East India Company

Robins who five years ago wrote concerning the company that previously even dominated in India in 'The Corporation That Changed the World’ asserts that the East India Company was as well an institution that was too big to fail. Facing financial problems, it pleaded to the British Government for rescue. It obtained almost 1.4 million pounds in the year 1773.  Robins further states that the intervention was considerable.

Robins sites around five factors that determine how one can make sure that companies both deliver private benefits as well as the public good to shareholders employees and customers. These factors include scale issue, financing structure, technology, corporate culture and regulation. Robins asserts that those factors stay rather evergreen.

He says that he was paying attention to the gulf in memory about the company. According to him, in England, it is almost a gone memory. However, in India, you it is very alive and close to the surface. Certainly, India will remember East India Company for a long time (Robins, 2006, p. 56).

The 'Company Raj' as it is from time to time called spanned a century, between 1757 and 1858. Nonetheless, even devoid of the India approach, there can be few further appropriate instances of a business in an era where very few corporations were present. For one, it existed for 274 years. According to Robins the company was accountable for half of the global trade then.

Also, Robins asserts that it was among the blue chip shares. The East India Company was an extraordinary corporation due to its staff. John Stewart Mill and James Mill both of which were philosophers and economists were in its headquarters. Robert Malthus taught economics in its training college. More so, there were a couple of writers working for this company including; Thomas Love Peacock and Charles Lamb. Robins further states that you cannot imagine a business now having both poets and executives (Robins, 2006, p 132).

However there is a problem with a corporation about which a lot is already known. For instance, in the British libraries, there are huge amounts of record concerning the company. According to Robins, the challenge was attempting to build up a fresh understanding and see if there is something one can draw from the corporation’s history which has some significance today. Four years subsequent to Robins' work, the East India Company name was re-energized by an Indian. Sanjiv Mehta purchased the right to utilize the logo and the brand. The fresh East India Company boasts of the baseline 'Reborn and Renewed.'

Mehta deciphered that if the initial East India Company had been present now, it would have been a lavishness brand. Thus, the East India Company 2.0 put up for sale luxury gift sets, jams and teas. Robins can associate the new East India Company with the old one as well. He says that what is fascinating is that how they were able to take some of the lavishness of Asia, textiles and spices at that time, and make mass production for the market. The revised edition of his book, will as well contain much more on China in addition to on the one-time Madras region. When the book was initially published, Robins established that its market success emulated the gulf in memory. It was well received in India than in the UK.

The excellent thing regarding the corporation is that it was so extensive, that there is widespread participation. There was concentration in China as well as interest in the US since the corporation was concerned in the Boston Tea Party. This was a really global business. That is why it was deemed too big to be unsuccessful.

Adam Smith and Karl Marx

When Adam Smith drafted his inquest into the Causes and Nature of the riches of Nations in 1776, mercantilism had seen its healthier days. Smith's critique was a most well-designed against the decrepit structure, since it was so straightforward. He claims that all the roles that mercantilism put in the state can be more efficiently carried out by the individual industrialist. For example, rather than have the regime dictate quantities and prices of goods, the law of supply and demand would by design find the quantity and the price which best considers both the seller and the buyer. More so, rather than have the regime settle on what business to invest in, the individual industrialist, stimulated by the profit reason, would make that choice. Further more, rather than have the regime organize production, the industrialist, again in the attempt to make the most of his profit, would find the most favorable "division of labor" that would progress productivity and exploit profits (Smith, 2009, p. 442).

Mercantilism is the economic principle that regime management of foreign trade is of chief significance for making sure that the military security of the country is well established. Particularly, it demands a constructive balance of trade. Mercantilism was prevalent in Western European economic strategy and dialogue between the 16th and 18th centuries. It was a cause of regular European wars in that period and encouraged colonial expansion. Mercantilist theory differed in complexity from one critic to another and developed over time. Favors for commanding interests were frequently safeguarded with mercantilist theory (Parkakunnel, 1963 p.1).

The corporation turned out to be the subject of fierce critique in Smith's Wealth of Nations, in which he claimed that companies were just as much the adversary of the open trade as the over-mighty state. From Smith, we can draw the essential of keeping business size in check. This is of special significance in present economy, where globalization is nurturing escalating commercial attentiveness.

Karl Marx explained how the East India Company dominated India to make cash out of it. It is now sixty years since the British Raj lastly came to a close with autonomy in 1947, and one hundred and fifty years since the outburst of the Indian Mutiny, more generally known as the primary war of Indian independence outside the UK. India will also be celebrating the 250th anniversary of the momentous encounter of Plassey, when the London-based East India Company’s private army overcame the services of the nawab of Bengal, therefore leading to in excess of two centuries of British control in the subcontinent.

For a number of people, this chronological trinity will serve to draw attention to the growth, collapse and more topical renaissance of India as an international power. When the company was initially found, Mughal India controlled twenty two per cent of the world GDP, with Britain making less than a tenth of that. By the time Britain eventually left India's shores about three and a half centuries afterward, its general earnings was more than fifty per cent superior than its past colony. at the present, of course, India is yet again seen as a worldwide economic star, assertively shaking off its imposing past.

At its core, the East India Company's commerce form pooled speculation at home with aggression overseas. It was Karl Marx, in the 1850s as the corporation shifted towards its closing stages in the bloody mutiny, who in a few words incarcerated the force that lay behind its brutal rise to power. It was not any grand venture that had led it on, he asserted, but rather the corporation had dominated India to make cash out of it. This applies to date (Marx, 1975, p. 12).

Order now

Related essays