Just goes to show, construction will probably not be going away any time soon. Safe bet for a company, same as how land generally holds value (in the extreme long term). People need places to live.
Heh... I was rather hoping to see "Nokia -- cellphones" in the list, but it cuts off just a few years before Nokia's 1865 founding date. Same for Nintendo (1889).
“It was the first multinational corporation in the world and the first company to issue stock. It was also arguably the world's first megacorporation, possessing quasi-governmental powers, including the ability to wage war, negotiate treaties, coin money, and establish colonies.”
“The Dutch East India Company remained an important trading concern for almost two centuries, paying an 18% annual dividend for almost 200 years. In its declining years in the late 18th century it was referred to as Vergaan Onder Corruptie (referring to the acronym VOC) which translates as 'Perished By Corruption'.”
I wonder what is the secret to keeping these corporations alive.
Some people say that the grandpa build the business, dad grow the business, and the son wreck the business. So these families might have ways or tradition to transmit knowledge and wisdom to their offsprings, or maybe they're just incredibly lucky.
Peter Lynch, the investor who used to run Fidelity's Magellan fund used to have a saying that he wanted to invest in businesses that even his dumb nephew could run.
The idea being, businesses that have great fundamental economics and competitive advantages are going to be much more sustainable and thus more likely to compound wealth over time.
If you look at the lists, a lot of these are businesses that are fundamental and cater towards basic human needs/wants. For example, note all the hotels on the list. Maybe they have a fantastic really critical location in a country that has good property laws. That means you can keep transferring it through your bloodline and as long as nobody does anything too stupid (e.g.: take on crazy amounts of debt, go wild and de-worsify) the hotel should continue to exist.
I guess for the major part of the time they were more like a guild. Building temples requires very special skills; they say they aim at 1000 year duration, even though those temples are made of woods, instead of stones. It requires many years of apprenticeship, and probably becoming a member of their family was the only way to master the profession, thus there weren't much competitors. On the other hand, temples had always been built and reconstructed.
The "Church" is a government/country, not a corporation.
They've executed (lots of) people with their power via sovereignty.
If you mean the church on the corner, well there is no difference, they are simply a profitable business that pays no taxes (the clergy are often owning nicer homes and driving nicer cars than their patrons).
> If you mean the church on the corner ... the clergy are often owning nicer homes and driving nicer cars than their patrons
I expect this is common in US megachurches. It certainly isn't the case everywhere. For instance, in the Church of England here in the UK the person who runs the church on the corner is probably poorer than most of the congregation. (Their salaries are very, very low. There's one big thing that makes up for that, which is that the church provides them with a house, usually quite a nice one.)
(Note: I am not any sort of apologist for the clergy; I am an outspoken atheist. But I have friends and family who work for churches, and I have a decent idea of how little they are paid.)
For those who are wondering, this seems to be a reference to the 2006 bankruptcy of Kongō Gumi, the previous record-holder for the oldest continuously-running independent business. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kong%C5%8D_Gumi )
34 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 90.4 ms ] threadThis whole list is actually quite interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_corporations
I never would have guessed that.
There's actually a range of industries in the top 10 - construction, inn keeping, viticulture, goldsmithing and others.
“It was the first multinational corporation in the world and the first company to issue stock. It was also arguably the world's first megacorporation, possessing quasi-governmental powers, including the ability to wage war, negotiate treaties, coin money, and establish colonies.”
“The Dutch East India Company remained an important trading concern for almost two centuries, paying an 18% annual dividend for almost 200 years. In its declining years in the late 18th century it was referred to as Vergaan Onder Corruptie (referring to the acronym VOC) which translates as 'Perished By Corruption'.”
Some people say that the grandpa build the business, dad grow the business, and the son wreck the business. So these families might have ways or tradition to transmit knowledge and wisdom to their offsprings, or maybe they're just incredibly lucky.
The idea being, businesses that have great fundamental economics and competitive advantages are going to be much more sustainable and thus more likely to compound wealth over time.
If you look at the lists, a lot of these are businesses that are fundamental and cater towards basic human needs/wants. For example, note all the hotels on the list. Maybe they have a fantastic really critical location in a country that has good property laws. That means you can keep transferring it through your bloodline and as long as nobody does anything too stupid (e.g.: take on crazy amounts of debt, go wild and de-worsify) the hotel should continue to exist.
What differentiate a profitable church from a company, other than a different legal structure?
They've executed (lots of) people with their power via sovereignty.
If you mean the church on the corner, well there is no difference, they are simply a profitable business that pays no taxes (the clergy are often owning nicer homes and driving nicer cars than their patrons).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Fruit_Company
The company responsible for much of the misery throughout Americas.
Today they go by as Chiquita.
If you're talking about the Inquisition, then the church did not have sovereignty.
I expect this is common in US megachurches. It certainly isn't the case everywhere. For instance, in the Church of England here in the UK the person who runs the church on the corner is probably poorer than most of the congregation. (Their salaries are very, very low. There's one big thing that makes up for that, which is that the church provides them with a house, usually quite a nice one.)
(Note: I am not any sort of apologist for the clergy; I am an outspoken atheist. But I have friends and family who work for churches, and I have a decent idea of how little they are paid.)
Rupert Murdoch currently only ticks one, maybe two of those boxes.