Wednesday, February 16, 2011
A Central Bank for the United States
Thomas Jefferson referred to a central bank as "a menace to the liberties of the people". Andrew Jackson vetoed the recharter of the Second Bank of the US. Alexander Hamilton had a very different view of a central bank. After a careful reading of chapter 12, please post your comments on which of the three had the best argument either for or against a central bank and why.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I tend to respond to anti-monopolistic sentiment, so I'd say Jackson (for once) was right on the money.
ReplyDeleteCurtis Russell
I would say Jefferson because it gave too much power to the government, and was creating a monopolized super power with the government and the leading businessmen.In which the bank was unconstitutional.
ReplyDelete-Skyler Jerman
I think that Jackson is right, because it did give to much foreign ownership in its shares, and its shares were not equally owned throughout the states.
ReplyDelete-Jessica Gruendell
I tend to agree with Jefferson as a goverment controlled bank can threaten the economic freedom of the citicens of a country.
ReplyDeleteJohn A
I would have to say that the central bank system as it was first implemented in the system did more good than bad, but the ones that said it was unconstitutional were perhaps right for in the long run the persons in the higher levels of authority will have access to ridiculous amounts of wealth and therefore power, while the average citizen is being exploited in the name of being offered loans and such.
ReplyDeleteWell, the fact of the matter is, the constitution does not specifically address the matter of a national bank or a central bank. Thus those who focus on their own specific interpretation and or application of the 10 ammendment will be against the bank and call it "unconstitutional", and they would be correct. Likewise, those who focus on their own specific interpretation and or application of the commerce clause could also find reason to call such a bank "Constitutional", and they would be just as correct as the first group. Therefore the constitution which only speaks to the issue in vague generalities (if at all) is not much help here.
ReplyDeleteWell then what about reason and logic. In fact there is a certain logic backed by rational reasons for both sides of the issue. Like many neutral instruments of power a central bank can in fact be used both to help the nation as a whole, or to help only a small minority of vested interests at the expense of the masses. (Really, would governments really do a thing like that for selfish reasons?)
So lastly then the tie breaker for me goes to pragmatics. Like it or not we as a nation can not function efficiently nor prosperously without giving at least some power(s) to the government, no matter how much we may or may not trust them. Even if government in particular and authorities in general are a "necessary evil", they are indeed necessary for a civilization to prosper and continue. Specifically, the 1800's experience in America proved that life here will be much more difficult without some kind of central bank. It will not surprise me if someday powerful people anywhere take advantage or their power for selfish reasons. But practically we just have to trust some people whether we like it or not and we will at least sometimes be hurt as a result and that is life in a human world. All I can do is vote and then pray and hope for the best and endure the worst. So I would side with Alexander Hamilton (reluctantly), without saying that the other side was wrong.
Gary
As one who is a minimalist and loves simplicity and always an advocate of small government, I would have to say Jackson and Jefferson had the best argument, particularly Jackson. Why? First, I agree that it was unconstitutional, and the constitution focused on individual rights and ownership because that is the simplest and less problematic, and second, we shouldn't need a bank period. Most the problems with our country are because of want, greed and people spending money they don't have because the banks give it to them. We can manage our own money and that way we are never getting in debt and we are living within our means. this would also create a greater incentive to work and be responsible. Nevertheless, because of human nature (wantful and irresponsible), I think we need banks... and centralized. Lets just create a monster!
ReplyDeleteThe debate between the two concerned the power of the central government versus that of the states, with the Federalists favoring the former and the Antifederalists advocating states' rights.Jefferson advocated a decentralized agrarian republic. He recognized the value of a strong central government in foreign relations, but he did not want it strong in other respects. Hamilton's great aim was more efficient organization, whereas Jefferson once said "I am not a friend to a very energetic government." Hamilton feared anarchy and thought in terms of order; Jefferson feared tyranny and thought in terms of freedom.
ReplyDeleteThe United States needed both influences. It was the country's good fortune that it had both men and could, in time, fuse and reconcile their philosophies. One clash between them, which occurred shortly after Jefferson took office as secretary of state, led to a new and profoundly important interpretation of the Constitution. When Hamilton introduced his bill to establish a national bank, Jefferson objected. Speaking for those who believed in states' rights, Jefferson argued that the Constitution expressly enumerates all the powers belonging to the federal government and reserves all other powers to the states. Nowhere was it empowered to set up a bank.
By reading these arguments I think that Jefferson got the best argument.
Grace Mouele
Riley G.
ReplyDeleteI tend to agree with Jackson, in that the central bank with the fiscal responsibilities and operations, founded on credit & revenues could not grant and secure governmental advantages for the people. I believe in the free market and allowing itself to be unobstructed by regulators.
With Jefferson taking the banks and making them controlled, He possibly could have hurt it, but on the other hand could have done some good. In my opinion it could be going both ways.
ReplyDeleteSteven Hanna
Given Jacksons's early involvement with banks he had a sour taste in is mouth for them. Given that the banks weren't always for the working man. He used his popular standing with the people to turn around the banking the system so that it wasn't so influenced by the dominated eastern ownership that do also control the foreign ownership so that the people have more say so in their bank, after-all it was the Bank of the United States. I believe he just wanted all to have a say in the bank and not the rich few.
ReplyDelete-Rick Kilboy
I have delayed my comments on this issue because I believe most American citizens would have difficulty answering this question in light of our current economic environment. If I'm being honest, I would possess a different answer if posed this question 10 years ago. As the saying goes, "hind-sight is 20-20", our current way of managing the current system proves Jackson and Jefferson to be correct. The current banking system has become politically motivated and does not necessarily look out for the best interests of the nation as a whole. However, looking back at the 1st central bank headed by Alexander Hamilton, I do agree that an orderly system was indeed required for this new nation to manage their growth in an expanding global economy. Men back then viewed their office in the government as civil servants. Most of these men had jobs outside their positions in government. If they couldn't come to terms (thus the 20 year charter) on a central banking system, it must have been for fear of control that they had recently been freed from. Freedom from tyranny, from the Crown, and from Parliament. The majority of these men were looking to the past to pave the future. So my personal vote would be to come to a happy medium. The money needs to be managed constructively; however, be careful not to give fertile ground to future control over the people of this new nation. Regardless of nationality, religion, or class.
ReplyDeleteEven though I may be influenced by today’s situation I agree with Jefferson. From an early time he saw where the central bank would take things. I can see how it was “healthy” to establish a central bank as it put things in order and I can see some good in the idea of a central bank but I still agree with Jefferson that it takes away from the liberties of the average person.
ReplyDeleteVeronika Dimitrova
Back then I would have to be in agreement with Hamilton and the supporters of the bank. Now, I am not really sure. Without a time machine we cannot really re-run the last ten years without the Federal Reserve and see what would have happened.
ReplyDeleteI truely would back up Andrew Jackson, his message was the bank was doing for the rich and to the poor, he was looking out for the democracy, and the money of the people.
ReplyDeleteThomas Jefferson had it quite correct, money used by dumb, unintelligent individuals can be a huge mistake. However, I can side with some smart business's that would use loans to start a business. But with Americana's current spending habits, banks and loans are terrible for some people.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jackson because monopolistic institution have a great power and usually the poor people are the most damaged. Also because there were too much foreign ownerships of the shares.
ReplyDeleteI think Jefferson and Jackson had goo d arguments against the central bank, but particularly Jackson had the best. He said the bank was unconstitutional and it had too much foreign ownership of its shares in the bank. He also said that the domestic ownership was concentrated in the East too much and that bank should have been spread out so all parts of the country get an equal share of it. The bank instrumented the rich people oppress the poor people.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with Alexander Hamilton being that the central banking system would create a "money monopoly" which would endanger the liberties and rights to the people. Also this bill would have created more of an economic influence to the north and less to the south. Although the power to the people was his view (and mine) the power was given to the government as a necessary part of the United States banking survival.
ReplyDelete-Trevor Smith
Thomas Jefferson’s concern on having a central bank had a very valid point. We can see that although it help regulate money and brought a balance it was a type of control. Jefferson was afraid that the liberties of State and individual would slowly disappear. Jefferson strongly believed that every State had the right to establish their own commerce to see fit their State. Every State had a different type of a market-system. If there was a Central Bank to regulate all types of commerce it hurt the different types of businesses growing which would harm an individual’s form of growth. Jefferson believed and wanted to have a free market-system that would help grow the economy as well as an individual.
ReplyDelete