How successful were Colbert’s reforms in stabilizing the French economy in the years 1661-1683. In 1661 the French economy was in trouble, Colbert realized that major reforms needed to get France back on track and place it on top of the power ladder in Europe. He was successful in doing so to a large extent and helped raise the money to build Versailles and help Louis fight a war in the United Provinces which he could not have achieved with out first boosting the economy and state revenues. However he failed to fully develop the potential of French trade and didn’t recognize the importance of agriculture. Colbert needed to strengthen the French economy in order to bring Louis the money he needed to build the magnificent palace he had planned at Versailles and to fight wars with Spain.
France got affected economically which made the people of France lose hope on monarch. The enlightenment was a more important cause because without that the people would have not thought the American Revolution as a big turning point. The critical thinking that the enlightenment bought about caused the people to look at it from another
We thought that Product Innovation was the most important key success factor along with quality, and global strategy. We didn’t think that cost competitiveness was that important because Nike, Under Armour, and Adidas aren’t a best cost provider in fact they seem to be a differentiated provider. We believed that Under Armour was better than the other companies in product innovation because of all their advanced moisture-wicking fabric. Global strategy was also really important to us because that company has to focus on other countries besides the one that it is in. And with Under Armour struggling with their sales revenue in foreign countries we gave them a nine compared to Nike that we felt was a ten because a lot of their revenue comes from other countries.
King Louis XIV was a further powerful absolute monarch than King Philip II because he had more control over his people by forcing them to spend money on fashion while Philip didn’t. He used taxes and monopolies more efficient than Philip to make France more prosperous, and had the utmost powerful army in Europe. King Louis XIV started fashion in France so people could spend their money on it and don’t have enough to by weapons and finance themselves to rebel him. While as Philip didn’t pay attention to the importance of the idea so he lost the Dutch Netherlands by the rebellion of the people, which was imperative to his empire. He gave tax benefits to French companies, and to the middle class he gave them monopolies and who accepted would return him with a profit percentage and would collect taxes from people and return it to him.
This might have been seen as being selfish to other countries, which is why other nations eventually started taxing goods from France. Minimizing imports was not the only measure France took to keep their money. They also built a large navy to protect against smugglers. The actions taken because of Colbert’s Mercantil system made France very wealthy, and eventually was adopted in all parts of the world to create wealth. The surpluses of money that Mercantilism creates still finance wars all around the globe in the 21st Century, and it is amazing that Colbert invented it back in the 17th Century.
Their efforts are primarily unproductive. While they do try to get more of the suppliers off of the streets, it simply raises the price of the product. Hence, more suppliers are encouraged to enter the market because they believe the rewards outweigh the risks. Chapter two of Super Freakonomics begins with yet another comical title that reads, “Why Should Suicide Bombers Buy Life Insurance?” This chapter draws in the readers with compelling aspects why terrorism is so cheap and easy, and of both birth and death. I will begin with the talk of terrorism.
One of Wilson’s first concerns was to reduce tariffs. He believed that tariffs made it possible “too establish monopoly in domestic markets” and by their removal there would be an increase in competition (35). The Underwood bill, which lowered or abolished most tariffs, actually supported big business and made it harder for small manufactures to compete in
Although advertisements seem as a positive addition to countries in need of a stable economy, it is a enormous impact on people’s lives. (Doc. E) Without it, people wouldn’t know the latest fashion style, the best car, or the new developed drink and it would keep people in a boring routine of buying the same products and not exploring. Even though advertisements try to influence people’s decisions, it is up to the people as consumers to make moral
America was becoming a large export nation and needed economies where they could sell their products. If America could win over countries who were being “taking over by communism,” then their economies would come with them to the American side. Countries such as Korea and Vietnam were not invaded by America in order to stave off the communists; they were invaded in order to further the American agenda. Now while America did not win these wars, they largely increased their army bases in the process while securing a little more economic support in the
“The most important provision of this act however is the prevention of anticompetitive mergers. This occurs when a company buys a competing firm. While most mergers allow the companies to create better quality goods at less expensive prices, some mergers limit competition and make price fixing easier. This part of the act was designed to prevent mergers from creating monopolies” (Ellsworth, 4). This section of the Clayton act wanted to promote free trade and keep smaller businesses from getting too greedy.