A strict gold standard is a complete fantasy so its alleged superiority is irrelevent. Currency always has an element of "fiat" comprising its value.
The crooks you name have nothing to do with the astute financial program of a man of incredible genius and impeccable integrity. May have well asked if we should follow the policies of Willie Sutton (one of your heros I am sure). I never said we should accept anything without question although many gold buggers seem to do just that wrt their favorite pretty metal.
The negative financial impacts of allowing the Bank charter to lapse were so great that it was rechartered within five yrs. by Congress controlled by republicans ideologically opposed to the whole concept of a national bank. President Monroe was not only a bitter enemy of Hamilton but also a republican ideology signed the bill without protest.
I only wish the establishment would return to the concepts and understandings of those economists who believed in capitalism and turned away from the Marxist tinged ideas of the last 50 yrs.
I never said those men would support the current system merely that Smith recognized and mentioned the growth attributable to the existence of the national banks of England and Scotland.
In the English constitution the Crown does represent the general interest of the nation. Formation of the BoE came as a result of another expression of the general interest of the nation, the Glorious Revolution. Thus, in a sense it was the culmination of a political movement which changed much of British institutional life. That was also the first time a bill of rights of Englishmen was enacted.
Hamilton's motives cannot be seriously questioned by any student of the era. He was completely consumed with the idea of strengthening the Rule of Law and by such the permanent strength of the Union created by the Revolution and constitution. I have no problem with disinterested and objective questioning of his methods but none of those mentioned were either. In addition, they were economic ignoramuouses. The combination of ideological and philosophical blindness to economic matters hardly makes their criticism impressive and in fact that was why none could stand against H.'s arguments and why they were reduced to deceit, intentional spreading of falsehoods about him and his ideas. Surely you do not believe he was working for the British or to bring about a monarchy like your allies?
I don't say existance of the bank in wealthy countries is proof of anything but certainly is a point in its favor as not being destructive of the creation of wealth. Be honest with your characterization of my comments.
Once again I said that the money supply grows when business activity picks up not that the money supply grows as a result of velocity increasing. Again don't mischaracterize my comments.
"Good" money can be almost anything it all depends upon the institutional arrangements and the integrity of those controlling them. Bill Clinton in control of a gold standard would compromise it if he so desired and a decent man would control a paper money supply properly. No standard incorporates all the appropriate characteristics of "good" money. All have flaws and gold has the huge flaw of an inherent deflationary bias.
In your last post, you said that I mischaracterized things you’ve said. I will try to be more precise in the future. I respect your pov and knowledge and assume you respect mine.
A strict gold standard is a complete fantasy so its alleged superiority is irrelevent.
Do you believe that since pure capitalism has never existed,”its alleged superiority is irrelevant”? If so, we disagree. If not, how do you distinguish these two seemingly contradictory positions you hold?
Hamilton's motives cannot be seriously questioned by any student of the era.
I distrust elitists and aristocrats. I associate Hamilton with this class. You have a positive view of Hamilton. You believe his policies contributed to the growth of the economy; I believe his policies contributed to the advancement of specially privileged interests, at the expense of everyone else, I am more interested, however, in current issues and solutions than this historical debate. Many politicians of every stripe proudly describe themselves as Jeffersonians. Very few proudly describe themselves as Hamiltonians.
I don't say existence of the bank in wealthy countries is proof of anything but certainly is a point in its favor.
Okay, replace the word “proof” with “evidence.” I don’t think it is even evidence. I would accept it as evidence if you pointed to countries not faring well AFTER moving beyond central banking as I advocate. Of course, no such society is in evidence…yet.
money supply grows when business activity picks up
You seem to be putting this forth as a general principle rather than a necessary characteristic of a debt based monetary system. If so, we disagree. I favor a monetary system with a rigidly fixed money supply (I’d agree to an MS that grows at a specific rate just because people are hung up with the concept of declining prices. However, the method of distribution of the increase is crucial (the current method through the banking system is horrendous. I would accept, for example, issuance of new money in proportion to taxes paid.)
Good money can be almost anything it all depends upon the institutional arrangements and the integrity of those controlling them.
We agree, here, and this is where my interests lie. If I seek good money on the basis of past models, I favor gold over the current regime. You don’t. Thinking outside the box, however, all I want is “honest” money---money that has “scarcity integrity”. Debt money that is created and distributed by an elite financial sector that requires all kinds of special privileges enforced by government to keep it from collapsing (because of its inherent unsoundness) is not my idea of good money. I have a proposal for a fiat currency along these lines that I will post here for your comments if you are willing/interested in doing so.