This is the term used when land was taken away from the nobility and given back to the king until the noble has earned it back. This benefitted the king as well as he would gain the profits from the land until the noble was given it back. Henry also used something called the Order of the Garter to praise his nobility, as opposed to throwing land and money at them. This was a title that effectively cost Henry nothing but it carried some honour with it. Some nobles (William Stanley) were unhappy with this reward as they saw it as an empty reward, they wanted land or money instead.
Therefore I believe Lord Curzon was indeed a successful viceroy. Of the Sources, source two is intended to convey Lord Curzon’s tenure as Viceroy in the most positive manner .It lists his positive qualities that made him “India’s best ruler under the raj” . However given the nature of the British Empire in countries such as India the main priority is not always the well fair of the country. For instance many believe Britain was draining India of its wealth rather than helping develop the country, Dadabhai Naoroji's created this “drain theory”. Britain had used combination of force as well as divides and conquers to control India Up until this point.
In the end, the benefits to be reaped by ending the penny are not worth the investment involved. Beyond the convenience, the penny has intrinsic national value. Viewing Source G, one can easily decipher the longevity of the penny in our society. It is an emblem of our thrift, a portrayal of one of our greatest presidents, and a
This was called the Assumption Plan. In order for Hamilton's ideas to work, he had to make the wealthy tied to the federal government, so that they would believe in his system. They would become more likely to help and give more money if they were tied to the system itself. Jefferson and his supporters opposed this plan because of their belief in the states having a greater power than the federal government, and this gave the federal government too much power. However, when Hamilton agreed to establish the nation's capital in the South along the Potomac River, Jefferson and his supporters agreed to the idea.
Henry also needed to control the nobility because if he didn’t, or only managed to control a minority, he could have a revolution, and Nobles, together, had a lot more money and power than the king himself. Firstly he gave the Earl of Surrey his lands back, bits at a time to ensure his loyalty, while having him as a key figurehead in the north to stop rebellions, since the north largely supported Richard and Henry needed to find a way of controlling them. Also Henry didn’t get rid of all the Yorkist nobles in the council, only those who thought against him. He did this so that he wouldn’t have a full scale Yorkist rebellion on his hands, but he couldn’t have people who wanted him dead and had fought against him on his council. As well as this, Henry needed to be effective at getting England onto a secure financial footing.
That’s greed. The incentive to do these things is to be as successful as possible. That is the “American Dream.” That is why the US is the way it is today. Capitalism does have its strengths and weaknesses but the strengths outweigh the weaknesses. For example, greed causes businessmen to compete with other businessmen, thus, keeping prices reasonable and forces them to keep up with consumer demands.
Third, he says,“The best thing a man can do for his culture when he is rich is to endeavor to carry out those schemes which he entertained when he was poor.” That wouldn’t be the finest thing to do if he did things wrong in the past, it would be better to continue working hard to preserve their wealth. They get money because of what they’re doing in the present, not by sustaining schemes from the past. Henry David
He is very critical of those who hoarded their surplus riches while living and only wait until their death to allow their amassed fortune to be used for public goods. Ultimately, it is his belief that the wealthy have a responsibility of utmost importance to society in making sure that the community also get the benefits of a continuously improving society. It is their responsibility, for they are the best equipped and have the means to do so. This stems from Carnegie’s acknowledgment of a justified inequality because of social Darwinism. That’s
Providing a high-quality service has its risks, mostly being less cheap than competitors, so keeping your own customers loyal is very important. That’s why Mr Hoffner’s points about how handling that complaint are erroneous. Some different remedies need to be brought: 1. First of all, the $35 at the heart of the matter should be reimbursed him, because it has not any sense that he paid for a bad service; furthermore, all the shirts that Mr Shelton had to buy would have to be refunded. 2.
The article "My Philanthropic Pledge" by Warren Buffet has a favourable attitude to the initiative. This of course makes sense since Buffet, who wrote the article, is co-founder of the project. He explains how this project exists to benefit the poor, and how he would rather share his fortune because too much money does not make him happy. The text "The rich want a better world? Try paying fair wages and tax" by Peter Wilby however turns the perspective 180 degrees and has a clear negative attitude to the initiative.