By Professor Nalin Kulatilaka
The Gilded Age, a term coined by Mark Twain and Charles Dudley Warner in their 1873 satirical novel The Gilded Age: A Tale of Today, refers to a transformative period in U.S. history from approximately 1870 to 1900. It was characterized by rapid industrialization, technological innovation, and unprecedented economic expansion, but also by stark inequality, political corruption, and labor unrest. Today, many argue that we are living in a new Gilded Age, defined not by railroads and steel but by the dominance of technology companies and their entrepreneurial leaders. Like their predecessors, today’s tech magnates wield enormous wealth and influence, contributing to the concentration of power and exacerbating social and economic disparities. Examining the historical Gilded Age alongside the current era reveals striking parallels, but also raises questions about how this new age of inequality will evolve.
Several writers and commentators have drawn parallels between today’s tech magnates and the industrialists of the Gilded Age, highlighting similarities in wealth concentration, political influence, and societal impact. Tim Wu, in The Curse of Bigness, argues that tech giants like Amazon and Google mirror the monopolistic practices of Rockefeller and Carnegie, advocating for stronger antitrust enforcement. Jill Lepore critiques the unchecked power of figures like Musk and Zuckerberg, likening them to Gilded Age barons in their accumulation of wealth and evasion of accountability. Franklin Foer, in World Without Mind, explores how tech companies consolidate economic and cultural power in ways reminiscent of the era’s robber barons, while Robert Reich’s The System critiques the systemic inequality and political influence perpetuated by these elites. Shoshana Zuboff’s The Age of Surveillance Capitalism draws parallels to the extractive economies of the Gilded Age, arguing that Big Tech exploits personal data much like industrialists exploited labor and resources. Nicholas Lemann and Emily Chang similarly explore the cultural and economic dominance of today’s tech leaders, noting how their influence echoes that of their historical counterparts, with calls for regulation and reform resembling the Progressive Era response to Gilded Age excesses. These comparisons underscore the persistent tension between innovation, inequality, and the need for accountability in capitalism.
The original Gilded Age was a period of contrasts. Industrialists like Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, and Cornelius Vanderbilt amassed vast fortunes, often employing monopolistic practices to dominate their respective industries. Their wealth allowed them to shape public policy and minimize regulation, while the majority of Americans struggled with poverty, poor working conditions, and a lack of a social safety net. Sociologist Thorstein Veblen’s concept of “conspicuous consumption” aptly described the lavish lifestyles of the wealthy elite, even as urban areas were plagued by overcrowding and unsanitary conditions. Economic historian Robert Higgs emphasized how the laissez-faire policies of the time allowed corporate power to flourish unchecked, deepening inequality.
Today’s economy mirrors many of these dynamics. Entrepreneurs like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg have become the Carnegie and Rockefeller figures of our time, dominating industries from electric vehicles to e-commerce and social media. Their companies have revolutionized daily life but have also concentrated wealth and power to an unprecedented degree. Modern monopolistic practices, such as those of Amazon in retail or Google in digital advertising, echo the market domination of 19th-century trusts. However, the influence of today’s tech leaders extends beyond economic power, encompassing control over communication, data, and even public infrastructure. Musk’s ventures into satellite internet and space exploration, for example, highlight how tech magnates shape both the market and broader societal goals.
The Gilded Age came to an end through economic crises, labor unrest, and political reform. The Panic of 1893 revealed the vulnerabilities of an unregulated economy, leading to widespread unemployment and financial ruin. Labor movements gained momentum, with workers organizing strikes and unions to demand better wages, hours, and conditions. Investigative journalists exposed the era’s injustices, galvanizing public support for reforms. Politicians like Theodore Roosevelt led efforts to regulate corporations, break up monopolies, and protect workers. The resulting Progressive Era marked a transition toward greater government oversight, the establishment of social protections, and attempts to curb the excesses of industrial capitalism.
The current era, however, presents challenges that differ in scale and scope. While the inequalities of the late 19th century were largely tied to industrial labor and resource extraction, today’s disparities are deeply embedded in the financialization of the economy and the rise of a globalized elite. Sociologist Brooke Harrington’s Capital Without Borders reveals how wealth managers enable the ultra-wealthy to shield their assets through tax havens, trusts, and other tools. These mechanisms allow the rich to avoid taxation and public scrutiny, depriving governments of resources for public goods. Economists Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson, in their influential book Why Nations Fail, emphasize how economic and political institutions shape inequality. They argue that extractive institutions—those that concentrate power and wealth in the hands of a few—undermine inclusive development and perpetuate cycles of inequality, a dynamic increasingly visible in the tech-dominated global economy.
Acemoglu and Robinson’s framework highlights how today’s tech billionaires often wield disproportionate influence over public policy, shaping regulations and laws to benefit their interests. The election of Donald Trump, whose tax reforms disproportionately favored the wealthy, underscores this dynamic. By reducing corporate tax rates and weakening regulatory oversight, Trump’s policies mirrored the laissez-faire ethos of the Gilded Age, exacerbating inequality while curtailing investments in public goods such as education and healthcare. Similarly, the lobbying efforts of tech companies have successfully stymied antitrust actions and privacy regulations, allowing them to entrench their dominance further.
Not everyone agrees with this critical assessment of the new Gilded Age. Conservative thinkers and free-market advocates argue that the wealth generated by tech leaders drives innovation and economic growth. Milton Friedman’s contention that the primary responsibility of businesses is to maximize shareholder value aligns with the view that the accumulation of wealth by figures like Musk and Bezos represents a natural and beneficial outcome of market dynamics. Proponents of this perspective often argue that government intervention risks stifling innovation and that the market, left to its own devices, will eventually correct disparities through competition and consumer choice.
Critics of these arguments, however, point to the structural advantages that monopolistic firms enjoy. Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century underscores how unchecked wealth concentration is not an accident of market forces but a systemic feature of capitalism. He argues that capital’s ability to grow faster than the broader economy entrenches inequality unless actively countered by policies such as progressive taxation. Joseph Stiglitz, in The Price of Inequality, similarly warns that concentrated wealth distorts not only economic opportunities but also democratic governance, as the rich use their resources to influence elections, shape policy, and protect their interests.
As we consider how the current Gilded Age might unfold, several possible trajectories emerge. One scenario is a growing backlash against inequality, mirroring the labor movements and progressive reforms of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Efforts to regulate tech monopolies, such as antitrust investigations into Amazon, Google, and Facebook, suggest a renewed willingness to challenge concentrated corporate power. Proposals for wealth taxes and universal basic income also reflect a broader recognition of the need for systemic change.
However, the tools available to today’s ultra-wealthy are far more sophisticated than those of the past. Harrington’s research highlights the transnational networks that allow elites to evade taxation and regulation, operating beyond the reach of individual governments. This globalization of wealth complicates efforts to enforce policies designed to redistribute income or curtail monopoly power. Without significant international coordination, national-level reforms may struggle to address the root causes of inequality.
Technology itself presents additional challenges. Unlike the industrial economy of the Gilded Age, today’s tech-driven economy is deeply integrated into everyday life. Platforms like Facebook and Twitter shape political discourse, while Amazon and Google dictate consumer behavior. This integration complicates efforts to dismantle or regulate these companies, as doing so risks disrupting vital services. Moreover, the rapid pace of technological change often outstrips the ability of regulators to respond, leaving gaps that companies can exploit.
Public perception also plays a critical role. Figures like Musk and Zuckerberg often present themselves as visionaries, aligning their work with broader societal goals such as renewable energy, space exploration, or global connectivity. This narrative can deflect criticism and make it harder to galvanize public support for reform. However, as concerns about labor practices, environmental impacts, and the monopolistic tendencies of tech giants grow, these leaders may face greater scrutiny, much like the industrialists of the Gilded Age.
Whether today’s era mirrors the outcome of the original Gilded Age depends on society’s ability to address structural inequality and adapt to the unique challenges of the present. If history is any guide, public dissatisfaction, grassroots activism, and political reform could spark a new wave of progressive change. However, as Acemoglu and Robinson warn, entrenched elites are unlikely to relinquish their power voluntarily. The work of Harrington, Piketty, Stiglitz, and others underscores the need for systemic reforms that go beyond piecemeal solutions, focusing on the institutions and structures that perpetuate inequality.
Right-wing perspectives, emphasizing the importance of innovation and market-driven solutions, offer a counterpoint to these critiques. Yet the lessons of the Gilded Age suggest that unchecked power and wealth, left to market forces alone, risk undermining both democracy and economic stability. If we are indeed living in a new Gilded Age, the path forward will require not only learning from the past but also addressing the unique complexities of today’s interconnected and tech-driven world. Only through bold and coordinated action can we hope to build a more equitable and sustainable future.
