For example, there were some upper class such as Alexander Cassatt, who was in charge of the Pennsylvania Railroad also supporters of regulation and political Reform. Second, the Populist movement was fighting for money while the Progressives were pursuing higher profit. People who made up primarily of poor farmers just want to have a common life with others; they found that movement did influence the economy and politics. Then the Populist Party started to fight for moral regeneration, political democracy, and anti-monopoly. In weekly reading, The Common People Are Being Robbed, Mary indicated that “The Puritans fleeing from oppression became oppressors”, and so did the farmers.
However the monasteries had money in abundance, both in terms of currency and in land. One conclusion is therefore, is that Henry dissolved the monasteries in order to tap their wealth. However, there are also other possible reasons that I believe influenced Henry’s decision to dissolve the greater monasteries. There are also suggestions that Henry believed the dissolution of the monasteries was necessary because the Church and the clerical order as a whole was becoming increasingly corrupt. The three sources also mostly agree with the view that the dissolution of larger monasteries was largely driven by financial motives.
However, the ruling class enacted to squeeze and exploit with their political power, which sharpened the contradiction and resulted in the uprisings. The nobles had to make concessions to increase the salaries and reduce the land rent. Due to most of the nobles’ income was from land, it caused the tremendous decrease of the income and put their finance into a difficult situation. The suzerainty of the nobles was lowered while merchants and financiers took the opportunities to grab more money and become the main decision maker in the government. It weakened the political power of the original ruling class.
Simply put the policy worked on the theme with more money, a country has more power. The English colonists lost a lot of their money to the England and the monarchy because of the mercantilism policy. It was bad deal all the way around since the colonists sold their raw materials to the mother country at ridiculously low prices and bought back the finished products at exceedingly high prices because they could not complete the finished product. The second part of the policy was that a nation must regulate its trade to sell more than it buys. This ultimately brought the Navigation
This act provided retirement funds, disability insurance and unemployment compensation on a national scale. FDR also made that the value of the dollar was devalued to help stimulate trade with foreign countries and to support competitive practices in terms of business. With the New Deal in place, assistance was provided to businesses and farms and The National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) was passed to stabilize industry. At the time, The Supreme Court deemed that the Agricultural Adjustment Acts and NIRA were unconstitutional. Many people claimed the programs were socialistic and were worried about having a welfare state funded by the government.
A noble‘s land and estates could be confiscated by the king. By issuing fines Henry gained much needed income and by making the nobility poorer, he weakened their power.
The Catholic Church did not want to be responsible for funding the Inquisition. The Inquisition was funded by the royal treasury but this was not sufficient and so they began using the money obtained from people’s property to fund the Inquisition. The church thought it would be best to take people’s property instead of taking people’s lives. This affected families throughout Spain. If a father was accused of something his whole family will suffer with him.
He saw that many of Rome's troubles revolved around the decline of the free peasantry who were flocking into the cities. Therefore, he proposed a bill to give land to the idle mob and re-establish them on their own farms. The land he proposed using was public land owned by the state that, unfortunately, was controlled by rich and powerful senators who most likely would be reluctant to give it up. An ardent reformer like his brother, Gaius passed a law guaranteeing cheap grain for the urban poor. Later politicians would make that grain free at state expense.
The problem with this scheme is that it works by stifling innovation and competition. The wealthy stay wealthy by extracting value instead of creating it. The more value they extract, the more laws they write protecting the rights and privileges of the extractors. As companies like General Electric realized, it was better to sell off productive assets and become more like a bank. The system was created for people who have money to make money.
Additionally, living-wage laws allow workers more time to spend with their families. On the other hand, Richard Berman states that living-wage laws are ineffective in helping the working poor because higher-skilled workers would strive for jobs once occupied only by low-skilled workers. Although living-wage laws might not eradicate poverty, they are necessary to protect the workers from being underpaid. In addition, they would keep the working poor from government assistance and they would create a stronger sense of family unity in working class neighborhoods. Not only would living-wage laws protect workers from being underpaid and