The Mises Community
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Thank you for your participation and interest in the Mises Community. This software platform has seen its day, however, and so is now closed. We are redoing our entire site, so look for some exciting developments by the end of the year. Thank you for your support of Austrian economics, liberty, and peace.

Question for the history buffs

rated by 0 users
Not Answered This post has 0 verified answers | 2 Replies | 2 Followers

Top 25 Contributor
Male
4,248 Posts
Points 70,755
Smiling Dave posted on Wed, Oct 19 2011 7:25 PM

Macaulay is describing the wild parties Charles II is having in 1660. He then writes:

At the same time a sudden fall of rents took place. The income of every landed proprietor was diminished by five shillings in the pound. The cry of agricultural distress rose from every shire in the kingdom; and for that distress the government was, as usual, held accountable. The gentry, compelled to retrench their expenses for a period, saw with indignation the increasing splendour and profusion of Whitehall, and were immovably fixed in the belief that the money which ought to have supported their households had, by some inexplicable process, gone to the favourites of the King.

Anyone know why that sudden fall of rents took place? Any info, links, educated guesses, appreciated.

My humble blog

It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer

  • | Post Points: 20

All Replies

Top 200 Contributor
Male
431 Posts
Points 6,710

No much of an idea, but there's this bit:

"Charles II relied to a very large extent for his financial needs on loans from the London bankers. He ran heavily into debt and in 1672 suspended Exchequer payments and so the repayment of bankers' advances. The King's credit was ruined by this for several decades."

...leading to the foundation of the Bank of England.

 

So, this guy spent lots of borrowed money. Assuming a stable money supply, the currency in circulation might be (relatively speaking) redirected into the royal-party related industries, away from others like agriculture. So... maybe there could be an effect like the one described.

My purely speculative 0.02$, without knowing anything else about the period.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
4,248 Posts
Points 70,755

Thanks Pete

My humble blog

It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (3 items) | RSS

Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528

Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119

contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises

Mises.org sitemap