You show me evidence that the story was different than what I stated and researched and I'll stop laughing. Standard Oil wasn't perfect - it was the most efficient option at the time. You can't force people to be competitive with regulations and laws - they provide their own incentive. JD Rockefeller wanted to make a profit and to expand his business, and he did so in the most efficient way he knew. As it turns out, he was quite good at it. In fact, he was so good at it, that people built successful oil refinery companies JUST TO SELL TO HIM. One guy, David P. Reighard, built three oil refinery companies and sold them to JDR because it was such good business. Except you completely forgot what profit actually is. Profit isn't an excess charge for the greedy capitalists. It doesn't exist to pad the pockets of the executives. Profit exists to ensure the growth of the company, and give it the financial flexibility to weather bad economic situations. If Standard Oil had cut their prices to ensure their profit margin dropped by 50%, they would stagnate and be outpaced by more profitable companies. Yes, the price would have temporarily dropped below what it was at the time, but Standard Oil would quickly go out of business, and the prices would rise much, much higher. On another, completely related note: prices are determined by the laws of supply and demand. Artificially lowering the price without also increasing the supply would lead to shortages. If Standard was able to increase production to meet this demand, their profits would fall lower and lower, until they either stabilized and stagnated, or until they dropped into the red and began closing refineries to save the business. I never stated that Standard oil was perfect. I said the free market system is perfect. I used Standard Oil as an example to disprove your claim that buying out competitors in the market is one of the flaws in the free market. No, Colin. Just no. You logically cannot use the excuse that "I must be right" in order to rationalize your opinion. You think the oil market of the time can do better? Fine. Show me the proof. I've got the proof that Standard did their job more efficiently than the government or any competitor could at the time. That means they did as "good as you can possibly do". I can't hear you over the sound of your ignorant socialist bullcrap First, they weren't the only provider of refined oil. They had a 90% market share. There was a host of smaller, localized competitors. Second, answer me this: Who would you rather be in charge, the man who has spent his entire life building a business, or the elected lawyer who thinks he can do a better job? Another angle: What abuse would you be referring to on the part of Standard Oil? Perhaps price increases to raise profit margins? That seems fairly ridiculous - their competitors would eat them alive in the open market, drastically decreasing their market share. To make things worse, the price of oil for everyone would be driven higher because the smaller competitors wouldn't have the supply to meet the demand that Standard Oil had previously met. It wouldn't take long, however for their newfound success to give them the means to grow to meet this demand. No, that's not it. Perhaps they would spend the money on lobbyists and votes in Congress? But to what end? Perhaps to out regulate their competition and drive them out of business. BUT WAIT you say - isn't that what Comcast is doing?! OH MY GOD! What if - government regulation is the problem?! But seriously, what abuse? What could they possibly do within the confines of the free market that abuses customers? Remember, these customers volunteer their money and time to buy oil from Standard Oil. Standard cannot force these customers to buy their oil. And you ignore the evidence all around you that the socialist system of government is a hypocrisy and a lie. The entire philosophy relies on the ignorance of the people to stay in power.