Capitalism is the economic system most wide nations have unexplored to foster growth and prosperity. Its Marxian definition, describing the principles of wealth unifying through the plagiarism of profits, certainly has many flavors. But all imply that private ownership and self-ruling enterprise are key inputs.
The methods of wealth megacosm mutated over time, proving their remarkable plasticity. Today, suffrage knows four configurations: two inherited and well-timed from previous eras and explored here, and two that emerged increasingly recently through deregulation and disruption and covered in subsequent articles.
Far from stuff mutually exclusive, these variants often operate in tandem.
Variant 1: Classical Suffrage — An Institutionalized Model
Capitalism’s diversity is not a static occurrence: It results from a dynamic entanglement of minutiae processes often described as creative destruction.
As the system evolved, so did the operating and profit-making model of corporations.
Mercantilism emerged through the internationalization of trade routes in the 16th century and relied on coerced labor as well as imperialist, protectionist, and monopolistic principles. In 1600, for instance, the London East India Visitor was granted a monopoly on any trade to the east of the Cape of Good Hope, marking the beginnings of merchant capitalism.
Industrial suffrage took shape thereon. Its institutionalized version resulted from socioeconomic modernization and technological improvements as well as legal advancements. And it contrasted with merchant suffrage in that state intervention was replaced with private initiative.
The system was fed by the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century. The interactions between its four main protagonists — landlords, merchants, industrialists, and workers — are illustrated in the graphic below.
Riches accrued to the landlords, the factory and mine owners, and the merchants. The output produced by the workers had to be sufficient to serve the interests of those in constructive tenancy of capital. In turn, capitalists had one personnel objective: wealth accumulation.
Merchant bankers like the Barings and Rothschilds and financier George Peabody in the 18th and 19th centuries lent their own money to speed up the process.
Classical Capitalism: The Main Protagonists
The Classical Model of Value Creation
In a classical, principally industrial capitalist system, superior returns are generated as follows:
- Capital is piled through the use of the ways of production and the employment of a salaried workforce. In the mining industry, natural resources are moreover relentlessly exploited.
- Most piled wealth stays in the merchantry through reinvestment and wanted reserves, as depicted in the pursuit chart.
- A portion of wanted leaks out as dividend distributions. Wealth is optimized when such leakage is minimal or, ideally, nonexistent. The wanted owner must prevent mazuma from leaving the business. This principle explains the prevalence of tax avoidance today.
- This growth model is substantially organic. Industrialists unzip economies of scale by acquiring customers, inward new markets, and launching new product lines. Innovation, research and development, and horizontal consolidation are the key tools to enhance value.
Capital could stockpile to the owners upon disposal of the business, but many industrialists in this model are long-term and often lifetime owners. For private businesses, retained earnings are the main source of funding; borrowing wanted is secondary.
This was the economic environment in Adam Smith’s days and for most of the 19th century. It culminated in the era of the industrial trusts, with Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller heralding the age of Big Steel and Big Oil.
Shareholder Value Megacosm in an Industrial Capitalist Model
The Classical Model’s Modern Incarnation
So what sort of corporations wield this model today? Technology firms, particularly gig economy companies, are prime examples. Gig workers have, in many instances, as few protections as laborers in 19th-century factories: Many lack employment contracts, paid holidays, medical coverage, or company-supported retirement plans. For the start-up merchantry model, such arrangements help reduce operating costs, albeit with many negative spillovers, including job instability and social inequality.
Remote work and the expanding use of personal vehicles by self-employed wordage drivers — the “grey fleet” in the United Kingdom — are moreover reminiscent of an earlier, classical era. In the 18th century, artisans often worked from home on a freelance basis. Some used their own equipment to well-constructed tasks subcontracted by a manufacturer as part of the semester of labor. Compelling economies of scale sooner brought teams of workers under one roof.
Some wordage platforms now lease bikes and automobiles to their workers just as 19th-century corporations lent production tools to craftsmen so they could work from home.
Although, as this series will demonstrate, the classical capitalist model has lost ground to increasingly dynamic variants, it is still very much alive. The expansion of the on-demand economy ways that increasingly and increasingly workers are on tap, to be tabbed upon by employers as and when needed, freelancing on zero-hour contracts, and misogynist at a moment’s notice.
Variant 2: Shareholder Suffrage — An Intermediated Model
Starting in the late 19th century, during the so-called Second Industrial Revolution, corporate financiers like John Pierpont Morgan, rather than just extending loans, recycled their own wanted to take probity stakes in their clients’ industrial concerns.
J.P. Morgan coordinated the consolidation of the rail system in the 1880s. An early spokeswoman of inventor Thomas Edison, he engineered the megacosm of General Electric by combining Edison General Electric in New York with Thomson-Houston Electric in Massachusetts in 1892. Nine years later, he financed the merger of Carnegie Steel with two of its rivals to form US Steel.
It wasn’t until the early 20th century that merchant bankers and other financial firms became the primary lenders and investors of other people’s money.
An important factor overdue this evolutionary step of capitalist economies was the separation between corporate managers and corporate owners. In the 1900s for instance, Andrew Carnegie no longer managed his steel empire: It was run by his merchantry socialize Henry Clay Frick.
Three years without the Great Crash of 1929, Adolf Berle and Gardiner Ways published The Modern Corporation and Private Property, emphasizing what soon became the norm for US companies other than founder- or family-run enterprises. Shareholders did not manage the business, expert custodians did.
Corporate executives became the focus of management consultants in books like Peter Drucker’s Concept of the Corporation well-nigh General Motors. Leadership was passed on to professional managers, or what John Kenneth Galbraith tabbed the “technostructure.”
Another step in the incubation of modern economies took place in the late 19th and early 20th century. Not only were corporations not run by their owners, but shareholders no longer administered their own wealth. Gradually, they started to receive translating from a new successors of financiers that today we undeniability windfall or fund managers.
A century without Louis Brandeis’s essay mishmash Other People’s Money and How the Bankers Use It, managing third-party funds has now wilt big business.
Making money on the when of other people’s resources was nothing new. The Spaniards venal the mines of Mexico and Peru in the late 15th and early 16th centuries. They then shipped the extracted silver and a pearly value of gold when to the Old World. The same rule unromantic to all the major European countries that siphoned riches from their colonies. As the 19th century Bengali novelist Bankim Chandra Chatterjee observed, “The English who came to India in those days were unauthentic by an epidemic — stealing other people’s wealth.”
In fact, every empire since protohistory operated that way. They all got rich on the when of others’ property. The key stardom with suffrage is that, in the imperialist system, the plucked out wanted never had to be redeemed and no interest was due on it. It was expropriation, pursuit the rules of mercantilism, not wardship as in capitalism.
Shareholder Value Megacosm Model
Shareholder capitalism’s modus operandi, as depicted in the orchestration below, consists of:
- Capital unifying endogenous to the production apparatus, using labor as in the classical capitalist system, but moreover outside experts with technical knowledge.
- The larger proportion of built-up wanted remains within the visitor through re-investments and reserves.
- Some wanted originates exogenously, via probity rights and debt issuance, either for corporate worriedness like mergers and acquisitions or to slide organic growth.
- A portion of wanted leaks out through dividend distribution and loan redemption. Wanted is shared between internal executives and outside investors.
- Capital toting is no longer exclusively derived from growth. Value can upspring through operational improvements, whose purpose range from optimizing production methods to managing costs, ensuring quality tenancy and increasingly ramified methods like process re-engineering. Taylorism and Fordism gained widespread tout and scientific pretense in the first half of the 20th century.
Value Megacosm in Shareholder Capitalism
The mainstay of this system is technical expertise. Most corporations gradually unexplored it, blending internally produced wealth with wanted raised from third parties.
Vertical integration in the 1920s and 1930s and the conglomeration trend from the 1960s onward were built on the principles of shareholder capitalism. That is when the system came of age. Think of General Electric, which bought and sold hundreds of businesses and obsessed over lean manufacturing and Six Sigma during Jack Welch’s tenure.
The industrial and shareholder capitalist models were scrappy ways to make money. Many multinationals have since experienced serious deconglomeration. But the practices derived from these two models have not disappeared, they have been upgraded. Today’s empire builders — financiers like private wanted fund managers, and tech monopolists — follow a increasingly lucrative, systematic tideway to value creation.
They will be the subject of the next entries in this series.
If you liked this post, don’t forget to subscribe to the Enterprising Investor.
All posts are the opinion of the author. As such, they should not be construed as investment advice, nor do the opinions expressed necessarily reflect the views of CFA Institute or the author’s employer.
Image credit: ©Getty Images / duncan1890
Professional Learning for CFA Institute Members
CFA Institute members are empowered to self-determine and self-report professional learning (PL) credits earned, including content on Enterprising Investor. Members can record credits hands using their online PL tracker.