Most valuable company in history

Now that Alphabet, Google's parent company, has reportedly joined Apple, Microsoft and Amazon to attain market capitalization of US$1 trillion, we might ask whether they are the most valuable companies in history.

The answer is no, far from it. The most valuable company in history was the Dutch East India Company, with a market capitalization (in today's dollar) of a whopping US$7.8 trillion! This was followed by the English East India Company.

If you take into account what those companies owned, their values would soar to the sky. The Dutch East India Company owned Indonesia, which was very rich in spices and other resources. The English East India Company owned India, a huge piece of real estate. Remember, it was the companies, and not their respective countries, that initially owned Indonesia and India. Imagine a company today owning a gigantic country with one of the largest populations in the world!

One must wonder the state of inequality in the Netherlands and Britain in those days. No wonder socialism and communism came into being. So, history is repeating itself - this time, in the US.

Wakalukong

Different ERA ... dofferent values ..


Russia needed socialism communism bevause
of Sefdom ..a kind of White skin slave to RUSSIA 'S UPPER CLASS

CHINA needed Communism because of Confucian and farmer class which was totally without education ..

Royal system usually had had a land owner 's class ..so CHINA needed
Communism to change China 's past Superstitions and marriage matching tradotion according to the sign of ZODIAC ..



THESE 2 SYSTEMS ..RUSSIA and CHINA needed Communism to change ..

Without Communism
Ruusia and China would not change ..

Look at India ..
India won' t
That is why INDIA is still divided into class system .. race system ..religious systems and eye color system ..

That is why an Indian couple
is daring to adopt another class 's child
for the purpose of murdering their odopted child in order to claim life insurance money ...

India won't change because Indians did not did not go through
The COMMUNISM process

Vietnese Communism is a test of steel .. the strength of the back bone of the Viets

<vanve...@gmail.com>,
<news:7ba91031-3e40-489c...@googlegroups.com>
The Russia's czarist governance began to tighten restrictions on freedom
of movement for peasants in the mid-17th century. One of the main reasons
was the Russia's territorial expansion (which was the most rapid right
throughout the 17th century). It gave the peasants more opportunities to
migrate somewhere, where 'law and order' had already been more or less
established, and some lands might be taken for agricultural engagements.
Landlords in 'central' Russia felt unhappy due to the increased migrations
of peasants, and the government tended to see all this as a state scale
issue, so it started tightening nuts.

It explains why the Russia's serfdom was never introduced in Siberia and
Central Asia, as well as in the areas close to Caucasus and the Arctic
seas. Because the basic initial idea was to limit uncontrolled migration
from the center to the periphery. Serfs still might appear in peripheral
areas, - if a landlord migrated there from central Russia and brought his
people with him, or sent people for some designated works. True serfdom
was implemented only in the Muscovite area and in Belarus and the Ukraine.

This means, inter alia, serfdom never was introduced for Russia's ethnic-
religious minorities (although there were freedom of movement restrictions
for certain regions). Some minorities practiced their indigenous forms of
serfdom(-like) organization among their selves, but it was not a uniform
Russian serfdom. It may look like the Russian Empire was such a perverted
empire that kept its "metropolitan" populace in 'slavery' while allowing
minorities to live 'freely' (although it's not really as simple as that).

By the way, a notable fact is that serfdom never existed or was abolished
early in the island nations, like Japan or Britain, - because if there are
natural 'physical' borders of the state, that are somewhat difficult to
overcome, then the upper class wouldn't be much concerned about migrations
of the low class labor force.

The Russia's most serfdom lasted from 1720s (thanks to Peter 'the Great',
known as a progressive Europhile) to the mid-19th century. The share of
serfs within the whole population was about one third, while in the
central areas it was about two thirds. The serfs were the most deprived
of their civil rights during the second half of the 18th century. However,
even at the time, it'd be wrong to equate them to slaves. It was a class
system of rights vs duties, and the system was ugly because the serfs had
few rights whereas the landlords had many opportunities for abuse, but it
still was not a slavery.

The Russia's slavery, since the most antiquity, was implemented within
another social class, which was called 'kholops' (the very term 'kholop'
is also a very ancient word). The class was formed mainly from captives
taken during military campaigns, from those who were punished for crimes,
who could not pay their debts etc. Poor people, who faced hunger, might
hand over their children they were unable to feed, or even become kholops
themselves voluntarily. There were also more special cases, when a rich
man offered to someone a position of trusted manager in his household,
but the latter one had to accept 'kholop' status as a condition.

Originally the kholops were treated just like a property, but after the
Christianization of Russia, their actual status was shifting more close
to 'serfs' concept. The Church considered it a God-established order of
things if someone had to be exploited by some another one, but demanded
to accept servants as humans rather than property. So some more 'humane'
laws were developed about what is allowed and what is not allowed with
regard to the kholops.

By the 17th century, the kholops were much less numerous class than the
peasants the above talk is relevant to. In the early 18th century, at the
same time as the increased restrictions for peasants made many of them
serfs, the kholops had been abolished. I.e. they were 'emansipated' so
that they became legally the same kind as serfs.

Various documents of that time tell that for some serfs, situation could
be really very miserable if their landlord was a moron or a freak (even
worse, if he or she was mentally ill). The czarist legal system didn't
protect against such cases. However, with sane landlords, their serfs
might feel sometimes more comfortable than 'free' low classes, because
the landlord might help his serfs if necessary - he might give a loan or
even free help in case if a peasant had some force majeure troubles,
provide a help in litigations or protect from the corrupt officials. One
might see some advantages in this paternalistic system.

The most ugly thing was that neither the landlords nor the czarist
government were enthusiastic about giving an education to the peasants, -
and when the people are illiterate, they have lesser demands and lesser
aspirations in their life (and the Church helped promote lower self-esteem
among the serfs).

Since the early 19th century, various popular readings (newspapers, 'easy'
books) began to spread widely in Russia, which spurred demand for literacy
among the low classes and made the serfdom system more and more inadequate.
The class of intelligentsia became more and more noticeable and weighty at
the time. Many among the intelligentsia were pro-liberty, and they ardently
spoke out against serfdom. The comparison of serfdom to slavery originated
at the time, as somewhat a rhetorical exaggeration.

After the 1917 revolution, the Bolshevist propaganda tried its best to
smear and demonize the czarist regime, so the serfdom=slavery narratives
gained new strength. However, the collective farms established by Stalin
after the kollektivization, may well be seen as a Soviet resurrection of
serfdom (70 years after it was canceled by the czarist government), given
the limitations and duties imposed on the rural collective farms workers
(in assumption of their ineradicable petty-bourgeois instincts).

The Soviet propaganda narratives against czarism promoted worldwide the
idea that the Russian serfdom was something especially horrific, so many in
the world today perceive it as something specifically Russian and extremely
dreadful. But, in fact, quite similar serfdom systems existed in eastern
and central Europe, although most of them were canceled 2-4 decades earlier.
The Russian Empire had in the 19th century become too stupid, rigid and
sluggish, so it eventually caught the 1917 revolution.

<vanve...@gmail.com>,
<news:7ba91031-3e40-489c...@googlegroups.com>
As if they really needed to. Their populations were akin
to cattle herds that needed to be tended to by tyrants...

in CHINA it was another Race which was ruling over the CHINESE
POPULATION ...
it needed a Revolution to topple the RACE POWER of the Manchu ...

Russia needed a Revolution to kill the ROYAL DICTATORSHIP just lik
the FRENCH ..

the Brits executed their Charles 1 ...


so you cannot change without executing a ROYoL Head POWER ...


in 1970 ,
Sihanoukville monopolised every thing in CAMBODIA for himself ALONE in Cambodia by using
a Social Natiinal industrial policy to keep tge Royal power in control for all so to control all activities for the state ..that meant for Sihanouk himself alone ...
thus restricting his Khmer populatiin from making a good living for the Khmer people ... Sihanoukville kept every Khmer on a slave wage level so that Sihaniuk could easily control all khmer population

Byker represents the worst that America could offer. But the moron thinks he's doing great. Idiocy knows no bounds.

Wakalukong

China ... not so much. They were all super-civilized
back when euros were all still covered in blue paint.
Totaltarian civ of course, but sophisticated. The biggest
problem was the constant warring between the various
states which squandered too many lives and resources.
(of course it was not THAT different a picture from the
one that later appeared in europe)

Russia though ... it was always suffering from a failure
to launch. Even with 'good' tsars like Peter the masses
basically continued to live dark-age lives. SOME kind
of "-ism" was necessary to give the place a kick in the
ass. Too bad it was communism ; it only could take
them just so far, and even then only with a gun to
everyones head.

I'm glad an American realizes that constant warring is a huge problem. But the US is into perpetual war. That's because the military-industrial complex has more say on how the US should be governed than all the voters in the country conbined.

Wakalukong

Communism was the best medicine for Russia to change from
Russian ROYAL DICTATOR to commoners self improvements by labor people assisted by RUSSIAN top scientists ..


CHINA lacked Chonese scientists in the beginning of CHINESE REVOLUTION and Communist internal self administration ...
A lot of corruptions were practised inside the Chinese Communist Party and
Party administration officials ...but it changed when DENG realised the CPC must change or ďie ....because people need better food and housing and productions to survive and to improve normal Chinese life fir the 21st century ..

Or the CPC in the 21st century wi loose control and die because CHINESE PEOPLE need better food better housing and better medical care in order to breed the next generation into an up to date computer generation of New China

Deng knew French labor practice and FRENCH had good food and Deng knew good food made a healthy body..

So Deng realised that COMMUNISM in CHINA would always produced bad food since nobody was willing to strive to makev good farmong produces for other Chinese to enjoy who could not or were unwilling to make good farm produces ...

So Deng made changes so that Chinese would be willing to improve on their daily life ...so an alternative form of Communism must be created in order to stimulate personal benefits in a small scale ..

the catalyst was to let some HONG KONG entraprenors to invest in Chinese lands to make factories in CHINESE CHEAP LANDS to manufacture products for exports by using Chinese cheap labors and cheap land all on lease ...

Deng changed China's economy from central planning to capitalism very soon after he visited Singapore in 1978. He could see the success Singapore made of itself, and Lee Kuan Yew brought him around to see how it was done. Singapore's longtime finance minister, Goh Keng Swee, upon his retirement was appointed economic adviser to China.

Wakalukong

Deng just want to feed the CHINESE PEOPLE with better food ...

Deng saw FRENCH FOOD in France as à boy student ..

To have better quality food ...Chinese must change their attitude to work compensations which make food quality a priority