How France Lost It All
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 тра 2024
- Welcome to Economics Explained Essentials! In this video, we will explore the story of how Jean-Baptiste Colbert and King Louis XIV of France squandered away their immense wealth in grandiose and lavish style.
So how did this all happen? Sit back and let us tell you how France lost it all!
This video was made possible by our Patreon community! ❤️
➡️ / economicsexplained
Enjoyed the video? Comment below! 💬
⭑ Enjoyed? Hit the like button! 👍
✉️ Business Enquiries → hello@economicsexplained.com
🎧 Listen to EE on Spotify! 👉 anchor.fm/EconomicsExplained
Follow EE on social media:
Twitter 🐦 → / economicsex
Facebook → / economicsex
Instagram → / economicsexplained
Discord → / discord
#Finance #Econ #EconomicsExplained
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
ECONOMICS EXPLAINED IS MADE POSSIBLE BY OUR PATREON COMMUNITY 👊🙏
Support EE by becoming a Patron today! 👉 / economicsexplained
The video you’re watching right now would not exist without the monthly support provided by our generous Patrons:
Morgon Goranson, Andy Potanin, Wicked Pilates, Tadeáš Ursíny, Logan, Angus Clydesdale, Michael G Harding, Hamad AL-Thani, Conrad Reuter, Tom Szuszai, Ryan Katz, Jack Doe, Igor Bazarny, Ronnie Henriksen, Irsal Mashhor, LT Marshall, Zara Armani, Bharath Chandra Sudheer, Dalton Flanagan, Andrew Harrison, Hispanidad, Michael Tan, Michael A. Dunn, Alex Gogan, Mariana Velasque, Bejomi, Sugga Daddy, Matthew Collinge, Kamar, Kekomod, Edward Flores, Brent Bohlken, Bobby Trusardi, Bryan Alvarez, EmptyMachine, Snuggle Boo Boo ThD, Christmas
Inflation is far more harmful to individuals than a collapsing stock or property market because it directly affects people's cost of living, which they immediately feel. It is not surprising that the current market sentiment is extremely pessimistic. In today's economy, assistance is critical if we are to survive.
I'm not kidding when I say that the market crash and high inflation have me really stressed. I've been in the red for a while now and although people say these crisis has it perks, I'm losing my mind but I get it Investing is a long-term game, so focus on the long run.
I do agree and in my opinion, considering the world today, the implications of rising or declining rates, inflation, has minimal effects when it comes to trading the markets. It’s about knowing when to get in and get out which requires experience and basic knowledge of market structure. The markets is psychological, it’ll be suicidal to ignorantly get it. Better still, seek the help of a portfolio manager to passively earn and learn the markets at your pace.
RIGHT! Markets are oceans not lakes. The prominence of basic or institutional financial managers cannot be overstated. Take myself, having faced my share of bad trades, Fortunately with the help of my Portfolio manager, I came to understand the essence of timing, capital, entry, exit, goal and how they each affect every asset. Currently hold a $615k portfolio averaging a 14% monthly roi in less than 7 quarters. - -so I do know the importance of basic knowledge and delegation.
Interesting Roger. I think this is something I should do, but I've been stalling for a long time now. I don't really know which firm to work with; I feel they are all the same but it seems you’ve got it all worked out with the firm you work with so i surely wouldn’t mind a recommendation.
I definitely share your sentiment about these firms. When I was starting out, I checked out a couple of freelance investors online, so you could do the same. I personally work with “Colleen Janie Towe”, and she's is widely recognized for her proficiency and expertise in the financial market. With a comprehensive knowledge of portfolio diversification, she is acknowledged as an authority in this field.
This makes it sound like Jean-Baptiste Colbert invented mercantilist trade, but he was simply a man of his age.
He did.
@Pierre N In northern Italy, it existed as early as the 15th century. The British were practicing mercantilist trade in the late 16th century. It is not a 17th-century invention of Colbert, though he was an outspoken advocate of it.
Bullionism. When currency is a metal standard. Without substantial domestic production, it's rational to run trade surpluses to increase money supply.
No reference to the Late Show host in NY right? 😂
"The French Revolution [...], ending France's one powerful position in the global stage"
Napoleon: Am I a joke to you ?
Big mistake by them indeed.
@@davisoaresalves5179 Mistake by who?
After Napoleon, France was no longer the superpower of europe😊
@@waltuhgoodman3427 indeed, but video says it wasn't after the Sun King.
Yes, actually. Yes he is.
Did you know that Louis XIV was the one who popularized diamonds? Before him all monarchs from elizabeth I to the early hapsburgs posed with pearls. But after Louis XIV everyone had to be seen with diamond tiaras and necklaces
popularized in Europe you mean?
@@Navaneethkrishnamareverywhere
I'd argue that the lavish life style and the whole Versaille concept were a very thought out move to control the internal politic... the king forced the high nobles to outspend and compete with each other for his "favors", instead of plotting against the crown or dividing into warring factions... the spending also favored some high level artisans or industries...
this was the cost of maintaining peace inside...
and the constant wars were a "good" mean to keep the nobles busy... while they (the hot heads) were waging war on the frontiers, they were not doing it against each others or against the crown...
of course, it cost a lot and taxes were paid mostly by the commoners... but they had peace, not troubles like usual in France at the time.
There is such a thing as good. I have absolutely had it with people putting it in scare quotes since the late 2000s.
The government spent more than the country could afford. Shocker. Good thing we learned from this example to keep our governments accountable so that this hasn’t happened again…
Oh boy.
My question is:
Why didn't they just print more money?
I was at a networking event with finance majors and none of them could answer this question for me.=
BWAAAHAHA!😂
It didn't help that many of the talented crafts people in the country were Hugenot protestants, who left in large numbers for places like England, the Netherlands, etc. when Louis revoked the Edict of Nantes.
I'm glad you brought that up. I completely forgot about that.
Huge mistake that definitely cost the country big time. They never should have revoked the Edict of Nantes.
whats that?
@@hogatiwash7750 the Edit the Nantes is a text which enable a form of religious freedom in France. It put an end to the wars of Religion.
Once revoked, Protestants(or Huguenots) became second class citizens leading to all kinds of discriminations (trials, rape, etc.).
Huguenots tended to be educated (you can't communicate directly with god if you can't read the bible) so tons of craftmen and merchants. When they fled the country, it cost France a lot.
Louis XIV wrecked the French economy by waging wars to expand France to natural, defensible boundaries (the Alps in the east and the Rhine in the north). France's neighbors objected to his ambitions, so ... war after war.
While they might look and sound different in the moment, hubris in leaders is often historically indistinguishable from ineptitude.
Nice quote.
Am I the only one who's absolutely convinced that EE is just not the same without the Aussie guy's voice
True, but I did enjoy hearing this voice, maybe future videos should have more rigorous research so that the pleasant voice can be credible
I feel like this video fails to give an accurate explanation of the French economy during this time and can even be seen as dishonest. Its bad histography to do an economic and political analysis of a historic nation in the 1600 hundreds taking use of "modern" economic theory and giving verdicts based on them, atleast without noting doing so. The wealth of nations and the birth of modern economics was written 70 years after the sun kings rein, the notion of comparative advantage etc was not something widely believed in or even thought of at that time. Instead mercantalism and recource extraction was the dominant economic concepts. Mercantalism didnt even have a name at this point as that was first popularised by Adam Smith.
The fact that you say that baptiste tried to "grow" the french economy is just wrong, as concepts of a growing economy i a very modern economic idea, recourse extraction however through domestic production and taxation was, in a simplified sence the only way to look at economics during this time. Baptiste was a man of his time and did what men of his time did. The french economy was not an anomaly and why it failed was less due to economic missmanagment and more so through political and economic overextension. The fact that you say that the economic mistakes that france did during this time led to its downfall is even more weird as just a couple of years later they conquered most of Europe under Napoleon and was after that one of the largest world economies.
This was a weird video.
Agreed
TLDR; France was full of Frenchs
I agree with you for the most part. They shouldn't blame the leaders for not acting in accordance to theories that did not exist. Though i think it is fair to talk about the economic practices failed France. (Just because they didn't know the theories doesn't mean the theories aren't correct as such as the economy as far as i am aware didn't change that much by Adams time, though i admit i could be wrong) however, you are 100% right they definitely shouldn't blame the leaders since they literally couldn't know better. Except maybe their failure to shift the tax burden away from the poorest which tbf is more a failure of louis XVI who tried to change it. I don't know if that would have even occurred to anyone in Louis XIV's time
@@baswar And to be fair, had the reigning monarchs at the time made the rich and middle class happy, screwing over the poor, even like in modern day, wouldn't have led to anything. The poor just didn't have the kind of power needed to overthrow the monarchs and nobility, but with the wealth and power of the rich, the French Revolution became a thing.
The real problem was that at the age of Loui XVI there were several thousands nobles and many of them were funded by the state treasure, that burden was a very powerful factor of bankruptcy.
Always interesting, thank you.
Very nice, i tiried to listen abstacrt histroy and theoury. i very enjoy to listen about economy examples in our history in past. do such videos more, not neccecary soo much old but just do. great job =)
All the monarchies embrace lavish spending as a way to show off status, prestige and power.
Verseille is funky because it moved the center of power from Paris. It is built on the personal land of the Sun King, and a bit isolated.
10:10 "... so ending France's once-powerful position on the global stage." The French Revolution emasculated France? Napoleon anyone? 🤨
Came here for this lol. Maybe their powerful position in France ended in exchange for a powerful position in most of Europe?
Napoleon came to power in part due to the chaos created by the French revolution. And he was defeated twice: at the battle of Leipzig in 1813 and the battle of Waterloo in 1815. That pretty much ended France's European dominance. The second napoleonic era, that of his nephew Napoleon iii, was a bit of a disaster too, ending with France's defeat in the Franco- Prussian conflict of 1870.
@@heronimousbrapson863 That did not prevent France from still being one of the European leaders, even after Napoleon.
Only a ten year fluke, and thats coming from a frenchman. After him, there was nothing anymore. We completely lost our position on the world stage. Hell, france was among the most populated and rich monarchies of the world back then. What now?
@@evryatis9231 No, This is mainly due to the end of the Second World War. Before that, France was still a major power.
thanks a lot for this view I did not even suspected . that s a side of the story that is not taught in french school. I only learnt about Louis 14 grandeur and prestige and that is all ...
Hmm, so the issues that led to the French Revolution ultimately stemmed from the era of the sun king? I guess even for great leaders, the price of decadence ultimately comes back around?
Its pure bullsh lmao. 10% of debt in 1789, 1% of taxes. 1789 was purely political
Mostly political, but also famines, poor food redistribution did not help.
The main cause of 1789 however was rooted in Louis XIV reign. His son, following the ministers that gained power during the last years of his reign, modernized France and understood that to keep up with the english and Austrians, liberal changes (or at least a decentralization) were due (the waterworks and metalwork technology especially increased productivity were it was deployed, and centralized power hindered the deployment).
Louis XVI idealized his grandfather, and rather than continue his father's work, tried to revert some changes. He was an idiot who thought he was smarter than everyone else ( he declared war on Austria and betrayed French troops position, and kept the letters in his own cabinet ffs).
@@MrMillefail nonsense. Louis 16 felt because he was a liberal, destroyed many protective institutions. He should have restored absolutism
For a accurate reason for French Revolution, I suggest the revolutions podcast
Good video! Love learning about France’s economy and especially the era surrounding the French Revolution and it’s lead-up
I'm not sure I totally get the idea. France is no longer an economic superpower to this day? Is it not one of the most powerful european economies which are already powerful in general when compared to the world? Does it mean that during Napoleon era France was never powerful. Investors today fear france defaulting because they defaulted before the french revolution? I'm sorry this looks like a think tank which raised alarms over my long loved channel.
If this video tried saying the french MONARCHY never recover, then it counts until the French revolution, then is alarmingly ambiguous about it
@@abarrachina That bothered me as well. Specially because many people use that sort of argument in my country, Brazil, as to why we never fufilled the promisses of development. Some people honestly believe that facts that happened 300, 500 years ago can leave such unsurmountable problems that still prevent them of being what they ought to.
Maybe if they talk about the lack of population growth because of all the economic instability. Up until, the French Revolution, France had the fastest growing population and was extremely developed. By 1800, France had a population around 30 million. This was larger or comparable to countries much larger physically such as Turkey and Russia. Also three times larger than the UKs. This population growth plummeted in Sharpe contrast to everyone else's. By 1914 France only had a population of 39 million which was smaller than the UKs and blown away by its other continental rivals such as Austria-Hungary, Germohany and Russia who had populations of 59 million, 64 million and 140 million respectively. This drop in population growth could be contributed to other factors but political instability is probably on of them.
It’s a power. It’s not a superpower.
I mean france compared to the US, Russia, or China is nothing.
Colbert later moved to New York and landed a TV show.
Keep covering historical moments
Finally, someone NOT claiming that Marie Antoinette was the one that spent the French kingdom into bankruptcy.
She contributed, though.
She contributed a lot.
@@evryatis9231 having fancy parties isn’t going to bankrupt a country or cause peasants to starve. Starving peasants usually means wide and systemic lack of food products. Even if Marie Antoinette didn’t throw a single party and ate peasant rations she could have at best fed a maybe 20-2000 people.
It’s not a good look to have so much excess in a time of struggle, but she wasn’t causing the struggle.
@@annach109 Oh peasant and their peasant world view. 😏
Her dress alone cost several million livre while typical peasants could live with less than 50 livre a year. And that's just for her. There were at least a hundred of her groupie in each party, all as spendthrift as her. Don't forget that she had to wear new dress for each party. So we are not talking about food for mere 2000 people.
@@annach109 I know, but her lavish spending made everyone insanely angry. She was a big part of that last straw to break the camel's back that is the french population, and she contributed a lot to making the french monarchy being resented
so tho i agree with you that she was not the economics reason (wars were infinitely more expensive), she showed off, at a time where she really shouldn't have. so she contributed to the people's anger more than what could have been, even cost aside
When displaying maps why is the land blue? Shouldn't blue be reserved for water? It confused me.
Tell us about John Law and the Mississippi Company, which followed the Sun King's death...
As others have pointed out this applies modern economic analysis to people who had no concept of them. It also ignores the legacy. To this day France makes a lot of money from luxury goods and has a marked tendency to centralised economic policy making.
Protectionist Trade Policies are not necessarily a bad idea. Because while you may not have a comparative advantage now, with enough work effort and innovation you can gain one. This is why the US in the 19th C had very high tariffs since nascent American industry couldn't compete with the juggernaut that was British Manufacturing, and why recently the US has gone back to tariffs in the face of cheap Chinese labor(and more importantly cheap Chinese government loans to manufacturers) to protect vital industries from unfair competition.
That or you'll end up with:
- An army of zombie companies that require those policies to survive
- The general population angry because they have to pay more for lower quality goods
- Those sectors that required those imports damaged / unable to compete at a global scale.
Also.
- Sectors were you did have an advantage not beeing developed as the resources are syphoned away to less viable options.
@@daniel-or6sb Policies shouldn't be viewed simplictically or in isolation. Protectionism can be both good and bad depending on the context and other economic policies.
South korea for example had very high import taxes but also forced its companies to export or die. If they hadn't protected their local companies in the beginning the initially weak and poor local industry wouldn't be able to survive the competition from well established and capital-rich foreign companies.
Protectionism can also make sense with critical industries like the defense or some high tech industry. If your country loses that industry and the talent and infrastructure around it, it can be really hard to get it back up if the country you're importing from doesn't want to or is unable to export to you anymore. This also goes for agriculture. It may be cheaper to import from poorer countries but if those imports stop it's gonna be hard getting affordable food
@@daniel-or6sb Those are possibilities but they are not necessarily set in stone. It is up to policymakers to constantly ask the questions: What is the end goal? Are our current actions bringing that about? Is there a better way?
@@redhidinghood9337 I can agree with you that, in a extremelly limited scope and under the absolute willingless to let the companies die if they don't reach the goals, protectionism might work, but I disagree with every single example you gave. Defense does not operate on free market, makes no sense to talk about protectionism in it. Food and energy need to be secured, meaning you must choose well from who you buy it and should keep a minimum capacity of production, but closing the market is a bad idea, specially in countries without a lot of land/sun/energy sources. And good luck developing a high tech industry being protetionist. I mean, really. Your competitors combining the best of 30 different countries to make one product and you think you can make better alone? Wish I had that kind of self steem.
Good idea. The US has too many people working on AI, we should get them tightening screws on iPhones instead.
5:51 this is a bulgarian 1 lev coin spinning. :)
The passage according to which it was State subsidies and protectionism that hindered the productivity of luxury industries:
1) Seems like straightforward neo-liberal propaganda against State subsidies and forms of protectionism;
2) Doesn't keep in account that maybe, most notably luxury goods are niche sector, and more so in a feudal society, therefore they can't carry on alone an entire economy, no matter how small, and are even weaker with the largest country in Europe as France was in the XVII and XVIII century.
hard to sell expensive goods if there is nobody to buy them I guess.
Agreed
Wait a sec? I am not sure but this narrator sounds like the one from Business Insider or was it Vox?!
Or is it an AI?
Could be that the narrator is a free lancer and works for various people
I think you may want to change the flags in your presentation. The red white and blue flag is not the flag of France during Louis 14 reign
Blue banner w/ gold fleur-de-lis
20x tax revenue is when they collapsed... the USA is just shy of 7x, and the deficit continues to grow. It'll be interesting to see if the USA makes it to 20x, or falls earlier than that.
France "lost it all" during the mid to late XVIIIth century, during Louis XV and Louis XVI's reigns, because it was poorly administered, late to the industrial revolution that had started in the UK, financed the American independence hoping for returns on investment that never came back, and endured several disastrous harvests in a row, that led the commoner to the brink of starvation. That's what to caused the French Revolution of 1789. I know, I'm French and I studied it a great deal.
The "Sun King" died in 1715 and had nothing to do with it. Louis XIV's reign was quite successful: prestige aside, he won wars and gained territories. Naturally, it's easier to blame the few clichés everybody knows about French decadence, whether true or not.
Have read extensively about Louis XIV; personally admire his adminstration and rule. The video is bogus by all means; economic mismanagement indeed occured on a much larger scale after the Sun King's demise.
Everytime I try to give EE or somebody related to EE the benefit of the doubt and watch one of their videos this kind nonsense is what I'm given
Maybe read war and peace and tell me how relevant the French were in the 19th century
Tax and spend government…who would have thought 🙄
Within 9 hours!
👌👌👌
Wealth is not a perception! You can't project it, you project and you work on projects! Versailles is already a museum, a landmark, and we ought to maintain formal gardens, but if we can get a serious return off luxury real estate nearest it, not to interfere with the formal gardens, the reason this is so is because of ole' Louis! You have to finance that land to keep it!
The Sun King believes all of this must be shown to people. So normal burghers could get tours of the place and even watch some of the court rituals from a proper, respectful distance.
Versailles is placed away from Paris. This is an important bit. Everyone who has to attend the place is a bit isolated from their estates elsewhere in France and their estates in Paris. The castle sits on land owned by the Sun King personally. He wanted to build a system where everyone was always in debt or owing a favor to the crown.
The court of Sweden was heavily modelled after this, and normal chumps could visit the place provided they were neat and clean. They could borrow you a dress sword sometimes.
7:48 *efficiency
The video leaves out a few gaping facts. First and foremost, the nobility and clergy didn’t pay taxes, which was wildly unpopular as it was incumbent on the peasants to support almost the entire state’s revenues during the ancient regime. French luxury goods as elsewhere were “subsidized” in that craftsmen were given preferential treatment and European royalty in general did all they could to recruit them, Russia was notorious in this endeavor under both Peter & Katherine the Great. The bigger issue was that nobles gouged their peasant stock to live lavish lifestyles with luxury goods. France in particular was famous for her luxury goods and was for the longest time the cultural trendsetter of the nobility and Paris was the center of all things involving diplomacy. Just look at all the Treaties of Paris.
While the Sun King piled on debt, that was an issue but the larger problem was his heirs being unable to curb the decadence and greed of the nobles and the church as the country simply wasn’t solvent without the rich paying their fair share as the to 2% was estimated to own the bulk of the country and hoarded the wealth for themselves as life got worse for the peasants who were regularly exposed to famine, war, epidemics, etc. all the while the rich demanded even more out of them.
Protectionism is a requirement of a free and fair system. If a market participant can cheat with impunity, they will. One either chooses to stop trading with the cheater or surrenders all their wealth and power to them. There is no middle ground.
That's why Jon Batiste left the late show
Within 6,700 views!
As others have pointed out, this is filtering historical events through a dogmatic economic school of thought. It's the same kind of revisionism that Marxism engages in, only this time it is being done by economic liberalism. France did not reach its apex under Louis XIV, but under Napoleon. It was also just as much a great power after Napoleon, as it was before the French Revolution. I do think it's fair to criticize economic policies, but at the same time acknowledge that such was being done everywhere and Britain came to dominate under protectionist policies and a mountain of debt, only embracing free trade once on top.
There is also a flaw in "comparative advantage" bc it ignores that a country has no natural advantages except for climate based crops and resources in the ground. Everything else is either learned, taught, developed, or otherwise created. When you account for economies of scale and other benefits derived to the established firms versus the new start up, all comparative advantage belongs to the dominant country. It basically turns the world into resource colonies for the dominant manufacturer, if it is universally accepted. This is why I think Lists concept of infant industry protectionism is correct and it explains very much the economic policies of rising powers, the incentive towards protectionism and subsequent shift to free trade once comparative advantage is developed. It is far more based in historical fact than muh protectionism bad.
This is what annoys me when economists, pumped on neoliberal dogma and believing in both the universality of their theories and that anyone who disagrees is just uneducated, turn on history and shoehorn it to justify and fit their dogma. Of course the reverse, using history as a basis for economics used to actually exist, called the historical school of economics. Neoliberalism and socialism together destroyed this approach in favor of more "universal approaches". Since a universal approach will inevitably run into problems, the choice becomes to accept the historical record or ignore/revise the history to fit the universal approach.
I do think their is some benefit examining historical economies from modern economic understanding, but such needs to occur in the appropriate context and not as part of a self validating exercise.
From the point of a colonial dominion (like the early USA) this would have been a huge disadvantage. The powers in Europe want the dominions to be economically linked with the mother nation and nothing else. As a white colonist or a coloured freeman or what have you, you might be on the local top. But you will never be equal to an absentee landowner back in Spain.
Haiti, Java and other places had similar restraints put on them. It doesn't matter if the dutch give a better offer, you must produce cotton or coffee and you must sell it to the monopoly. One of the issues with indian independence was the laws against local processing.
Wars are a huge cost for all the european powers. It's normal for them to borrow from other nations or private banks to fund them. France was bankrolling Sweden during the 30 Years War. The cost to finance the American War of Independence will have effects on France as well.
@@SusCalvin certainly and this is why the US and Germany protected their markets and subsidized their industries while they promoted internal commerce and trade.Ths is different from the mercantilism of Louis XIV bc it accepts the basic principles of capitalism and efficiency, but deviates selectively to obtain a competitive footing. Even England, pursued a similar approach to move away from being a wool colony to cloth makers in Flanders and along the Rhine.
@@David-fm6go The UK ends up with a colonial dominion where you can make the colonies supply the colonial goods some factory in Britain needs. It's a free market as long as it's on their terms.
The UK at the time isn't an absolute monarchy. They have early parliamentarianism and a burgher class and are working on proto-industrialism.
@@SusCalvin I was sticking to trade to a avoid excessive length. England moved towards protectionism under the Tudors before it developed and empire and before it could move more towards full on mercantilism as you describe. I am very familiar with English political development, the Plantagenets, the Wars of the Roses, the Tudors, the Civil War, the Glorious Revolution, Hannoverian succession and the evolution of the Whig, Conservative and Liberal Parties. It just wasn't my aim to write a novel with the previous comment. Certainly their are other factors but England felt the need to develop its own textile industry in the Tudor period and cease being an exporter of unprocessed wool to Flanders. It's later colonial abuses are important but not relevant to the dynamic I was detailing.
I subsribed to couple economy-centered channels like that and they will do this "woke washing" thing all the time.
Vive la France 💙🇨🇵✨ !!!
Excellent, except you kept using the modern post revolution flag. You should have used the Burbon flag and explained the flag as well. I am sure even Americans could understand that.
Why the different voice?
Bro, this entirely neglects the French colonial empire in the 1800s and the fact that France is a G-8 country TODAY.
The presenter has shown an uncanny ability to tweek her speech maneirism from the previous to the current post.
This is really quite simplistic and even inaccurate...
It seems that everything they could do wrong, they did do wrong from over-regulating the economy to a ridiculous tax collection system and absurd levels of expenditure.
Constantly-twitching graphics detract a lot from this video.
How did France win against Spain if they fought together?
High inflation was never a reason to sell
HE'S ACTIVE ON TELEGRAM ✍
@{ Signalwithandrew } THAT IS HIS USER NAME
His training program has been insightful, and I must say, I’m most honoured to have been part and a full-time beneficiary of his daily trade signals.
he has proven to be trustworthy; He has changed lives and guided many through financial hurdles.
If only the finance minister full name was Stephen John Batiste Colbert that would be rich lol
Yeah this video seems weird and doesn't accurately explain or really cover the economic issues the Ancien Regime faced. You didn't really touch on the political issues surrounding France after Louis XIV died. France did try to experiment with things like Central Banking and Stock Markets but that led to the Mississippi Bubble. Prior to that France was set to recover from Louis XIV's wars. During the reign of Louis XV the nobility reasserted itself and blocked any attempt at reform as it would curtail their fiscal privileges. During his regency the Right of Remonstrance was restored which allowed them to stymie any laws the French Crown tried to implement.
Is this a soft pilot for a “History Explained” channel?
In his defense, folks were ignorant of economics. Turgot was correct.
Forcing skilled Protestants to leave made things worse.
They didnt have enough accountants
Sounds like america today 🤔🤔🤔
Louis XIV left his country nearly bankrupt. But the debt did not last until the Revolution. During the Regency, the finances had been restored (by the introduction of paper money). But Louis XIV successor, XV, got into new financial trouble (7 Years War). New debt was created. XV’s unexpected decease put an end to the (quite promising) effort to wipe out the debt of the 7 Years War through a controlled bankruptcy, according to minister Terray’s plan. XV’s death also ended the effort to subdue the Parlements, who sabotaged tax reforms. Louis XVI’s misguided policies (i.e. restoring the Parlements -> no tax reforms) made the tax-wise epuration of the debt impossible. XVI also refused the “controlled bankruptcy” method. Then, Louis XVI decided to involve France in the American Independence War. Instead of levying taxes (the War was popular in France), XVI financed it with debt. The ship of State sank, financially. When XVI naïvely thought that the Estates General would get him out of trouble, he set into movement a sequence of events that became the Revolution.
The government debt was not solved by the Revolutionary governments. It kept dragging on, until the Directoire finally annulled the debt of France by a factor 2/3. Practically, that was the bankruptcy that XVI had sought to prevent. The bankruptcy ended the debt problem.
Louis XIV’s wars and lavish spending, and the mercantilistic (innovative) policies of Colbert were true investments. France grew in power, obtained defendable frontiers, and created an industry based on added value - some of it still exists.
Tariffs are a horrible idea, focusing your markets on developing things that you only know how to do inefficiently will hunger your growth excessively
You could have substitue france with USA.
The USA never defaulted.
Sorry I'm still bad about this.
I believe this video assert the implications are being felt today but never proves it. I also feel most of it is false. U saying investors today fear the default of 1800?
Your own channel (or actually the main economics explained channel) gave france 8/10 for stability and confidence.
For me the title should be "how French monarchy lost it all" or argue better what they assert.
He had an entire nations GDP to spend on luxuries. The ultimate hedonist lol. Makes the royalty of other nations look like lowly barons 😮
Britain killed 4 million Indians in Bengal in 1943 by imposing a famine
France lost it all when they decided to bully the Hapsburgs rather than establish a colony in South America. France did in fact try to colonize Brazil but they were kicked out by Portugal in the mid 1500s. Had France not spent all their money and resources on bullying the Hapsburgs, they could have colonized Brazil and gained the immense wealth of Brazil. The massive amounts of Brasil wood would have made the French navy worlds finest.
Hard to say, the answer is geo-political.
France has always been a Continental power, before being Maritime. It was very expensive to maintain both a Land Army for the defense of its multiple borders against the Habsburgs, and then to maintain a Navy and overseas colonies at the same time.
For example, if Britain was able to build the finest fleet from the middle of 18th century, it was precisely because they could afford it. Living on an island themselves, they had plenty of time to focus on its colonies and trade, and then to enter into commercial alliances with continental European powers.
Especially in order to have the opportunity to check the expansion of a pre-eminent continental power (like France from Louis XIV or the Revolutionary and the Napoleonic period, or Germany from Bismarck until in the Third Reich). Unable to compete with its only Land Army.
If the Netherlands could have been an island, it could just as well have become a commercial and maritime rival of Great Britain in the long term. But they have the misfortune to find themselves sandwiched between France, the Holy Roman Empire, and England beyond the Channel.
So France had several reasons to focus on the Habsburgs. It was the immediate threat.
@@tibsky1396 This is a very deterministic way of viewing history. France could have easily become the preeminent naval power. England only became the naval power because they sunk the Spanish fleet out of pure luck.
What did France need to defend its borders for? The HRE was a mess that couldn't do anything. All Franco-Hapsburg wars were started by the French because the French wanted the low countries. Even during the 7 years war, France was reluctant to ally with Austria against the British.
If France didn't bully the Hapsburgs at least during the 1500s, then they could have used all that money to colonize Brazil and gain all the wealth of Brazil.
It is said that Portugal paid Britain 8 tons of gold per year from the 1750s onward for goods. The British used this money to build their empire.
The French thinking that the Hapsburgs were a threat and not colonizing Brazil was the greatest strategic blunder in French history.
The real reason was the American revolution. This is consistently downplayed in history books who prefer the myth that the United States was a completely useless and overlooked country until after WW2, along with Latin America being totally inconsequential to the West. The American revolution showed that not only was it totally feasible for common people to shake off the rule of despotic or otherwise incompetent kings, but that since it was almost wholly funded by France and likely would've failed otherwise (hinting to some that perhaps this was a righteous and even religious cause worth bankrupting over to ensure, rather than that it was a case of reckless spending to spite England) that such an endeavor must also be quintessentially French and that it was only right for them to be the successor to the American revolution and the first of the revolutionaries in Europe. Thus the age of revolution truly started off with the American revolution, which inspired the French revolution, and so on and so forth. France "lost it all" but such a thing was inevitable the moment the French people realized they didn't have to live under that system.
The only mistake, it didn't end France position worldwide, remember Napoleon!
do spain next lol
This video disappoints just like the Roman one. From using incorrect flags, to judging the situation back then from the standpoint of modern economics. The nail in the coffin was that last sentence in the video. France never lost its major power status. Louis XIII and Louis XIV's reign transformed France from a regional power to a global power and even the French Revolution didn't change that. Even though France lost the Napoleonic wars, they still managed to form the second biggest colonial empire only a few decades later.
I´m starting to have doubts about the accuracy and polish of these videos... There seem to be a downgrade with respect the quality of the main channel.
I bet this video angered a lot of snobs.
No money
You can't really claim comparative advantage on 1700s France, the main barrier to producing luxury goods was the lack of skilled artisans and that can be remedied, though not rapidly.
Tariffs and self sufficiency would have worked eventually..
The subsidies were a mistake though.
Mercantilism wasn't a specific french thing. All the nations are experimenting with it and testing to see if they can be self-sufficient in some goods or produce a competitive export.
France has some smuggling between its different regions because they had different tax rates.
Lack of skilled artisans is a lack of comparative advantage
@@zolac9732 But one that is worth remedying.
He imported skilled artisans to France and they started an industry and passed on their skills to local craftsmen, comparative advantage removed.
Today in the west they can justify spending billions of dollars on infrastructure to increase GDP but won't fork out to help industry which will provide numerous other benefits as well as GDP figures.
TLDR; France invent the French
Just like Canada today under trudyolf and Freeland gang
Then the Revolution changed two laws - inheritance law that meant that land was split amongst children that reduced agriculture inefficiency and then anti-theism meant that they had fewer children which meant by 1914 France was both smaller and weaker than if it hadn't gone through revolution
I'm proud to see these facts
@@morganrenders3139 you shouldn’t be.
@@kordellswoffer1520 It's just uncommon to see somebody who knows these facts. In France, almost nobody are aware, the country is underpopulated. If France had the concentration of population of Japan or South Corea, for example, France would had 250 millions citizens, and not the 60 millions of today
Colbert was opposed to the massive investment in the construction of Versailles. Colbert died in 1683, and thus could not be asked to come up with the money the 9 Years War and the War of Spanish Succession required. Poorly researched.
Versailles is an odd place. It's pretty isolated from Paris by design, any aristocrat staying there is a bit cut off from their estates in Paris and their land holdings in other parts of France. You stay on the Sun King's personal land.
The Sun King wants people to owe him debts and favors personally. It was an absolute monarchy where more power and wealth flowed into the central monarchy.
Honestly, France wuz Kangz n Shiet.
Oversimplify.
Is it just me or does this sound a bit too similar to usa? Expensive wars, forcing production on things it no longer is optimized for, economic mismanagement, raising protectionistic barriers that lower domestic competitieness.
It's just you
These things aren't unique, they're the classic behaviours of a superpower, which France arguably was during this period. All it proves is that once a country reaches the top, all they have to worry about is losing their place there, and that usually the attempts to maintain their position are the things that lead to things sliding.
Nope that's just France or Europe in general. US GDP nearly doubled in the past 15 years, American manufacturing create the highest value, the average American is getting wealthier rapidly and the US gets hundreds of thousands of highly skilled immigrants each year. Everything you use from UA-cam to Netflix is made by the US.
Protectionnist barriers dont exist in usa lmao, they are made to augment the quantity of production
It is amazing France is still a country.
Napoleonic Wars - Lost
Franco-Prussian War - Lost
WW1 - Would have lost alone
WW2 - Instant capitulation
It's amazing how people can be childish with really stupid simplifications...
''WW1 - Would have lost alone'' Are you for real ? You think that any ally alone would have win against the Germans ? A part from that France was the central ally in this war, did the majority of the job on the western front until well into 1916 and still have the biggest allied army on that front in 1918.
Napoleonics wars were a series of coalitions wars, France lose because in the 6 and 7 ones were basicaly all Europe against them.
WW2 ''instant'' capitulation ? Yeah wathever...
France is still a country because of resilience, because living surrounded not by one but several big ennemies teach you that and even after defeats some countries make come backs, wich is extremely dificult a part the French also did kick ass during centuries as the patchwork of non original french identities in the frontiers zone clearly shows.
Napoleaonic wars - 6 win, 2 lose
Tsar putin is the modern day equivalent...🤣
Iranshahr supremacy
Parsis are extinct now
@@ambition4195 they aren't
Isn't that what Joe Biden doing right now?
I've rarely watched such an inaccurate content...
Louis XIV is the most overrated person in history