Replies

Jackson was an idiot. One of the worst, most tyrannical presidents ever and one of the "biggest government" presidents you'd ever see. His goal wasn't to end the BUS---it was to destroy all private banking. He was anticapitalist to the core. He had already told his SecTreas to prepare a plan to do away with all private bank notes (money).

Jackson was a political opportunist of the worst sort and a total demagogue. The BUS posed no threat to him or any common person. In fact, the economy had done very, very well under the BUS---largely because we had COMPETITIVE banking in which any bank could issue money and COMPETE with the "government" bank. Guess what? When you have competition with the private sector, things stay pretty efficient (and the BUS was 80% privately owned). Jackson feared the market.

I go into detail on all this in my first national book, "Banking in the American South from the Age of Jackson to Reconstruction." It's typical of the Mises people to try and make this about Jackson fighting "big government," but nothing could be further from the truth. Government grew, per capita, under Jackson just as it had under every other president.

I will give him a pass on the Panic of 1837---that wasn't his doing and had nothing to do with his "war" on the BUS, as many historians have proven. Rather, Mexican silver, which had helped create inflation in the early 1830s, abruptly ended causing a depression.

But a national bank is a fact of life because every nation needs access to quick money in case of emergency, especially war. And loans are better than taxes.

But a national bank is a fact of life because every nation needs access to quick money in case of emergency, especially war. And loans are better than taxes.

Central banks are certainly not necessary and loans are only preferable to the politicians because raising taxes would expose the true cost of war much as Obamacare premiums are exposing the true costs of socialism.

I agree with the article. The creation of a central bank is the height of cronyism.

But a national bank is a fact of life because every nation needs access to quick money in case of emergency, especially war.

The US Treasury does not borrow from the Federal Reserve. The Fed does not lend money to the Treaury in case of emergency or even war. The US Treasury issues bonds that are sold into the financial marketplace by primary dealers, i.e., a syndicate of the largest banks. If the Federal Reserve went away, that government borrowing process of issuing bonds via the primary dealers would simply continue.

And loans are better than taxes.

When Congress spends more than it takes in in taxes, and authorizes the Treasury to borrow by issuing bonds to get the cash to do so, the bond debt has to be paid by future tax revenue. The government is, therefore, spending dollars that it will have to collect in taxes in the future. Of course, the government is paying interest on the bonds. Which is another expense that must be paid in cash.

Loans are not "better" than taxes - loans are simply indebting the government to a third party who then has a claim on future taxes. Not having enough tax revenue was the reason for the borrowing. But the loan means there will be even less tax revenue available for spending, since some will need to be used to repay the loan with interest.

This stuff is so obvious that if sensible citizens were asked to authorize government borrowing they never would. Such things were only passed in Congress because of complete corruption of the body.

Everything I see in your posts is like it was written by and for the international banking cabal. Why not write a book on how benevolent the East India Company was, or how the Opium Wars were a shining moment of morality in the history of the British Empire. I think Rothschild, Rockefeller & Warburg Publishing would love to publish that book.

I doubt you'll ever change your stated positions because the banking cabal does not tolerate its minions "jumping ship".