The challenge of leadership is to be strong, but not rude; be kind, but not weak; be bold, but not bully; be thoughtful, but not lazy; be humble, but not timid; be proud, but not arrogant; have humor, but without folly.”- Jim Rhon. A good leader should allow there people to be secure, and allow the people to grow financially, and he/she should be able to represent there peoples values. Philip II didn’t do any of that. Philip was a murderous oppressor, who acquired large debts from his military actions, and imposed high taxes on his citizens which evidently led to his ultimate failure. Philip is called close minded and said to be selfish with his money.
Both FDR and Hoover because of their political differences handled the depression in a different way. President Hoover believed in a small government, and laissez faire to not get involved in businesses. He was sure that the depression would pass, is normal and will fix itself. Relief would be provided through the people and charities. Hoover’s economic philosophy was restrictive monetary policy and free market.
To the government the whole reason of the law was to guarantee land owners profits of which they had became accustomed to during the war. However opponents of the regime both inside and outside of the regime only saw the law as a class piece of legislation in which the law saved landowners from three things: cheaper foreign grain, stabilised prices and making corn more expensive for the consumer. This concept and idea was not new, a similar law 1804 had been introduced to guarantee 80 shillings a quarter. In spite of this the government had problems to face including riots, petitions and demonstrations. The main protest for this law, was the Luddism riots and machine breaking.
It highlights financial gain in terms of ‘profits’ for the King. Although source I does not directly reject the motives of a belief in corruption as it does not provide a royal viewpoint, it implies that the King and Cromwell were driven by greed and anger. Perhaps Source I also provides a more useful account as Aske would be expressing his perspective under the knowledge that he was soon to lose his life, although he was clearly going to accept this forceful view because of his position as the leader of the Pilgrimage of Grace and representative of the opposition to the dissolution of the monasteries and the
The Liberals knew they had to find a way of keeping the working class votes. Reform could therefore be seen as a rather selfish, politically advantageous response to political change. Changing attitudes within the party, summed up as New Liberalism were influential in promoting change and the example of Municipal socialism encouraged Liberal politicians towards national reforms is also holds water as a very influential factor. Many Historians still believe that the reforms were introduced due to genuine concern over the poor after Rowntree and Booth’s discoveries. Their discoveries were startling and unsuspected.
While at a glance each of these programs may seem harmless, Dr. Spencer illustrates why he believes America’s economy is declining because of the current system. Dr. Spencer states,” The most useful role of government in the economy is to make sure people –especially companies and businesses-play by the rules.” Anti-trust laws for example provide rules that prevent monopolies in the market. Many of the programs the government enacts stall the natural effects of supply and demand that drive a free market and are in fact monopolies. As is
Darius I was an odd tyrant. All outwardly appearances suggested that he was truly concerned about his subjects and defending them from intruders. He made it a priority to ensure the prosperity of his empire; after all, happy subjects were obedient subjects. However, even with as much as he did to seem like a “fair and just king,” it was all done to appease his ego. Yes, he protected his people, only to expect payment from them in the form of taxes, gifts and tributes.
Theodore Roosevelt stepped up and warned businesses to “act properly.” Those business elites that cooperated with the government elites were considered good trusts. Vice versa, those who didn’t were considered bad and thus busted. Business elites still won the war due to the fact that the government could only go so far until it starts to hurt the economy. Whatever happens to the big guys would have direct impacts on the little
-The defeat was part of a larger rebellion that began after the First Emperor's death. -The people were dissatisfied with the tyranny of the Qin leaders and their legalist form of government. -Chinese history portrays the Han as having implemented many changes to the government, evidence shows that the Han continued to rule in the tradition of the Qin, only gradually incorporating Confucian ideals into their legalist form of government. - rose after the rebellions of the Ch’in (stage one) - (stage two) Wu Ti (emperor) brought new economic policies, built canals, established granaries for surplus grain, increased taxes on merchants, created government monopolies (salt, copper coins, iron & liquor) - Debate on monopolies after Wu Ti’s death: “Salt & Iron Debate” - Legalists said: state should enjoy profits from salt & iron - Confucians said: leave resources in private hands for moral purity (government would be corrupted by dealings with merchants) - Confucian ideas begin to influence the legalists (emperors see Confucian scholars as bookish) - Confucian ideas shaped the moral of men w/o external restraints
Although Hoover did try to ameliorate the situation, his efforts proved fruitless. He beseeched business, in a desperate Hail Mary, to keep their doors open and wages at normal rates and almost coerced union leaders into remaining quiet. He tried to accelerate government construction to provide jobs but it backfired when state and local cutbacks completely offset the budget. The Glass-Steagall Act of 1932 tried to increase commercial but his critics responded that his maneuvers were based on the “trickle-down” theory and would not reach the masses. Hoover’s most destructive and wrong move was the Hawley-Smoot Tariff that, although good intentioned, decimated foreign trade.