President Bush's Grade

[NPC Dave]

Samuel Weiss wrote:

If that was all Jackson did it might be a legitimate rebuttal. The problem is, it was not.

He also issued the Specie Circular by executive order. This required payment for government lands to be made in specie only. This meant coins had to move west so farmers could buy land. Unfortunately, England was currently inhibiting the transfer of bullion ot the U.S., so when the eastern banks needed specie to pay their federal debts, the coins had to come back east and stop circulating.
That combination caused the panic and depression.
And what was Jackson's motivation?
Revenge against Nicholas Biddle, President of the bank, and a personal enemy of Jackson's.

Anyone who wants to study this subject can read Robert Remini

According to Remini, Jackson considered fiat money to be the instrument of fraud, and only hard money, specie, was legitimate.

The first BUS president, Jones, caused the panic of 1819.

If you want to get into a discussion of Jackson and Biddle's personal war, then we may as well let out Biddle's dirty laundry as well.

Biddle granted low interest loans and consulting contracts to politicians who supported the bank's expansion. Henry Clay left Congress for two years in 1822 after incurring $40,000 in personal debt to become general counsel of the BUS. When he resigned to become Secretary of State in 1825 he had been well compensated enough to pay off that debt. Daniel Webster regularly was payed "retainers" by Biddle to support BUS.

Jackson pointed out this was bribery and encouraged political corruption. Biddle proved Jackson was correct when he spent more than $100,000 of the bank's money supporting Jackson's political opponents in the 1828 elections, and paying for newspaper ads that promoted Biddle and his bank while attacking Jackson.

You didn't see Bernanke spending Federal Reserve notes to take out TV and newspaper ads in support of one of the political parties last year.

Samuel Weiss wrote:

Jackson also did not bail out the farmers who lost their lands, who he alledgedly wanted to help by destroying the Bank of the United States with his personal vendetta.

Personal vendetta against Biddle's political corruption.

As for the farmers, all I can say is so? If I cared enough to get upset over something Jackson did or didn't do, I would pick what he did to Native Americans.

Samuel Weiss wrote:

Also it should be noted that the collapse occurred after Jackson left office, though as a direct result of his policies.

As for the issues of fiat currencies and how they interact with the economy, that is another topic. Simply put though, the position of the Austrian School and its various Libertarian supporters is wrong. A switch to pure bullion based currency will not guarantee immunity from depressions or recessions, it will not guarantee immunity from inflation, and it will not guarantee immunity from speculative lending bubbles. It will put a massive chokehold on economic growth, limiting both actual and potential growth to a point that a depression will seem...

Hold on there Sam. Austrian School does not equal hard money. Some in the school do advocate that, others advocate that anyone(not just governments) could issue money in any format they wanted.

You are correct that switching to gold will not guarantee immunity from depressions/recessions(they are the same thing), as long as there is fractional reserve banking there will be a boom and bust cycle. BUS caused a boom, its policies guaranteed a bust. The bust came sooner rather than later, as Jackson cut off the money spigot.

[Samuel Weiss]

NPC Dave wrote:

According to Remini, Jackson considered fiat money to be the instrument of fraud, and only hard money, specie, was legitimate.

Right. Because when he had to repay loans with hard currency he had trouble, leading to his vendetta gainst banks.

NPC Dave wrote:

You didn't see Bernanke spending Federal Reserve notes to take out TV and newspaper ads in support of one of the political parties last year.

These days you do not need to.

NPC Dave wrote:

Hold on there Sam. Austrian School does not equal hard money. Some in the school do advocate that, others advocate that anyone(not just governments) could issue money in any format they wanted.

It forms the basis for all the main appeals to bullion-based currency. You can find them all over the web, especially after Ron Paul accepted the support of its advocates.

NPC Dave wrote:

You are correct that switching to gold will not guarantee immunity from depressions/recessions(they are the same thing), as long as there is fractional reserve banking there will be a boom and bust cycle.

As long as there is variable economic activity there will be a boom and bust cycle. Variations in harvest, mines playing out or being discovered, and natural disasters all cause such regardless of the existence of fractional reserve banking, and that just does not include the effect of various economic systems, particularly the absolute laissez faire advocated by the Austrian School. Fractional reserve banking just affects the scope of it in certain cases, and again depending on general economic policy.

NPC Dave wrote:

BUS caused a boom, its policies guaranteed a bust. The bust came sooner rather than later, as Jackson cut off the money spigot.

Which is what I said.

Remember that those are phrased to portray the President referred to in the absolutely worst light. They are not intended to be fair, only incendiary, and that to illustrate a point.

[NPC Dave]

Ok fair enough Sam, especially your last point.

You are right about things like natural disasters causing booms and busts too, ironically fractional reserve banking can create its own bust that compares in scope to something like a natural disaster.

[Samuel Weiss]

NPC Dave wrote:

Ok fair enough Sam, especially your last point.

You are right about things like natural disasters causing booms and busts too, ironically fractional reserve banking can create its own bust that compares in scope to something like a natural disaster.

*SHRUGS*

You do not have to argue with me to support changing the reserve rate to 50%.
Economic growth requires it exist.
Economic security requires it be heavily regulated and limited.