See other History Articles
Title: BOOK REVIEW A law unto itself The Corporation that Changed the World
Source:
Asia Times
URL Source: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/IA27Dj01.html
Published: Jan 29, 2007
Author: Sreeram Chaulia /
Post Date: 2007-01-29 17:19:34 by swarthyguy
Keywords: None
Views: 331
Comments: 19
Jan 27, 2007 Page 1 of 2 BOOK REVIEW A law unto itself The Corporation That Changed the World by Nick Robins Reviewed by Sreeram Chaulia The British East India Company was a colossus responsible for the creation of the iniquitous modern world. Historian Nick Robins' trenchant new history of this giant re-examines the world's most powerful corporation during the Age of the Enlightenment in terms of its shadow over the global economy of today. It is an attempt to expose its destructive legacy so that future interactions between Western corporations and Asian countries are based on principles of fairness. From the 17th to the 19th century, the East India Company shocked its age with executive malpractice, stock-market excesses and human oppression, outdoing the felons of our times such as Enron. Its contemporaries across the political spectrum saw the "Company" as an overbearing and fundamentally problematic institution. Karl Marx called it the standard bearer of Britain's "moneyocracy". Adam Smith, the economist deeply suspicious of mighty corporations, was horrified at the way in which the Company "oppresses and domineers" in India. Edmund Burke, the father of modern conservatism, declared India to be "radically and irretrievably ruined through the Company's continual drain of wealth". Established in 1600 by royal charter, the Company's operations stretched from the Atlantic Ocean to India, Southeast Asia, China and Japan. Colonial rule in India was the eventual outcome of the Company's forays, but its ultimate purpose was profit-making with an eye to shareholders and the annual dividend in London. Personal and private profits were the abiding motives of this Company, which "reversed the centuries-old flow of wealth from West to East and engineered a great switch in global development" (p 7). Robins challenges romantic reinterpretations of the Company's past, now under way in Britain, for ignoring the abuse, misery, devastation and plunder that marked its presence in India. His point is that the Company should be assessed on the basis of its extortion, corruption and impunity rather than peripheral contributions to "discovering" Oriental culture Poster Comment: Nothing new under the sun......
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: swarthyguy (#0)
God's own truth bump
I don't think the East India Company was a corporation, was it? If memory serves, Blackstone's chapter on corporations focuses on things like municipalities and universities, not businesses. Back in the eighteenth century, I don't think businesses enjoyed limited liability.
Katrina was America's Chernobyl.
There was a charter given by Queen Elizabeth in 1599. Much beyond that I don't know the specifics, but online sources seem to give a lot of info.
It was a corporation, with stockholders. And, it is not an accident that it came into being at approximately the same time as the Bank of England. As to corporations in that day and age, do a little study on the Rochechilds, and one of the foundations of the their (British) wealth is the slight of hand that (do not remember his name at the moment) pulled off right after the Battle of Waterloo, when he spread a false rumor that Napoleon had won (he kjnew better, because he had agents waiting for news in France), and the British stock market crashed (that is correct, there was a very well developed stock market, and this was in the very early 1700s). He bought up tens of thousands of Pounds Sterling stock for pennies, and the rest, as they say, is history. And yes, of course, the corporations dealt in many more things besides these, but these were the BIG money makers, just as drugs are today as well. And sugar, in that day and age, was well recognized as an addictive drug. The sister to this corporation was the British West Indies Corporation, which dealt in slaves for the West Indies (Caribbian) and sugar, while the British East Indies Co. dealt in Opium, tea and silver stolen from the Chinese (this was the direct cause of the Boxer rebellion in China, where United States troops were used for the first time to protect the drug trade).
The Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
The British East India Company was indeed a joint stock company, with shareholders. But joint stock companies differ from corporations, most notably in not having limited liability. Edit: I didn't read that Wikipedia piece on joint stock companies carefully enough. Apparently I was wrong, and joint stock companies did indeed have limited liability.
Katrina was America's Chernobyl.
Egalitarianism rather reared its ugly head and disrupted things. Not that the British should have ever ruled India in the first place, but having once decided to do so, they needed strong but careful distinctions between ruler and ruled. Indians are not British, cannot be made to be British (and vice-versa), and would not naturally choose to be ruled by them.
Does moving from FR to LF to LP to 4um count as white flight?
It preceded the Bank of England by nearly 100 years. He bought up tens of thousands of Pounds Sterling stock for pennies, and the rest, as they say, is history. Actually, as I heard the story, he purchased government bonds -- "gilts" they were called.
That was not the problem. The British were in India because that was a perfect place to grow Opium, and India was, for a long, long time, the world´s top producer of Opium. Until the British started to have problems and needed a different venue to do the production. Red China is, today, the world´s leading producer of illegal drugs; most of the golden triangle (of drugs) is inside of China. And Hong Kong was and is known as the crossroads of the drug trade, world wide. The movie about Gandi, in it they mention how many villages were dirt poor and starving because the Brits had decided not to accept that years crop of blue (? - different color?) dye, and the people had not been permitted to produce food on the land by the Brits; just the dye. Hogwash. They just did not put into the movie the facts about the real crop, which was opium. By then, the Brits had moved the production to the east to China in cooperation with the new power in China, Mao. Just in case you are wondering about all of the cooperation between the Chinese and the Brits, like handing over Hong Kong.
The Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
A (joint stock companies did indeed have limited liability) is a corporation. This is like anything else; names change and evolve into what we recognize today. As I said, the key to understanding is knowing that there existed a very large stock market in The City (London) in the late 1600s. If you have any understanding of the Crown of England, which is NOT the king or queen of England, then you will begin to see what was/is really going on. To help on this, do a search on Crown Colonies and see what you find.
The Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
http://www.theeastindiacompany.com/
"You can not save the Constitution by destroying it."
It was indeed. The fundamental one. White people far away from India did not understand this and could not understand this. Later, they went as far as race-mixed juries in India, which was a disaster. Well, for the British anyways.
Does moving from FR to LF to LP to 4um count as white flight?
You did not read my answer. You only reacted to the beginning, and that is not wise.
The Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
No problem is the problem.
Does moving from FR to LF to LP to 4um count as white flight?
Perhaps, but Indigo was one of the key exports of India. The rebellion spoken about in the movie was about two things: clothing and salt. Indians were not allowed to manufacture clothes from their homegrown cotton; it had to be exported to England's mills and then imported back as finished clothing. Hence Gandhi's movement to make your own clothes and his spinning wheel. In the movie, it also focused on the salt rebellion; salt had to be bought from the British; hence Gandhi's salt march where people scooped up salt from the salt flats, disrupting Britain's monopoly.
It really is a fascinating story..... In one sense, India dropped into the Britisher's laps like a piece of overripe fruit. One could blame the Dutch; in Ambon, Indonesia in 1592 or thereabouts, the Dutch, challenged by upstart Britishers for the vaunted Spice Islands trade, proceeded to massacre and torture the crews of a couple of English ships for encroaching on what they felt was their turf. The British, spooked by Dutch savagery(!), moved on to greener pastures, Inja.
You are correct. Excellent movie, by the way. I may have to buy a copy. Which is something I never do. Be that as it may, the OTHER real problem in India was the production of opium, and it is about at the turn of the 20th century that pressure began to be put on the Brits about it. It took until India won it's independence for the problem to be solved. The Brits would NEVER have solved the problem on their own; dealing drugs is too engrained in their systems and, I dare say, in their mentallity. I do not think that a movie about the real problems in India, and the revelation about the Brits being behind the international drug trade, could be made.
The Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
You are correct. That is what I get for not checking, and using my memory. Actually, I think 94 years, with the East Indies company being incorporated in 1600, and the Bank of England on July 27, 1694. And the trading was actually in counsels, or, paper money. BUT, the trading WAS done in the London stock market. (I had to get something right!)
The Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
Consols (short for consolidated annuities[citation needed]) are a form of British government bond (gilt), dating originally from the 18th century. In 1752, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Prime Minister Sir Henry Pelham converted all outstanding issues of redeemable government stock into one bond, Consolidated 3.5% Annuities, in order to reduce the coupon rate paid on the government debt. In 1757, the coupon rate on the stock was reduced to 3%, leaving the stock as Consolidated 3% Annuities. The coupon rate remained at 3% until 1888. In 1888, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Joachim Goschen, converted the existing Consolidated 3% Annuities, along with Reduced 3% Annuities (issued in 1752) and New 3% Annuities (1855), into a new bond, 2¾% Consolidated Stock under the National Debt (Conversion) Act 1888 (Goschen’s Conversion). As part of the terms of the Act, the coupon rate of the stock was reduced to 2½% in 1903, and the stock given a first redemption date of 5th April 1923, after which point the stock could be redeemed at par value by Act of Parliament. Consols still exist today: in their current form as 2½% Consolidated Stock (1923 or after), they remain a small part of the UK Government’s debt portfolio. As the bond has a low coupon, there is little incentive for the government to redeem it. Unlike most gilts, which pay coupons semi-annually, because of its age Consols pay coupons four times a year. Also, as a result of its uncertain redemption date, they are typically treated as a perpetual bond. Given their long life, references to Consols can be found in many places, including literature, such as David Copperfield by Charles Dickens, Howards End by E. M. Forster, and Vanity Fair by William Makepeace Thackeray.
Thank you. So, did these consols pass for money? Were/could they be used as money? If not, then there is a serious error in some of the material I have been using!
The Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
Nothing new under the sun......
#2. To: swarthyguy (#0)
#3. To: aristeides (#2)
#4. To: aristeides, swarthyguy, lodwick, all (#2)
I don't think the East India Company was a corporation,
#5. To: richard9151 (#4)
(Edited)
#6. To: swarthyguy (#0)
Increasing racial and administrative haughtiness lay at the root of the Revolt of 1857 that terminated the Company's rule of India.
#7. To: richard9151 (#4)
it is not an accident that it came into being at approximately the same time as the Bank of England.
#8. To: Tauzero (#6)
Not that the British should have ever ruled India in the first place, but having once decided to do so, they needed strong but careful distinctions between ruler and ruled. Indians are not British, cannot be made to be British (and vice-versa), and would not naturally choose to be ruled by them.
#9. To: aristeides (#5)
joint stock companies did indeed have limited liability.
#10. To: richard9151, All (#9)
#11. To: richard9151 (#8)
That was not the problem.
#12. To: Tauzero (#11)
#13. To: richard9151 (#12)
#14. To: richard9151 (#8)
Hogwash.
#15. To: aristeides (#5)
#16. To: swarthyguy (#14)
clothing and salt.
#17. To: DeaconBenjamin (#7)
It preceded the Bank of England by nearly 100 years.
#18. To: richard9151 (#17)
And the trading was actually in counsels, or, paper money.
#19. To: DeaconBenjamin (#18)
Consols (short for consolidated annuities[citation needed])
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest