12 ms·
The Dutch East India Co was richer than Apple, Google, Facebook combined (2017)
- xeeeeeeeeeeenu 8y agoDutch East India Company had its own colonies and army. Practically speaking, it was a branch of the Dutch government, so comparing it to the contemporary companies doesn't make much sense.
- black-tea 8y agoPractically speaking some of today's big companies are branches of the government too.
- garmaine 8y agoOutside of company towns in a few industries, and maybe some multi-national resource extraction companies that operate in lawless areas, how is this true?
- caymanjim 8y agoThere aren't too many, but Saudi Aramco, Statoil (until 2007, when it became the multinational Equinor), China Petrochemical, and a few other giant corporations exist (or in the case of Statoil, recently existed). Corporations wholly owned by nations. I think that qualifies. Although I believe the parent was perhaps making a cynical comment about how e.g. Lockheed is basically a branch of the US military.
- dymbo 8y agoStatoil became Equinor in 2018, not 2007. Also, Equinor is still largely owned by the Norwegian government (67% as of 2017)
- debaserab2 8y agoName one?
- black-tea 8y agoDisney is mostly responsible for copyright in the US being extended to ludicrous lengths. They changed the law so they could keep making money. Also these copyright companies seem to get special treatment by the government. Notice how they are able to use police to "raid" data centres etc.? In the UK a young guy who ran a torrent site was raided by police in the early hours only to be released without charge months later. These companies have special powers in government, hence practically they are a part of the government.
- kmlx 8y agodisney is a publicly traded company. i own stock in disney :)
- ummonk 8y agoThe Dutch East India Company was publicly traded too.
- mcv 8y agoIt was in fact the first company in the world that was publicly traded at the world's first stock exchange.
- jeffwass 8y agoThere were bonds issued by Dutch East India Company https://brbl-dl.library.yale.edu/vufind/Record/3433724 https://brbl-dl.library.yale.edu/vufind/Record/3433724
- wcoenen 8y agoBonds are just a debt instrument, they don't give control over companies like stocks. The VOC also had publicly tradable stocks though.
- ekianjo 8y agoNot really, what you see rather is Crony capitalism which is when government and large corporations work together to further their interests, often in what should be considered an illegal way.
- VvR-Ox 8y agoThe problem is that the wealthy people are the one's who govern. (they define what is and what isn't legal) This is interconnected and to change it would mean to break it up somehow. Therefor you'd need to change the premise that "wealth is power" which is a basic equation of our global system since centuries.
- paganel 8y agoNot sure why you got down-voted, as I remember that as recently as the early 2010s some US agencies were still involved in industrial espionage on behalf of US companies. From a 2014 Snowden interview [1]: > The U.S. National Security Agency is involved in industrial espionage and will grab any intelligence it can get its hands on regardless of its value to national security, former NSA contractor Edward Snowden told a German TV network. (...) “If there’s information at Siemens that’s beneficial to U.S. national interests - even if it doesn’t have anything to do with national security - then they’ll take that information nevertheless,” Snowden said, according to ARD, which recorded the interview in Russia where he has claimed asylum. [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-security-snowden-germany/snowden-says-nsa-engages-in-industrial-espionage-tv-idUSBREA0P0DE20140126 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-security-snowden-germany/...
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- amelius 8y agoAnother difference is that slavery was not an issue for them.
- antt 8y agoYes, imagine how much more efficient Microsoft and Apple would be if they could hire slaves directly instead of having to rely on warlords in Africa to do it for them.
- beart 8y agoSlaves aren’t hired.
- bartimus 8y agoIt looks like slaves were more like merchandise for the VOC. And not really that significant for their trade. They were bought from existing slave markets. Slaves were mainly captured by local Africans (from other tribes). > the Dutch had only a relatively insignificant share in the Atlantic slave trade—never averaging much more than 5–6 per cent of the total. https://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/545 https://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/545
- cyphunk 8y agoAdditional information about the companies use of slaves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_India_Company#Slavery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_India_Company#Slave...
- EvagohP5 8y agoit isn't either for Apple fam
- psychoslave 8y agoAs in "You don’t know it, but you’re working for Facebook. For free."[1]? [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/07/22/you-dont-know-it-but-youre-working-for-facebook-for-free/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.35ce9c07a85e https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/07...
- consp 8y agoThere are several companies working, especially in the middle East and Africa, who have private armies (sometimes naively called security companies). The comparison hold up here. And until the government took possession of the company in the early 19th century, it was controlled by it's board, not the government. So yes, it was a company. Sanctioned by, but not reporting to, the government.
- ekianjo 8y agoHaving private security companies makes sense to protect your operations in certain areas where police is deficient. But you will not really see companies invading territories using force these days. That is pretty much the monopoly of government forces.
- Sharlin 8y agoI wouldn't be surprised if they would, if only there still were nonsovereign territories (in the sense of "having a flag" [1]) around for taking. [1] https://youtu.be/uEx5G-GOS1k https://youtu.be/uEx5G-GOS1k
- kiliantics 8y agoIt's still being done, it just looks a little different. Instead of sending our own army in, you arm/fund rebel groups to invade and then do your bidding. Or, if you're really powerful, you ask the US government and they will send in the CIA/army to "topple a corrupt regime" that was stymying your business pursuits.
- mcv 8y agoWas the VOC a branch of the Dutch government, or was the Dutch government a branch of the VOC? The Dutch government was extremely trade-oriented during the 17th century, and the army would be deployed to protect the trade interests of the VOC.
- avenius 8y agoI believe it started out as an independent company, but was later taken over by the Dutch government.
- AndyMcConachie 8y agoThe real innovation of the VOC was how they financed things. Prior to the VOC exploration was funded by monarchs. The VOC brought in the concept of banking and share holding. Later on this spawned things like risk management and the insurance industry.
- JackFr 8y agoOne of the VOC's innovations was permanent capitalization. Prior to them, spice trading enterprises to the Indies were literally venture capital. Money was put up at the the start of the voyage and all assets were liquidated at the return. The enterprise lasted only as long as the voyage there and back. Some traders started putting together packages of voyages, again always with the stipulation that assets would be liquidated at a certain point. The bold innovation of the VOC was allow shares to be tradable, with claims on profits, and thus the enterprise could be permanently capitalized.
- jillesvangurp 8y agoThe Dutch government at the time was sort of an anomaly in the sense that after kicking out the Spanish army, it sort of accidentally became a federation of provinces without a proper monarch and a relatively strong navy. Also, a lot of oppressed jews, protestants, etc. found refuge in Amsterdam bringing in a lot of capital. So in that climate of relative peace, tolerance, cultural intermingling, and trading, a lot of innovative stuff (financially, scientifically, etc.) happened in a short span of time. Trade was indeed a big driver and the VoC basically was one of the first companies/multinationals that used the stock market to raise capital to build an enormous amount of ships that definitely had a lot of defensive/offensive capability. So the VoC was its own navy effectively. Ship building at the time was labor and capital intensive and required access to a lot of resources (e.g. timber). So capital and easy access to local trade routes (the rhine, baltics, etc.) was essential. When these ships started bringing back goods from Africa and the Indian Ocean regions, people started making lots of money. Dominating the channel militarily and being able to deal with the French, Spanish, and British navies also was key. The scale of the VoC was simply unprecedented.
- chewz 8y agoThere were other private colonial enterprises - British India Company, Kingdom of Sarawak, Kongo Abir Company. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company 2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abir_Congo_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abir_Congo_Company 3 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Sarawak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Sarawak
- Scarblac 8y agoEven crazier, Abir operated in Congo Free State (the present-day Democratic Republic of the Congo). That was a private, personally owned colony of King Leopold II of Belgium. At the end of the 19th century. Congo is enormous.
- Aunche 8y agoInterestingly enough, the GDP of the Netherlands today is "only" $800 billion, which is a tenth of what the article claims the Dutch East India company is worth.
- lota-putty 8y ago"Modern-day Companies Don’t Even Compare! (And That’s a Good Thing!)" Nope, it's not a good thing; but a step in right direction.
- san_dimitri 8y agoI don’t think it’s a valid comparison. Comparing a company which had an army and used force to occupy and obtain its wealth is not how corporates work today. Today there is deceptive advertising and marketing which are not the same as army and force.
- pjmlp 8y agoI bet there are a couple of armies and corrupt goverments on the payroll of some corporations, tracked down as business expenses.
- apexalpha 8y agoSaudi-Aramco might be something that comes very close to the VOC: a for-profit company protected by armed forces, arguably for hire.
- kiliantics 8y agoThere are plenty of companies using de-facto militaries for their wealth extraction, e.g. in African mines: https://projects.icij.org/fatalextraction/ https://projects.icij.org/fatalextraction/ Colonialism is still alive and kicking
- Macross8299 8y agoDon't let facts get in the way of populist anti-tech feelings.
- Leary 8y agoAnd Adam and Eve were together richer than the USA.
- Erlich_Bachman 8y agoWhat do you even mean? It sounds like a witty metaphor for something, but even for what? DEIco is a real historical enterprise with well-documented operations.
- Illniyar 8y agoI assume he meant to decry the use of inflation adjusting and similar shenanigans to be able to compare two groups in vastly different ages. It is similar to saying that a peasant in today's world eats/lives better then a king a thousand years ago. For instance if you use percentage of world wealth as ameasure, then Adam controlled 50% of the world's wealth, arguably the richest person to ever live (or mythologically live at least).
- arcticbull 8y agoIn general I agree with the sentiment but in the case of the VOC they owned the entire nation of Indonesia. Jakarta was a trading post they founded (nee Batavia). First company in the history of the world to issue shares to the public and an 18% divided for 200 years. They owned 2000 ships (more than Maersk, which has “just” 786) It’s probably fair to compare them to the conglomerates of today in inflation adjusted dollars.
- ionised 8y agoI doubt a peasant today eats as well as a King of even 1000 years ago. Lives better, maybe. Eats better? Hell no.
- shardinator 8y agoAnd same but differently I doubt a king of today eats as well as a peasant of a thousand years ago - aside from famine times. Today we all eat just a few plant and (for most) animal species. This is bad for the gut microbiome, health and our enjoyment of life in general - and its prob true for even the most wealthy.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- caymanjim 8y agoThe Mississippi Company was never really worth $6.5T in any meaningful sense. Unlike Dutch East India, Mississippi was purely a speculative bubble. It only hit that value for a few weeks at the end before the whole thing imploded.
- dredmorbius 8y agoWhat is value?
- rejschaap 8y agoIn the article they seem to use the maximum attained market capitalization during its existence indexed to current day dollars.
- ekianjo 8y agoThat's not a good definition of value if you enter into a phase of speculation.
- anonymous5133 8y agoHe never said it was a good definition of value.
- dredmorbius 8y agoWhat's a better one?
- dredmorbius 8y agoAre markets fair, efficient, omniscient, and/or rational? What alternatives exist for defining value? What do we mean by value?
- dalbasal 8y agoSouth sea company too. That said, you could make a similar case about apple. If you measure by dividends, I think the VOC's lead over all those companies grows by a lot.
- oldFrisco 8y agoSo does that, somewhat, imply that New Amsterdam was something of a Dutch expat's whirlpool for former FAANG tech workers? Like, working as an employee for The DEIC meant you gained safe access to the best naval pipeline operating relays that served to convey those "In The Know" to The New World? ...and then, once they got some skin in the game, maybe they could stick their finger in the pie, and operate side hustles, involving trade or travel? Seems like if this were true, Old Amsterdam might be today's San Franciso. But, if San Francisco is Amsterdam, where's tomorrow's New York? Maybe it's a moon base? Perhaps a Martian colony?
- ignoramous 8y agoVOC (Dutch East India Company) was more powerful than most nations at the time. I asked this question on Quora once and got interesting answers [0]. VOC was an incredible enterprise, and there are a few today too, imo, they exist as conglomerates (Samsung, P&G, Amazon), political entities (CIA, CPC), monopolies (Maersk, Google), syndicates (DeBeers [1], NeoAristocrats [2], BigPharma, BigBank, BigSugar, BigOil), and cults (ISIS). These select few have an immeasurable and uncontrolled sway over the globe-- its environment [3], its inhabitants [4], its future [5], its past [6], its present [7]. The greed unrelenting [8], the game rigged [9][10]. -- [0] https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-companies-that-are-powerful-than-most-nations-in-the-world https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-companies-that-are-power... [1] http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you-ever-tried-to-sell-a-diamond/304575/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you... [2] https://youtu.be/d_zt3kGW1NM https://youtu.be/d_zt3kGW1NM [3] https://theintercept.com/2015/08/11/dupont-chemistry-deception/ https://theintercept.com/2015/08/11/dupont-chemistry-decepti... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosures_(2013%E2%80%93present) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosure... [5] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16208421 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16208421 [6] https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00ICN066A https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00ICN066A [7] http://money.com/money/3994949/wikipedia-paid-editors/ http://money.com/money/3994949/wikipedia-paid-editors/ [8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil-storage_trade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil-storage_trade [9] https://www.amazon.com/dp/1593764278 https://www.amazon.com/dp/1593764278 [10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers edit: links
- ekianjo 8y agoHow is P&G a conglomerate? Samsung and most large Japanese companies are conglomerates but P&G does not fit the bill at all.
- anonymous5133 8y agoIt was just the wrong word choice. OP is just talking about very large companies in general.
- kodz4 8y ago
- boramalper 8y ago> For while Smith might be publicly lauded by those who put their faith in private capitalist enterprise, and who decry the state as the chief threat to liberty and prosperity, the real Adam Smith painted a rather different picture. According to Smith, the most pressing dangers came not from the state acting alone, but the state when captured by merchant elites. > The context of Smith’s intervention in The Wealth of Nations was what he called ‘the mercantile system’. By this Smith meant the network of monopolies that characterised the economic affairs of early modern Europe. Under such arrangements, private companies lobbied governments for the right to operate exclusive trade routes, or to be the only importers or exporters of goods, while closed guilds controlled the flow of products and employment within domestic markets. The real Adam Smith: https://aeon.co/essays/we-should-look-closely-at-what-adam-smith-actually-believed https://aeon.co/essays/we-should-look-closely-at-what-adam-s... Still as relevant today I believe.
- inglor 8y agoAlso mentioned: The south sea company was basically a huge banking bubble scam. It is quite an interesting tale: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1kndKWJKB8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1kndKWJKB8
- arcticbull 8y agoHello? Bitcoin? Is that you? Nah just a ghost of poor banking decisions past. Spooky.
- 0xname 8y agoAlthough many can see Bitcoin as a scam, I think the South Sea bubble is in a different league altogether. Financial schemes such as introducing crazy loans, coupled with the (essentially) full backing of the government at the time lured in even people like Isaac Newton. Bitcoin in comparison does not even match the hype the South Sea had at the time (nor will it have the power to carry a nation in debt for more than 100 years)
- fsloth 8y agoI think Bitcoin resembles the Mississippi company a bit more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_Company TLDR: Scottish gambler becomes the most influential financial state official in France and uses his power to create an impossible financial scheme, makes everyone crazy for stocks for a colony that is mostly composed of colonists dying of hardship, resulting in an implosion of French Economy. Scottish, oh how they've been around. This is a funny sidenote to one of the founding fathers of US, Alexander Hamilton, who was as well of scottish heritage but created a financial system that did not implode.
- VintageCool 8y agoScotland agreed to merger with England in 1707 after the country was financially ruined by another crazy scheme in the Americas. They had tried to create a colony in Panama, in an area which is "virtually uninhabited" today.
- occamschainsaw 8y agoI wonder how the British East India Company compared to its Dutch equivalent. I am too tired to write a comprehensive post right now, but with the Opium Wars and the monopoly on the Indian Subcontinent, I think the British EIC would be more powerful (and wealthier) than the Dutch EIC. Here are some (probably low quality) sources [0], [1]. Will write a better comment tomorrow after work. [0] https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-the-Dutch-East-India-Company-and-the-British-East-India-Company-Why-the-similar-names-Which-one-was-bigger https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-the-Dut... [1] https://indonesiaexpat.biz/travel/history-culture/colonies-dutch-east-indies-vs-british-india/ https://indonesiaexpat.biz/travel/history-culture/colonies-d...
- chewz 8y agoYou are comparing apples to oranges ie. VOC at XVII/XVII century to British EIC at end of XVIII/XIX century. Dutch had been able/lucky to grab/monopolize the most profitable trading route and hold to it. But at some point spice trade lost its appeal. British had been unable to muscle into Dutch controlled trade (they have invented 'free trade' to justify their attempts). But in their 2nd best trading posts in India British EIC had to built up military (because Indian and French presented tough military opposition) and find creative ways to finance its presence there (textiles, opium). As a results after 200 years British EIC became a force to recon with while Dutch VOC had been in decline.
- ghda 8y ago> The VOC’s stocks pushed the company’s worth to a massive 78 million Dutch guilders, which is a pretty solid business even today, but translates to a whopping $7,9 trillion dollar worth today… Yes, really, trillion. That’s 7,900 billion – or 79,000 million! Leaving aside the terrible everything-must-be-clickbait-nowadays writing style, that doesn’t sound right. Comparisons of monetary values over timescales of centuries are always pretty fraught, but this one sounds like pure rubbish. According to that conversion, a single Dutch guilder was worth $100,000 in today’s money, which sounds like an unreasonable amount of money to be carrying around in a single coin. As it happens I was doing a bit of research on prices in this era the other day after watching a movie about the Dutch tulip mania (Tulip Fever, 2017) and trying to put the thousands-of-guilder prices being paid for tulip bulbs in that movie into perspective. The Wikipedia article on the tulip craze mentions that a skilled workman made about 300 guilders a year, which would represent about $30 million if we take this site’s conversion at face value.
- brettonwoods111 8y agohow can you compare money from befor bretton woods and after, though?
- jayalpha 8y agoAre Apple Google and Facebook so rich? And how do you measure it? (Have not read the link). t the time of his death in 1937, John D. Rockefeller was worth an estimated $1.4 billion. Rockefeller was the first man in history to ever accumulate more than $1 billion (nominal dollars) in total wealth. Rockefeller's $1.4 billion net worth in 1937 was 1/65th of the total GDP of the United States. In 2011, the total GDP of the United States was $15.09 trillion. If somebody currently had 1/65th of the total GDP of the United States, they would have a fortune of over $232 billion. It's also important to note that Rockefeller gave away over $500 million (nominal dollars) over his lifetime, which helped to significantly shrink his net worth.
- zeropnc 8y ago> 232 billion I mean, there's a guy coming pretty close to that right now.
- melling 8y agoHe just lost 25% of his money.
- _Codemonkeyism 8y agoHow was it "his" money?
- _Codemonkeyism 8y agoTo explain: My wife founded a startup and owns it. But we both worked really hard in the beginning, and I've lost quite some income as an opportunity. So the value of Amazon if this is the same rightfully to some part belongs to his wife and that part not "his" to lose.
- Cthulhu_ 8y agoNowadays wealth is no longer really hoarded by individuals, but shared with employees and shareholders in the form of stocks and whatnot.
- dalbasal 8y agoThe history of these companies (also the British east India company, and the various British and French companies of the Americas) is a massive part of modern history, and how the world got to where we are. They were richer than monarchies, had armies, controlled massive colonies, founded cities, printed money, made international trade deals/wars. They ran circles around the older form of monarchy-run-empires like the Portuguese and Spanish. Late European colonial empires inherited their empires. When Marx wrote about international capitalism (eg capitalism as a "fourth estate") in the 1840s, this is what he was referring to.
- em500 8y agoThis is a non-sensical article, relying on some obfuscating math hidden behind "Infl. Adjusted". Inflation adjustments gets pretty fuzzy even in the same nation across a few decades, let alone between different nations across centuries. The article equates the 1637 peak valuation of 78 million guilders with current day 7,900,000 million dollars (not the 79,000 million according to the bad math in the article!). Now consider that the initial capital raised for the company was 6.4 million guilders in 1602. That would be around 600 billion USD. (I'm neglecting inflation between 1602 and 1637 here, that doesn't change my point.) This was raised around 1800 families, with share varying from 50 to 85,000 guilders, which according to the implied inflation/currency conversion is between 5 million and 8.6 billion USD. How credible is is this conversion factor? Consider as another reference that the nominal value increased 12 fold over 35 years. Todays elite PE/VC/incubators would probably scoff at such low ambitions. (Though the East India Co was pretty profitable and paid handsome dividends, so the returns are higher than capital gains.)
- em500 8y agoAs another reference point, an annual salary for low-to-medium skilled labour in mid-17th century Holland was around 100 to 200 guilders, which would be about 20 million USD according to the implied "Infl. Adjusted" conversion in the article (upon which the entire premise of the article rests).
- close04 8y agoI think the best measure would be what percentage of the total world's wealth (valuation?) does a company represent at some point.
- em500 8y agoGood luck estimating both 17th-century world wealth in Dutch guilders and 21st-century world wealth in USD, both within an order of magnitude. That's at leasts several months, if not years worth of research work in there.
- flexie 8y agoIt is impossible to compare wealth across centuries. Even really difficult across decades. The owners of the Dutch East India Company endured conditions poor Europeans would find appalling today. I'd say the average welfare client lives a far more powerful, peaceful, safe and comfortable life today. And if by wealth we mean power or abilities, at the height of it's power, whether we talk shipping, trading or ship production, the combined manpower of the Dutch East India Company could't produce an output greater than that of a tiny company today.
- RosanaAnaDana 8y agoCan you dig into that more and explain why it is so difficult to compare wealth across centuries? It would seem to me that you would just find some basic unit to divide against (a dozen eggs; a liter of milk; a sq kilometer of land), and then scale? Whats wrong with my presumption? I know there must be quite a bit wrong with it, but I'm not familiar with economics whatsoever.
- bluGill 8y agoThere are many problems, all interrelated. First, how do you compare eggs? 1 egg cost X then Y now is one measure. A different measure is what % of an average person's wages did would it cost to buy the egg. Oh wait, the average person was a farmer who didn't buy eggs they went to the check coop to get them (even city folks are likely to have kept chickens): the only people buying eggs were rich who may not have paid real value prices. Then we have to ask what egg to compare to today - the common white egg, a brown egg, organic, pasture raised, a farm fresh egg delivered that morning... Then there is efficiency improvements. Feed is cheap today because one farmer can raise thousands of acres of feed. Automation can feed millions of chickens in a barn... Then there is supply and demand. A few years ago there was an avian bird flu epidemic and egg prices went up 3x over a matter of a few months and then back down. We know from history that there were famine years which would raise prices. Both of these factors exist outside of inflation and are sometimes not recorded well (do you remember the epidemic?) Now take the above - any measure - and compare a liter of milk: the differences will not be the same. That is just trying to compare Apples to Apples. However there is an additional problem: advancing technology. Today most on welfare (this limits us to rich countries, there are still villages of mud huts) have things like air conditioning and fast cars: luxuries that in the past the rich couldn't get any form of equivalent of. Then there are things where there was an analog but it was obviously inferior: TV (500 channels 24/7 as opposed to a live play), washing machines (the maids did laundry but the cost was much higher even if they were slaves)... That is the poor, middle class can afford airplanes trips once in a while.
- sasasassy 8y agoI didn't check the math but it doesn't surprise me. These guilds were quite often in the business of war making and colonisation, selling ads seem paltry in comparison.
- jobigoud 8y agoI don't know, today they can sell ads targetting the more than 4 billion people that are on Internet. Back then the total population was half a billion and most weren't potential targets for any market.
- SRTP 8y ago>The VOC’s stocks pushed the company’s worth to a massive 78 million Dutch guilders, which is a pretty solid business even today, but translates to a whopping $7,9 trillion dollar worth today… Yes, really, trillion. That’s 7,900 billion – or 79,000 million! The math doesn't seem right.
- adictator 8y agoIndia is the land of fertility, since time immemorial. Any business in India is bound to succeed in India & that only increases with time. It is not just fertility, but spirituality in India (as opposed to the fake spirituality in the rest of the world) that aids in success in India. Most people, including Indians are ignorant to these facts & want to destroy India & what it stands for. What a pity!
- jpttsn 8y agoWere the pyramids also taller than the Burj Khalifa? That stretches the definition of “tall” dangerously thin.
- algaeontoast 8y agoI think the closest modern day equivalent to the Dutch East India Co, at least in regards to their financial and strategic ties to a nation state, is the relation of Emaar (a state owned and funded global property developer) and the UAE (which in current times is basically Saudi Arabia). For reference Emaar was the company that built the Burj Khalifa (formerly the Burj Dubai before funding ran out), Dubai Mall, Skii Dubai etc...
- pier25 8y agoSo where did all that money go? To the British crown?
- Razengan 8y agoThese comparisons of wealth across different eras seem kind of stupid: I, a barely-middle-class individual, can own and have access to things and services that the richest nobility of 100 years ago wouldn't have been able to even dream of. Everybody can go to almost anywhere in the world within basically 24 hours, whereas a century ago long-distance journeys were measured in weeks and months. In a couple generations, hopefully, ordinary people may even be able to take trips to the moon, and at least into orbit during this generation. How do you account for that in these kinds of comparisons?
- cromulent 8y agoIt does seem really difficult. You have to pay people enough to live a normal life, which has changed dramatically over time. Now we expect disposable income, savings, healthcare, car purchase, devices etc. Back then, enough to eat daily may have been enough.
- oarsinsync 8y agoI'd settle for the previous generation which could afford to buy a house and own it in full before their kids became adults.
- cr0sh 8y agoOne thing that hasn't changed, though, in comparisons of wealth, is the size of one's house. While a high-ranking official or royalty in the middle ages couldn't travel anywhere in 24 hours, if you look at their house(s), many of them compare favorably to what the ultra-rich are able to purchase/build today in square feet (though today, the wealthy - and the lesser folk - have better materials to build with when it comes to insulation, plus central HVAC and other amenities of course). They also had an equivalent amount of hired labor (perhaps in some cases, even more, because they didn't have amenities we take for granted today, like indoor running water). But just in raw square footage under roof, some of those places that are still standing today are pretty amazing, and would be amazing to own today (provided you could afford the maintenance and upkeep). This holds almost as far back in history as you want to go. Height, though - we have them beat, there. An ultra-wealthy person, if they wanted to (there are few today that I have read about) - could have a modern skyscraper built for a home (or renovate one into a personal home, provided zoning allows for it - which I am sure, if you are wealthy enough, you can get a waiver for).
- anuraj 8y agoAnd to think that this great company was defeated once and for all at the Battle of Colachel by Travancore King Marthanda Varma and faded away soon after :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Colachel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Colachel
- amriksohata 8y agoEven if the inflation figures arent 100% accurate, there is no doubt this was the reason behind the British calling India the "jewel" in the crown, so many countries looted India, including the Portuguese, Dutch and British. They had spices and cotton, the modern day "oil" now that there is nothing more to be gained from India they have moved onto the middle east, then onto the services sector blah blah wherever the next area that can be exploited with greed.