31–40 of 166 posts
Dutch 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.
Practically speaking some of today's big companies are branches of the government too.
> 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-s...
Still as relevant today I believe.
Dutch 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.
There 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Practically speaking some of today's big companies are branches of the government too.
Name one?
This led to things such as the FDA not even testing foodstuffs for excessive levels of glyphosate until a Government Accountability Report publicized this [2,3], federal legislation prohibiting state labeling requirements for genetically engineered foodstuffs, the FDA opting for no regulations whatsoever specific to genetic engineering instead offering a purely voluntary consultation process and otherwise relying on self regulation, etc. Monsanto's contemporary success was largely a product of government engineering.
The epilogue also feels somehow political. Shortly after Bayer (a German company) bought Monsanto, they suddenly started losing critical court cases in the US. In particular they've now lost two cases in the US with the courts deciding that Monsanto's glyphosate was the cause of the plaintiff's cancer. This, in turn, has now set the precedent and opened the door for some 11,200 more lawsuits against Bayer for glyphosate causing cancer. In something like 3 years we went from 'This product is so safe, we don't even need to test for it.' to 'This product undoubtedly causes cancer and you now owe billions of dollars in damages to thousands of plaintiffs.' The acquisition was a modern day Trojan Horse.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_R._Taylor
[2] - https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-38
[3] - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-food-agriculture-glyphosa...
Dutch 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.
Also 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
And Adam and Eve were together richer than the USA.
What 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.
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).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another difference is that slavery was not an issue for them.
Yes, 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.
> 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.