
David Rockefeller has died - happy-go-lucky
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-20/david-rockefeller-banker-philanthropist-heir-dies-at-101
======
kolanos
"Some even believe we [Rockefeller family] are part of a secret cabal working
against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and
me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to
build a more integrated global political and economic structure -- One World,
if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."

\- David Rockefeller, Memoirs, page 405

~~~
teslabox
From the article:

> Rockefeller upheld the family’s philanthropic tradition, giving away more
> than $900 million during his lifetime. In 1940, he joined the board of the
> Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, established in 1901 by his
> grandfather, and a decade later succeeded his father as board chairman,
> serving for 25 years.

Rich people don't give money away no-strings-attached, they channel it for
their purposes. This "institute for medical research" \- now Rockefeller
University - was their way of guiding the development of medicine into a
profitable industry for "investors".

"The first director of laboratories was Simon Flexner" [1] [1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockefeller_University](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockefeller_University)

Simon Flexner's younger brother was Abraham Flexner, who helped the medical
guild reduce the number of medical schools [2], thereby making sure that
there's always been a shortage of doctors.

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexner_Report](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexner_Report)

The Osteopathic profession was the only group that was organized enough to
survive the Medical Guild's purge of non-Rockefeller-approved approaches to
medicine. Today D.O.s are more likely to take up Primary Care, where doctors
take time to get to know their patients and figure out what's actually causing
their complaints. See _The Heroism of Incremental Care,_ [3] for example.

[3] [http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/23/the-heroism-
of-...](http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/23/the-heroism-of-
incremental-care)

~~~
johansch
> Rockefeller upheld the family’s philanthropic tradition, giving away more
> than $900 million during his lifetime.

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlodonnell/2014/07/11/the-
roc...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlodonnell/2014/07/11/the-rockefellers-
the-legacy-of-historys-richest-man/)

"That young man was John Davison Rockefeller in 1855, who in 25 years would
become the wealthiest man of his time, and arguably the wealthiest in history,
reigning over a monopoly that refined as much as 90 percent of America’s oil.
His flagship company, Standard Oil, was broken up in 1911 by the Sherman Anti-
Trust Act, but Rockefeller’s greatest legacy – his family – lives on, spanning
more than 200 surviving individuals and possessing a collective net worth of
about $10 billion"

$900M out of $10B is 9%.

Myself, living in Europe, I'm quite convinced I have paid a much higher
percentage of my income than this towards state-governed philantrophy. Where's
my trophy?

~~~
dsacco
They're talking about net worth. You're talking about income.

Kind of silly either way though - why don't you just come out and say that you
think he should have donated more?

~~~
johansch
No, I prefer just to point out the hypocrisy surrounding getting acclaims for
"philantrophy" in the US.

Seems like even those who have the most give out back less to others than they
would have done just by the regular taxation laws, living in a typical
European country.

~~~
kelnos
Depending on tax law throughout his life, and his ability to find loopholes,
that $900M was _on top of_ what he paid in tax. So unless you have evidence
that he paid no or very low taxes, what you're saying just doesn't hold water.

Not to mention that you're comparing the donations of a single person to the
collective net worth of 200 people. More fair would be to compare that $900M
to David Rockefeller's net worth, not that and all his very-extended family.

~~~
johansch
Anyone in the US is paying very low taxes compared to what "high-income" tax
payers pay in e.g. Scandinavian countries like Sweden. The treshold for "high
income" is (simplified) at about $80k per year.

Stock option profits are taxed as income as well. (In Sweden we also have to
pay social security fees on our stock option profits - the end result
typically being at least a 62% taxation level on that income.).

~~~
kelnos
Gotcha. I still don't see any evidence for what you're saying, though. What
was David Rockefeller's income during the period he worked and gave money to
charitable causes? If you want to look at it mathematically:

income * (tax rate + giving rate) = "total given"

Obviously you have two important variables there that determine what the total
percent of income ends up being. I don't see any evidence that the
parenthetical totals above are less or greater than each other when you
consider your average European vs. Rockefeller, so you can't really say
anything about how much he gave out of his income in comparison to your
average European. Maybe it's more, maybe it's less, but you automatically
assuming it's less is a bit disingenuous.

There's also the question of required vs. optional. If your average European
had a tax rate similar to an American, would they then (on average) give the
"savings" away as philanthropy? My guess would be it'd end up somewhere in the
middle. Philanthropy is only philanthropy if it's voluntary and isn't forced
by your government. That's pretty much its definition.

------
notsofastmister
I am a bit more on the pro-conspiracy side of the spectrum but good sources
are important.

According to the New York Times in 2002, David Rockefeller was the banker of
the worst leaders of the world while expanding internationally the Chase
Manhattan Bank.

"He spent much of his career at Chase doing business with tyrants -- paying
homage to oil-rich dictators, sitting through long meetings with the Chinese
perpetrators of the Cultural Revolution (an associate once handed over a
suitcase with $50,000 in cash to the Chinese so Rockefeller could have a
meeting with their ambassador), holding court with Soviet party bosses. The
contacts often led to profitable deals for Chase. They benefited the ruling
cliques in those countries. But in ways he is oblivious of even now,
Rockefeller was soiled by his close embraces with these thugs. While the
forces of democracy squared off with the forces of authoritarianism,
Rockefeller was perpetually in the room with whoever happened to be in power."

That's enough for me to think he's a horrible monster, but what do I know, I'm
just into conspiracy theories...

Between him and kissinger, it would be tough to figure out who knew more war
criminals.

[0] [http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/20/books/review/david-
rockefe...](http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/20/books/review/david-rockefellers-
memoirs-born-to-be-mild.html)

~~~
pdxandi
Just wondering if you've read Confessions of an Economic Hitman. You may feel
better knowing that not all of these conspiracies are crazy. Though reading
about economic hit men may make you more paranoid; it's a dark, ugly world.

------
charia
Obligatory mention of Titan, in mine and many other people's opinion, the best
and most comprehensive biography of the original John D. Rockefeller. (The
grandfather of the David Rockefeller who passed away today.) An extremely well
put together balanced analysis of John D. Rockefeller, Standard Oil and
general history of the Gilded Age.

[http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/16121.Titan](http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/16121.Titan)

~~~
selimthegrim
I think the History Channel had a good show about the lives of Rockefeller,
Carnegie, et al. and how they intersected

~~~
sml0820
Yes, "The Men Who Built America". Great show.

------
markwaldron
"Their sister, Abby Rockefeller Mauze, known as “Babs,” died in 1976." All the
brothers have their contributions listed, but she doesn't? According to
Wikipedia, Abby Rockefeller Mauze preferred to stay out of the spotlight, but
was still a benefactor of the MOMA, YWCA, NY Hospital, NY Zoological Society,
and the Asia Society.

~~~
bostonpete
> All the brothers have their contributions listed, but she doesn't?

Maybe related to this detail (also from Wikipedia)...?

    
    
      "Unlike her famous brothers, she always remained out of the public eye"

~~~
AnimalMuppet
That doesn't mean that she didn't do anything. It doesn't even mean she didn't
do anything worthy of note.

~~~
sokoloff
But it may mean that what she did do isn't well documented enough publicly for
inclusion in Wikipedia.

------
GCA10
I may be alone on this one, but I'm enchanted by David Rockefeller's long-ago
crusade to create an "electronic Rolodex" of the 150,000 people he met in the
course of his business career.

The dude nearly invented LinkedIn! Of course, he forgot to allow access to
anyone else, which limited the value of his efforts. And boasting about
150,000 isn't quite what it used to be. (More like an Ozymandias claim, in
fact.) Anyway, some more thoughts about it are here:
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeanders/2017/03/20/he-
knew...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeanders/2017/03/20/he-
knew-150000-people-the-tycoon-who-predated-social-media/#bf9b95d6fd0d)

~~~
GFischer
My father met a top exec (later president) of Toyota in the 80s, he came to my
house and met our dog. Some time later we saw him writing on a little black
notebook.

A decade later, the exec invited my father, and during the dinner conversation
he asked about his children and dog by name... that was pretty impressive, and
an example of how to manage relationships.

LinkedIn doesn't (yet) give you that kind of information (I guess some good
CRMs do?)

------
notsofastmister
He probably wasn't too far from the disgusting coup against Salvador Allende
on the 9/11/1973, organized by the CIA.

From the guardian :

"But the very name of Allende was anathema to the extreme Right in Chile, to
certain powerful corporations (notably ITT, Pepsi Cola and the Chase Manhattan
Bank) which did business in Chile and the United States, and to the CIA." [0]

"He [David Rockerfeller] was both chairman and chief executive of Chase
Manhattan from 1969 to 1980 and remained chairman until 1981." [1]

[0]
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/feb/24/pinochet.booke...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/feb/24/pinochet.bookextracts)
[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Rockefeller](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Rockefeller)

------
Sabinus
Did Rockefeller talk at all about how much his huge income was taxed? While
I'm sure his philanthropic giving was researched and generous, I'm wondering
what the benefits of those billions would have been if part of the Medicare
program. Did he support the rich giving more to the state? It is the
institution tasked with looking the citizens, after all.

------
kevando
>In 2008 Rockefeller gave $100 million to his alma mater, Harvard University
in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

I have to agree with Malcom Gladwell on this... Of all the ways to donate
$100M, OF ALL THE WAYS

~~~
agentgt
I have to agree. That amount of money could have greatly helped a majority of
the black historic colleges that so badly need the money. Of course if you
think that is bad someone recently just gave $400 million (more covered here:
[https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/06/05/400-million-g...](https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/06/05/400-million-
gift-harvard-sets-debate-about-philanthropy-wealthy-institutions)).

Even Gates gave $15 million circa 1996. This is was of course before he went
into full philanthropy mode [1]. I'm sure he wouldn't do that now.

[1]: [http://www.nytimes.com/1996/10/30/us/gates-of-microsoft-
give...](http://www.nytimes.com/1996/10/30/us/gates-of-microsoft-
gives-15-million-to-harvard.html)

~~~
reckoner2
I agree that the $400 million seems ridiculous. But it's interesting that you
mention black colleges, because David Rockefeller's grandfather started the
General Education Board [0] - one of the first and most important factors in
developing black education in the United States.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Education_Board](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Education_Board)

------
Dowwie
My family (incl german wirehaired pointer) got to enjoy Little Long Pond in
Seal Harbor because of David Rockefeller. The Rockefellers own a tremendous
estate in Mount Desert Island.

------
manojr
RIP, Condolences to his Family and Friends

------
beegeezuz
Congratulations to every one, let's drink to that!

------
peter303
The third generation made the biggest impact in public affairs with governors
and philanthropists. The first made all the money, the second was too small.
Webrarely hear ofblater Rockefellers.

~~~
selimthegrim
Every resident of New York should thank him and Nelson Rockefeller for tag
teaming to take down Robert Moses.

------
CriticalSection
> The Osteopathic profession was the only group that was organized enough to
> survive the Medical Guild's purge of non-Rockefeller-approved approaches to
> medicine.

What? The Medical Guild purged (almost) all of the quacks and snake oil
salesman out of medicine, and aimed American medicine to be directed by the
scientific method and biology. This was a good thing.

You're right, most of the quacks, snake handlers, anti-vaccine charlatans and
witch doctors were purged, thankfully. But the osteopathic so-called
"alternative" medicine practitioners were well-organized enough, and legally
and politically savvy enough to survive.

People on this web site tend to look favorably upon reason, the scientific
method and so forth. Thus, I think they will look favorably upon this work of
Rockefeller, and shed few tears for the faith healers, quacks, acupuncturists
etc. which people are still free to go to, but which my tax and health plan
dollars are (mostly) not going to, thankfully.

Then you mix in that primary care doctors don't spend enough time with their
patients nowadays. This may be true, in fact, it probably is. It has
absolutely nothing to do however with whether people are getting rational,
scientific treatment tested through medical trials, or whether they're going
into some voodoo ritual with some quack.

~~~
liber8
It's not that osteopaths were so well organized. It's that John D. was a
devoted Osteopath for most of his life.

If you haven't read Titan, it's a fascinating bio.

~~~
CriticalSection
> John D. was a devoted Osteopath for most of his life. If you haven't read
> Titan, it's a fascinating bio.

That's interesting, I didn't know that.

More than osteopathy, the similar yet different practice of chiropractic is a
better example of a legally and politically well-organized "alternative
medicine". Through legal (
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilk_v._American_Medical_Ass'n](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilk_v._American_Medical_Ass'n)
) and political pressure from the 1970s to the 1990s, they got the American
Medical Association to dissolve their committee on quackery, rewrite their
medical ethics rules and so forth.

~~~
lqdc13
I would like to point out that chiropractic medicine is not necessarily
quackery. There are certainly some elements that may not always work, but
there are also many things that do.

The classes in the schools are certainly not a joke - they take real anatomy
and real body mechanics, real radiology and real biochemistry - and the
requirements for graduation are not trivial.

Additionally, although scientific method has been successful in medicine, a
lot is still not well understood from the bottom up. That's why some
alternative medicine solutions sometimes work as well and even better than
modern medicine. It was arrived at through centuries of trial and error.

~~~
cholantesh
Chiropractic largely works because it has purged so much of its foundational
ideas and is almost congruous to physiotherapy (albeit with more focus on
manipulative therapy than exercise).

>That's why some alternative medicine solutions sometimes work as well and
even better than modern medicine.

I can see some forms of alternative medicine being complementary (hence the
name), such as meditation or yoga, but better? Could you point to some
examples? Genuinely curious about this.

~~~
lqdc13
Well, the problem is that a lot of times there is no research into them and by
the time there is research, the useful properties are extracted so that a
better modern solution is available.

Basically, the only way to prove that it works is by showing that modern
medicine adopted the approach after systematic evaluation and at that point it
is part of modern medicine.

For example, Artemisinin wasn't known to be useful until 1979 but was a
traditional Chinese medicine in plant form for a very long time.

Another example that still isn't fully accepted is cupping. Wikipedia page on
it suggests that it is not useful beyond placebo. But here [1] is a recent
study that says it's effective. Let's imagine that it is very effective for
some kinds of pain. A modern medicine alternative might be to take some kind
of painkiller that might damage the liver in large doses.

For sore throat, someone might take NiQuil. Some doctors would prescribe
antibiotics just in case it's a bacterial or might have a bacterial follow-up.
Alternative medicine solution is to grind up garlic and eat cabbage soup.
Garlic h as Allicin which kills strep throat. This, I think, is less
intrusive. But I don't know if anyone did a large-scale study where they
compared the two common solutions head to head.

[1]
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4814666/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4814666/)

~~~
cholantesh
>Basically, the only way to prove that it works is by showing that modern
medicine adopted the approach after systematic evaluation and at that point it
is part of modern medicine.

I don't think that's true. That study you linked to indicates that it is
possible to do clinical research on many alternative modalities. Indeed, I see
plenty of papers coming out that make the attempt, and lots of reviews and
meta-analyses thereof. They tend to conclude one of two things:

\- the methodology of the stud[y|ies] is poor

\- the research is positive but too small in scale/particular in conditions to
base decisions on

\- they don't demonstrate a strong correlation between the application of the
treatment and the desired outcome

If some of those studies from the second block were repeated with larger, more
diverse samples, I'd be less wary of alt med in general, I think.

>Another example that still isn't fully accepted is cupping. Wikipedia page on
it suggests that it is not useful beyond placebo. But here [1] is a recent
study that says it's effective.

The Wiki page seems to suggest that cupping, when recommended for chronic
neck/shoulder pain, is treated with cautious optimism by most scientists, for
the reasons noted above. The study you mentioned is strong methodologically,
but the sample size is tiny, and composed primarily of women.

>A modern medicine alternative might be to take some kind of painkiller that
might damage the liver in large doses.

I think this is a pretty unfair stereotype; certainly painkillers are over-
prescribed, but that doesn't mean that all of modern medicine is wrapped up in
the use of pharmaceuticals. Lifestyle changes, physical therapy, massage, etc.
are all things that conventional physicians will recommend.

------
Exofunctor
I am, by most metrics, an ardent globalist; I advocate absolute free trade and
absolute free movement. However, it's not very hard to recognize that many
people's definition of globalism effectively includes such things as forced
immigration, cultural erasure, and overburdening of welfare states, which are
conducive to increased conflict rather than increased cooperation.

~~~
hwillis
>forced immigration, cultural erasure, and overburdening of welfare states,
which are conducive to increased conflict rather than increased cooperation.

We have had all of those things for over a century in the US. You don't even
have to be a citizen to be able to immigrate to any state in the union from
any other state. "Cultural erasure" is even more nonsensical than "cultural
appropriation". Overburdening of welfare states has been fine for the entire
history of the US. These things _made_ the US the most powerful nation in the
world.

The EU is less than half the size of the US. The problems you are describing
are ridiculous and irrelevant.

edit: not to mention, the EU takes in even fewer legal immigrants than the US
does, per capita. "Cultural erasure" doesn't mean tearing down maypoles and
shit, it just means a kebab place opens up down the street. Who could possibly
give a shit about that? NOBODY. except racists, obviously.

~~~
ericd
The US has never had a welfare state remotely comparable to that of the
western European majors. It's one of the reasons we're able to take in
immigrants without caring historically, and the more recent increases in our
welfare system, which I think are directionally a good thing, have the
unfortunate side effect of making it necessary to be more careful about who
you let in and how long before they can become a full citizen, with all the
entitlements that come with it. The European countries also have much more
uniform cultures than the US has ever had, and a vastly longer history and
tradition. It's nowhere near as simple as "Who doesn't want more kebabs?
Clearly, racists." Europe is not currently well set up structurally or
culturally to take in large numbers of people of different cultures.

~~~
hwillis
You're conflating two completely different things with welfare. In the US they
are the same- poor states get immense amounts of Federal assistance to help
poor citizens. In Europe individual states may have welfare systems, but EU
"welfare" is economic assistance to members eg Italy. It has nothing to do
with refugees and immigrants and is just a base factor in the difficulty of
holding together the difficulty of a state, and in that way the member states
of the EU are FAR closer together in economic power than states in the US are.
ie the EU would be much, much easier to run, but as it turns out it takes more
than 25 years for a country to find its feet.

It is as simple as "who doesn't want kebabs", because the number of immigrants
is _stupid_ low. One in 300 does not cultural destruction make, unless your
culture is "no brownies". These cultures have coexisted and coimmigrated for
the better part of a thousand years. The ottomans aren't new. Europeans are
used to muslims. Having a stronger and longer culture makes you MORE resilient
to outside change, not less.

Edit: the us has ten times the number of immigrants in Mexicans alone. The
effect they have had is well described as adding a few ethnic restaurants.
Maybe a few places have chosen to put up bilingual signs. If you consider that
"cultural Erasure", the BASE STATE of Europe is to have a half dozen languages
being spoken in one place. Muslims are simply "the wrong kind", which is
ridiculous as they are just the next country over and always have been. If
anything has contributed to "cultural Erasure" it has been the US, which has
helped impose a monoculture on every nation in Europe.

------
kolbe
[fake news article deleted]

~~~
sparkling
There is not a single credible source for these heart transplant stories. In
fact, not even 1 transplant is document anywhere except on various fake news
outlets.

~~~
mikeyouse
Lol, the linked article above you about the 7th heart transplant claims that
Snopes can't be trusted to debunk the story since they aren't 9/11 truthers.
Too good.

 _Edit, aww, it 's deleted, but their argument refuting Snopes was that Snopes
also doesn't believe the consensus that a missile hit the Pentagon on 9/11 so
you shouldn't trust them._

