To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The 1920's and early 1930's witnessed the beginnings of federal oil regulation in the United States. Professor Nordhauser argues that oil executives rather than government officials led the way in the movement for regulation and that their dominant goals were the stabilization of prices and profits.
Professor Gitelman suggests that the causes of industrial violence were similar in the United States and Europe, and that the apparently higher incidence of strike violence in this country was due to the greater willingness and/or ability of American management to utilize strategies of replacing striking workers and deploying armed men.
Professor Abrahams edits a record of a 1913 conversation between reformer Louis Brandeis and Thomas W. Lamont of J. P. Morgan & Co. In the wake of the Pujo investigation of the “money trust,” the two discussed the nature and extent of economic power wielded by investment bankers as well as some specific issues such as interlocking directorates, competitive bidding for security issues, and greater publicity about securities transactions. This document reflects the long-run, fundamental conflict between social critics fearful of the concentration of economic power in America and businessmen who disclaim power because they believe their behavior is controlled by objective business considerations which operate for the good of society as a whole.