East India Wall Street

declaration.png

The company was booming. It was harvesting tea from Asia and selling throughout the empire. Times were good and tycoons were fat and wealthy. Times couldn’t be better as the government subsidized East India Company collected record profits from the subjects throughout the British Empire.

In Parliament, and with an economic need for further subsidization for a sprawling empire, Great Britain passed tax levies on East India Company tea that affected colonists throughout the empire. With little or no influence in Parliament – certainly no representation – John Hancock of Massachusetts Bay Colony began a black market operation to bypass British tea, instead choosing to import from the Dutch who levied no such taxes.

The year was 1773, and the actions initiated by Hancock and others in the Thirteen colonies culminated in a Continental Congress and a Declaration of Independence three years later.

Several hundred years later, a different economy exists. Again, business was booming as traders and bankers invested in assets with unlimited potential. In fact, the only limit of value on the assets was that which the imagination could merit.

Money flowed freely, encouraged implicitly by Congress and central banks across the globe. Indeed, the age of the American Empire extended and exported its wares in the form of the dollar far and wide across the globe, affecting Asia, Europe and points in between. Times were golden and assets gained steam.

When the market realized an over-inflation of prices and assets, it was too late. As Parliament realized that a dying industry required economic infusion, and passed an import tax that resulted in the revolt and the beginning of the end of economic dominance for the British Empire, America faces a similar scenario.

Does it infuse and, by proxy, prop up an economic policy that has reached its potential limit, and by doing so ignore the history that can teach them so much? Or does it allow an economic recession to happen, recognizing that one mans loss is another mans profit?

I’ve been given grief, even by my own people here at Technosailor, for covering content that is not directly social media related. That is not the point of this blog. We cover the technology, business and trends of the day to help readers understand the landscape.

These are difficult times, and people are losing money hand over fist. It’s going to happen. It has to happen. The American empire is not about territory. It is about the Dollar and the economy of America is the economy of the world. It needs correction and, like Parliaments actions of 1773 resulted in the ultimate death of the British Empire, the meddling of Congress in markets affected by failed policies of the same, will ultimately result in the death of the American Empire.

Of course, the death of the American Empire is not entirely bad either. The U.S. could use a little bit of humility, but to do so will hurt for many many people… not just Americans.

Aaron Brazell

Aaron Brazell is a Baltimore, MD-based WordPress developer, a co-founder at WP Engine, WordPress core contributor and author. He wrote the book WordPress Bible and has been publishing on the web since 2000. You can follow him on Twitter, on his personal blog and view his photography at The Aperture Filter.

4 thoughts on “East India Wall Street

  1. Although I get where you're going with this, and can generally agree, didn't the British Empire really retain it's global power until the middle of the 20th Century? And isn't our current American Empire really just a continuation of the British Empire? Didn't the same or similar forces that powered the British Empire simply get handed off to the USA after the calamity of WWII?

  2. I see your point and I guess it's a matter of perspective. Wikipediadefines a First, Second and Third British Empire with the first endingaround the time of the American Revolution. The Second ending in the 1800swith the Napoleonic Wars and the Third ending around World War II. I thinkwe can all agree that the decline of the British Empire as is remembered, atleast by me, began with the decline of the East India Company.

  3. Would you say the British Empire was an empire that was largely economic? I see it as a territorial empire, something that the American Empire is not. Also interestingly, the 20th century style empires were known as Superpowers, not Empires. The Imperialistic mindset is gone in some ways, and in other ways it's not.

  4. Would you say the British Empire was an empire that was largely economic? I see it as a territorial empire, something that the American Empire is not. Also interestingly, the 20th century style empires were known as Superpowers, not Empires. The Imperialistic mindset is gone in some ways, and in other ways it's not.

Comments are closed.