Wrecking the French Economy Without the American Revolution?

Whilst the Ancien Regime's economic set-up certainly wasn't great and there were other factors as well as I understand things it was the large subsidies to the American revolutionaries which helped really push it off a cliff. If for whatever reason - no revolution occurring, the King being more cautious against Britain etc. - France isn't spending her money in that way what other money-sinks/opportunities might there be to help create some economic instability instead in that period? Thanks.
 
Mistake. In the 18th century, the french economy was growing a bit faster than the british.

There was but 2 ways to wreck it. Either a costly war. Or a costly revolution.
 
Urban French wages were in a century-long decline (link). France was already bankrupting itself with constant wars over its natural boundary; the ARW was not that big of a deal.
 
If no France in ARW is due to more peaceful relations with Britain on the other hand...

That's way fewer wars and a less bankrupt France.
 
The health of the French economy is somewhat disconnected from the fiscal health of the French state, the latter being continuously prevented by the parlements (esp. the Paris parlement) from raising taxes on the aristocracy + clergy, as well as engaging in any meaningful reform of the tax-farming system, or the tax system in general.

France was already in pretty dire financial straits even before the American Revolution, with war debts reaching back to Louis XIV and Turgot already proposing serious government cuts in the mid-1770s. Financial wizardry such as proposed by Necker (tinkering with the accounts in the Compte rendu in order to boost confidence) would have disguised the issue only temporarily, even accounting for the exceptional OTL ARW expenditure.

Eeventually the unreformed state would have run out of creditors willing to lend it money. The resultant bankruptcies of the state, the creditors/banks, and middle-class bondholders, as well as the loss of faith in state institutions, would doubtlessly have had severe repercussions on the French economy.
 
From what I've read, France needed a massive, last-ditch shakeup of its 18th century financial system in order to ward off a crisis. Britain took on much more debt during the ARW and came straight out of it into a mini economic boom, because their financial system was just that much more robust than France's. Britain would take on several times more debt within decades during the Napoleonic Wars and still bounce out of it okay. France, on the other hand, was teetering on the edge of a cliff. I think they would have needed immediate, drastic reforms and then very careful management of their finances for a long period after in order to get back on stable ground without resorting to the social order crumbling and state expenditures being financed by seizing the estates of the clergy and upper classes, etc.
 
As said France's economy was already a wreck. But if you want an extra money sink maybe the Bavarian War of Succession or an invasion of Egypt (French agents told the crown that Egypt was ripe for the taking in 1775).
 
... or an invasion of Egypt (French agents told the crown that Egypt was ripe for the taking in 1775).
A failed French invasion of Egypt would be rather amusing. Since Britain wouldn't like the idea of a French Egypt they'd probably support the Ottomans leading to a reversal of roles where the French are the ones carrying out military operations and the British are funnelling supplies and subsidies to their opponents.
 
Urban French wages were in a century-long decline (link). France was already bankrupting itself with constant wars over its natural boundary; the ARW was not that big of a deal.

Not more than any country.

The level of french public debt compared to GDP was not higher than in 1789 than it was in 1714 at the end of the spanish succession war. Long and massive wars always brought public debt to its peak in any country, Britain included. And then peace times were used to bring back the public debt to more sustainable levels.

Sure, Britain could tolerate a higher level of debt because its per capita GDP was higher and its financial mark et more efficient, which gave it more leverage.

But France's crash was as avoidable in 1789 as it was in 1715 or 1763. The point is that France had one of its worst kings, the spineless Liuis XVI, at a time when it needed strong leadership to solve once again the recurrent public debt problem.
 
From what I've read, France needed a massive, last-ditch shakeup of its 18th century financial system in order to ward off a crisis. Britain took on much more debt during the ARW and came straight out of it into a mini economic boom, because their financial system was just that much more robust than France's. Britain would take on several times more debt within decades during the Napoleonic Wars and still bounce out of it okay. France, on the other hand, was teetering on the edge of a cliff. I think they would have needed immediate, drastic reforms and then very careful management of their finances for a long period after in order to get back on stable ground without resorting to the social order crumbling and state expenditures being financed by seizing the estates of the clergy and upper classes, etc.
I heard things about that for a while, and it's "common knowledge" the French financial system was bad. Would you have a paper or a book about it?

Not disputing what you're saying, just that it sounds interesting and I'd like to read it by myself, especially a France/UK comparison :)
 
I heard things about that for a while, and it's "common knowledge" the French financial system was bad. Would you have a paper or a book about it?

Not disputing what you're saying, just that it sounds interesting and I'd like to read it by myself, especially a France/UK comparison :)

Unfortunately I'm not citing one particular book, just bits and pieces I've read here and there. I remember reading a comparison of the French and British economies of the time and how exactly 18th century British finances worked, but I'll be damned if I can remember where.
 

RousseauX

Donor
Mistake. In the 18th century, the french economy was growing a bit faster than the british.

There was but 2 ways to wreck it. Either a costly war. Or a costly revolution.

Not more than any country.

The level of french public debt compared to GDP was not higher than in 1789 than it was in 1714 at the end of the spanish succession war.
That's not how pre-modern economies worked in pre-modern economies the state has a lot of trouble extracting wealth from the population so even if the overall french economy was healthy the french state finances are still going to be terrible because the crown over the course of the 17th-18th sold off titles of nobility and holders of those titles don't have to pay taxes. So by 1789 or so the tax base was a lot smaller than it should be and mostly fell on the peasantry who couldn't afford it.
 
Financial wizardry such as proposed by Necker (tinkering with the accounts in the Compte rendu in order to boost confidence) would have disguised the issue only temporarily, even accounting for the exceptional OTL ARW expenditure.

IMO Necker's dishonest policies were a major factor in making the finances a politically ruinous matter.

Handling the matter differently might mean we see a situation where France defaults on some debt or re-negotiates some debt without the _financial_ crisis necessarily generating a _political_ crisis.

But France's crash was as avoidable in 1789 as it was in 1715 or 1763. The point is that France had one of its worst kings, the spineless Liuis XVI, at a time when it needed strong leadership to solve once again the recurrent public debt problem.

Indeed.

IMO the three necessary ingredients for the French revolution were Louis XVI, Necker and the famine of 1788 and '89.

fasquardon
 

RousseauX

Donor
I heard things about that for a while, and it's "common knowledge" the French financial system was bad. Would you have a paper or a book about it?

Not disputing what you're saying, just that it sounds interesting and I'd like to read it by myself, especially a France/UK comparison :)
read rise and fall of the great powers by paul kennedy and ascent of money by nail ferguson thye goes into a lot of detail about how the UK or the Netherlands could float loans at much lower interest rates than the French could and the French crown raised money by selling what were effectively annuities at ridiculously high interest rates and that's what caused the crown to go into bankruptcy in the 18th century.
 

RousseauX

Donor
Urban French wages were in a century-long decline (link). France was already bankrupting itself with constant wars over its natural boundary; the ARW was not that big of a deal.
as already said this isn't a unique french thing real wages were on decline everywhere in NW Europe including Britain during the 18th century which may or may not be indicative of another Malthusian crisis until the industrial revolution started
 
as already said this isn't a unique french thing real wages were on decline everywhere in NW Europe including Britain during the 18th century which may or may not be indicative of another Malthusian crisis until the industrial revolution started

No, wages were not actually in decline in 18c Britain. Read the study I linked to - there's a data series for real wages in tables 5 and 6 on PDF-page 18. In the second half of the 18c, Parisian real wages were at a multicentury low. London wages for craftsmen were at a multicentury high, London wages for laborers were not but were not much lower than the multicentury high of the first half of the 18c.
 

RousseauX

Donor
No, wages were not actually in decline in 18c Britain. Read the study I linked to - there's a data series for real wages in tables 5 and 6 on PDF-page 18. In the second half of the 18c, Parisian real wages were at a multicentury low. London wages for craftsmen were at a multicentury high, London wages for laborers were not but were not much lower than the multicentury high of the first half of the 18c.
ok, that's true, but wages did seem to be decreasing pretty much everywhere else in western europe
 
Top