What do you think?
Rate this book
The Company: A Short History of a Revolutionary Idea
Chosen by BusinessWeek as One of the Top Ten Business Books of the Year
With apologies to Hegel, Marx, and Lenin, the basic unit of modern society is neither the state, nor the commune, nor the party; it is the company. From this bold premise, John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge chart the rise of one of history’s great catalysts for good and evil.
In a “fast-paced and well-written” work ( Forbes ), the authors reveal how innovations such as limitations on liability have permitted companies to rival religions and even states in importance, governing the flow of wealth and controlling human affairs–all while being largely exempt from the rules that govern our lives.
The Company is that rare, remarkable book that fills a major gap we scarcely knew existed. With it, we are better able to make sense of the past four centuries, as well as the events of today.
With apologies to Hegel, Marx, and Lenin, the basic unit of modern society is neither the state, nor the commune, nor the party; it is the company. From this bold premise, John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge chart the rise of one of history’s great catalysts for good and evil.
In a “fast-paced and well-written” work ( Forbes ), the authors reveal how innovations such as limitations on liability have permitted companies to rival religions and even states in importance, governing the flow of wealth and controlling human affairs–all while being largely exempt from the rules that govern our lives.
The Company is that rare, remarkable book that fills a major gap we scarcely knew existed. With it, we are better able to make sense of the past four centuries, as well as the events of today.
272 pages, Paperback
First published March 4, 2003
159 people are currently reading
1723 people want to read
About the author
John Micklethwait
18 books42 followersRichard John Micklethwait CBE (born 11 August 1962) is editor-in-chief of Bloomberg News, a position he has held since February 2015. A British journalist, he was previously the editor-in-chief of The Economist from 2006 to 2015.
Micklethwait was born in 1962, in London, and was educated at Ampleforth College (an independent school) and Magdalen College, Oxford, where he studied history. He worked for Chase Manhattan Bank for two years and joined The Economist in 1987. Prior to becoming editor-in-chief, he was United States editor of the publication and ran the New York Bureau for two years. Before that, he edited the Business Section of the newspaper for four years. His other roles have included setting up an office in Los Angeles for The Economist, where he worked from 1990 to 1993. He has covered business and politics from the United States, Latin America, Continental Europe, Southern Africa and most of Asia.
Appointed as editor-in-chief on 23 March 2006, the first issue of The Economist published under his editorship was released on 7 April 2006. He was named Editors' Editor by the British Society of Magazine Editors in 2010. Micklethwait has frequently appeared on CNN, ABC News, BBC, C-SPAN, PBS and NPR.
In 2015 he was appointed as a Trustee of the British Museum. He was also a delegate, along with two colleagues, at the 2010 Bilderberg Conference held in Spain. This group consists of an assembly of notable politicians, industrialists and financiers who meet annually to discuss issues on a non-disclosure basis.
Micklethwait was appointed Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) in the 2016 Birthday Honours for services to journalism and economics.
Micklethwait was born in 1962, in London, and was educated at Ampleforth College (an independent school) and Magdalen College, Oxford, where he studied history. He worked for Chase Manhattan Bank for two years and joined The Economist in 1987. Prior to becoming editor-in-chief, he was United States editor of the publication and ran the New York Bureau for two years. Before that, he edited the Business Section of the newspaper for four years. His other roles have included setting up an office in Los Angeles for The Economist, where he worked from 1990 to 1993. He has covered business and politics from the United States, Latin America, Continental Europe, Southern Africa and most of Asia.
Appointed as editor-in-chief on 23 March 2006, the first issue of The Economist published under his editorship was released on 7 April 2006. He was named Editors' Editor by the British Society of Magazine Editors in 2010. Micklethwait has frequently appeared on CNN, ABC News, BBC, C-SPAN, PBS and NPR.
In 2015 he was appointed as a Trustee of the British Museum. He was also a delegate, along with two colleagues, at the 2010 Bilderberg Conference held in Spain. This group consists of an assembly of notable politicians, industrialists and financiers who meet annually to discuss issues on a non-disclosure basis.
Micklethwait was appointed Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) in the 2016 Birthday Honours for services to journalism and economics.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 87 reviews
February 2, 2017
Perhaps this could have more accurately been called "A short history of capitalism." But it seems that using the "C" word is maybe a turnoff in our culture? Even though we are unquestionably a capitalist nation the word is rarely used honestly. Instead this book is a history of "The Company."
The authors try to play it down the middle and this book is best when it sticks to the facts. Things go wobbly when their analysis starts showing off their biases. This is a book that sees the modern Anglo-American system as unquestionably the best and has internalized the idea that shareholder capitalism is a force for good. The Japanese and German systems that make room for stakeholders are inferior and the notion that stakeholders (in contrast to stockholders) should ever play any role in a capitalist society is seen as a threat to the future of "The Company."
Perhaps it's too philosophical and beyond the scope of this history book, but the basic question is never asked: Why do companies exist? The authors lay out the history - early companies were chartered by the government to serve a social function such as building a bridge or road. Companies are still incorporated through legal government documents and the implication is that these businesses should be cultivated because they serve a function in a society's overall social benefit. Why then are stakeholders such a threat to modern companies? Stakeholders have a stake in the long-term health of a company, that's why they're called stakeholders. Why shouldn't they play a role in business? These questions are never addressed or answered in this book because the authors share the view that stakeholders exist only to hamstring efficient management.
Look, I get it. Capitalism is the best possible system for capitalists, that is those who own the capital - also known today as stockholders. But if the stakeholders - workers, customers, suppliers, communities, nations - all wither and die, how does the capitalist profit by that? "The Company" won't tell you.
The authors try to play it down the middle and this book is best when it sticks to the facts. Things go wobbly when their analysis starts showing off their biases. This is a book that sees the modern Anglo-American system as unquestionably the best and has internalized the idea that shareholder capitalism is a force for good. The Japanese and German systems that make room for stakeholders are inferior and the notion that stakeholders (in contrast to stockholders) should ever play any role in a capitalist society is seen as a threat to the future of "The Company."
Perhaps it's too philosophical and beyond the scope of this history book, but the basic question is never asked: Why do companies exist? The authors lay out the history - early companies were chartered by the government to serve a social function such as building a bridge or road. Companies are still incorporated through legal government documents and the implication is that these businesses should be cultivated because they serve a function in a society's overall social benefit. Why then are stakeholders such a threat to modern companies? Stakeholders have a stake in the long-term health of a company, that's why they're called stakeholders. Why shouldn't they play a role in business? These questions are never addressed or answered in this book because the authors share the view that stakeholders exist only to hamstring efficient management.
Look, I get it. Capitalism is the best possible system for capitalists, that is those who own the capital - also known today as stockholders. But if the stakeholders - workers, customers, suppliers, communities, nations - all wither and die, how does the capitalist profit by that? "The Company" won't tell you.
August 25, 2021
Νομίζω ένα από τα καλύτερα βιβλία που έχω διαβάσει για ιστορία των επιχειρήσεων. Καταπιάνεται με την εμφάνιση της εταιρείας όχι μόνο ως νομική οντότητα αλλά και ως θεσμού που έφερε την αλλαγή στις κοινωνίες του μεσαίωνα και έπειτα. Περιλαμβάνει πλήθος παραδειγμάτων από την Ευρώπη (ωστόσο αναφέρεται λίγο μόνο στην Ιταλία, κυρίως στην Αγγλία, την Γερμανία και την Γαλλία ενώ ελάχιστα στην σκανδιναβική χερσόνησο αφήνοντας εκτός ένα μεγάλο κομμάτι της Ευρώπης), την Ασία και φυσικά τις Ηνωμένες πολιτείες. Θα ήταν εξαιρετικό εάν γινόταν μια νέα έκδοση του βιβλίου (το πρωτότυπο νομίζω του 2002 ή 2003 και η ελληνική μετάφραση το 2012) η οποία θα μελετούσε επιπρόσθετα τον αντίκτυπο των εταιρειών που γεννήθηκαν και επεκτάθηκαν μέσω Διαδικτύου.
January 26, 2023
Lovely book which reads as a primer into a topic which is eschewed too often in favor of boring conversations on the government. Could be easily included in Oxford's A very short introduction series.
January 6, 2016
Spicuiri din recenzia finala care se gaseste pe blogul meu
..........................................
Mi-a plăcut foarte mult modul în care autorii au ales să explice și să dezvolte evoluția managerului ca personaj cheie și om al companiei. Multe dintre problemele cu care s-au confruntat companiile din secolele trecute sunt încă de actualitate, managerii fiind o nouă clasă fără de care patronatul n-ar reuși să se bucure de afacerea pe care a inventat-o și crescut-o. Omul companiei așa cum îl prezintă cei doi m-a ajutat să înțeleg în profunzime și romanul Babbit al lui Sinclair Lewis despre care am și scris aici.
Pe lângă aceste informații pe care le-am găsit extrem de utile, se mai numără și trecerea în revistă a aparițiilor unor companii care au rezistat istoriei și care au devenit corporații mari și puternice precum IBM, SONY, HP, XEROX etc. De asemenea informațiile cu privire la modul de organizare al companiilor în Orient, în Japonia în special, m-a ajutat foarte mult să înțeleg o carte pe care am citit-o ulterior, Anul Zero 1945 de Ian Buruma, în care se regăsesc denumirile de zaibatsu (pe care McArthur l-a distrus după victoria asupra Japoniei) și keiretsu (reinventarea ideii de companie în viziunea japoneză, respectiv învierea zaibats-ului conform normelor moderne).
.......................................
..........................................
Mi-a plăcut foarte mult modul în care autorii au ales să explice și să dezvolte evoluția managerului ca personaj cheie și om al companiei. Multe dintre problemele cu care s-au confruntat companiile din secolele trecute sunt încă de actualitate, managerii fiind o nouă clasă fără de care patronatul n-ar reuși să se bucure de afacerea pe care a inventat-o și crescut-o. Omul companiei așa cum îl prezintă cei doi m-a ajutat să înțeleg în profunzime și romanul Babbit al lui Sinclair Lewis despre care am și scris aici.
Pe lângă aceste informații pe care le-am găsit extrem de utile, se mai numără și trecerea în revistă a aparițiilor unor companii care au rezistat istoriei și care au devenit corporații mari și puternice precum IBM, SONY, HP, XEROX etc. De asemenea informațiile cu privire la modul de organizare al companiilor în Orient, în Japonia în special, m-a ajutat foarte mult să înțeleg o carte pe care am citit-o ulterior, Anul Zero 1945 de Ian Buruma, în care se regăsesc denumirile de zaibatsu (pe care McArthur l-a distrus după victoria asupra Japoniei) și keiretsu (reinventarea ideii de companie în viziunea japoneză, respectiv învierea zaibats-ului conform normelor moderne).
.......................................
August 26, 2015
Excellent book. The Corporation is a ubiquitous part of our daily lives. If you want a concise explanation of the systems that led to this happening read this book. One thing I love about reading history is noticing the similarities between my time and the past. For example, many of the complaints you read about today (corporations are too powerful, corporations are agents of corruption, etc.) have been lobbed against corporations since their inception. This is a quick and informative read. Highly recommend.
May 23, 2018
This is a really great book. In under 200 pages it gives you an impressively clear and comprehensive history of the joint-stock, limited liability company; as a legal entity, as a cultural force, an appendage of government, and most importantly as a creator of value. Having read a lot of Niall Ferguson, I was familiar with a lot of the overlap with financial history, but that in no way undermined my enjoyment of this book.
What really stood out to me was the sociological and cultural dimensions of this history. I found the authors’ accounts of why it was America and not Britain that fully capitalized on the company’s productive potential enlightening. Britons preference for owner managers/family firms proved detrimental, whereas in America professional managers who proudly ascended from blue collar backgrounds and proved more performant. Britons also saw business as a means to a higher end: a civilized existence (the ratio of dividends to earnings was as high as 80 to 90 percent). Whereas for American industrialists, companies were a means in themselves. They were to be tended and grown. This points to the more fundamental British problem with companies: a distaste for business. Ironically, once America gained industrial primacy Britons (and Europeans) started hiring American management consultants to download their methods.
A lot in here on these “little republics.” Strongly recommended.
What really stood out to me was the sociological and cultural dimensions of this history. I found the authors’ accounts of why it was America and not Britain that fully capitalized on the company’s productive potential enlightening. Britons preference for owner managers/family firms proved detrimental, whereas in America professional managers who proudly ascended from blue collar backgrounds and proved more performant. Britons also saw business as a means to a higher end: a civilized existence (the ratio of dividends to earnings was as high as 80 to 90 percent). Whereas for American industrialists, companies were a means in themselves. They were to be tended and grown. This points to the more fundamental British problem with companies: a distaste for business. Ironically, once America gained industrial primacy Britons (and Europeans) started hiring American management consultants to download their methods.
A lot in here on these “little republics.” Strongly recommended.
September 28, 2016
This is a very interesting and even-handed book. I enjoyed it thoroughly and I would recommend it to anyone interested in social history. Companies and corporations are a vital part of the modern world and this account of their history is very thorough without being wordy or philosophical. If you work for a business or own one you should read this very steady history.
January 1, 2022
Really cool initial idea, followed by pretty basic summaries of the biggest companies of history. Read the first two chapters and skip the rest.
January 4, 2022
3.6*
Was a nice book which tells how the idea of a 'limited liability joint company' changed the world significantly. No wonder the concept of company in Britain was able to rule most of world thanks to ROI from all investments across the world Vs kingdoms with only political power. British were not powerful, just their invention was simply smart.
The book briefly explains how trade has evolved from the last 2 millenia which made me respect the human creativity to create profits and safety contracts from the beginning.
Some interesting concepts:
-Shareholder Vs Stakeholder Capitalism
-Unbundling and re-bundling (More independent artists and then spotify to rebundle)
-Minimizing Agency Problem(Using regulations to align incentives between managers and owners.)
P.S.: This book was recommended since I wanted to know more about blockchain and decentralization. Helped with the decentralization concept and how businesses can evolve.
Was a nice book which tells how the idea of a 'limited liability joint company' changed the world significantly. No wonder the concept of company in Britain was able to rule most of world thanks to ROI from all investments across the world Vs kingdoms with only political power. British were not powerful, just their invention was simply smart.
The book briefly explains how trade has evolved from the last 2 millenia which made me respect the human creativity to create profits and safety contracts from the beginning.
Some interesting concepts:
-Shareholder Vs Stakeholder Capitalism
-Unbundling and re-bundling (More independent artists and then spotify to rebundle)
-Minimizing Agency Problem(Using regulations to align incentives between managers and owners.)
P.S.: This book was recommended since I wanted to know more about blockchain and decentralization. Helped with the decentralization concept and how businesses can evolve.
Read
June 24, 2021I overall enjoyed reading this book, both in terms of entertainment as well as information value.
It gives an expansive view of what the history of companies looks like, especially focusing on UK/US (not unexpectedly) with some tidbits about German and Japanese history.
I think we often have a simplistic view when it comes to looking at history, mostly focusing on what cities and nations achieved. This book is a good balance highlighting how other groups of people played a role in history.
The strong economically right undertone of the book is also interesting as well as borderline ideological. One of my typical issues with books looking to integrate past history into understandable chunks (looking at you Homo S and Deus) is that it's then hard to figure out which parts and to what extent the author is making things up and drawing conclusions that wouldn't otherwise hold. This book also suffers from this, although they do sometimes cite other books as sources.
Lastly, there is a handy list of other interesting books in the appendix, with lots of cool further recommendations on company history
It gives an expansive view of what the history of companies looks like, especially focusing on UK/US (not unexpectedly) with some tidbits about German and Japanese history.
I think we often have a simplistic view when it comes to looking at history, mostly focusing on what cities and nations achieved. This book is a good balance highlighting how other groups of people played a role in history.
The strong economically right undertone of the book is also interesting as well as borderline ideological. One of my typical issues with books looking to integrate past history into understandable chunks (looking at you Homo S and Deus) is that it's then hard to figure out which parts and to what extent the author is making things up and drawing conclusions that wouldn't otherwise hold. This book also suffers from this, although they do sometimes cite other books as sources.
Lastly, there is a handy list of other interesting books in the appendix, with lots of cool further recommendations on company history
October 27, 2021
Excellent, especially regarding pre-1990s history.
June 1, 2022
As the title implies, this is a short and fascinating history of the joint-stock company. Its evolution from a capital-intensive, high-risk/high-reward funding vehicle for exploration/exploitation to a political multinational juggernaut employing a majority of the world's population comes with many twists and turns. I was especially interested in its description of corporate-ideological shifts in the 20th and 21st centuries from civically engaged lifetime employers to a servile financial yacht for the wealthy and educated -- a shift that has stimulated anti-corporate pressure and the downfall of large companies as we once knew them and shifting corporate structures from power and might to flexible guerillas.
December 10, 2021
the United States had 5½ million corporations in 2001, North Korea, as far as we can tell, none.
most wealth was still concentrated in agriculture and private estates.
This arrangement was particularly attractive to the stay-at-home capitalist, allowing him to diversify his risks over a number of cargoes while avoiding the trouble of going to sea himself.
joint liability: all partners were jointly liable to the value of their worldly goods (“to their cu links,” as all-too-liable investing “names” at Lloyds of London would later put it). Given that the punishment for bankruptcy could be imprisonment or even servitude.
two Latin words (cum and panis) meaning “breaking bread together.”
1340, they introduced double-entry bookkeeping
In the Inferno (1314), Dante gleefully sent usurers to the seventh circle of hell to be tortured by a rain of fire
They lured rich investors away from real estate toward bank deposits (which were much more mobile in the event of a political crisis). And they helped to nance not just voyages and companies but even kingdoms.
By 1423, Florence’s addiction to warfare left it with a public debt six times the size of its annual tax revenues
Medici were often paid in foreign currencies (with hidden premiums) or with licenses or with goods, thus sucking them into other businesses.
worked as an apprentice before striking out on his own.
all this hard labor eked out a mere 9 percent margin.
His will dictated that his shares in his companies should be wound up within ve years of his death
conducted periodic peer reviews (as they might be called today) to screen out less successful members.
The East India Company lasted for 274 years. The Hudson’s Bay Company, which was founded in 1670, is still with us, making it the world’s oldest surviving multinational.
Chartered companies represented a combined eort by governments and merchants to grab the riches of the new worlds opened up by Columbus (1451–1506), Magellan (1480–1521), and Vasco da Gama (1469–1524). All of them were the lucky recipients of royal charters that gave them exclusive rights to trade with this or that bit of the world. They thus bestraddled the public and private sectors. Sometimes, the monarch insisted on a share in the firm himself, as Colbert (1619–1683) did on the French king’s behalf when he set up his country’s East Indies company in 1664.
The idea of oering shares in enterprises dates back at least to the thirteenth century. Across Europe, you could buy shares in mines and ships.1 In Toulouse, mills were divided into shares that their holders could sell like real estate. But the naval capitalism of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries dramatically expanded the idea, bringing stock exchanges in its wake. The other idea, which had occasionally surfaced before, was limited liability. Colonization was so risky that the only way to raise large sums of money from investors was to protect them
The risks of investing in voyages to the spiceries of Indonesia would be akin to the risks of investing in space exploration today.
James Lancaster: three years, six weeks, and two days later, his ship limped back home with a paltry cargo, having lost all but 25 of his 198 men to disease and storms. In 1595, the Dutch chose a former spy, Cornelis de Houtman: he bombarded Bantam, a vital Javan port, executed a bunch of locals, poisoned one of his own captains, and returned home with two-thirds of his crew gone. His backers were saved by the ination in spice prices, which meant that the miserable amount he brought back covered their costs. But that was not something they could count on.
the Dutch East India Company, alternatively known as the VOC (for Vereenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie)
The VOC’s charter also explicitly told investors that they had limited liability. Dutch investors were the rst to trade their shares at a regular stock exchange, founded in 1611, just around the corner from the VOC’s oce. All the Amsterdam hub needed to prove its capitalistic credentials was a market crash, which duly arrived with tulip mania in 1636–1637.
there was a tug of war over who would command the venture.
None of this took the wind out of the young company’s sails.
In India, most of this was exchanged for cotton textiles, which was then traded in the Spice Islands for pepper, cloves, and nutmeg. Sometimes an excursion to China, Japan, or the Philippines added silk, indigo, sugar, coee, and tea.
bigwigs from court
Should a single monopoly account for nearly half of Britain’s trade? Should British businessmen govern overseas territories? Should a company possess a private army? There was hardly a time when someone wasn’t raising one of these pesky questions, or meddling in the Company’s affairs.
In 1700, the government banned the sale of Asian silks and fancy cottons in England, forcing the Company to nd another protable line in the form of Chinese tea.
As tax revenues replaced commercial prots, a proliferation of boards, councils, and committees sprang up in both London and India. Its outward-bound ships were more likely to be loaded with soldiers and guns than they were with broadcloth.
The Company was also caught up in the debate over slavery. In the 1790s, Elizabeth Heyrick launched the rst consumer boycott, urging her fellow citizens in Leicester to stop buying “blood-stained” sugar from the West Indies; the Company was eventually forced to get its sugar from slaveless sugar producers in Bengal.
to restructure the vast debts that they had accumulated during the wars of 1689 to 1714.
The son of a wealthy Scot, Law spent an irresponsible youth in London indulging his passions for women, gambling, and mathematics
Law’s plan was to rescue France from its rampant ination, shortages of coins and unstable currency, by introducing paper money. The regent deposited a million livres with the new bank, ordered French tax collectors to remit payments to the treasury in banknotes, and invited the public to pay taxes in notes. In December 1718, with assets exceeding 10 million livres, the bank was transformed into the Banque Royale. With the French money supply under his control
Law issued a large number of shares in his businesses, but kept speculative fever high by announcing generous dividends and allowing existing shareholders to buy yet more shares at a preferential rate. His boldest move came in 1719 when he oered to convert the entire national debt from annuities into company shares; he also oered a huge sum for the right to take over royal tax collection. He nanced all this by issuing large numbers of shares. The result was mass frenzy. Mobs of investors, from aristocrats to valets, besieged Law’s offices.
At the height of the bubble, Law sold call options, allowing investors to pay a deposit of 1,000 livres for the right to buy a 10,000-livres share within the next six months. “It is inconceivable what wealth there is in France now,” mused one observer.
Law’s control of both the central bank and the stock market allowed him to avoid the tedious question of what his company actually did.
his Promised Land.
pioneered slavery
when information was scarce and trust at a premium
The East India Company’s other great step forward was to provide a cradle for Company Man. Its administrators were collectively known as “civil servants” long before government employees thought of calling themselves by the same name.
most wealth was still concentrated in agriculture and private estates.
This arrangement was particularly attractive to the stay-at-home capitalist, allowing him to diversify his risks over a number of cargoes while avoiding the trouble of going to sea himself.
joint liability: all partners were jointly liable to the value of their worldly goods (“to their cu links,” as all-too-liable investing “names” at Lloyds of London would later put it). Given that the punishment for bankruptcy could be imprisonment or even servitude.
two Latin words (cum and panis) meaning “breaking bread together.”
1340, they introduced double-entry bookkeeping
In the Inferno (1314), Dante gleefully sent usurers to the seventh circle of hell to be tortured by a rain of fire
They lured rich investors away from real estate toward bank deposits (which were much more mobile in the event of a political crisis). And they helped to nance not just voyages and companies but even kingdoms.
By 1423, Florence’s addiction to warfare left it with a public debt six times the size of its annual tax revenues
Medici were often paid in foreign currencies (with hidden premiums) or with licenses or with goods, thus sucking them into other businesses.
worked as an apprentice before striking out on his own.
all this hard labor eked out a mere 9 percent margin.
His will dictated that his shares in his companies should be wound up within ve years of his death
conducted periodic peer reviews (as they might be called today) to screen out less successful members.
The East India Company lasted for 274 years. The Hudson’s Bay Company, which was founded in 1670, is still with us, making it the world’s oldest surviving multinational.
Chartered companies represented a combined eort by governments and merchants to grab the riches of the new worlds opened up by Columbus (1451–1506), Magellan (1480–1521), and Vasco da Gama (1469–1524). All of them were the lucky recipients of royal charters that gave them exclusive rights to trade with this or that bit of the world. They thus bestraddled the public and private sectors. Sometimes, the monarch insisted on a share in the firm himself, as Colbert (1619–1683) did on the French king’s behalf when he set up his country’s East Indies company in 1664.
The idea of oering shares in enterprises dates back at least to the thirteenth century. Across Europe, you could buy shares in mines and ships.1 In Toulouse, mills were divided into shares that their holders could sell like real estate. But the naval capitalism of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries dramatically expanded the idea, bringing stock exchanges in its wake. The other idea, which had occasionally surfaced before, was limited liability. Colonization was so risky that the only way to raise large sums of money from investors was to protect them
The risks of investing in voyages to the spiceries of Indonesia would be akin to the risks of investing in space exploration today.
James Lancaster: three years, six weeks, and two days later, his ship limped back home with a paltry cargo, having lost all but 25 of his 198 men to disease and storms. In 1595, the Dutch chose a former spy, Cornelis de Houtman: he bombarded Bantam, a vital Javan port, executed a bunch of locals, poisoned one of his own captains, and returned home with two-thirds of his crew gone. His backers were saved by the ination in spice prices, which meant that the miserable amount he brought back covered their costs. But that was not something they could count on.
the Dutch East India Company, alternatively known as the VOC (for Vereenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie)
The VOC’s charter also explicitly told investors that they had limited liability. Dutch investors were the rst to trade their shares at a regular stock exchange, founded in 1611, just around the corner from the VOC’s oce. All the Amsterdam hub needed to prove its capitalistic credentials was a market crash, which duly arrived with tulip mania in 1636–1637.
there was a tug of war over who would command the venture.
None of this took the wind out of the young company’s sails.
In India, most of this was exchanged for cotton textiles, which was then traded in the Spice Islands for pepper, cloves, and nutmeg. Sometimes an excursion to China, Japan, or the Philippines added silk, indigo, sugar, coee, and tea.
bigwigs from court
Should a single monopoly account for nearly half of Britain’s trade? Should British businessmen govern overseas territories? Should a company possess a private army? There was hardly a time when someone wasn’t raising one of these pesky questions, or meddling in the Company’s affairs.
In 1700, the government banned the sale of Asian silks and fancy cottons in England, forcing the Company to nd another protable line in the form of Chinese tea.
As tax revenues replaced commercial prots, a proliferation of boards, councils, and committees sprang up in both London and India. Its outward-bound ships were more likely to be loaded with soldiers and guns than they were with broadcloth.
The Company was also caught up in the debate over slavery. In the 1790s, Elizabeth Heyrick launched the rst consumer boycott, urging her fellow citizens in Leicester to stop buying “blood-stained” sugar from the West Indies; the Company was eventually forced to get its sugar from slaveless sugar producers in Bengal.
to restructure the vast debts that they had accumulated during the wars of 1689 to 1714.
The son of a wealthy Scot, Law spent an irresponsible youth in London indulging his passions for women, gambling, and mathematics
Law’s plan was to rescue France from its rampant ination, shortages of coins and unstable currency, by introducing paper money. The regent deposited a million livres with the new bank, ordered French tax collectors to remit payments to the treasury in banknotes, and invited the public to pay taxes in notes. In December 1718, with assets exceeding 10 million livres, the bank was transformed into the Banque Royale. With the French money supply under his control
Law issued a large number of shares in his businesses, but kept speculative fever high by announcing generous dividends and allowing existing shareholders to buy yet more shares at a preferential rate. His boldest move came in 1719 when he oered to convert the entire national debt from annuities into company shares; he also oered a huge sum for the right to take over royal tax collection. He nanced all this by issuing large numbers of shares. The result was mass frenzy. Mobs of investors, from aristocrats to valets, besieged Law’s offices.
At the height of the bubble, Law sold call options, allowing investors to pay a deposit of 1,000 livres for the right to buy a 10,000-livres share within the next six months. “It is inconceivable what wealth there is in France now,” mused one observer.
Law’s control of both the central bank and the stock market allowed him to avoid the tedious question of what his company actually did.
his Promised Land.
pioneered slavery
when information was scarce and trust at a premium
The East India Company’s other great step forward was to provide a cradle for Company Man. Its administrators were collectively known as “civil servants” long before government employees thought of calling themselves by the same name.
April 20, 2020
(The English review is placed beneath Russian one)
Перечитывая книгу, я уже изначально понимал, что хорошей оценки я ей не поставлю, да и чтение не будет увлекательным занятием, ибо даже в первый раз я видел книгу между плохо и относительно нормально.
Книга заявлена как историческая, которая рассматривает историю появления корпораций. И, кажется, что книга будет увлекательна, в особенности, если тема действительно интересует. История появления и развития корпораций может многое рассказать о развитие самой цивилизации или хотя бы об отдельно взятой стране. И начало книги, которое начинается с древнейших времён (Египет, Месопотамия и пр.), как бы должно подтверждать это. Тем не менее, в реальности всё обстоит как раз наоборот. Мне трудно что-то конкретно сказать про факты, что изложены в книге (предположим, всё верно), но вот о чём я точно могу сказать, так это о стиле всей книги. Этот стиль чем-то напоминает Википедию. Можно даже сказать, что это хорошо подогнанные страницы из Википедии, пусть и не такие сухие. Другими словами, текст скучный. И именно поэтому я сказал, что это понравится лишь немногим, т.е. что книга подойдёт только тем, кто, ну очень хочет узнать про историю корпораций и при условии, чтобы это было сделано в максимально сокращённом виде. Вот для тех читателей, книга станет настоящим золотом. Но для тех, кто просто хочет получить удовольствие от исторической книги, тех, скорее всего, книга разочарует. Т.е. если человек вообще ничего не знает и ничего не слышал про итальянских банкиров, про Медичи, про средневековые гильдии, про Голландскую Ост-Индскую компанию, то таким читателям книга может даже показаться интересной. И я не буду спорить с этим. Но, во-первых, вся эта информация часто содержится во многих похожих книгах по истории и экономике, написанных намного лучше и предлагающих более полную картину. А во-вторых, книга не оставит после себя каких-то знаний именно из-за того, что авторы не предлагают полной картины. Мы не увидим, как всё приводится в движение, как эволюционировала корпорация в её нынешнего представителя. Авторы предлагают не только отрывки из истории, но делают это очень узко, т.е. мы так и не сможем увидеть и понять, что же из себя представляли предшественники нынешних корпораций. Всё это напоминает странички из Википедии, которые, конечно, могут нам дать ответ на конкретный вопрос, но которые не могут нас обеспечить полноценным знанием по тому или иному предмету. Тот же Рим, к примеру, не ограничивается двумя-тремя императорами, а значит, даже зная этот период в идеале, невозможно иметь полное представление о Риме как таковом. Нужно знать историю города от начала и до конца, нужно иметь цельную картину. Вот именно этого книга и не представляет. Да и ещё текст сухой и скучный. Тем не менее, плюс у этой книге есть, и он заключается всё в том же, о чём я писал выше – сфокусированной теме. Поэтому я бы сказал так: если выйдет более удачная, интересная и всеохватывающая книга на эту же тему, то она отправит на помойку данную книгу. Но так как пока я такой книге не видел, эту книгу можно хранить и дальше у себя на полке.
Rereading the book, I knew from the beginning that I would not give a good mark to the book, and reading will not be fun.
The book is presented as a historical book, which considers the history of the emergence of corporations. And it seems that the book will be fascinating, especially if the topic is really interesting to the audience. The history of the emergence and development of corporations can tell a lot about the development of civilization itself, or at least about a particular country. And the beginning of the book, which begins with ancient times (Egypt, Mesopotamia, etc.), as if to confirm it. Nevertheless, in reality, it is just the opposite. It's hard for me to say anything specific about the facts in the book (let's say it's all correct), but what I can say for sure is about the style of the whole book. This style is a bit like Wikipedia. In other words, the text is quite boring. And that's why I said that only a few people would like it, i.e. that the book would be suitable only for those who, well, really want to know about the history of corporations and on condition that it is presented in as abridged as possible. For those readers, the book will be real gold. But for those who just want to enjoy the history book, the book is likely to disappoint. That is, if a person knows nothing at all and has heard nothing about Italian bankers, the House of Medici, medieval guilds, the Dutch East India Company, then the book may even seem interesting to such readers. And I won't argue with that. But first of all, all this information is often contained in many similar books on history and economics, written much better and offering a more complete picture. And secondly, the book will not leave behind any knowledge precisely because the authors do not offer a complete picture. We will not see how everything is set in motion, how the corporation has evolved into its current representative. The authors offer not only fragments from history but do it very narrowly, i.e. we will never be able to see and understand what the predecessors of the current corporations were like. This all reminds us of pages from Wikipedia, which can give us an answer to a specific question of course, but which cannot provide us with complete knowledge of a particular subject. Same Rome, for example, is not limited to two or three emperors, so even knowing this period ideally it is impossible to have a complete picture of Rome as such. It is necessary to know the history of the city from beginning to end, it is necessary to have a complete picture. This is exactly what the book does not represent. And the text is also dry and boring. Still, this book has a plus, and it's all about what I wrote above - a focused theme. So I would say this: if a better, more interesting and more comprehensive book on the same topic emerges, it will send this book to the dump. But since I have not seen such a book yet, this book can be kept on a shelf.
Перечитывая книгу, я уже изначально понимал, что хорошей оценки я ей не поставлю, да и чтение не будет увлекательным занятием, ибо даже в первый раз я видел книгу между плохо и относительно нормально.
Книга заявлена как историческая, которая рассматривает историю появления корпораций. И, кажется, что книга будет увлекательна, в особенности, если тема действительно интересует. История появления и развития корпораций может многое рассказать о развитие самой цивилизации или хотя бы об отдельно взятой стране. И начало книги, которое начинается с древнейших времён (Египет, Месопотамия и пр.), как бы должно подтверждать это. Тем не менее, в реальности всё обстоит как раз наоборот. Мне трудно что-то конкретно сказать про факты, что изложены в книге (предположим, всё верно), но вот о чём я точно могу сказать, так это о стиле всей книги. Этот стиль чем-то напоминает Википедию. Можно даже сказать, что это хорошо подогнанные страницы из Википедии, пусть и не такие сухие. Другими словами, текст скучный. И именно поэтому я сказал, что это понравится лишь немногим, т.е. что книга подойдёт только тем, кто, ну очень хочет узнать про историю корпораций и при условии, чтобы это было сделано в максимально сокращённом виде. Вот для тех читателей, книга станет настоящим золотом. Но для тех, кто просто хочет получить удовольствие от исторической книги, тех, скорее всего, книга разочарует. Т.е. если человек вообще ничего не знает и ничего не слышал про итальянских банкиров, про Медичи, про средневековые гильдии, про Голландскую Ост-Индскую компанию, то таким читателям книга может даже показаться интересной. И я не буду спорить с этим. Но, во-первых, вся эта информация часто содержится во многих похожих книгах по истории и экономике, написанных намного лучше и предлагающих более полную картину. А во-вторых, книга не оставит после себя каких-то знаний именно из-за того, что авторы не предлагают полной картины. Мы не увидим, как всё приводится в движение, как эволюционировала корпорация в её нынешнего представителя. Авторы предлагают не только отрывки из истории, но делают это очень узко, т.е. мы так и не сможем увидеть и понять, что же из себя представляли предшественники нынешних корпораций. Всё это напоминает странички из Википедии, которые, конечно, могут нам дать ответ на конкретный вопрос, но которые не могут нас обеспечить полноценным знанием по тому или иному предмету. Тот же Рим, к примеру, не ограничивается двумя-тремя императорами, а значит, даже зная этот период в идеале, невозможно иметь полное представление о Риме как таковом. Нужно знать историю города от начала и до конца, нужно иметь цельную картину. Вот именно этого книга и не представляет. Да и ещё текст сухой и скучный. Тем не менее, плюс у этой книге есть, и он заключается всё в том же, о чём я писал выше – сфокусированной теме. Поэтому я бы сказал так: если выйдет более удачная, интересная и всеохватывающая книга на эту же тему, то она отправит на помойку данную книгу. Но так как пока я такой книге не видел, эту книгу можно хранить и дальше у себя на полке.
Rereading the book, I knew from the beginning that I would not give a good mark to the book, and reading will not be fun.
The book is presented as a historical book, which considers the history of the emergence of corporations. And it seems that the book will be fascinating, especially if the topic is really interesting to the audience. The history of the emergence and development of corporations can tell a lot about the development of civilization itself, or at least about a particular country. And the beginning of the book, which begins with ancient times (Egypt, Mesopotamia, etc.), as if to confirm it. Nevertheless, in reality, it is just the opposite. It's hard for me to say anything specific about the facts in the book (let's say it's all correct), but what I can say for sure is about the style of the whole book. This style is a bit like Wikipedia. In other words, the text is quite boring. And that's why I said that only a few people would like it, i.e. that the book would be suitable only for those who, well, really want to know about the history of corporations and on condition that it is presented in as abridged as possible. For those readers, the book will be real gold. But for those who just want to enjoy the history book, the book is likely to disappoint. That is, if a person knows nothing at all and has heard nothing about Italian bankers, the House of Medici, medieval guilds, the Dutch East India Company, then the book may even seem interesting to such readers. And I won't argue with that. But first of all, all this information is often contained in many similar books on history and economics, written much better and offering a more complete picture. And secondly, the book will not leave behind any knowledge precisely because the authors do not offer a complete picture. We will not see how everything is set in motion, how the corporation has evolved into its current representative. The authors offer not only fragments from history but do it very narrowly, i.e. we will never be able to see and understand what the predecessors of the current corporations were like. This all reminds us of pages from Wikipedia, which can give us an answer to a specific question of course, but which cannot provide us with complete knowledge of a particular subject. Same Rome, for example, is not limited to two or three emperors, so even knowing this period ideally it is impossible to have a complete picture of Rome as such. It is necessary to know the history of the city from beginning to end, it is necessary to have a complete picture. This is exactly what the book does not represent. And the text is also dry and boring. Still, this book has a plus, and it's all about what I wrote above - a focused theme. So I would say this: if a better, more interesting and more comprehensive book on the same topic emerges, it will send this book to the dump. But since I have not seen such a book yet, this book can be kept on a shelf.
August 8, 2008
Very short, but good overview of the development of the joint-stock company. It's helpful to have a sense of where these "powers that be" come from.
The company has a horrific history, has drastically changed our global society and has potential for a lot of good. Anything that exists simply to create wealth, however, is fundamentally flawed and I don't think it will be too long (maybe 2-300 years) (maybe a lot less) until we dispense of it.
Philosophically, I definitely fall into the "stakeholder" camp even though most would argue that maximizing shareholder wealth ends up being good for society. If a company is continually profitable and serving a need for society (providing jobs, providing a good product) it shouldn't need to grow exponentially. Wealth creation is only good in the sense that people are raised from poverty.
The company has a horrific history, has drastically changed our global society and has potential for a lot of good. Anything that exists simply to create wealth, however, is fundamentally flawed and I don't think it will be too long (maybe 2-300 years) (maybe a lot less) until we dispense of it.
Philosophically, I definitely fall into the "stakeholder" camp even though most would argue that maximizing shareholder wealth ends up being good for society. If a company is continually profitable and serving a need for society (providing jobs, providing a good product) it shouldn't need to grow exponentially. Wealth creation is only good in the sense that people are raised from poverty.
February 6, 2017
A quick condensed history of the evolution of the corporate form. I particularly enjoyed the medieval and victorian parts, and the evolution of German and Japanese corporate forms. THe main purpose of this book is to give a broad introduction, which you would then may look into specialized subjects. The author himself admits there are not many authoritative books on the history of company organization..
The book is definitely not what i would call balanced, and largely washes over any negatives that can be subscribed to the corporate form. Pollution and theconcept of externalities, was not present in the book at all. The Company is also limited to western history - i wanted to learn if there were analogues in other areas.
As long as you know what you are in for, this book is a decent read.
The book is definitely not what i would call balanced, and largely washes over any negatives that can be subscribed to the corporate form. Pollution and theconcept of externalities, was not present in the book at all. The Company is also limited to western history - i wanted to learn if there were analogues in other areas.
As long as you know what you are in for, this book is a decent read.
June 3, 2016
The Company is a history of the transformation of companies and the surprising ways they have changed the world. The authors ambitiously cover 3000 B.C. to 2002 A.D., but focus mainly on business in the United States from the 19th to the 20th century. It was fascinating to see how companies have developed from the East India Company, to the railroad barons of the 19th century, to Enron, and finally to the modern age.
In its brevity, the authors don't take the space to explain many business terms in the book, so it was difficult to follow at times. In spite of this, I found it to be an enjoyable and informative read.
In its brevity, the authors don't take the space to explain many business terms in the book, so it was difficult to follow at times. In spite of this, I found it to be an enjoyable and informative read.
January 2, 2014
An easy going book for this idea
June 19, 2017
Quick read. Interesting history but the content wasn't presented in a very engaging way.
January 31, 2020
De departe cea mai importanta calitate a acestei cărți este titlul, pentru că atrage. În aceasta lume a multinaționalelor, o carte care conceptualizeaza ideea de companie este ceva extraordinar. Lecturand-o am observat o discordanță între titlu și conținut. Nu se vorbește eminamente despre companie, ci de mult mai multe lucruri precum: finanțare, riscuri, proprietari, acționari, responsabilitate corporativa, burse și management.
Ultimul aspect, managementul, este mult prea dezvoltat în economia cărții. Nu doresc sa subestimez managementul, însă as fi dorit mai de graba sa citesc despre istoria companiilor care au făcut istorie și au perfectat aceasta "idee revoluționară". Sa citesc mai mult decât este tratat în aceasta ediție despre Compania Britanica a Indiilor de Est, despre cum a funcționat Compania Olandeza a Indiilor Orientale, care au dominat comerțul de peste mari timp de aproape 3 secole.
Desi este o lucrare diacronica, suferă destul de mult la capitolul metodologie. Aspectele istorice sunt trecute foarte repede în revistă. Exemplele folosite de autori provin aproape exclusiv din numai patru state: Marea Britanie, SUA, Germania și Japonia. Însă, asa cum bine puncta Jonathan Haidt în "Mintea moralista", Occidentul nu este generalul când vine vorba de a studia un aspect global, ci particularul. Cea mai mare parte a populației lumii trăiește în afara Occidentului, chiar dacă în acest caz statele occidentale sunt cele care dau tonul. De aceea îndrăznesc sa spun ca ar fi fost necesara extinderea analizei la cel puțin alte câteva cazuri care au fost actori activi ai istoriei economiei globale, anume Franța, Spania, Italia, China și Rusia. Autorii înșiși recunosc aceasta limitare a cărții. Rareori aceștia își aduc aminte și vorbesc și de companiile din acestea și altele asemenea.
Mi se pare relevanta concluzia din comentariul unui cititor, care spune ca lucrarea ar trebui sa se numească "O istorie scurta a capitalismului". Nu știu dacă acesta este titlul potrivit, dar, în orice caz, cel pe care îl are este întrucâtva înșelător. Iar dacă sunteți cititori obișnuiți ai literaturii despre istoria economiei, a capitalismului global, al relațiilor economice internaționale sau al economiei mondiale veți constata că multe din informațiile de aici le-ați întâlnit, probabil, ceva mai bine integrate și structurate în alte lucrări de specialitate. În ceea ce ma privește, pentru același gen de abordare, recomand printre altele doua lucrări ale lui Niall Ferguson: "Civilizația : Vestul și restul" și "Ascensiunea banilor".
Concluzia mea este aceea a unei lucrări interesante pentru publicul larg și nespecialist, care se poate familiariza cu subiectul, dar care dezamăgește într-un fel titlul ce o promovează.
Ultimul aspect, managementul, este mult prea dezvoltat în economia cărții. Nu doresc sa subestimez managementul, însă as fi dorit mai de graba sa citesc despre istoria companiilor care au făcut istorie și au perfectat aceasta "idee revoluționară". Sa citesc mai mult decât este tratat în aceasta ediție despre Compania Britanica a Indiilor de Est, despre cum a funcționat Compania Olandeza a Indiilor Orientale, care au dominat comerțul de peste mari timp de aproape 3 secole.
Desi este o lucrare diacronica, suferă destul de mult la capitolul metodologie. Aspectele istorice sunt trecute foarte repede în revistă. Exemplele folosite de autori provin aproape exclusiv din numai patru state: Marea Britanie, SUA, Germania și Japonia. Însă, asa cum bine puncta Jonathan Haidt în "Mintea moralista", Occidentul nu este generalul când vine vorba de a studia un aspect global, ci particularul. Cea mai mare parte a populației lumii trăiește în afara Occidentului, chiar dacă în acest caz statele occidentale sunt cele care dau tonul. De aceea îndrăznesc sa spun ca ar fi fost necesara extinderea analizei la cel puțin alte câteva cazuri care au fost actori activi ai istoriei economiei globale, anume Franța, Spania, Italia, China și Rusia. Autorii înșiși recunosc aceasta limitare a cărții. Rareori aceștia își aduc aminte și vorbesc și de companiile din acestea și altele asemenea.
Mi se pare relevanta concluzia din comentariul unui cititor, care spune ca lucrarea ar trebui sa se numească "O istorie scurta a capitalismului". Nu știu dacă acesta este titlul potrivit, dar, în orice caz, cel pe care îl are este întrucâtva înșelător. Iar dacă sunteți cititori obișnuiți ai literaturii despre istoria economiei, a capitalismului global, al relațiilor economice internaționale sau al economiei mondiale veți constata că multe din informațiile de aici le-ați întâlnit, probabil, ceva mai bine integrate și structurate în alte lucrări de specialitate. În ceea ce ma privește, pentru același gen de abordare, recomand printre altele doua lucrări ale lui Niall Ferguson: "Civilizația : Vestul și restul" și "Ascensiunea banilor".
Concluzia mea este aceea a unei lucrări interesante pentru publicul larg și nespecialist, care se poate familiariza cu subiectul, dar care dezamăgește într-un fel titlul ce o promovează.
December 16, 2024
As always, it's 4 stars if this is your bag, maybe a 3.5 if it's not.
The book gets points with me for being concise. No one ever needs 10 examples of a given point, and this text made it's argument and moved on. Understanding the origins of the LLC was interesting if for no other reason than to understand the world it left behind.
I picked this book up because of the history of the company across time, and on the score it delivered. How culture affected LLCs in different countries was interesting, and the business case studies here were interesting though I'm not wildly impressed with that sort of thing.
It's important to remember this was published in 2003, and in the past 22 years the role of business in the American mind has changed dramatically, so the book overly focuses on Sarbanes-Oxley, doesn't know about the coming financial meltdown, and is maybe a bit more politically tilted towards Bush-era talking points than it might have seemed at the time.
Maybe the most interesting argument the book makes is this:
From there they lay out a good argument for their case (I don't agree with it, but it is a good argument). If that sort of thing intrigues you, I'd pick up a copy.
The book gets points with me for being concise. No one ever needs 10 examples of a given point, and this text made it's argument and moved on. Understanding the origins of the LLC was interesting if for no other reason than to understand the world it left behind.
I picked this book up because of the history of the company across time, and on the score it delivered. How culture affected LLCs in different countries was interesting, and the business case studies here were interesting though I'm not wildly impressed with that sort of thing.
It's important to remember this was published in 2003, and in the past 22 years the role of business in the American mind has changed dramatically, so the book overly focuses on Sarbanes-Oxley, doesn't know about the coming financial meltdown, and is maybe a bit more politically tilted towards Bush-era talking points than it might have seemed at the time.
Maybe the most interesting argument the book makes is this:
"Hegel predicted the basic unit of modern society would be the State. Marx that it would be the commune. Lenin and Hitler that it would be the political party. Before that a succession of saints and sages claimed the same for the parish church, the feudal manor, and the monarchy. The big contention of this small book...is that the most important organization in the world is the company."
From there they lay out a good argument for their case (I don't agree with it, but it is a good argument). If that sort of thing intrigues you, I'd pick up a copy.
January 2, 2021
A quick and fun history of joint-stock company. This book (the authors were effective) made me appreciate more what the company has down for the world, coming to the topic from much less appreciative position even though I think the point of their presentation misses the mark on certain important issues regarding the company's place in society.
In my simple assessment, the book is written from the point of view thus: has this efficient and effective method of growing wealth (joint-stock company) created more wealth than otherwise would have emerged. I think so and, unsurprisingly, the authors think it has. The authors thusly answered a self-evident proposition, in my opinion. A point of criticism of companies would be whether the creation of wealth is a sufficient - or the only measure - by which to evaluate the place of joint-stock company. The authors did not set out to answer this concern (it is not an easy one to answer, nor are they required to) and so the book's conclusion is to be weighed against others.
All considered, it was a quick and fun read. I am satisfied having read it. Next.
In my simple assessment, the book is written from the point of view thus: has this efficient and effective method of growing wealth (joint-stock company) created more wealth than otherwise would have emerged. I think so and, unsurprisingly, the authors think it has. The authors thusly answered a self-evident proposition, in my opinion. A point of criticism of companies would be whether the creation of wealth is a sufficient - or the only measure - by which to evaluate the place of joint-stock company. The authors did not set out to answer this concern (it is not an easy one to answer, nor are they required to) and so the book's conclusion is to be weighed against others.
All considered, it was a quick and fun read. I am satisfied having read it. Next.
April 1, 2021
Good book on the rise of corporations and corporate Capitalism. The authors give us a detailed history of the origins of the company from XV century to 2002. The bibliography essay at the end is a precious map to anyone interested in the topic.
Although the book is very informative, entertaining and well-read, the authors have a almost juvenile believe in the bright side of the Company. Sure, corporate Capitalism was able to transform the world in a pace and intensity impossible without their capacity to pooling capital and skill, but the authors turn blind to most of the deleterious aspects of an economy run by big corps. The last chapter looks like prophets trying to defend their mantra in a cynical or very naiive way (that companies nowadays are increasingly getting socially and enviormentally better because they are clever, not because Government and society have to shake heavens'n hell to make them do that). They are very short on critical thinking
In sum, it's a very good read, well written and informative but with a heavly biased view on the impacts of the corporation on human history.
Although the book is very informative, entertaining and well-read, the authors have a almost juvenile believe in the bright side of the Company. Sure, corporate Capitalism was able to transform the world in a pace and intensity impossible without their capacity to pooling capital and skill, but the authors turn blind to most of the deleterious aspects of an economy run by big corps. The last chapter looks like prophets trying to defend their mantra in a cynical or very naiive way (that companies nowadays are increasingly getting socially and enviormentally better because they are clever, not because Government and society have to shake heavens'n hell to make them do that). They are very short on critical thinking
In sum, it's a very good read, well written and informative but with a heavly biased view on the impacts of the corporation on human history.
July 30, 2020
A solid and well written (at times even funny) history of one of the most important socio-economic innovations in human history: the company. The book follows its rise from the “proto-companies” of the merchants of the renaissance, the imperialist companies (think East India Company), the first joint stock corporation through to today’s multinationals.
Three factors are identified which made companies successful, and led to the rise of modern capitalism: companies as “artificial persons” (ie legal entities), transferable ownership rights (and thus indefinite life), limited liability (and thus easier access to capital).
Micklethwait and Wooldridge do not sparen the dark sides of the rise of companies, but ultimately clearly come down to see companies as a force for good, as the key ingredient in the progress and wealth creation of the past 200 years.
The book is now 17 years old, which is noticeable at times - and also means there’s no discussion of the 2008 financial crisis and its post morgen or the challenges from climate change that the future of the company faces.
Three factors are identified which made companies successful, and led to the rise of modern capitalism: companies as “artificial persons” (ie legal entities), transferable ownership rights (and thus indefinite life), limited liability (and thus easier access to capital).
Micklethwait and Wooldridge do not sparen the dark sides of the rise of companies, but ultimately clearly come down to see companies as a force for good, as the key ingredient in the progress and wealth creation of the past 200 years.
The book is now 17 years old, which is noticeable at times - and also means there’s no discussion of the 2008 financial crisis and its post morgen or the challenges from climate change that the future of the company faces.
May 6, 2021
Книга интересная и полезная для любого человека. Основная ценность заключается в разборе появления и развития бизнеса. История появления и развития компаний с незапамятных времен, от маленьких с одним владельцем, партнерств, до кэйрецу, акционерных компаний и транснациональных корпораций. Создание сущности в виде юридического лица с ограниченной ответственностью было одним из самых выдающихся открытий человечества. Это дало возможность создавать бизнес огромных масштабов способный влиять на судьбы целых стран. Можно увидеть, как зарождался бизнес и менеджмент, как появлялись первые попытки объединить под одной крышей большую идею, как государства притесняли бизнес и к чему это все привело.
Написано сложно с кучей дат и понятий. Перевод сносный, в книге встречаются очепятки. Читать сложно, часто запутанно.
Написано сложно с кучей дат и понятий. Перевод сносный, в книге встречаются очепятки. Читать сложно, часто запутанно.
December 29, 2021
The early history was thought provoking, and the 20th century stuff was less interesting. I was hoping for deeper discussion of the nitty-gritty of how the legal mechanics and political mechanics changed over time
I most enjoyed the comparative section between American, British, German, and japanese companies, and that secyion I will most carry with me.
The other section I will carry with me is just how speculative, predatory (of its own investors and of resources and markets) companies were initially, and how controversial their very idea was right up through Woodrow Wilson.
Overall a very interesting idea that was at least quite thought-provoking, if a little lazy in defending its opinions.
I most enjoyed the comparative section between American, British, German, and japanese companies, and that secyion I will most carry with me.
The other section I will carry with me is just how speculative, predatory (of its own investors and of resources and markets) companies were initially, and how controversial their very idea was right up through Woodrow Wilson.
Overall a very interesting idea that was at least quite thought-provoking, if a little lazy in defending its opinions.
April 25, 2022
Great little book recommended by Chris Dixon on a podcast. Comes in at 180 pages or so and weaves a compelling narrative for the history of the company through political, social and national lenses. Makes an interesting case for example that the UK lost its hegemony to the world due to the South Sea Bubble and its consequent Bubble Act which made corporate formation difficult for many years as well as the fact that politicians had been capricious and complicit in other behavior towards the company. Add to that the landed classes view that business was somehow below them and you have a recipe for the UK's comparative decline.
Book was published in 2003, it would be interesting to understand the authors' perspective on the last 20 years.
Book was published in 2003, it would be interesting to understand the authors' perspective on the last 20 years.
June 9, 2018
Un libro documental muy interesante, ya que nos presenta la historia de la Empresa vista desde todos los puntos de vistas, sin tomar partido de como ellos (los autores) la consideran.
En este libro se trata la evolución histórica de la estructura comercial comenzando desde los mercaderes y monopolistas, pasando por los imperialistas y especuladores por el prolongado y doloroso cimiento de las sociedades anónimas para centrarse en el cimiento de las grandes compañías en Estados Unidos, en Gran Bretaña, Alemania y Japón, en el triunfo del capitalismo de gestión y en lo que los autores denominan como la paradoja corporativa.
En este libro se trata la evolución histórica de la estructura comercial comenzando desde los mercaderes y monopolistas, pasando por los imperialistas y especuladores por el prolongado y doloroso cimiento de las sociedades anónimas para centrarse en el cimiento de las grandes compañías en Estados Unidos, en Gran Bretaña, Alemania y Japón, en el triunfo del capitalismo de gestión y en lo que los autores denominan como la paradoja corporativa.
September 11, 2023
O carte interesanta, un fel de biografie a companiilor, incepand cu cele mai vechi ca Compania Britanică a Indiilor de Est, bancherii din Anglia si Franta pana la cele din zilele noastre. Cartea se concentreaza pe pietele din Europa de Vest (Franta, Imperiul Britanic, Germania), SUA si foarte putin Japonia. Cred ca plusul cartii este obiectivismul intrucat se simte ca o carte de istorie, desi plictisitoare pe alocuri, fara sa aiba o concluzie concreta pentru expunerea anumitor informatii.
Cred ca pentru pasionatii de istorie(dar nu numai) ar fi o lectura interesanta care te poarta in istorie dar sa nu aveti asteptari mai mari de atat. Nu aduce niste idei noi sau analize vaste.
Cred ca pentru pasionatii de istorie(dar nu numai) ar fi o lectura interesanta care te poarta in istorie dar sa nu aveti asteptari mai mari de atat. Nu aduce niste idei noi sau analize vaste.
June 8, 2024
This is book written well by a well informed author. The topic of this book is one of the most influential ideas ever put into practice wether intentionally or not. Men coming together to carry out a shared plan in hopes of attaining a goal is not a new idea, eg., Catholic Church, Freemasons, American Patriots. However when you take that idea and add to it financial gain as the ultimate goal meanwhile taking away financial liability you are left with a potent entity. This book tells the story of how the idea and practice came about and how it has developed in the past 400 years.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 87 reviews