Live data from Hacker News

The Dutch East India Co was richer than Apple, Google, Facebook combined (2017)

dutchreview.com

131–140 of 166 posts

Re: The Dutch East India Co was richer than Apple, Google, Facebook combined (2017)

#131
post #80

It 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 pro…

Can 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.

Because inflation doesn't take into account all the improvements that have been made. A liter of milk or a dozen eggs may almost be the same in 1630 and 2019. A square kilometer of farm land is not, since the crop yield today far exceeds that of 1630 (it has increased almost tenfold since 1930 due to mechanization, fertilizers and new grain types). So the same piece of land that could feed a family in 1930 now almost feeds 10 families. And, more importantly, land has many more applications now than back then: Factories, sky scrapers, airports, gardens, etc.

Take our homes. In the 1630s, homes had almost no insulation, no electricity, no central heat, no air conditioning, no shower, actually no running water, not even cold. The people who lived there inhaled smoke from the fireplace all day. They had no toilets or sewers, no internet, no cable TV or radio or cell phone connection. From evening until morning they sat in almost complete darkness since candles or oil lamps or whatever they used were crazy expensive. Houses weren't fire proof, barely water proof, wind proof or earth quake safe.

What I describe was true for the richest too. The very richest king or business owner in 1630 lived in a home, which fits my description. How do you even begin to compare his wealth to your wealth? 1,000 servants still couldn't bring him a tiny fraction of the comfort we enjoy. The very richest king in 1630 was dead poor compared to you. And that's just the material part. People were also exposed to crime in a way that we cannot even begin to imagine, and which you wouldn't even find today in our poorest neighborhoods. And their life would likely end decades before ours, and be a lot more painful. Even the richest business owner would not be able to stop his headache with a pill the way you or I can. Or tooth aches. Or fix a broken leg. A small wound could kill him. Most would see a number of their children die, maybe also wife in child birth.

Inflation numbers capture none of this.

Re: The Dutch East India Co was richer than Apple, Google, Facebook combined (2017)

#132
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As 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).

It does make you wonder what the inflation-adjusted figures are purported to mean even, given that they result in completely ridiculous results. By contrast, an inflation calculator tells me that $100 one hundred years ago is worth around $2,500 now (so 25X). And according to this article https://www.jstor.org/stable/1820827?seq=1#metadata_info_tab... , a pretty typical wage back then was $0.50 per hour. 25X that is…

One aspect to it is that today a smartphone costs a few hundred dollars. Back in the day, no amount of money would allow you to buy one. Maybe to compare East India to current top companies, you'd need to compare the percentage of global GDP to estimate how big they are (and how large they'd most likely be if they continued to exist.)

The base/average salary comparison also makes a lot of sense.

Re: The Dutch East India Co was richer than Apple, Google, Facebook combined (2017)

#133
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As 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).

It does make you wonder what the inflation-adjusted figures are purported to mean even, given that they result in completely ridiculous results. By contrast, an inflation calculator tells me that $100 one hundred years ago is worth around $2,500 now (so 25X). And according to this article https://www.jstor.org/stable/1820827?seq=1#metadata_info_tab... , a pretty typical wage back then was $0.50 per hour. 25X that is…

Inflation is a geometric process, so any errors will greatly compound over long periods of time.

Re: The Dutch East India Co was richer than Apple, Google, Facebook combined (2017)

#135
These 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?

Re: The Dutch East India Co was richer than Apple, Google, Facebook combined (2017)

#136
post #128
post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with the spirit of what you are getting at. Except that it's not fair to simply assume that a good salary was roughly similar in terms of purchasing power across the a few centuries. In fact at that time middle income people were much poorer in terms of what they were able to consume, purchase, and barter.

I finally get to ask someone directly: in “the a few centuries,” are the two articles considered valid English or is it a mistake?

It's a mistake

Re: The Dutch East India Co was richer than Apple, Google, Facebook combined (2017)

#137
post #128
post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with the spirit of what you are getting at. Except that it's not fair to simply assume that a good salary was roughly similar in terms of purchasing power across the a few centuries. In fact at that time middle income people were much poorer in terms of what they were able to consume, purchase, and barter.

I finally get to ask someone directly: in “the a few centuries,” are the two articles considered valid English or is it a mistake?

It is a mistake.

Re: The Dutch East India Co was richer than Apple, Google, Facebook combined (2017)

#139
post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I finally get to ask someone directly: in “the a few centuries,” are the two articles considered valid English or is it a mistake?

It's a mistake

Phew!

Now for the mystery of “the the” which I sometimes encounter...

Re: The Dutch East India Co was richer than Apple, Google, Facebook combined (2017)

#140
post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a mistake

Phew! Now for the mystery of “the the” which I sometimes encounter...

I would assume a typography error unless it is a band name. I've typo'd "the the" more than once.
Post reply on HN