Subscribe to our RSS feed
EconLife.com connects economics to everyday life, current events and history.

Tag Archives: Andrew Carnegie

The Surprising Glass Ceiling in Sweden and France

Perhaps we should remember Hetty Green when trying to erase the gender pay gap.

Hetty Green, who died at age 82 in 1916, was a multimillionaire who owned Dewey, a terrier that bit people. Asked why she kept him, she repled, “He loves me and he doesn’t know how rich I am.”

Totaling at least $100 million, more than $2 billion today, her fortune was Wall Street money that she amassed through her own investing savvy. Born Hetty Robinson into a wealthy New England family, she was sent to New York by her dad with $1200 to buy clothes and find a husband. Instead, she saved most of the money and married years later when she was 31. When her father died in 1865, she inherited $1 million and a $5 million trust. But that was just the beginning.

Hetty Robinson Green was a a patient investor and a tough negotiator. After the Civil War, she bought undervalued government bonds and then railroad securities. When banks needed money, buying some of their loans, she began to amass a real estate portfolio that grew to hundreds of properties. As with the Georgia Central Railroad, when one faction offered to buy her securities, she understood timing and intimidation. Knowing the Georgia Central investors needed her, she held out until the shares that she purchased at $70 apiece climbed to $127.50 and earned her a $385,000 profit.

Yes, some called her the Witch of Wall Street because she wore a dowdy black dress (see picture below) and lived modestly in Brooklyn and then Hoboken. Not a spender, whether buying bread, visiting a doctor or purchasing stock, she negotiated. But when NYC faced a financial crisis during the Panic of 1907, it was Green who made the $1.1 million bond purchase that provided emergency funding. And when churches needed to borrow, her interest rate was low.

As an investor, she knew her goals, adhered to her principles and permitted no one to pay her unfairly. A model for aggressive negotiating, Hetty Green is a perfect example of a woman who would not accept the gender pay gap of 23 cents for white women and 31 cents for black women on each dollar earned described in yesterday’s NY Times article, “How To Attack the Pay Gap? Speak up.” Indeed, she could have taught all of us how to “Speak up.”

A Final Fact: Green summed up wise investing when she said, ”I buy when things are low and no one wants them. I keep them…until they go up and people are anxious to buy…I never speculate. Such stocks as belong to me were purchased simply as an investment, never on margin.”

The next 3 Monday posts will focus on gender issues.

Sources and Resources: The 2004 book, Hetty: The Genius and Madness of America’s First Female Tycoon was a fast and interesting read, the source of my quote on her investing philosophy (pp. 166-167). The book reminds us that, like Rockefeller, Carnegie, Morgan, Gould, and Armour, she too was born during the 1830s and built a massive fortune. Her Dewey quote was from a Barron’s column by John Steele Gordon.

Hetty Green With Dewey

Hetty Green Was A Successful 19th Century Investor Who Amassed A Fortune

This entry was edited with the addition of the pay gap.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

Self-interest represents the seeds that blossom into economic growth.

I have confessed before that I admire the entrepreneurs who have been called the robber barons.

Carnegie and steel, Rockefeller and oil, J.J. Hill and railroads, Morgan and money. These men and others from their 19th century world competed lethally. On the production side they sought to reduce costs. They battled for customers, they trampled competition and they manipulated prices. Still though, asked to choose between condemnation and admiration, I choose the latter.

Each fueled our economy. We got a capital goods sector, a transportation infrastructure. We got the foundation that let us build from consumer goods to services to our technological revolution. We got bigger homes, longer lives, refrigerators and cars and TVs and an educated populace. We had a rising economic tide that raised all boats.

And that takes me to an article in the New Yorker Magazine. Focusing on hedge fund billionaire Leon Cooperman, the article spotlights a response to President Obama’s message to the affluent about giving more to US society. In a letter to President Obama, Mr. Cooperman asks instead that the President focus on the unifying power of initiative and achievement that has inspired generations and propelled economic growth.

Mr. Cooperman’s comments took me to Adam Smith.  Rather than a benevolent government, Smith focused on how wealth is spread by self-interested business people.

“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” (Wealth of Nations, Book 1 Chapter 2)

More specifically, Professor Smith explained how self-interest leads to voluntary exchange through which all benefit:

But man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and show them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of.” (Wealth of Nations, Book 1 Chapter 2)

And that returns us to the most affluent slice of our society. As with Carnegie, Rockefeller, Morgan and their brethren, might we support self-interest (and accept its opportunity cost) in order to fuel the economic growth from which rich, poor, the middle class and government benefit?

Sources and Resources: I do suggest a firsthand look at The New Yorker article on Mr. Cooperman and his letter to the President. As for Adam Smith, do read some here and here so that you can decide how you feel about his ideas. Finally, Stanley Lebergott’s Pursuing Happiness provides a brief and readable picture of our 20th century material progress.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (2) Add a Comment

15700_4.10_000005989308XSmall

Death usually means some money for Uncle Sam and the rest for the real relatives (and unrelated heirs). As a result, when John D. Rockefeller died in 1937, his heirs received 30% of his fortune and the U.S. government got the rest. During March, 2010, however, Dan Duncan, the 74th richest man in the world died and his family inherited everything because the estate tax had lapsed for just one year.

Rewind to 1889.

Supporting an inheritance tax, Andrew Carnegie said, “I would as soon leave to my son a curse as the almighty dollar…” Bequeath great wealth to charity? “No,” because a disappointed family will probably contest the decision. Instead, according to Carnegie, a man of wealth should, …”set an example of modest…living…, provide moderately [for] those dependent upon him…” and then use the money for the good of the people. How? Invest in universities, free libraries, hospitals, parks, meeting halls, and church buildings. Saying that it created liars, Carnegie opposed an income tax.

Do you agree with Andrew Carnegie?

The Economic Lesson

In descending order, the individual income tax, the payroll tax (social security/Medicare), and the corporate income generate most of the U.S. government’s revenue. Typically, even though rates fluctuate with new legislation, still, revenue tends not to exceed 19% of GDP.


 

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment