
The Dutch East India Co was richer than Apple, Google, Facebook combined (2017) - sytelus
https://dutchreview.com/culture/history/how-rich-was-the-dutch-east-india-company
======
em500
This 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
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).

~~~
CydeWeys
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...](https://www.jstor.org/stable/1820827?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents)
, a pretty typical wage back then was $0.50 per hour. 25X that is $12.50,
which sounds about right as a typical median wage nowadays (perhaps a bit low;
there is a real increase in standard of living over this time period too). So
the inflation figures going back at least a hundred years do make sense. What
causes them to break down when you try to go back much farther, then? Are the
inflation figures simply wrong? Are there compounding errors that, over enough
time, make the result completely ridiculous?

~~~
notahacker
Inflation is usually measured as the change over time in the prices of a
"representative" basket of goods (and _which_ goods in which proportion is a
pretty subjective choice). Over time, the costs of particular goods diverge a
lot, especially with respect to wages, and how important those goods are to
the economy also varies a lot.

The purchasing power of a typical weekly wage in 1800 or 1637 looks very
different depending on whether you express it in terms of bread rolls, non-
leather settees or bluetooth speakers (all of which are constituent parts of
the modern UK CPI index)

~~~
CydeWeys
Excellent point. So it sounds like the basket of goods wasn't chosen
correctly, or not changed often enough to be representative across each time
line, or something? Because it simply cannot be a valid result that a typical
wage way back then (when standards of living were much lower) is worth
millions of dollars today.

------
flexie
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 production, the combined manpower of
the Dutch East India Company could't produce an output greater than that of a
tiny company today.

~~~
RosanaAnaDana
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.

~~~
flexie
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.

~~~
cr0sh
> The very richest king in 1630 was dead poor compared to you.

I guess it depends on how and what you compare things.

All you say is arguably true. Yet I can guarantee that in one manner, those
people were as wealthy or potentially wealthier than most of the ultra-wealthy
of today:

Because they owned land.

If you look at the sheer square footage of their "houses" (palaces) - not
including the surrounding estate land - they tend to be very large and
grandiose sprawling things.

While the ultra-wealthy of today do own a lot of land (and in some cases,
perhaps more than the richest of kings back then) - the majority of people
have little to none (and of those that do, most don't have the mineral rights
to their land).

In that manner, there isn't much comparison. The question of whether or what
is the better trade-off can be quibbled over; after all, all the land in the
world back then couldn't transport one halfway across the world in hours - but
some today might see that tradeoff as fair, and others back then might have
traded all of their land in order to be able to stream youtube to a handheld
"magical" device.

But the ultra-wealthy of today are able to have virtually everything the
ultra-wealthy back then had (and in some cases, that even includes a "standing
army" more or less), plus all the extras normal people have access to today.

------
xeeeeeeeeeeenu
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.

~~~
black-tea
Practically speaking some of today's big companies are branches of the
government too.

~~~
debaserab2
Name one?

~~~
jacquesm
Blackwater/Xe/Academi/whatever they will whitewash their name to next.

~~~
AndyMcConachie
Mercenary outfits are by definition not part of the government. That's what
makes them mercenaries.

------
caymanjim
The 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.

~~~
dalbasal
South 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.

~~~
caymanjim
Apple's value isn't just dividends. They have literally hundreds of billions
in cash, about 25% of their market cap. They have vast other assets, both
material and otherwise (the brand alone is worth real money). Their revenue is
over $300B per year, and net profit is nearly $100B. And they post numbers
like this year after year. Apple's value is real and obvious, and given the
liquidity and sustained numbers, it's also correct. There's no bubble
component at all.

------
Razengan
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?

~~~
Hatamatarat
Everybody can go to almost anywhere in the world within basically 24 hours? I
will have to disagree with that. I'm a citizen of a certain "developing"
country and I can't get a tourist visa to more than half of the world, and
100% of Western countries.

~~~
Razengan
Yes, I meant technically, not politically. In the latter, there is less
freedom now than there used to be, but there are more means now than there
were, to escape the bracket one was born into.

~~~
Hatamatarat
Means to escape from bracket of being born in some no-name Belgium city to
California, sure. Means of escaping from a savage country no one even knows
the name of? Haha, no.

Most people that escape from worst countries don't escape on the basis of
merit, but luck.

~~~
Razengan
or money/connections/asylum?

~~~
Hatamatarat
Those count as luck, as I said.

------
occamschainsaw
I 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-
Dut...](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) [1] [https://indonesiaexpat.biz/travel/history-
culture/colonies-d...](https://indonesiaexpat.biz/travel/history-
culture/colonies-dutch-east-indies-vs-british-india/)

~~~
chewz
You 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.

------
SRTP
>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.

------
ignoramous
VOC (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-
power...](https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-companies-that-are-powerful-
than-most-nations-in-the-world)

[1] [http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-
you...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you-ever-
tried-to-sell-a-diamond/304575/)

[2] [https://youtu.be/d_zt3kGW1NM](https://youtu.be/d_zt3kGW1NM)

[3] [https://theintercept.com/2015/08/11/dupont-chemistry-
decepti...](https://theintercept.com/2015/08/11/dupont-chemistry-deception/)

[4]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosure...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosures_\(2013%E2%80%93present\))

[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

~~~
coldtea
> _VOC was an incredible enterprise_

It's easy to be incredible on the backs and dead bodies of slaves...

~~~
jacquesm
This should not be downvoted, it is historically accurate, the VOC imported
10's of thousands of slaves to do work that they were not prepared to pay for.

It's a nice example of there being a huge crime at the foundation of huge
riches, the VOC was definitely not a clean company by any stretch of the
imagination and to this day the names of those who were responsible for the
worst atrocities are proudly on display in the streets of various Dutch
cities. Nothing to be proud of.

~~~
speleding
Slaves were merchandise for the VOC but they did not import many slaves to do
work [1]. They typically (ab)used the local population to do that. Still
nothing to be proud of, but it is a different story than slaves that were
brought to the Americas to work on plantations. Exploitation of the local
people would certainly be unethical by today's standards, it wasn't unethical
back then and it also wasn't a crime (although you probably meant the word
"crime" figuratively).

[1]> 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)

~~~
cromulent
It's an interesting discussion. Liverpool was a huge trading port and a
powerful city for a long time, mostly built from the slave trade. No local
slaves, but plenty of people who became rich from slavery.

"Overall, Liverpool ships transported half of the 3 million Africans carried
across the Atlantic by British slavers."

[http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/ism/slavery/europe/liverp...](http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/ism/slavery/europe/liverpool.aspx)

------
inglor
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](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1kndKWJKB8)

~~~
arcticbull
Hello? Bitcoin? Is that you? Nah just a ghost of poor banking decisions past.
Spooky.

~~~
fsloth
I 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
Scotland 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.

------
amriksohata
Even 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.

------
sasasassy
I 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
I 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.

------
boramalper
> 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-s...](https://aeon.co/essays/we-should-look-closely-at-what-adam-smith-
actually-believed)

Still as relevant today I believe.

------
san_dimitri
I 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.

~~~
apexalpha
Saudi-Aramco might be something that comes very close to the VOC: a for-profit
company protected by armed forces, arguably for hire.

------
Leary
And Adam and Eve were together richer than the USA.

~~~
Erlich_Bachman
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.

~~~
Illniyar
I 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).

~~~
ionised
I doubt a peasant today eats as well as a King of even 1000 years ago.

Lives better, maybe. Eats better? Hell no.

~~~
D_Alex
I am not sure who would eat better... consider:

\- the variety of foods available today is far greater, especially in winter
\- Spices available 1000 years ago were quite limited, today any supermarket
will have 100 varieties from all around the world for like $2/satchel \-
refrigeration allows safe storage of food \- Things like ice cream, chocolate,
popcorn etc etc just did not exist.

So I think a "peasant" today CAN eat tastier and healthier food than kings of
1000 years ago... whether or not they choose to is another matter.

------
algaeontoast
I 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...

------
dalbasal
The 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.

------
anuraj
And 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)

------
jpttsn
Were the pyramids also taller than the Burj Khalifa? That stretches the
definition of “tall” dangerously thin.

------
pier25
So where did all that money go? To the British crown?

------
brettonwoods111
how can you compare money from befor bretton woods and after, though?

------
lota-putty
"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.

------
jayalpha
Are 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
> 232 billion

I mean, there's a guy coming pretty close to that right now.

~~~
melling
He just lost 25% of his money.

~~~
_Codemonkeyism
How was it "his" money?

~~~
_Codemonkeyism
To 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.

