The point of a king is that his interest must be perfectly aligned with optimal management of his subjects, which basically means that he must own everything and expect his heirs to inherit everything, while competing with other kingdoms.
-
-
In capitalism, would the king not have to own the banks?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @danlistensto @sonyaellenmann
Not sure. The reason why monarchy seems to be the natural form of government in feudalism is because the primary means of production is land, controlled by the crown.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @sonyaellenmann
i'm thinking of the development of early capitalism in England in the 17th century. the sovereign controlling the supply of gold coins alone was sufficient to control the entire banking sector such as it existed at the time. Isaac Newton did some interesting work for crown mint.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
sounds like the kind of evolutionary pressure that leads directly to a robust system of letters of credit
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
an interesting plot twist, fiat money was not initially well regulated and metal convertibility became unmanageable at some point that led to the creation of this act of parliament just about 100 years after the exchequer created the Bank of England https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_Restriction_Act_1797 …
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @danlistensto @chaosprime and
though now we're off topic because this is in the parliamentary era already and nobody then thought the monarch was the literal owner of everything in England. maybe that's the insight though? banking destroys monarchies.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
in case anybody was wondering why neocameralism and antisemitism would be such otherwise inexplicable bosom pals
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.