Previous kings had only used the Chamber erratically in times of war however Edward decided to make it more systematic, which in turn siphoned in much more money. This point does support how Edward was a good king because all sources show that it was his idea, not his exchequer. Edwards new policy showed that he managed the royal finances well because it meant that more revenue was coming in therefore he could run the country, as well as start paying of Henry’s debts. Additionally it meant that he could live of his own because he did not have to ask parliament to raise a tax. I think that this was possibly the most important cause to
How far did Edward IV restore the authority of the monarchy in the years 1471 – 1483? Edward IV was very successful at restoring order in England between 1471 and 1483. As this was his second reign, Edward was very experienced, so he had good knowledge in what to do to support England. Edward IV improved royal finances drastically. His methods included increasing the effectiveness of certain existing methods to bring income to the crown, this included: * Ordinary revenue, this came in annually from crown lands and custom duties but also included the profits of justice (fines) and feudal dues on the lands retained in return for military services.
Although Mercantilism largely served its purpose to enrich the parent country, during the 17th century this policy operated by England rather influenced its 13 colonies both negatively and positively, paving the way for resentment and Adam smith’s capitalistic society to present day. According to mercantilist doctrine, a nation should exercise full control of trade and production leading to a much more garnished and self sufficient economic system. In order to display full direct authority on its assets, English government put forth the acts of Trade and Navigation—that is in other words implying full control on imports/exports and certain goods that were only allowed to be exported to England itself. Although positive economic results would be seen through the perspective of England, these results would be overshadowed by more influential affects on the 13 colonies, politically and economically. Economically, England would directly govern its colonies via the Navigation Acts establishing three major rules.
Economic factors were a chief motivation for colonization to European countries. Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany believed conquering primitive areas would help build up industry and agriculture. He also thought it could help build up a fleet of ships and is quoted “Our future lies upon the water.” (doc 1). Other leaders such as Jules Ferry of France saw these places as shelters, ports for defense, and provisioning (doc3). John Hobson, an English economist, saw imperialism as inevitable, for powers of production outpace consumption resulting in more profit for the mother country (doc 2).
Although both Han China and Imperial Rome had a centralized imperial government with an administrative bureaucracy, Han China implemented Confucian ideas and teachings into their administration, while Imperial Rome administered mainly with force. Han China and Imperial Rome were both large empires, so to maintain efficient rule over its people, they had a centralized imperial government. To further maintain efficient rule, they imposed an administrative bureaucracy. While both the Roman and the Han Empire had a bureaucracy, the Han’s bureaucracy was far more influential and active in society than that of the Romans. Emperors of both Imperial Rome and Han China gave local leaders the power to rule their distant lands.
Thus, families that had to turn over much of their produce to landlords relied on these girls to send money home. This document comes from an outside source, a Buddhist priest, though, which could affect its truthfulness. In Document nine, Indian workers are described as peasants and farmers who earned low wages and lived in small huts. The speaker of this document was from the British Commission of Labor in India, so it was probably very accurate, coming from a government source. In document five, it is explained that wages are low from the factories because the factory workers are unattached parts of their family and only need to earn enough money to support a single person, not a whole family.
They also appointed officials. These meetings molded the political structure of the colonies, and even Thomas Jefferson stated, was “the best school of political liberty the world ever saw.” Not only did the Puritans influence the colonies politically, they also influenced them economically. The Puritans were hard workers. They believed that only prosperity and success could be achieved through piety and hard work. The Puritans worked mostly on farms and traded their goods for other goods that they could not produce themselves.
He believed that industry needed to grow and encouraged commerce because it would provide all the revenues it needed. Considering how things are today, the outcome of the nation’s history was mostly in favor of Hamilton’s ideals. The nation’s economy is mixed, with agriculture working alongside industry and trade. Today’s national government is a strong, omnipresent body with authority that overrules the powers of the states, regulates the mixed economy and education. The only exception to this would be universal education, but this would prove to make the nation only stronger.
Through out the Meiji period, the ruling Oligarchs made serious strides in bringing Japan from an almost medieval stage of development to a modern developed nation state. Almost all of the decisions these powerful men made in bringing their country forward were not made with the peoples best interest in mind, but rather in the Oligarchs lust for power and profit. When the Meiji rulers took over from the Tokugawa rulers, they knew they had to industrialize their country as fast as possible in order to keep up with Western technologies. For the most part the rulers used private companies to modernize the country. The private zaibatsu (10-15 extremely powerful corporations) ,the heads of which had direct ties to the ruling Oligarchs, directed the economy towards pure profit at the expense of workers rights.
One of the weaknesses for this French colony was that their farm land was run on a seigneurial system of land distribution. Large landowners, such as nobility, individuals in the military, and church industrials, had farmers, also known as habitants, working on their land. These farmers had to pay annual fees to these seigneurs. In order to pay these seigneurs, they paid them in produce, labour, and occasionally in money when they were able to sell their crops to buyers. Another weakness of the land tenure was that the Seigneurial system did not encourage farmers to be creative for the production of their crops.