepen, challenge, share, and grow in their spiritual experience and understanding.
In terms of your family's early lessons, I think one of the most important is whether parents teach and model for their children that they can not only exist in their world and society, but actively shape it. Many children learn a fundamentally passive approach from their family: follow the script and things will work out. Or maybe they get no guidance at all. Recognizing early on that each human being has real agency, and the potential to shape our world around us, is a massive mindset shift that depends not a whit on where somebody ends up getting their education. An important corollary to this lesson is that it's okay to aspire to a better world, a better society, and a better life for yourself (in all ways, I'm not just referring to material/financial here).
1. Agree with Aaron on elite schools. I sometimes hear a conservative say, "I would never let my kid go to Harvard," and it drives me bananas.
2. I went to Vegas twice for business in 2025, after not having been since probably 2011. I was certainly shocked at the way it has become a high-price city, at least along the Strip. In the past, you had a full range of restaurant price points. But now even the places that seem like they would be cheap are charging you $22 for a burger or a rice bowl.
There were also quite a few homeless people sleeping on the Strip, which I don't remember back in the Bush-Obama years.
I talked to my wife about this tonight. Need to raise our son in such a manner he could go the Harvard and not be corrupted, but be salt and light there and make use of the connections gain there for the Kingdom of God
Alternatively, he could go to a much less corrupting place for the undergrad years, excel there, and do a grad degree at an even more elite college after benefiting from four more years of maturation. See my other comments in this discussion.
Re: I’ve long said that the correct way to define “the Right” is by a commitment to Truth.
Like any ideology the Right's "truth" requires adherence to certain axioms and a willingness to reject any contrary evidence.
Re: The architecture of our industrial civilization was assembled within one lifespan.
Yep. And my great-grandparents who were born around the time of the Civil War and some of whom did live into the 1930s, would have seen that era. My grandparents were born into it and saw its full fruition, and for two of them the beginning of the space age and the omnipresence of TV.
Re: There are people who like to claim that where you go to college doesn’t matter, or even pooh-pooh the idea of college at all. There’s
It depends what you want it to matter for. Ascending into the rarified strats of the ruling class? Yes, definitely matters even if we wish it didn't. Finding gainful employment that allows one a basic middle class life style-- no, not so much. Indeed those who go into the trades, or who have entrepreneurial skills and a bit of luck and access to some capital can also achieve that without a fancy degree.
It's interesting to hear the Civil War described as the crucible that forged the WASP establishment.
One detail that's stuck with me from Ron Chernow's biography of John Rockefeller is the extent to which Civil War procurement launched his startup oil business, and I'm now curious as to how many other industrialists of the time would have been in their formative/young adult years during the time.
Here's what Gemini outputs when prompted with "Generate a list of late 19th century and early 20th century American industrialists, sorted by year of their birth."
The following list of prominent late 19th and early 20th century American industrialists is sorted by year of birth, covering figures who were active during the Gilded Age and the subsequent Progressive Era.
• Cornelius Vanderbilt (1794–1877): A pioneer in shipping who later built his immense fortune dominating the railroad industry.
• Leland Stanford (1824–1893): A railroad magnate, co-founder of the Central Pacific Railroad, and founder of Stanford University.
• Henry Flagler (1830–1913): Co-founder of Standard Oil and a key developer of Florida's East Coast through his railroad expansion.
• James Fisk (1835–1872): A controversial financier who engaged in speculative stock market activities, particularly with railroads.
• Andrew Carnegie (1835–1919): A steel magnate who utilized the Bessemer process for mass production and later became a major philanthropist.
• J.P. Morgan (1837–1913): A dominant figure in banking and finance who consolidated industries and helped stabilize the American economy during financial crises.
• James J. Hill (1838–1916): Known as the "Empire Builder," he was a railroad executive who built the Great Northern Railway.
• John D. Rockefeller (1839–1937): Founder of Standard Oil and America's first billionaire, he revolutionized the oil industry through efficiency and consolidation.
• Gustavus Swift (1839–1903): An industrialist who founded a meatpacking empire and pioneered the use of the refrigerated rail car.
• Henry H. Rogers (1840–1909): A key figure in Standard Oil and later a major player in the copper industry.
• Henry Clay Frick (1849–1919): An industrialist involved in the steel industry, serving as chairman of the Carnegie Steel Company and known for his anti-union stance during the Homestead Strike.
• Andrew W. Mellon (1855–1937): A financier and industrialist with interests in oil, banking, and other ventures who later became U.S. Secretary of the Treasury.
• Henry Ford (1863–1947): Although slightly later than the peak of the Gilded Age, Ford revolutionized manufacturing in the early 20th century with the development of the assembly line and mass production of the automobile. [3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12]
AI responses may include mistakes.
[1] https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/the-gilded-age/gilded-age/v/the-gilded-age-part-1
[2] https://guides.baker.edu/c.php?g=1305250&p=9838611
[3] https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/1900-business-industrialists/
[4] https://www.studentsofhistory.com/gilded-age-robber-barons
[5] https://fiveable.me/history-of-american-business/unit-6/robber-barons-industrial-tycoons/study-guide/TSqBVgw5s1yhT9MK
[6] https://libguides.spsd.org/guildedage/industrialists
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_(industrialist)
[8] https://www.historyextra.com/period/victorian/rise-of-the-robber-barons/
[9] https://jattala.medium.com/the-men-who-built-america-titans-of-the-industrial-revolution-d4f8b6245688
[10] https://escalon.services/blog/smb/duke-vanderbilt-how-they-got-rich
[11] https://www.cram.com/essay/How-Did-Carnegie-And-Rockefeller-Change-American/FJMZHBEZMDT
[12] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Carnegie
On private equity and Vegas: one of my theses on private equity is that it leads to a lot of overinvestment in the same initially good idea. It probably was a good idea to appeal to the richer demographic in Vegas (underserved market), but once one guy's spreadsheet thesis works out, a bunch of other guys copy it. My small town is now littered with private equity-funded premium car washes and new premium gas stations. The economics of this town can't support all of them, even though the first mover was probably going to make money. But once the copycats move in, none of them will make money.
This phenomenon helps to expose the occult purpose of regulation and zoning: to assign and protect the profits of someone rather than permitting competition to naturally push profits to zero.
The older I get the more I see many people have an aversion to competition and use things like zoning and regulation to create a walled garden.
It is very rare for business people to be OK with competition. Every business instinct drives them in an anticompetitive direction naturally and inexorably. It takes ideology to blind yourself to it but it is tough to maintain the ideology when all of your experience with real people contradicts it.