NationStates Jolt Archive

That we are overdone with banking institutions which have banished the precious metals and substituted a more fluctuating and unsafe medium, that these have withdrawn capital from useful improvements and employments to nourish idleness, that the wars of the world have swollen our commerce beyond the wholesome limits of exchanging our own productions for our own wants, and that, for the emolument of a small proportion of our society who prefer these demoralizing pursuits to labors useful to the whole, the peace of the whole is endangered and all our present difficulties produced, are evils more easily to be deplored than remedied.
Letter to Abbe Salimankis, 1810. ME 12:379

The system of banking we have both equally and ever reprobated . I contemplate it as a blot left in all our constitutions, which, if not covered, will end in their destruction, which is already hit by the gamblers in corruption, and is sweeping away in its progress the fortunes and morals of our citizens.
Letter to John Taylor (28 May 1816): The Writings of Thomas Jefferson "Memorial Edition" (20 Vols., 1903-04) edited by Andrew A. Lipscomb and Albert Ellery Bergh, Vol. 15, p. 18)

Nearly all of it is now called in by the banks, who have the regulation of the safety-valves of our fortunes, and who condense and explode them at their will.
Letter to John Adams, 1819. ME 15:224

Sounds like he pretty much predicted the current difficulties.

Hamilton was the only Founding Father who really liked the idea of national banks and fiat currencies. Looks like those who opposed his ideas were right. Too bad Andrew Jackson was unable to completely eliminate that scheme.

Andrew Jackson was the best president ever.

Andrew Jackson was the best president ever.

Did Andrew Jackson ever single-handedly defeat the entire Mexican army armed with nothing but a revolver and a horse? Did Andrew Jackson ever beat a grizzly bear to death with a shark because it looked at him funny? Did Andrew Jackson punch a canal through Panama BY HIMSELF?
I dont THINK so. Teddy Roosevelt could kick his ass.

:p

That we are overdone with banking institutions which have banished the precious metals and substituted a more fluctuating and unsafe medium, that these have withdrawn capital from useful improvements and employments to nourish idleness, that the wars of the world have swollen our commerce beyond the wholesome limits of exchanging our own productions for our own wants, and that, for the emolument of a small proportion of our society who prefer these demoralizing pursuits to labors useful to the whole, the peace of the whole is endangered and all our present difficulties produced, are evils more easily to be deplored than remedied.
Letter to Abbe Salimankis, 1810. ME 12:379

The system of banking we have both equally and ever reprobated . I contemplate it as a blot left in all our constitutions, which, if not covered, will end in their destruction, which is already hit by the gamblers in corruption, and is sweeping away in its progress the fortunes and morals of our citizens.
Letter to John Taylor (28 May 1816): The Writings of Thomas Jefferson "Memorial Edition" (20 Vols., 1903-04) edited by Andrew A. Lipscomb and Albert Ellery Bergh, Vol. 15, p. 18)

Nearly all of it is now called in by the banks, who have the regulation of the safety-valves of our fortunes, and who condense and explode them at their will.
Letter to John Adams, 1819. ME 15:224

Sounds like he pretty much predicted the current difficulties.

I have the utmost respect for many of Mr. Jefferson's ideas, but his belief in a Republic made up of gentleman farmers isn't one of them. Economics was not his strong suit and his ideas on this subject were passe as soon as industrialization overtook our agrarian roots.

Did Andrew Jackson ever single-handedly defeat the entire Mexican army armed with nothing but a revolver and a horse? Did Andrew Jackson ever beat a grizzly bear to death with a shark because it looked at him funny? Did Andrew Jackson punch a canal through Panama BY HIMSELF?
I dont THINK so. Teddy Roosevelt could kick his ass.

:p

Zombie Teddy Roosevelt '08

One problem with the gold standard was that due to the finite supply of gold on Earth it effectively puts a cap on the maximum available money supply (a limit we would have long reached had we continued). Now you can increase the money supply by saying a dollar is now worth Y amount of gold rather X amount but then you're getting close to being a fiat currency. Those are my thoughts at least.

On an aside, the lack of a gold standard has nothing to do with our current situation, that's due to an overheated housing market, poor government oversight of home lending, poor lending practices, and poor financial responsibility by borrowers.

Did Andrew Jackson ever single-handedly defeat the entire Mexican army armed with nothing but a revolver and a horse? Did Andrew Jackson ever beat a grizzly bear to death with a shark because it looked at him funny? Did Andrew Jackson punch a canal through Panama BY HIMSELF?
I dont THINK so. Teddy Roosevelt could kick his ass.

:p

"In 1814 we took a little trip
Along with Colonel Jackson down the mighty Mississip..."

Jackson pwns both Roosevelts combined.

It's an odd aspect of history (at least here) that the followers of an ideal are generally more consistent than the person who is the focus of the movement. Jeffersonians and Jacksonians were far more consistent than their groups namesakes.

I have the utmost respect for many of Mr. Jefferson's ideas, but his belief in a Republic made up of gentleman farmers isn't one of them. Economics was not his strong suit and his ideas on this subject were passe as soon as industrialization overtook our agrarian roots.

And yet, here we are, industrialization notwithstanding.

It is interesting, to me, that most of our economic troubles, like the Great Depression and our current difficulties, seem to coincide with our industrialization. Not to say that we should have remained a primarily agrarian country, but that even the economic policies of, shall we say, "more enlightened" individuals aren't sufficient. Communism and Socialism don't work and Capitalism, both regulated and nonregulated only work indifferently. I think someone will have to come up with a new economic model - quickly.

And yet, here we are, industrialization notwithstanding.

It is interesting, to me, that most of our economic troubles, like the Great Depression and our current difficulties, seem to coincide with our industrialization. Not to say that we should have remained a primarily agrarian country, but that even the economic policies of, shall we say, "more enlightened" individuals aren't sufficient. Communism and Socialism don't work and Capitalism, both regulated and nonregulated only work indifferently. I think someone will have to come up with a new economic model - quickly.
Sociomunistapatalism ftw!

And yet, here we are, industrialization notwithstanding.

It is interesting, to me, that most of our economic troubles, like the Great Depression and our current difficulties, seem to coincide with our industrialization. Not to say that we should have remained a primarily agrarian country, but that even the economic policies of, shall we say, "more enlightened" individuals aren't sufficient. Communism and Socialism don't work and Capitalism, both regulated and nonregulated only work indifferently. I think someone will have to come up with a new economic model - quickly.

Metroids. We find planet SR388, nab some metroids, and take them back to Earth. We then use the metorids to help us "borrow" money from other, wealer countries. If any of the stronger warm countries don't like it, we send soem metroids their way. As for Russia, MAD. I'm sure Putin and company wouldn't want to rule a depopulated nuclear wasteland. The joy of ruling people comes from having people to rule.

We continue using Metroids until we can turn awesome into a tradeable commodity. My Led Zeppelin cd collection would help make me the next Bill Gates, money-wise.

Basically, we follow Metroid-based "trade" until awesome becomes something we can base our economy on.

Andrew Jackson was the best president ever.Falser words ne'er been said.

yes here we are and this kind of problem goes hand in hand with our financial system. we try our best to keep it to a minimum but sometimes we get it wrong and BANG here we are.

i dont want to live in jefferson's world.

*channelling billy joel* i took the good times. ill take the bad times. [/joel]

Did Andrew Jackson ever single-handedly defeat the entire Mexican army armed with nothing but a revolver and a horse? Did Andrew Jackson ever beat a grizzly bear to death with a shark because it looked at him funny? Did Andrew Jackson punch a canal through Panama BY HIMSELF?
I dont THINK so. Teddy Roosevelt could kick his ass.

:p

While Roosevelt was definitely a badass, he also set the precedent that allowed for eminent domain which allows the government to take your land without permission. They are supposed to compensate, but if you didn't want to sell, than it is still theft. Jackson on the other hand, is the only president who has succeeded in actually doing something about the private company that controls our money supply. Every other president who has tried, has been gunned down or at least shot at, Lincoln, and Kennedy included.

WE should reset the clock to Jackson's Era and implement his policies pronto. I will start kicking the Indians off the reservations.

And yet, here we are, industrialization notwithstanding.

It is interesting, to me, that most of our economic troubles, like the Great Depression and our current difficulties, seem to coincide with our industrialization. Not to say that we should have remained a primarily agrarian country, but that even the economic policies of, shall we say, "more enlightened" individuals aren't sufficient. Communism and Socialism don't work and Capitalism, both regulated and nonregulated only work indifferently. I think someone will have to come up with a new economic model - quickly.

It depends on what school of economics your looking at. If your looking at the Keynsian school than your right, but if your looking at the Austrian school (mises.org being the official site) than Jefferson was far ahead of his time. Also in both the book and documentary "Guns, Germs and Steel" it is established that the most important part of any cultures capability, is how much food they can produce and store. Each persons land was to be respected as sovereign as a nation (google Michael Badnarick's constitution class), and in off the grid terms, a community of producers, have the advantage both in terms of survival, and in economics.

WE should reset the clock to Jackson's Era and implement his policies pronto. I will start kicking the Indians off the reservations.

It's more probable that you will be kicked out of your appartment or your parent's house

Zombie Teddy Roosevelt '08

One problem with the gold standard was that due to the finite supply of gold on Earth it effectively puts a cap on the maximum available money supply (a limit we would have long reached had we continued). Now you can increase the money supply by saying a dollar is now worth Y amount of gold rather X amount but then you're getting close to being a fiat currency. Those are my thoughts at least.

On an aside, the lack of a gold standard has nothing to do with our current situation, that's due to an overheated housing market, poor government oversight of home lending, poor lending practices, and poor financial responsibility by borrowers.

See that cap, is actually the advantage of gold. Due to the laws of supply and demand, the more you have of something the less it is worth. The same is true for currencies. I would really recommend googling the documentary Money as Debt, which is accurate but doesn't list its sources, or Money Masters which is absurdly long, but does list all of its sources. Also look into what the writer of Rich Dad, Poor Dad, had to say about silver, commodities, and cash at the beginning of this year, it should be on you tube. His name is Robert Kiyosaki. The other story is more an excuse to allow us to set legal precedents which will ultimately put the private company that is the Fed in further control of our nation.

See that cap, is actually the advantage of gold. Due to the laws of supply and demand, the more you have of something the less it is worth. The same is true for currencies. I would really recommend googling the documentary Money as Debt, which is accurate but doesn't list its sources, or Money Masters which is absurdly long, but does list all of its sources. Also look into what the writer of Rich Dad, Poor Dad, had to say about silver, commodities, and cash at the beginning of this year, it should be on you tube. His name is Robert Kiyosaki. The other story is more an excuse to allow us to set legal precedents which will ultimately put the private company that is the Fed in further control of our nation.

the problem is we dont abide by the cap. a point was reached in the 1970's where if everyone turned their dollars in for gold there would be no gold left in the federal reserve. And this is with the Us controlling 60% of the worlds gold reserves. What happened is population recently has grown too fast for gold mining and production to keep up.

Ive discovered a way to beat the system. If you live paycheck to paycheck, you never have to worry about your leftover monies losing value to inflation. Our currency could be backed by Cotton Candy for all that it would matter.

Ive discovered a way to beat the system. If you live paycheck to paycheck, you never have to worry about your leftover monies losing value to inflation. Our currency could be backed by Cotton Candy for all that it would matter.

what you do is you buy assets like gold that can easily be converted to dollars. as dollars inflate you sell the gold for more dollars. or you can go in debt and hope the inflation beats the interest rates.

what you do is you buy assets like gold that can easily be converted to dollars. as dollars inflate you sell the gold for more dollars. or you can go in debt and hope the inflation beats the interest rates.

Gold can also fall in value, and in fact is far more volitile in price then US inflation could ever be.

Gold can also fall in value, and in fact is far more volitile in price then US inflation could ever be.

but during period of high inflation gold shoots up like a rocket. or you can buy oil futures.

but during period of high inflation gold shoots up like a rocket. or you can buy oil futures.

Oil futures have changed in value almost 30% one way then the other in a matter of a month, doesnt sound like a safe place for securing funds to me.

That we are overdone with banking institutions which have banished the precious metals and substituted a more fluctuating and unsafe medium, that these have withdrawn capital from useful improvements and employments to nourish idleness, that the wars of the world have swollen our commerce beyond the wholesome limits of exchanging our own productions for our own wants, and that, for the emolument of a small proportion of our society who prefer these demoralizing pursuits to labors useful to the whole, the peace of the whole is endangered and all our present difficulties produced, are evils more easily to be deplored than remedied.
Letter to Abbe Salimankis, 1810. ME 12:379

The system of banking we have both equally and ever reprobated . I contemplate it as a blot left in all our constitutions, which, if not covered, will end in their destruction, which is already hit by the gamblers in corruption, and is sweeping away in its progress the fortunes and morals of our citizens.
Letter to John Taylor (28 May 1816): The Writings of Thomas Jefferson "Memorial Edition" (20 Vols., 1903-04) edited by Andrew A. Lipscomb and Albert Ellery Bergh, Vol. 15, p. 18)

Nearly all of it is now called in by the banks, who have the regulation of the safety-valves of our fortunes, and who condense and explode them at their will.
Letter to John Adams, 1819. ME 15:224

Sounds like he pretty much predicted the current difficulties.
Indeed. Too bad no one ever listens to the guy who wrote the Declaration of Independence.

Our problems are mostly due to the inherent inflationary tendencies of fractional reserve banking, a fiat currency issued by the Federal Reserve, over-regulation of business, under-regulation of banking, and deficit spending by Congress. Fixing any one of these will have little effect in fixing the economy. The founding fathers were right to be suspicious of the idea of a national banking system. The Constitution still states that congress has the power to coin money, levy taxes, etc. and the transfer of those powers to the Federal Reserve without a Constitutional amendment was and is unlawful.

Indeed. Too bad no one ever listens to the guy who wrote the Constitution. Or to the Constitution itself for that matter.

I am laughing so goddamn hard at this.

Oil futures have changed in value almost 30% one way then the other in a matter of a month, doesnt sound like a safe place for securing funds to me.

and notice how they match up with the value of the dollars. dollar up oil down. dollar down oil up.

Indeed. Too bad no one ever listens to the guy who wrote the Constitution. Or to the Constitution itself for that matter.

Um. Thomas Jefferson didn't write the Constitution. In fact, he had no hands-on role in it's drafting, as he was in France at the time.

And, pray tell, what part of the Constitution forbids banks -- let alone interstate commerce?

Our problems are mostly due to the inherent inflationary tendencies of fractional reserve banking, a fiat currency issued by the Federal Reserve, over-regulation of business, under-regulation of banking, and deficit spending by Congress. Fixing any one of these will have little effect in fixing the economy. The founding fathers were right to be suspicious of the idea of a national banking system. The Constitution still states that congress has the power to coin money, levy taxes, etc. and the transfer of those powers to the Federal Reserve without a Constitutional amendment was and is unlawful.

Some founders were suspicious of a national banking system. A majority clearly were not.

And, we've done rather well with having one.

As for your argument about the Constitution forbidding the Federal Reserve doesn't hold water. Even if it were a delegation of powers from Congress, why would that be verboten?

Japan has fractional reserve banking. Yet they have managed to avoid inflation for lo these many years now, despite gargantuan deficit spending and near zero interest rates.

The problem is not fractional reserve banking, the problem is fraud. Of course when the government basically encourages - some would say mandates it - it is hard to stop.

But there is nothing wrong with the fractional reserve system per se. Banking wouldn't work otherwise.

The Constitution still states that congress has the power to coin money, levy taxes, etc. and the transfer of those powers to the Federal Reserve without a Constitutional amendment was and is unlawful.

This is claptrap. Nowhere does the Constitution ban Congress for contracting out the job to a subordinate agency and as long as it retains oversite and responsibility for the result. Since Congress has control over laws regarding The Federal Reserve Act and what it says, it retains this oversite despite the "independence" of the FRB. Utlimately, if Congress doesn't like the way the FRB is doing things, they have the right to take thier ball and go home.

I am laughing so goddamn hard at this.
Yeah, yeah, I forgot, it was the declaration of independence. *Edits*
Um. Thomas Jefferson didn't write the Constitution. In fact, he had no hands-on role in it's drafting, as he was in France at the time.

And, pray tell, what part of the Constitution forbids banks -- let alone interstate commerce?
None of it does. But as for Thomas Jefferson, see the quotes in the OP.

And you're right. I was thinking of the Declaration of Independence.

Um. Thomas Jefferson didn't write the Constitution. In fact, he had no hands-on role in it's drafting, as he was in France at the time.

And, pray tell, what part of the Constitution forbids banks -- let alone interstate commerce?

Section 8 states the powers granted to Congress, including taxation, coinage of money, regulation of trade, etc. A transfer of Constitutional authority from Congress to a quasi-governmental system under the nominal authority of the President is blatantly unconstitutional without an amendment and there is no such amendment.

And you're right - James Madison led the Constitution committee. Jefferson was not present.

Section 8 states the powers granted to Congress, including taxation, coinage of money, regulation of trade, etc. A transfer of Constitutional authority from Congress to a quasi-governmental system under the nominal authority of the President is blatantly unconstitutional without an amendment and there is no such amendment.

Saying it twice doesnt make it stink any less. For example, The Executive Branch is in charge of enforcment of The Law. Yet the President doesnt hire police officers, that job is contracted out to others. Same deal.

Section 8 states the powers granted to Congress, including taxation, coinage of money, regulation of trade, etc. A transfer of Constitutional authority from Congress to a quasi-governmental system under the nominal authority of the President is blatantly unconstitutional without an amendment and there is no such amendment.


So our constitutional system has been "blatantly" wrong since McCulloch v. Maryland (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=17&invol=316), 17 U.S. 316 (1819)?

So our constitutional system has been "blatantly" wrong since McCulloch v. Maryland (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=17&invol=316), 17 U.S. 316 (1819)?

Blatantly violated? Yes.

Blatantly violated? Yes.

Okey dokey.

It just seems a bit odd to claim the Constitution is "blatantly violated" by practices that have been continuous since the days they were approved by the Founders themselves.

That is not to say the Founders never failed to live up to their ideals or violated the Constitution, but that where that has occurred we have tended to make progress. Here you are claiming we've been going backward for some 200 years.

Again, there are many great things about Jefferson and his ideas, but his views on the economy were not among them.

Jefferson had a deep distrust of industry and merchants, as opposed to farmers. He lacked vision of the future of economic growth.

Jefferson's Letter to John Jay (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/jefflett/let32.htm) (1785):

Cultivators of the earth are the most valuable citizens. They are the most vigorous, the most independant, the most virtuous, & they are tied to their country & wedded to it's liberty & interests by the most lasting bonds. As long therefore as they can find employment in this line, I would not convert them into mariners, artisans or anything else. .... I should then perhaps wish to turn them to the sea in preference to manufactures, because comparing the characters of the two classes I find the former the most valuable citizens. I consider the class of artificers as the panders of vice & the instruments by which the liberties of a country are generally overturned.

Jefferson's Letter to Jean Baptiste Say (http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl162.htm) (1804) (emphasis added):

Again, there the best distribution of labor is supposed to be that which places the manufacturing hands alongside the agricultural; so that the one part shall feed both, and the other part furnish both with clothes and other comforts. Would that be best here? Egoism and first appearances say yes. Or would it be better that all our laborers should be employed in agriculture? In this case a double or treble portion of fertile lands would be brought into culture; a double or treble creation of food be produced, and its surplus go to nourish the now perishing births of Europe, who in return would manufacture and send us in exchange our clothes and other comforts. Morality listens to this, and so invariably do the laws of nature create our duties and interests, that when they seem to be at variance, we ought to suspect some fallacy in our reasonings. In solving this question, too, we should allow its just weight to the moral and physical preference of the agricultural, over the manufacturing, man.

Section 8 states the powers granted to Congress, including taxation, coinage of money, regulation of trade, etc. A transfer of Constitutional authority from Congress to a quasi-governmental system under the nominal authority of the President is blatantly unconstitutional without an amendment and there is no such amendment.

. . . . .

Riiiiight.

I am laughing so goddamn hard at this.

fucking win.

fucking win.

I made a mistake. I admitted it, and I fixed it. Is making a mistake illegal now?

I made a mistake. I admitted it, and I fixed it. Is making a mistake illegal now?

Calm down. You made a very big mistake. You were mature enough to admit it. Now be mature enough to handle some people thinking your mistake was funny.

And, not to pick on you, but you said not only that we weren't listening to Jefferson, but that we weren't listening to the "Constitution itself." When I asked what part of the Constitution you were referring to, you responded "none of it."

So that's really two big mistakes you are going to have to tough out. ;)

I made a mistake. I admitted it, and I fixed it. Is making a mistake illegal now?

Illegal? No. Funny? Yes. It amuses me when people try to speak with an air of authority, and while doing so make an error that no person who actually had more than a very cursory knowledge of the subject would make.

In other words, it's really hard to take you seriously on matters pertaining to Jefferson or the US Constitution, when it's fairly clear you don't know that the two have nothing to do with each other.

Illegal? No. Funny? Yes. It amuses me when people try to speak with an air of authority, and while doing so make an error that no person who actually had more than a very cursory knowledge of the subject would make.

In other words, it's really hard to take you seriously on matters pertaining to Jefferson or the US Constitution, when it's fairly clear you don't know that the two have nothing to do with each other.

In all fairness, I wouldn't go that far.

Calm down. You made a very big mistake. You were mature enough to admit it. Now be mature enough to handle some people thinking your mistake was funny.

And, not to pick on you, but you said not only that we weren't listening to Jefferson, but that we weren't listening to the "Constitution itself." When I asked what part of the Constitution you were referring to, you responded "none of it."

So that's really two big mistakes you are going to have to tough out. ;)

*sigh* I suppose I'm in a bad mood tonight....

*sigh* I suppose I'm in a bad mood tonight....

No worries. We all stick our feet in our mouths from time to time and none of like to be called on it. :wink:

On an aside, the lack of a gold standard has nothing to do with our current situation, that's due to an overheated housing market, poor government oversight of home lending, poor lending practices, and poor financial responsibility by borrowers.

Yes, the housing market is overheated, there is poor government oversight of home lending, poor lending practices, and poor financial responsibility by borrowers. BUT the devaluation of the dollar also caused banking problems. Now the dollar is merely a slip of paper with nothing of substance backing it safe for "The Faith in the United States Government". big Brother screwed up. Big time.

Though it's not as if you have to have a central bank. The US went through a fairly lengthy period without one. Industrialization happened anyway.

In fact, it would be wrong to look at the current Fed as some sort of monolithic entity that is unchanging with time. The Fed of today is nothing like the Fed of 1913, or in fact 1950 for that matter.

And it could be theoretically abolished even today. There is nothing magical about what it does. Of course there are pros and cons, no matter which option is chosen.

Though it's not as if you have to have a central bank. The US went through a fairly lengthy period without one. Industrialization happened anyway.

In fact, it would be wrong to look at the current Fed as some sort of monolithic entity that is unchanging with time. The Fed of today is nothing like the Fed of 1913, or in fact 1950 for that matter.

And it could be theoretically abolished even today. There is nothing magical about what it does. Of course there are pros and cons, no matter which option is chosen.

No doubt you state a defensible position, but it is a far cry from saying Jefferson was right in his fear of banks, particularly national banks, or his distate for industrialization.

That we are overdone with banking institutions which have banished the precious metals and substituted a more fluctuating and unsafe medium, that these have withdrawn capital from useful improvements and employments to nourish idleness, that the wars of the world have swollen our commerce beyond the wholesome limits of exchanging our own productions for our own wants, and that, for the emolument of a small proportion of our society who prefer these demoralizing pursuits to labors useful to the whole, the peace of the whole is endangered and all our present difficulties produced, are evils more easily to be deplored than remedied.
Letter to Abbe Salimankis, 1810. ME 12:379

The system of banking we have both equally and ever reprobated . I contemplate it as a blot left in all our constitutions, which, if not covered, will end in their destruction, which is already hit by the gamblers in corruption, and is sweeping away in its progress the fortunes and morals of our citizens.
Letter to John Taylor (28 May 1816): The Writings of Thomas Jefferson "Memorial Edition" (20 Vols., 1903-04) edited by Andrew A. Lipscomb and Albert Ellery Bergh, Vol. 15, p. 18)

Nearly all of it is now called in by the banks, who have the regulation of the safety-valves of our fortunes, and who condense and explode them at their will.
Letter to John Adams, 1819. ME 15:224

Sounds like he pretty much predicted the current difficulties.


*Applauds* Amen brother!

Though it's not as if you have to have a central bank. The US went through a fairly lengthy period without one. Industrialization happened anyway.

In fact, it would be wrong to look at the current Fed as some sort of monolithic entity that is unchanging with time. The Fed of today is nothing like the Fed of 1913, or in fact 1950 for that matter.

And it could be theoretically abolished even today. There is nothing magical about what it does. Of course there are pros and cons, no matter which option is chosen.

The first Central bank was passed in 1791. It lasted until 1811.
the second central bank was mad in 1816 and lasted until 1836.

1863. A de facto central bank was made of several banks, that were required to take each others bank notes. this system lasted until 1913 and the current Fed Reserve.

the main time of lack of central banking would be from 1837 until 1862. Hmm civil war and a bunch of other unrest. I think I prefer the era of the central banks.

The first Central bank was passed in 1791. It lasted until 1811.
the second central bank was mad in 1816 and lasted until 1836.

1863. A de facto central bank was made of several banks, that were required to take each others bank notes. this system lasted until 1913 and the current Fed Reserve.

the main time of lack of central banking would be from 1837 until 1862. Hmm civil war and a bunch of other unrest. I think I prefer the era of the central banks.

Faulty logic. Lack of a government bank didn't in any way create the Civil war. Some argue that the Civil War was started so a central bank could be created again.

Faulty logic. Lack of a government bank didn't in any way create the Civil war. Some argue that the Civil War was started so a central bank could be created again.

A central bank likely would have tied the states together.

Faulty logic. Lack of a government bank didn't in any way create the Civil war. Some argue that the Civil War was started so a central bank could be created again.

Your first point is valid, although I don't believe greed and death was literally claiming the lack of central bank caused the Civil War. Only that the time period in which we lacked a central bank was not the high point of our Republic's history.

But "[s]ome argue"?

What kind of tinfoil hats do these "some" that "argue" wear?

Your first point is valid, although I don't believe greed and death was literally claiming the lack of central bank caused the Civil War. Only that the time period in which we lacked a central bank was not the high point of our Republic's history.

But "[s]ome argue"?

What kind of tinfoil hats do these "some" that "argue" wear?

lol. Increased state power and decreased federal power was indicative of the Era with out federal banks. Also weakened economic ties between the north and the south. leaving an environment where the seemed less willing to compromise on slavery and the south was more fearful of their economic system suddenly being snatched from them.