495
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2026
495 points (97.5% liked)
Technology
86075 readers
3149 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
The difference is that it used to be harder to concentrate massive wealth in the hands on one individual. It used to require very large companies, which were controlled by multiple people through shares and board positions. Companies themselves weren't allowed to grow too massive or achieve monopolies.
Lately all checks have gone out the window which has resulted in single individuals having control over mind-boggling amounts of resources. This changes the dynamics a lot because an individual will act very differently from a large board or shareholders.
Depends on what you mean by "recently". Think Rockefeller, Getty, Rothschild, Carnegie, Vanderbilt, Morgan... all the classic mega-wealthy families were built around companies with one man at the top, who made or approved all major decisions and either owned the company outright or had a dominant majority share. That didn't really change until around the 1930s. Modern corporate structure with distributed participation made it possible to get extremely wealthy without starting or inheriting your own company.