If you said during the feudal era "there is an affordability crisis: the peasants don't have money to buy castles," perhaps you were right. But the solution was to revolt against the king.
If you said during the feudal era "there is an affordability crisis: the peasants don't have money to buy castles," perhaps you were right. But the solution was to revolt against the king.
Fundamentally, you should think of rich people's wealth as a percentage of outstanding debt (except of course things like Royal families' wealth). If public + private debt drops as a percentage of GDP, rich people will own more in nominal terms, less in terms of GDP (ie. less compared to labour). So the net effect of high inflation will do is make their ownings worth less in terms of assets.
Which is why rich people oppose it so harshly.
And, to distract everyone from the destruction of the lower and middle-classes, here’s an <insert ethnic or somewhat alien> group you’re supposed to hate.
Perhaps capitalism was less to blame… A critical fifth estate and honest political ruling would’ve kept us on the path of the post-war “contract with the people” bit, that was working fairly well.
most revolts were triggered by someone else (a rich lord) wanting to be king. The peasants participating in the revolt are simply either lied to, or were promised they would reap the benefits and rise above their station.
The real solution was the black plague, which created labour shortages, and gave the remaining peasants bargaining power.
Is this true of French Revolution? (not sure?) Is it true of the American Revolution? (Probably not?) Is it true of the Civil War? (Don't think so?)