>https://twitter.com/joelhellman_SFS/status/1607764811340718084
The comments on the twitter thread are a bit out of touch as if the world bank has its own religious adherents…
EIC trade as mentioned earlier was divided into many parts and a particular family owned a particular part. For example, the growing of opium and collecting taxes in India was owned by EIC and its paid officials or after 1837 by the British government itself. But the House of Sassoon’s handled the trading in opium and other goods in India. Thereafter, the House of Jardine and Matheson handled their distribution in China and the House of Inchapes handled the shipping of these goods. House of Openheimers/Rhodes handled the gold and diamond mining business. The American operations were handled by the House of Rockefellers, Seagrams, Sassoons, Japhets, Jardine – Mathesons etc. The Houses of Rothschilds and Warburgs coordinated the banking aspect of this trade. Apart from theses, Houses of Lloyds, Abes and Astors assisted these operations by insuring the business of EICs. Even today these houses control most of the MNCS we see. We do an in-depth study of Rothschilds and Rockefellers and at the end give a list of Indian MNCs, only to show how most of these belong to only one single group run by a single family which was associated with the EIC owners, by either business or marriage.
East India Companies had a unique managerial style. In any particular country, all trading, business and commerce was always handed over to one or at the most two business houses. They were given full control over a nation under consideration. From 1800 to 1947, the House of Sassoon controlled most of the trade within India: banking, trading, shipping, insurance etc., from their Mumbai headquarters. Most of them started moving out of India and to England from 1900. Wherever the MNCs were in operation, they followed the above rule. They developed local industrial/business house (India is a large nation so we may encounter multiplicity in case of India), through which they exploited the independent nations. So for people of any nation, it is the local industrial house that comes to light as the exploiter and not MNCs. (During EICs the poor zamindaars were blamed for exploitation of farmers with huge taxes, whereas the fact was that the British under the EIC exploited the farmers). And these business houses will be ready to move out of the country once the MNCs finish their job and leave.
33 on 33 posts
China managed to get rid of the British Opium "merchants", but now am wondering is that how the Israel connection came about then over a period of years/decades. Slowly get the hooks back in again for some other purpose?