[justshutupandtakeit]

Thanks for posting the words of Hamilton, they can never be put forward too often for the benefit of modern Americans. Hamilton was charged by Congress to create the magnificent REPORTS for it to use in devising ways of providing for the General Welfare of the United States. Not only did he do an incredible job but he provided almost every conceivable option and explained the effects of the policies. Congress was then enabled to select those options it felt would fit America best. Not all the options listed were FAVORED by Hamilton nor were ones he did favor intended to be used PERMANENTLY. His thinking was far too subtle and complex to be properly captured by the caricatures and cartoonish labels of those who hated him or did not understand his work. He was head and shoulders above any of his critics, of that day OR ours, in economic, and financial understanding. Watching the pygmies attempt to bring him down is, at the same time, comic and tragic.

Hamilton wanted to use government power to help develop the new nation there is no doubt of that. However, his infant industry tariff was not what is typically referred to today as "protectionism." Protectionism, as is generally known, uses the tariff to protect mature industries from competition, Hamilton never advocated that (except perhaps military supplies.)

Where did you get the idea that capitalism EVER arose and attained any significant size without close involvement with a government? Hint: NOWHERE. The issue is not whether government will be involved or not but HOW MUCH. Hamilton may have been more inclined to use government power to assist economic development than you but I suggest that is because Hamilton had a much greater understanding of what the situation was and what must be done to allow the US to become stong enough to remain free and independent. You have none of those concerns.

Nor apparently did you read what you posted since you apparently believe Hamilton was suggesting all those options when, in fact, he was LISTING them for the Congress to consider. Either you did NOT read the excerpt or you deliberately attempted to mislead.

[Gianni]

His thinking was far too subtle and complex to be properly captured by the caricatures and cartoonish labels of those who hated him or did not understand his work. He was head and shoulders above any of his critics, of that day OR ours, in economic, and financial understanding.

Isn't this getting a little bit out of hand? Your non-argument can be made of anything that is pronounced a stupid idea. "You'd be on board if you only understood it, but it's too complex for you, serf." Horse crap... this country ("The People" of the constitution) was not willing to grant Hamilton his wish of an American reflection of the British government.

However, his infant industry tariff was not what is typically referred to today as "protectionism." Protectionism, as is generally known, uses the tariff to protect mature industries from competition,

Nowhere in discussion of protectionism that I have found does a distinction exist between mature and infant industries. Such would seem impossible.

Where did you get the idea that capitalism EVER arose and attained any significant size without close involvement with a government?

Too easy: By watching the disastrous results of government intervention. I do not deny that government provides a role in generating a safe and (politically) stable environment in which the market can work, but that is its job - direct market intervention does not have to be.

Hamilton may have been more inclined to use government power to assist economic development than you but I suggest that is because Hamilton had a much greater understanding of what the situation was and what must be done to allow the US to become stong enough to remain free and independent.

Reduced to serf status (I'm sure as you and Hamilton would both have it), and as such, are incapable of comprehending his 'great understanding' and 'subtle thought' yadda yadda? Get over it. If I wrote a 60 page analysis of the equation "1 + 1 = 5" and then told you that you were an imbecile and needed to just accept it as fact regardless of the obvious flaws in my thinking, I'm guessing you would be properly outraged.

You have none of those concerns

It appears as though you are wrong about this one, unless people accept your axioms:

1. Wealth is created by government.
2. Protectionism is the best way to advance industry.
3. People are too stupid to understand basic economics.
4. People require coersion to be productive.
5. The intent of the founders was to create an all-powerful fedgov.
6. The constitution contains only Hamilton's blueprint and all that Jeffersonian nonsense was included to 'sell' the constitution and be immediately overturned by fedgov.
7... it goes on, but I'm already close to ralfing on the keyboard.