The Gilded Age

Actually Henry the Eighth pointed out the truism.

If 'a' private individual owns more money than the existing government,
then there will be problems.

The obvious solution, is to make certain, that the Gov always has more money.

What if the government is a private individual?
 
It should also be noted that Henry VIII was not a very good king.
 
He did manage to live out every married man's fantasy of beheading their wife. So that's a +1 to him.
 
Kaitzilla said:
I always got the feeling that game was quietly making fun of Atlas Shrugged.

Quietly?
 
The Gilded Age, as experience by the less fortunate:

Panic of 1873 and the Long Depression

Economic problems in Europe prompted the failure of Jay Cooke & Company, the largest bank in the United States, which burst the post-Civil War speculative bubble. The Coinage Act of 1873 also contributed by immediately depressing the price of silver, which hurt North American mining interests.[18] The deflation and wage cuts of the era led to labor turmoil, such as the Great Railroad Strike of 1877. In 1879, the United States returned to the gold standard with the Specie Payment Resumption Act. This is the longest period of economic contraction recognized by the NBER. The Long Depression is sometimes held to be the entire period from 1873–96.[19][20]

1882–85 recession

Like the Long Depression that preceded it, the recession of 1882–85 was more of a price depression than a production depression. From 1879 to 1882, there had been a boom in railroad construction which came to an end, resulting in a decline in both railroad construction and in related industries, particularly iron and steel.[21] A major economic event during the recession was the Panic of 1884.

1887–88 recession

Investments in railroads and buildings weakened during this period. This slowdown was so mild that it is not always considered a recession. Contemporary accounts apparently indicate it was considered a slight recession.[22] (that "slight recession, btw, was nearly 3 times the magnitude of the Great Recession)

1890–91 recession

Although shorter than the recession in 1887–88 and still modest, a slowdown in 1890–91 was somewhat more pronounced than the preceding recession. International monetary disturbances are blamed for this recession, such as the Panic of 1890 in the United Kingdom.[22]

Panic of 1893

Failure of the United States Reading Railroad and withdrawal of European investment led to a stock market and banking collapse. This Panic was also precipitated in part by a run on the gold supply. The Treasury had to issue bonds to purchase enough gold. Profits, investment and income all fell, leading to political instability, the height of the U.S. populist movement and the Free Silver movement.[23]

Panic of 1896

The period of 1893–97 is seen as a generally depressed cycle that had a short spurt of growth in the middle, following the Panic of 1893. Production shrank and deflation reigned.

1899–1900 recession

This was a mild recession in the period of general growth beginning after 1897. Evidence for a recession in this period does not show up in some annual data series.[22]

1902–04 recession

Though not severe, this downturn lasted for nearly two years and saw a distinct decline in the national product. Industrial and commercial production both declined, albeit fairly modestly.[22] The recession came about a year after a 1901 stock crash.

Panic of 1907

A run on Knickerbocker Trust Company deposits on October 22, 1907, set events in motion that would lead to a severe monetary contraction. The fallout from the panic led to Congress creating the Federal Reserve System.[24]

Recession of 1913–1914

Productions and real income declined during this period and were not offset until the start of World War I increased demand.[22] Incidentally, the Federal Reserve Act was signed during this recession, creating the Federal Reserve System, the culmination of a sequence of events following the Panic of 1907.[24]
 
What does that even mean?

well as far as God annointed kings go, he was pretty good at being a god annointed king, did not like someone, "off with their head" catholics giving him trouble, take all their monasteries (and cash), pope dosn't agree with him ...So what he is God annointed too, Not many Kings were as good at it as him.
 
He did manage to live out every married man's fantasy of beheading their wife. So that's a +1 to him.

Link to video.

well as far as God annointed kings go, he was pretty good at being a god annointed king, did not like someone, "off with their head" catholics giving him trouble, take all their monasteries (and cash), pope dosn't agree with him ...So what he is God annointed too, Not many Kings were as good at it as him.
That still doesn't answer the question what "just not popular from history's point of view" is supposed to mean. It's not like the Tudors are somehow reviled and unfairly represented in British historiography. And now I'm also left to wonder what the "God anointed" thing has to do with anything. :confused:

And even his father was a better king than him. You really don't have to look that long.
 
Alright, maybe an underwater Utopia based on Objectivism got a little out of hand.

Ayn Rand Andrew Ryan had a pretty nice sounding pitch though:

Yeah, sure, I was 15 once- but nevertheless the game's explorations of the nature of man, free will, and objectivism makes it come off as a mite bit more critical of Ayn Rand than no. ;)
 
That still doesn't answer the question what "just not popular from history's point of view" is supposed to mean. It's not like the Tudors are somehow reviled and unfairly represented in British historiography.

And even his father was a better king than him. You really don't have to look that long.

well as an example "And even his father was a better king than him. You really don't have to look that long"
 
That still doesn't explain anything. What's the alternative point of view to that of "history"? How is "history" even a thing that can have a point of view? Do you mean specific historians? Mainstream ones perhaps?

If all you're saying is "it may be the historical consensus that Henry VIII was a worse king than Henry VII, but that's just their opinion, so I'm equally right if I claim the opposite", then excuse me for taking you seriously.
 
Back
Top Bottom