Discussion about this post

User's avatar
David Parker's avatar

I very much agree about "wealth as being very specifically based on the production of real goods and services": even something seemingly as directly comparable as a wheat field isn't the same, producing today 5-10 times as much as in the 17th-18th centuries. I think you're right about the bogus $8trn valuation being based on modern assets or GDP: it's the very thing that makes those ridiculous "all-time rich lists" of supposed mediaeval multi-billionaires all the more absurd.

In fact even at today's prices, the market value of all the world's economic assets didn't reach $8trn until around the 1860s, while Europe's entire 18th-century annual trade with Asia came to only 0.1% of global GDP (the VOC accounting for perhaps 0.04%) and the combined economies of the Netherlands and Indonesia to barely 2%, so the VOC's investors would have been a truly eccentric lot to plough more than the whole planet's market capitalisation into one company returning a modest annual fraction of 1% of the value of their stake.

We can come a bit closer to a vaguely serious modern valuation: the VOC's net value seems to have come to just over 0.1% of a world GDP which may be reckoned in modern prices at $6-700bn around the time of the company's commercial peak, so that the VOC may have been worth about $6-8bn in modern terms, close to your higher estimate (whoever thought Walmart could be so useful to the 18th-century economy?).

These conversions are all of course ultimately nonsensical: the economies of the 17th-18th and 21st centuries are just too different for any such result to count for anything much. But we know it wasn't the preposterous alleged $8 trillion!

Expand full comment
1 more comment...

No posts