Talk:Joint stock company

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Wasn't the Muscovy Company founded prior to Dutch East India Company?

Hi,

This page as well as this one allege that the english joint-stock Muscovy company was founded in 1555, which would place its foundation prior to the one of the Dutch East India. Thus, unless the Dutch have founded yet another joint stock company prior to 1555, the statement at the beginning of the 3rd section(History) is incorrect.Even had the Dutch founded a joint stock company prior to 1555, the statement "The Dutch started joint stock companies." followed by "In 1602, the Dutch East India Company issued the first shares on the Amsterdam Stock Exchange." is effectively misleading in that it implies that the Dutch East India was the first joint stock company. The restriction that the shares issued by the Dutch East India Company were the first only on the Amsterdam Stock Exchange is fully diluted by the earlier claim that "the Dutch started joint stock companies.". So, regardless, the beginning of the History section needs some rewriting (assuming the information about the Muscovy company is correct, be it not, the pages above need some editing).

Best,

Mircea

80.97.90.39 23:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

What about the Joint-Stock Company in early England? Who and why wer the people there? or was ther people?

[edit] joint stock company

  • Dutch East India Company - founded 1602
  • British East India Company - founded 1600
    • Our article says - "the [British East India] Company was founded as The Company of Merchants of London Trading into the East Indies by a coterie of enterprising and influential businessmen, who obtained the Crown's charter for exclusive permission to trade in the East Indies for a period of fifteen years. The Company had 125 shareholders, and a capital of £72,000."
      • How does that make the Dutch East India Company the first joint stock company? Jooler 13:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
What we have here is a mixture of Anglocentric chauvinism and a definitional mix-up. Of course, the English were the first to found joint-stock companies, and long before either the Muscovy Company or the Dutch and English East India Companies. But that is because it is by definition a typically English legal form. The Dutch and other Continental Europeans had types of business organization (rederijen in the case of the Dutch) that are comparable to the joint-stock company, but not exactly the same. All these partnership forms have in common that they are predecessors to the modern public companies that sell shares on the open market. The Dutch East India Company was the first to do that, hence its claim to primacy. What is needed is an article about the joint-stock company that makes clear the distinctions and would be blissfully devoid of chauvinism. I recommend the following article, that is already given as an external link in the article [1] to help make the appropriate distinctions.--Ereunetes (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How does this differ from a corporation?

How does this differ from a corporation? I think that should be right up front. Otherwise, I think this should be merged into Corporation which covers much the same material. Smallbones 15:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Corporations are legal entities which are treated seperate and distinct from its constitutent members. This gives the corporation limited liability and perpetual succession. Joint stock companies, however, are partnerships with transferrable ownership interest. The modern for profit corporation combines these two aspects, making it, in essence, an incorporated joint stock company. Corporations that are not joint stock companies (for example, universities, towns, cities, hospitals, etc.) exist, as do joint stock companies that are not incorporated and thus do not possess limited liability (see the link at the bottom of article regarding the Texas asset protection scams w/ unincorporated joint stock companies). Pmadrid 07:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is currently quite muddled. The lead section explains that modern a modern public company and private company are usually types of joint stock company. Meanwhile the 'joint stock company today' section implies that joint stock companies were merely a forerunner for something else. Pmadrid's comment above is probably easier to understand than the article as it currently stands. Any takers to fix it up?--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

I've restored the missing "Advantages" section.

--Train guard 15:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaning up

I have made an attempt to improve the layout and formatting. But an expert is required to correct the facts which I suspect have subtle errors. Also, why is there an emphasis on the Russian system ? I have decided not to remove it because I am not an expert. 165.145.220.32 (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NJSC

National Joint-Stock Company in Ukriane (Russian: Государственное акционерное общество) should be mentioned. Matthew_hk tc 09:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mitarbeiterbeteiligung in Aktiengesellschaften/ Kapitalgesellschaften