Talk:The South Sea Company

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• Various sources disagree on whether the Bubble Act was passed in 1720 or 1721. This will inevitably bring about the end of civilization as we know it. Not much of a loss, really. -Itai 16:42, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

• I've just finished reading "A Very English Deceit: The Secret History of the South Sea Bubble and the First Great Financial Scandal" by Malcolm Balen, which highlights substantial omissions from this wikipedia article (for example: no mention of John Blunt, one of the main -- if not the main -- protagonist in the Bubble).
  • So add what you see fit. We want all the facts. - Jerryseinfeld 20:25, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to move this article to "South Sea Bubble"? --Frank Schulenburg 10:53, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That redirects here now, which seems appropriate. Fawcett5 11:59, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion a redirect is not appropriate because the article deals mainly with the South Sea Bubble. As already mentioned in the last paragraph the South Sea Company stayed in business until the 1850s. The british contraband trade between Europe, Africa and the spanish colonies (based on the asiento de negros, granted to the South Sea Company) led to the War of Jenkins' Ear in 1739. Against this background the article should be either enlarged or renamed. (cf. de:War of Jenkins' Ear, de:Asiento) --Frank Schulenburg 18:13, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

well then, go for it. Fawcett5 18:16, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 What's a hogarthian image? 2 Short or Long? 3 Speculative valuation 4 Regarding User:81.179.243.112 and deleted quotes

[edit] What's a hogarthian image?

Does it mean paintings on the style employed by William Hogarth? I don't know about the paintings so anyone can throw some light on this sicne the painting mentions hogarthian painting in the article. tx --Idleguy 08:23, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Short or Long?

The price finally reached £1,000 in early August and the level of selling was such that the price started to fall, triggering bankruptcies amongst those who had bought on credit and increased selling (i.e. short sellers).

I thought that was going long, not short. --Townmouse 23:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

You're right, it's going long; the missing piece is that it's going long on margin - that is, with borrowed money - which, just like short selling, exposes the person who does it to increased risk. 67.158.72.8 13:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speculative valuation

The valuation section seems to be entirely speculative, that is original research. Who did this valuation? If it is from another source then maybe it should be kept, with attribution.

Actually, I don't really understand what is meant by saying the SSC "took on" XX of the national debt. Does this mean they paid the government XX pounds? And then they exchanged it with investors for SSC stock? I'd like to see the mechanics of it all made clear. I'd also like to see some good sources cited (certainly not Mackay). (unattributed)

The debt taken on was short-term debt owed by departments such as the Ordnance Board and Navy Board. I doubt that cash actually changed hands; I think that the holders of debt were issued with the company's securities in exchange for the bills and debentures which they held, evidencing the debt owed them. Peterkingiron 19:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Not all of it was short-term, but that explanation is basically correct. The Company's deal with the Government was essentially the same deal that debt consolidators make with people who owe too much on credit cards: the Company would take over all the payments on the Government's debts, and in exchange the Government would owe the company money under a single large loan with more favourable terms. However, on the other side the Company was offering a deal to the Government's creditors - which they would eventually be compelled to accept - of giving them stock in the Company in exchange for erasing the debts. So the supposed eventual state would be that the Government owed its money to the Company instead of to its creditors, and the former creditors owned much of the Company instead of being owed money directly. The clever bit was that because of manipulating the share price, it was possible to get the creditors to accept, in exchange for their claims, shares corresponding to much less of the debt than the amount originally owed to them. The excess became profit for the authors of the scheme. 67.158.72.8 05:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding User:81.179.243.112 and deleted quotes

While wikiquote is an archive and reference source for quotes I think a small amount of obviously relevent quotes is usefull to the wikipedia project. Any comments? Wigren 11:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

A single quote given without context or qualification has no encyclopaedic value. If what Newton apparently said (is there a source? In particular, what justification is there for the shouty NOT?) has a significant bearing on the subject of the article it would be possible to include it in the main text, but putting it in a section called 'quotes' strips it of any encyclopaedic relevance it might have had, and leaves the reader questioning why that one particular quote might have been chosen to be given such prominence. Quoting is seldom encyclopaedic even if you include the quote in normal prose - it gives the impression that the encyclopaedia endorses one person's viewpoint. Far better to write neutrally in the voice of the encyclopaedia. 81.179.243.112 23:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the Newton quote stands to show how far reaching the bubble was. I think your right that it would be better incorporated into the article. Any suggestions where? And how can we get better consensus on this? Wigren 14:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)