Talk:Dutch East India Company

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Key Dutch Sources[edit]

I've found this section in the wiki code, and it seems quite detailed and vital to the section, but it won't show up actually on the article no matter what I try in a sandbox. Can anyone help? It's below 'Further Reading' in the code. I can get ti to appear above 'Further Reading', but now eher it currently is below it. Cheers Skinny87 (talk) 20:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

They were commented out with this note:
These should NOT be listed as references when they were not actually used to write article. This is misleading as to the article’s origin. Rather, they could be used to form in line citations. Thanks
Hope that helps. J.delanoygabsadds 20:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, that's what means, sorry. Thanks for the help! Skinny87 (talk) 10:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The section is there now. I'm not sure if the sources are used, but not all sources are primary Dutch sources, or in Dutch. Thus there is no logical coherence for this section. This section should probably be redone as "Important Primary Source Publications" which would include very different materials, but would be of greater value. Any other books which are worthwhile should be moved into the further reading section. (Dewobroto (talk) 09:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC))

Problem in the "Decline" section[edit]

The decline section includes the extract below, I have highlighted the inconsistency: it says from 1690-1760 only one decade (1710-1720) saw dividends greater than profits, it then says after 1730 it changed and in every decade but 1760-1770 the payout was more than profit... there is an overlap of 1730-40 and 1740-50 and 1750-60 where this suggests the company both did and did not payout more than their profits in dividends... I dont have access to the original source to confirm how this should be altered but it is clearly wrong!

"A self-inflicted wound was the VOC's dividend policy. The dividends distributed by the company had exceeded the surplus it garnered in Europe in every decade but one (1710–1720) from 1690 to 1760. However, in the period up to 1730 the directors shipped resources to Asia to build up the trading capital there. Consolidated bookkeeping therefore probably would have shown that total profits exceeded dividends. In addition, between 1700 and 1740 the company retired 5.4 million guilders of long-term debt. The company therefore was still on a secure financial footing in these years. This changed after 1730. While profits plummeted the bewindhebbers only slightly decreased dividends from the earlier level. Distributed dividends were therefore in excess of earnings in every decade but one (1760–1770). To accomplish this, the Asian capital stock had to be drawn down by 4 million guilders between 1730 and 1780, and the liquid capital available in Europe was reduced by 20 million guilders in the same period. The directors were therefore constrained to replenish the company's liquidity by resorting to short-term financing from anticipatory loans, backed by expected revenues from home-bound fleets." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.11.134.11 (talk) 04:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Dutch East India Company wars with Asian nations[edit]

In the Trịnh–Nguyễn War in Vietnam, the Dutch East India Company allied with the Trinh against the Nguyen. The Nguyen defeated a Dutch at a major naval battle in 1643.
A Cambodian Prince was convinced to convert to Islam by Malay merchants in 1642, and took control of the country. He and the Malays declared a jihad and initiated a massacre in Phnom Penh of Dutch Christians, and in 1643-1644 waged a war against the Dutch in the Mekong delta which the Cambodians won. The Dutch were defeated and driven out.
The Dutch east India company rule was ended on Taiwan at the Siege of Fort Zeelandia by Zheng Chenggong

The Durch East India company was also defeated by the Sulu Sultanate Rajmaan (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

What point are you trying to make in this very long post? Arnoutf (talk) 13:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Something about anticolonialism, I think, but probably the effect was something closer to "how much easier it is to cut and paste URLs than to use a source." I've commented out the laundry lists of URLs to try to make his underlying claims come through more clearly. — LlywelynII 06:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Pera[edit]

Perak isn't even mentioned on its dab page, but it was the period spelling at least for the Dutch. — LlywelynII 06:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Problem With $7 Trillion Valuation for VOC[edit]

This is my first time editing or communicating with Wikipedia editors in any way, so I apologize if I'm breaking any rules of etiquette. I think it would be a good idea to remove any mention of the present-day dollar value of the Dutch East India Company, and in particular the statement "At its height, the VOC was valued at USD 7 trillion in 2015 dollars." should be deleted. There is actually no good source for any present-day dollar value to the best of my knowledge.

I've been involved in some discussions on the /r/askhistorians subreddit over the historical valuation of the Dutch East India Company, and I discovered that the article in The Atlantic cited for the seven trillion dollar figure does not warrant the claim at all. If you look at the article in question, Lafrance's source for a seven trillion dollar valuation is this article in Bloomberg. If you look through that article you'll see that the only price mentioned is an auctioneer's estimate for the value of a paper share of the VOC as a collector's item. Is she saying that the historical value of the VOC is equal to the number of shares issued times the price of a paper share at auction in 2015? She has no evidence for that figure, and the citation implies an entirely invalid method for calculating the value. I don't think that the source can be taken seriously, and I think it might be a good idea to remove that statement from the article.

In fact, I think it is more likely that she took the seven trillion dollar value from a fairly widely-circulating article from the Motley Fool in which a 78 million guilder value is given during the tulip mania bubble of 1637, which is said to be a sum of $7.6 trillion in 2012 US dollars. But that would require 1 fl. (1637) = $95,000 USD (2012), when the true value of a 1637 guilder adjusted for inflation is probably something like $14 USD. That article from 2012 is the earliest source I can find for a seven trillion dollar VOC. No method is given and no specific source is cited for these values (ironically, it does cite "Wikipedia" as a source for its graph of largest companies in history).

It is interesting to note that these trillion-dollar valuations for the VOC are always mentioned in comparisons to Apple in order to say that it isn't the most valuable company in history. I'm not sure if that is significant; I just found it an interesting coincidence. GnomeyGustav (talk) 08:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I erased it-- it is not based on any reliable source who is familiar with the Company. It multiplies the supposed $700,000 value of one antique share certificate by 10,000,000 (the number of shares originally issued.) Antiques are valued by their rarity and only four or five now exist. if there were thousands of the these antique certificates on the market in 2015, they would sell for a dollar each. Rjensen (talk) 11:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
That's exactly what I figured she did. Thanks! GnomeyGustav (talk) 10:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I still have questions about this. Where does the figure of 10,000,000 total shares come from? GnomeyGustav (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Any ideas on what the value of the company was? NeoStalinist (talk) 04:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)