Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai General Chat

RobbyG wrote:

sorry but the yankees decide what happens not just in the middle east but in the whole world

Jan Kees is a Dutch name. Just as Wall Street in Manhattan is with Dutch origins. The Hudson river is founded by Henry Hudson. A Dutch fella. They say, who owns Wall-street is the one who owns the world, right?

Mate, didn't you know already...we OWN(ed) it all. Well not all...

http://www.historyconfidential.com/2009 ... ll-street/

The Dutch invented modern finance - the stock market and central bank - and were on the verge of dominating Europe at one stage. The Dutch whooped our (the Brits) in wars and had a superior navy.

When we worked out that we couldn't beat them, we staged a royal coup and invited a Dutchman to become king of England. William of Orange became King (well, ruled with his wife Mary) - was a staunch Protestant and went over to Ireland and causes some trouble which is still celebrated today by the Protestants there.

As a result, the Brits got the Bank of England, 'modern finance' (borrowing from its own people) - could more effectively finance wars and effectively this led to it seeing off the next big rival - France. The rest is history.

For a long while the Dutch had the monopoly on trade in the East - with the East India Company (dutch one, which was formed two years after the British one) dominating trade with India. Holland also had dominance further east in Indonesia etc. (IIRC)

But, their time came and went, just like the British, Portugese, Spanish and now the US - (and let's not forget that Italy and Greece were once super powers - Rome and Greek empires - now look at them!)

As for Norway - look at what can be done with oil when there isn't outside interference! Perhaps if Mossadegh had been allowed to do what Norway does, Iran would be free-er and richer today??

(No arnie - keep this here, we don't want to confuse eh with some more topics where he'll be itching to blame Muslims for)

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:
(No arnie - keep this here, we don't want to confuse eh with some more topics where he'll be itching to blame Muslims for)

Where did you conclude that? I don't know what agenda you work on, but you better not insult me like that. I really object against such dishonest statements.

Religion might have an influence in the absence of democracy in the Middle East. As you know I'm generally against religious influences in politics. But to say I'm itching to blame Muslims?

What in the world are you talking about Shafique?

RobbyG wrote:

shafique wrote:
(No arnie - keep this here, we don't want to confuse eh with some more topics where he'll be itching to blame Muslims for)

Where did you conclude that? I don't know what agenda you work on, but you better not insult me like that. I really object against such dishonest statements.

The operative words were 'don't want to confuse eh' - (eh = event horizon) and also the ' ' at the end.

shafique wrote:

RobbyG wrote:

shafique wrote:
(No arnie - keep this here, we don't want to confuse eh with some more topics where he'll be itching to blame Muslims for)

Where did you conclude that? I don't know what agenda you work on, but you better not insult me like that. I really object against such dishonest statements.

The operative words were 'don't want to confuse eh' - (eh = event horizon) and also the ' ' at the end.

Well, from my perspective the eh (instead of E.H. initials) was more like an 'aye' or éh confirmation...

For the normal reader, like me, who doesn't know your issues with DF member, Event Horizon, this might give an entirely wrong perspective on me. Which I clearly objected to.

Anyway, good to know your allegation wasn't directed at me. Although your reply on my quote surely implied that message.

Forgiven.

shafique wrote:

RobbyG wrote:

As a result, the Brits got the Bank of England, 'modern finance' (borrowing from its own people) - could more effectively finance wars and effectively this led to it seeing off the next big rival - France. The rest is history.

I would like to correct some of the injustice you portray about my heritage.

First of all, modern finance in Amsterdam, as in the first stock market and first succesful joint-equity limited liability trading Company (VOC) also known as the United East Indies Company, was supported by the Amsterdam Central Bank (Amsterdamse Wisselbank) with deposits from merchants to maids.

Every deposit was fully backed by gold instead of the English and French (John Law, Banque Generale) undertakings of modern finances for war funding. John Law initially innovated the idea from the Amsterdamse Wisselbank of the gold backing receipts to change into fiat paper currency based on fractional reserve banking. That led to the first immense stock bubble in modern history and the collapse of the Livre currency in France. Just google on Mississippi Bubble or Mississippi Company.

Just a small correction.

shafique wrote:

RobbyG wrote:

sorry but the yankees decide what happens not just in the middle east but in the whole world

Jan Kees is a Dutch name. Just as Wall Street in Manhattan is with Dutch origins. The Hudson river is founded by Henry Hudson. A Dutch fella. They say, who owns Wall-street is the one who owns the world, right?

Mate, didn't you know already...we OWN(ed) it all. Well not all...

http://www.historyconfidential.com/2009 ... ll-street/

The Dutch invented modern finance - the stock market and central bank - and were on the verge of dominating Europe at one stage. The Dutch whooped our (the Brits) in wars and had a superior navy.

When we worked out that we couldn't beat them, we staged a royal coup and invited a Dutchman to become king of England. William of Orange became King (well, ruled with his wife Mary) - was a staunch Protestant and went over to Ireland and causes some trouble which is still celebrated today by the Protestants there.

As a result, the Brits got the Bank of England, 'modern finance' (borrowing from its own people) - could more effectively finance wars and effectively this led to it seeing off the next big rival - France. The rest is history.

For a long while the Dutch had the monopoly on trade in the East - with the East India Company (dutch one, which was formed two years after the British one) dominating trade with India. Holland also had dominance further east in Indonesia etc. (IIRC)

But, their time came and went, just like the British, Portugese, Spanish and now the US - (and let's not forget that Italy and Greece were once super powers - Rome and Greek empires - now look at them!)

As for Norway - look at what can be done with oil when there isn't outside interference! Perhaps if Mossadegh had been allowed to do what Norway does, Iran would be free-er and richer today??

(No arnie - keep this here, we don't want to confuse eh with some more topics where he'll be itching to blame Muslims for)

Cheers,
Shafique

This is all untrue Shaf. The bold text above should read thus:

The Dutch invented modern finance - the stock market and central bank - and were on the verge of dominating Europe at one stage. The Dutch whooped our (the Brits) in wars and had a superior navy.

When the British worked out that we couldn't beat them, they decided to use more devious means. The British staged a Royal Coup and Invited a Dutchman, a Mr Weed from Rotterdam to be the King of England.

William of Tango as he became known, became King (well, ruled with his wife Mrs Tango). William was a very chilled chappie indeed. He thought a good way to beat the Dutch was to airdrop by Hot Air Balloon, daffodil bulbs over the entire country and to introduce Cannabis to Amsterdam. His plan worked and thus, he alone, created the most chilled out country in the world. The Dutch Navy kept turning up late for sea battles and kept going the wrong way, and Hollands finances totally went to "pot".

As a result, the Brits got the Bank of England, 'modern finance' (borrowing from its own people) - could more effectively finance wars and effectively this led to it seeing off the next big rival - France. The rest is history.

Wrong again Arnie.

It was the French who attacked us from behind while we were stretched to the limit in Asia with all our ships. We never counted that the French traitors would stab us in the back while we didn't expect it. We had no defense left in Holland. All was out in Asia.

That was the end of the Dutch Golden Era.

RobbyG wrote:Wrong again Arnie.

It was the French who attacked us from behind while we were stretched to the limit in Asia with all our ships. We never counted that the French traitors would stab us in the back while we didn't expect it. We had no defense left in Holland. All was out in Asia.

That was the end of the Dutch Golden Era.

With respect mate you are wrong, the French just breezed in. Fortunately France invaded Holland in the early evening, after tea and while all the Dutch were just sitting down to an evening in front of the TV and had lit up their "roll ups".

As for Hollands Navy, well they got lost in the English Channel ,they thought they were in Asia because they had been going around in circles for the last 5 months.

arniegang wrote:

RobbyG wrote:Wrong again Arnie.

It was the French who attacked us from behind while we were stretched to the limit in Asia with all our ships. We never counted that the French traitors would stab us in the back while we didn't expect it. We had no defense left in Holland. All was out in Asia.

That was the end of the Dutch Golden Era.

With respect mate you are wrong, the French just breezed in. Fortunately France invaded Holland in the early evening, after tea and while all the Dutch were just sitting down to an evening in front of the TV and had lit up their "roll ups".

As for Hollands Navy, well they got lost in the English Channel ,they thought they were in Asia because they had been going around in circles for the last 5 months.

Guys like you make Pinochio look like a girl.

Get outta here.

peace and love man

arniegang wrote:peace and love man

Aren't you gonna offer me some 'green democracy' then?

Robby, I apologise unreservedly for any confusion or unintended insult my attempt at humour produced. I'll ensure to put 'eh' in ' ' in future


As for the history lessons - firstly Robby, no disagreements on the description of what the Dutch invented (joint stock companies etc)- I actually meant it in a positive manner - these developments did indeed create real value by enabling wider ownership and facilities where capital could be used more efficiently. (You guys, and later the Brits, created the tools that later would be mis-used for speculation rather than investment).

(Anyway, this info is fresh in my mind as I recently read Niall Ferguson's book 'Ascent of Money' - which he also made into a documentary series for TV - both are recommended, but (naturally) there's more detail in the book. Both are available on-line if one looks in the right places )

As for arnie's 'corrections' - I'm wondering whether he's writing from an Amsterdam cafe! (But I laughed).

Ok - you ex-colonial powers can duke it out without me...

Cheers,
Shafique

Thanks,

That book, from Niall Ferguson - The Ascent of Money, did you read that on my recommendation I made some time ago? Because I mentioned it on DF and have read the book myself also. I really enjoyed it.

Regards Rob

Not consciously Robby - I had read his book Empire before and my boss had also recommended Ascent of Money. I saw the documentary series a while back, but only finally got the book a few months ago. But regardless - it is a fascinating read.

On my list of 'to-reads' is his book on the American empire - Collosus.

My personal view is that these geopolitical issues are so multifaceted, that you can look at the past events through different lenses/filters and come up with different conclusions. The factors all interact - so it is good to look at the individual theories and then put them all together and decide whether we agree with the theories being presented.

Finance appears to be an 'enabler', but so was technology and certainly military(particularly naval) power - and in Empire he also shows the effect of 'missionary zeal' in one of the chapters.

What's fascinating to me is that there are general themes which can be found in all previous and current empires/hegemonies.

Cheers,
Shafique