3 ms·

The american contribution to their own wealth was to not pay the debt they contracted to Louis XVI when France became a Republic (and they were right to do it f

by julie1 13y ago

The american contribution to their own wealth was to not pay the debt they contracted to Louis XVI when France became a Republic (and they were right to do it for legal reason). Le baron de Beaumarchais (famous writer and weapon smuggler) that lobbied the french monarchy for helping the US revolution was clearly doing it for the sake of freeing the people from monarchy (he was one of the philosoph supporting the strange idea that merit matters more than birth rights). You should really read more. Especially 'le mariage de Figaro'

dctoedt 13y ago
> The american contribution to their own wealth was to not pay the debt they contracted to Louis XVI when France became a Republic (and they were right to do it for legal reason). According to a U.S. State Department history [1]: "In 1795, the United States was finally able to settle its debts with the French Government with the help of James Swan, an American banker who privately assumed French debts at a slightly higher interest rate. Swan then resold these debts at a profit on domestic U.S. markets. The United States no longer owed money to foreign governments, although it continued to owe money to private investors both in the United States and in Europe." Granted, 1795 was a bit too late to help Louis XVI, who had lost his head two years before. Still, it was only 12 years after the peace treaty with Britain -- not too terrible for a brand-new nation, I'd say. And in any case, it'd be unconventional (to say the least) to try to blame the Americans for the French royal government's mismanagement of its financial affairs. --- > Le baron de Beaumarchais (famous writer and weapon smuggler) that lobbied the french monarchy for helping the US revolution was clearly doing it for the sake of freeing the people from monarchy (he was one of the philosoph supporting the strange idea that merit matters more than birth rights). Nations aren't monoliths; their governments act in response to pressures from all sorts of different people who have all sorts of different opinions and motives. (Example: When the U.S. entered WWII, the triggering event was the Japanese invasion of Pearl Harbor. But for months before that, and especially after the Nazi German invasion of the USSR in June 1941, a significant number of Americans had wanted the U.S. to enter the European war --- some to help the British, and some because they were Communists or sympathizers who wanted an immediate second front in Europe to take the pressure off the Soviet Union.) [1] https://history.state.gov/milestones/1784-1800/loans https://history.state.gov/milestones/1784-1800/loans
- julie1 13y ago
  I skipped the part with US debts then. My bad In the rough French revolution context is basically the same as today: * huge debts contracted by gvt; * unfair repartition of the fiscality (the 1% wealthiest don't pay in proportion to their income); * producers (the 10% wealthiest) are not able to produce anymore because fiscality is to high; The convocation of "tiers etats" that triggered the revolution was about asking how to make the repartition of fiscality more fair. the 1% wealthier said we don't care we don't pay and you can't change the system anyway because we make the rules and they "mouhahaha"ed The remaining said, okay, are you losing your head (saracasm and irony)? and they said to the other europeans 1% (germans, brits, dutch, spanish)... Oh btw, we are not a kingdom anymore. As a result, we dont have anymore debts. Go fuck yourselves The banks were pissed off and they said: WUT! Debts are to be honored, if people begin to think that money don't rule the world the world is doomed. Thus the coalitions against France, battles (Valmy), Napoleon tricking Italia in Republic and then betraying them so that the bankers got another ennemy ... And here we are, in the same situation again.
  - julie1 13y ago
    I forgot the part where producers were also asking for the state to ensure a 'fair competition' based on merit and not birth. Now, takes Forbes top 500 fortunes of the world and tell me how much people are not xth generation dynasty kids. I love Bill Gates he has a lot of merit, one of which is being well borned. We do have a meritocratic system, but this system is biased because he is mainly accessible through birth. This is the definition of a society based on casts. We are regressing in the name of a so called "liberalism" that looks like the "communism" of Lenin : an implementation that contradict the purpose. Our political systems are wrong implementations of good ideas. How can we repeatedly fail that much collectively?

by julie1 13y ago

dctoedt 13y ago

> The american contribution to their own wealth was to not pay the debt they contracted to Louis XVI when France became a Republic (and they were right to do it for legal reason). According to a U.S. State Department history [1]: "In 1795, the United States was finally able to settle its debts with the French Government with the help of James Swan, an American banker who privately assumed French debts at a slightly higher interest rate. Swan then resold these debts at a profit on domestic U.S. markets. The United States no longer owed money to foreign governments, although it continued to owe money to private investors both in the United States and in Europe." Granted, 1795 was a bit too late to help Louis XVI, who had lost his head two years before. Still, it was only 12 years after the peace treaty with Britain -- not too terrible for a brand-new nation, I'd say. And in any case, it'd be unconventional (to say the least) to try to blame the Americans for the French royal government's mismanagement of its financial affairs. --- > Le baron de Beaumarchais (famous writer and weapon smuggler) that lobbied the french monarchy for helping the US revolution was clearly doing it for the sake of freeing the people from monarchy (he was one of the philosoph supporting the strange idea that merit matters more than birth rights). Nations aren't monoliths; their governments act in response to pressures from all sorts of different people who have all sorts of different opinions and motives. (Example: When the U.S. entered WWII, the triggering event was the Japanese invasion of Pearl Harbor. But for months before that, and especially after the Nazi German invasion of the USSR in June 1941, a significant number of Americans had wanted the U.S. to enter the European war --- some to help the British, and some because they were Communists or sympathizers who wanted an immediate second front in Europe to take the pressure off the Soviet Union.) [1] https://history.state.gov/milestones/1784-1800/loans https://history.state.gov/milestones/1784-1800/loans

julie1 13y ago
I skipped the part with US debts then. My bad In the rough French revolution context is basically the same as today: * huge debts contracted by gvt; * unfair repartition of the fiscality (the 1% wealthiest don't pay in proportion to their income); * producers (the 10% wealthiest) are not able to produce anymore because fiscality is to high; The convocation of "tiers etats" that triggered the revolution was about asking how to make the repartition of fiscality more fair. the 1% wealthier said we don't care we don't pay and you can't change the system anyway because we make the rules and they "mouhahaha"ed The remaining said, okay, are you losing your head (saracasm and irony)? and they said to the other europeans 1% (germans, brits, dutch, spanish)... Oh btw, we are not a kingdom anymore. As a result, we dont have anymore debts. Go fuck yourselves The banks were pissed off and they said: WUT! Debts are to be honored, if people begin to think that money don't rule the world the world is doomed. Thus the coalitions against France, battles (Valmy), Napoleon tricking Italia in Republic and then betraying them so that the bankers got another ennemy ... And here we are, in the same situation again.
- julie1 13y ago
  I forgot the part where producers were also asking for the state to ensure a 'fair competition' based on merit and not birth. Now, takes Forbes top 500 fortunes of the world and tell me how much people are not xth generation dynasty kids. I love Bill Gates he has a lot of merit, one of which is being well borned. We do have a meritocratic system, but this system is biased because he is mainly accessible through birth. This is the definition of a society based on casts. We are regressing in the name of a so called "liberalism" that looks like the "communism" of Lenin : an implementation that contradict the purpose. Our political systems are wrong implementations of good ideas. How can we repeatedly fail that much collectively?