Book links US tech monopoly mindset to centuries of inequality thought
A new history of American anti-egalitarianism explains how modern tech titans built an intellectual justification for extreme wealth concentration that now shapes transatlantic markets.
Historian Kim Phillips-Fein has published "Country of Lords," a book mapping the intellectual history of American opposition to equality from the nation's founding to the modern tech era. Released amid the 250th anniversary of the declaration of independence, the text traces a continuous lineage of thinkers who rejected the premise that all men are created equal.
For European markets, this ideological history matters because it explains the structural hostility US tech giants display toward collective economic models. Phillips-Fein notes the book arrives as figures like Elon Musk approach trillionaire status, sparking deep public fear and anger regarding the impact of extreme economic concentration.
The author argues that today’s tech monopolists are not an anomaly but the latest iteration of a long American tradition. She connects modern Silicon Valley directly to figures like William Shockley, the transistor co-inventor whose later embrace of racist pseudoscience responded to the civil rights era's assertions that poverty stemmed from political structures, not innate merit.
The book details how Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel adapted economist Joseph Schumpeter’s theories to justify market disruption. Thiel argues that those blessed with the genius to create something entirely new "deserve to win in this race and deserve to command the resources of society." He champions the creation of a "monopoly of one" as the ultimate victory in the marketplace.
For European regulators and investors already clashing with US tech giants over market dominance, this historical context is instructive. It shows that the current wave of wealth concentration is driven by a deeply ingrained ideology that views extreme inequality as not just inevitable, but desirable.
Phillips-Fein links this modern mindset back to 19th-century tycoons like Andrew Carnegie, who viewed wealth concentration as necessary but politically dangerous. Carnegie believed massive philanthropic projects were preferable to raising wages, a paternalistic approach that echoes in today's corporate social responsibility drives.
The book traces this skepticism of egalitarianism back to founder John Adams, who harbored a deep wariness of politics claiming to pursue greater equality. Ultimately, "Country of Lords" frames the transatlantic economic divide not just as a regulatory skirmish, but as a clash between European social models and an American intellectual tradition that fundamentally rejects them. As Phillips-Fein asks, extreme wealth concentration forces a stark question: "Can you still have a democracy any longer?"
