Replies

No, I had no major boner for J prior to the last few years just accepted the conventional wisdom of him. Only after beginning extensive research into the era and its people did I come to the conclusion he was a conniving snake without a clue as to how to build a country. His reputation as a rhetoricist remains intact but he was utterly impractical as is illustrated by his activities at Monticello.

My prior opinion of H was also based on conventional knowledge which I am distressed to see repeated here. Most of it is just sheer lies spread by his enemies. This is the source of any emotion I may have. I have no problem with statements of true facts which are not to his credit: i.e. H had an extra-martial affair, he was uncompromising, he destroyed the Federalist Party, etc. It is the outright ridiculous lies which get me going: i.e. H was a monarchist, dishonest, or anti-republican.

I admire Jackson in some respects: his determination to protect the Union, his integrity but not his financial understanding which appears to be based on sheer fanaticism without regard to reality.

Since I appreciate the Best in all things I am an elitist and regard democracy as something which must be carefully watched (like the majority of the founders.) It is precisely to control the excesses of democracy that the constitution was created. Those excesses have led to the nation we have today. Welfarism is the natural result of democracy.

If you want the clearest explanation of Hamilton's financial and legal work read Forrest MacDonald's biography of him. Your link to the work you referenced did not work.

I don't know what the "conventional" wisdom on money and banking is. Is it Keynes, Marshall, Ricardo, Friedman? There is no unanimity among Economic theorists about much of those concerns.

At least Rothbard is an economist of some repute as opposed to most of the anti-banking critics who don't appear to have a clue. Presumably he is a student of Von Mises and the Austrian school much of whose writings I have read and appreciated. Those writings must be placed in their historical context and owe much to the fact they originated in a tightly controlled political framework, the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

I do not share Von Mises' desire to return to the gold standard since I believe it to be a deflationary standard (except when new gold is discovered) incapable of growing at a suitable rate to keep the economy expanding. Since the gold stock diminishes at a rate of 1.5% per yr and the economy must grow at a rate of 3-4% a year or hardship is encountered this means the gold stocks must increase by about 5% a year. The growth rate from 1500 to 1900 was about 1.15% a year. This is the fatal flaw in the gold standard.

I am an elitist and regard democracy as something which must be carefully watched. It is precisely to control the excesses of democracy that the constitution was created….Welfarism is the natural result of democracy.

Let’s agree to disagree on this. We could not be further apart. I abhor elitism and regard democracy as the only safeguard of liberty. I believe elitist tyranny was the rationale for the Constitution and consider totalitarianism as the necessary result of elitism.

I don't know what the "conventional" wisdom on money and banking is.

The conventional wisdom, no matter what school you went to, conservative or liberal, is that an elitist banking establishment controlling the creation and distribution of money is good.

Since the gold stock diminishes at a rate of 1.5% per yr and the economy must grow at a rate of 3-4% a year or hardship is encountered this means the gold stocks must increase by about 5% a year.

The fatal flaw of the above argument is your assumption that a growing economy requires a growing money supply.

Here's a link to Pieces of Eight

If I still didn't get it right it is www.piecesofeight.us/PofE.html