Introduction

Along with many observers I was taken aback to see a platoon of technology billionaires, worth more than $1 Trillion collectively, smiling eagerly just behind the 47^th President during his swearing in (see photo) [1]. Wealth and power are never too far apart in our history. In this instance, both were coupled together in a brazen and public display urging us to consider its origins, future meaning, and echoes from the past.

A Look Back

Let’s explore this phenomenon by first hearing from Henry George, the late 19^th century economist and philosopher. Writing in his book “Social Problems” [2] in 1883 he said:

“The rise in the United States of monstrous fortunes, the aggregation of enormous wealth in the hands of corporations, necessarily implies the loss by the people of government control.” – George, 1879

I thought the Gilded Age, a chapter from the US past running from the 1870s through the 1890s, was a thing of the past. This is the period in which massive technological and industrial progress was witnessed giving rise to immense fortunes for a privileged class including Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, and Carnegie. This was also a time of want for many workers and led to economic “panics” and upheaval. This period culminated in the anti-trust movement represented by the dissolution of Standard Oil [3].

During the 20th century, in response to these excesses, the US established a sophisticated approach to dampen economic swings, broaden equity, and continue its innovative traditions. This was accomplished while simultaneously expanding voting rights to women and minorities as well as strengthening voting protections. Both were advocated by Henry George [4].

Today’s Gambit

In today’s world, wealth inequity in the US has been at an all-time high since the Gilded Age when roughly 4,000 families controlled wealth equivalent to the rest of the population [6]. While the mid-20th century saw a decrease in this equity gap it has pointedly returned. According to the Federal Reserve the breakdown today is stark [7]:

“The top 10% of households by wealth had $6.9 million on average. As a group, they held 67% of total household wealth. The bottom 50% of households by wealth had $51,000 on average. As a group, they held only 2.5% of total household wealth.”

This re-concentration of wealth did not develop overnight. Since 1980 US wages have been essentially flat while the corporate and technocratic elite has become more and more enriched [8]. While traditional corporations have also benefited, the new mega fortunes have primarily been found within the technology sector. It is precisely these companies, founders, and speculators who have benefited most from the last two decades of technical progress, often built on top of publicly funded R&D infrastructure [9]. Yet these windfalls were in the past protected from government not blatantly possessive of government.

A Twist on the Gilded Age

What makes the recent flaunting of wealth shoulder to shoulder with political power even more informative is the industries not represented on stage. There were no manufacturers aside from Apple represented on the dais [10]. US Steel was nowhere to be seen in the room. Nor were the automakers or semiconductor makers. Not even traditional tech companies like AT&T, Microsoft, IBM, or HP. Instead, the focus was on the industry titans controlling the modern communications platforms.

Furthermore, both sides of the political spectrum enlist such billionaires for support. This involvement was expanded in the 2010 decision by the US Supreme Court referred to as Citizens United [11]. This ruling removed nearly all controls on political donations resulting in the massive financial contributions seen in the most recent election cycle. In the case of the ascendant “broligarchs” or the set of tech oligarchs under scrutiny they have both a corporate and social mission [12]. Naturally, they want to make more money.

Yet they also are bound by a philosophy inspired by Nietzsche in which they see themselves as supermen. Samuel states that this cadre “…want absolutely zero limits on their power. Not those dictated by democratic governments, by financial systems, or by facts” [13]. This goes further than the earlier generation of Gilded Age industrialists and bankers by a long shot.

Implications

In looking at this evolution towards ever greater concentration of wealth and an increasingly public showing of political power and capital cooperation we may wonder where we are headed. Just like Henry George mentioned in 1883 we see similar concerns today. Painter (quoted in [6]) stated that “Capitalism makes some people really rich, and democracy is not strong enough to counter the power of great wealth”. In our history we have at times corrected for such excesses. The 17th Amendment to the Constitution at the tail end of the Gilded Age modified the appointment of US senators to be directly elected due to rampant corruption. Essentially, prior to this change the entire US senate was bought and sold by the wealthy in each State [14]. Perhaps we are at a point where monied powers will need new restraints to rebalance the will of the people more directly and allow for a new leveling of economic wealth.

This newly emboldened set of techno billionaires with immense personal wealth, corporate control, and social influence have an opportunity to perpetuate their advantages. This could lead to further widening of the wealth gap in the US despite or due to the close coordination with governmental power and policy making. Of course, the opposite could happen as well since human nature is not predictable. Afterall it was Carnegie the leader of the Gilded Age wealth makers who also enshrined the normative approach of giving away his wealth. Later in life he endowed generations of social goods including universities, fellowships, art institutes and more. However, with this current crop of wealthy tech individuals, turning over a new leaf seems a bit out of reach for now.

That leaves us with considering what Henry George might think of all this. I believe he would recognize today’s world in an instant. We have several artificial monopolies driving private fortunes just as there were railroads and telegraph companies in his day. The general population is underserved by social benefits. Healthcare remains problematic, housing costs are exorbitant, and wages are depressed – all problems identical to the Gilded Age. This is great for the ownership class but not so much for the typical citizen. These conditions closely mirror George’s time. His remedy then was, among other things, to advocate for a restructuring of land ownership [15]. His vision was to provide for a fairer distribution of land usage and provide for government revenue proportionally and not based on tax loopholes. Such a method would require significant effort to implement, however, just like the 17^th Amendment perhaps the effort might be worth it.

Conclusions

Of course, I am a daily user of the technologies provided by some of the tech billionaires discussed above. So, am I hypocritical in asking for a change? Personally, I was expecting these folks to stick to the knitting of technology development and service delivery. While I always recognized that these leaders and their companies (just like other business sectors) have long been involved in lobbying the government to their advantage, the show of in-your-face “now we own the government” is a bit much. The social changes from the Gilded Age to the mid-20th century were raucous to be sure but they led to widespread improvements for society and enhanced technical capabilities in medicine, communications, and travel. Perhaps this audacious opening salvo by the techno billionaire class will generate a new discussion around where we are really heading with our economy and our democracy.

References

1. Huang, J., et. al., “A Closer Look At Who Attended President Donald J. Trump’s Second Inauguration”, New York Times, January 20, 2025.
2. George, Henry, (1883). Social Problems, Cornell University Library, 2009.
3. Cashman, Sean Dennis, America in the Gilded Age, Third Edition, NYU Press; 3rd edition, 1993
4. Cusick, J., “7 Core Principles for a Progressive Post COVID-19 World”, From Our Board Members, Henry George School of Social Science, September 2020.
5. Brady-Handy Collection, “Washington, D.C. 1893–Crowd in front of Capitol – Cleveland’s 2nd inauguration”, Library of Congress, Viewed 1/27/2025.
6. Rothman, Lily, “How American Inequality in the Gilded Age Compares to Today”, Time Magazine, February 5, 2018.
7. Hernández Kent, Ana, Ricketts, Lowell R., “The State of U.S. Wealth Inequality”, The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, October 22, 2024.
8. Hartman, Chris, “Inequality by the Numbers”, Institute for Policy Studies, October 2009.
9. Mazzucato, Mariana, The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths, Anthem Press; 1st edition, 2013.
10. Klien, Ezra, “The New Rules of the Trump Era”, New York Times, 1/22/2025.
11. Pino, Marina, and Fishman, Julia, “Fifteen Years Later, Citizens United Defined the 2024 Election”, Brennan Center for Justice: Research & Reports, January 14, 2025.
12. Harrington, Brooke, “Trump’s ‘Broligarchy’ of Tech Billionaires”, The DailyShow with Jon Stewart, 1/21/2025.
13. Samuel, Sigal, “The broligarchs have a vision for the new Trump term. It’s darker than you think: The real reason Musk, Zuckerberg, and Bezos are supporting Trump”, Vox, Jan 20, 2025.
14. Gould, Lewis L., The Most Exclusive Club: A History of the Modern United States Senate, Basic Books, 2006.
15. George, Henry, Progress and Poverty: An Inquiry into the Cause of Industrial Depressions and of Increase of Want with Increase of Wealth. The Remedy., D. Appleton and Company, New York, 1879.