11-27-2016, 04:12 PM
(11-26-2016, 06:10 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:About Louis XIV, didn't he die in 1713, a full 76 years prior to the French Revolution? That's almost an entire saeculum.(11-26-2016, 03:23 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: The dude comes across as being highly hypocritical, very self centered and very arrogant. You'd think he had never witnessed a standing king being over thrown by peasants and then tried and convicted in public court of law and sentenced to death and then publicly executed. I don't think he fully grasped the consequences as they related to him and his royal legacy. How does someone respond to a king warning that his debts and economic policies were going to ruin the country? It sounds like he was disconnected and a bit crazy to me.
Louise XIV was a piece of work for sure. As I understand it, he cared for his time in office and cared not a whit for his legacy. He fought a lot of wars and ran an opulent court with an extravagance few courts could match, and built up a debt that took it all down after he was safely dead. Still, his legacy is positive in some ways. He built a reputation with his wars and his opulence that has stuck in spite of the disasters that followed. Some still remember him as one of the great kings of old Europe.
You can get away with debt in moderation. The tricky part is distinguishing between debt in moderation and ruinous debt. Using debt to kick a stale economy alive is a modern common practice. There is a disagreement on how the debt should be used, whether the stimulus should go to Main Street or Easy Street, but stimulus spending is practiced by both parties.
Louise XIV and Bush 43 went past moderation to ruinous. Trump's campaign rhetoric suggested he was going to go past Bush 43. The way Trump is disregarding his campaign rhetoric, though, I don't know yet how far he is really willing to take the debt.