“The refusal of King George III to allow the colonies to operate an honest money system, which freed the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators was probably the prime cause of the revolution.” Benjamin Franklin
The Currency Act of 1764 was passed after the French and Indian War had ended. The act banned the use of paper money in all colonies. In passing this, the British government was attempting to have a greater amount of control over the individual colonies. Following is the text of the Currency Act of 1764. This was just one of a series of acts which led to greater discontent amongst the colonists. Eventually, this discontent would lead to the American Revolution.
“Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.” Mayer Amschel Rothschild, 1790
But getting rid of Central Bankers did not create Utopia
The Second Bank of the United States was authorized for a 20-year period during James Madison’s tenure in 1816. As President, Jackson worked to rescind the bank’s federal charter. In Jackson’s veto message, the bank needed to be abolished because:
It concentrated the nation’s financial strength in a single institution,
It exposed the government to control by foreign interests,
It served mainly to make the rich richer,
It exercised too much control over members of Congress,
It favored northeastern states over southern and western states,
Banks are controlled by a few select families.Following Jefferson, Jackson supported an “agricultural republic” and felt the Bank improved the fortunes of an “elite circle” of commercial and industrial entrepreneurs at the expense of farmers and laborers. After a titanic struggle, Jackson succeeded in destroying the Bank by vetoing its 1832 re-charter by Congress and by withdrawing U.S. funds in 1833. (See Banking in the Jacksonian Era)
The bank’s money-lending functions were taken over by the legions of local and state banks that sprang up. This increased credit and speculation. At first, as Jackson withdrew money from the Bank to invest it in other banks, land sales, canal construction, cotton production, and manufacturing boomed.[34] Then, in 1836, Jackson issued the Specie Circular, which required buyers of government lands to pay in “specie” (gold or silver coins). The result was a great demand for specie, which many banks did not have enough of to exchange for their notes. These banks collapsed.[34] This was a direct cause of the Panic of 1837, which threw the national economy into a deep depression. It took years for the economy to recover from the damage.[35]
The U.S. Senate censured Jackson on March 28, 1834, for his action in removing U.S. funds from the Bank of the United States. When the Jacksonians had a majority in the Senate, the censure was expunged.
Nullification crisis
Another notable crisis during Jackson’s period of office was the “Nullification Crisis”, or “secession crisis”, of 1828 – 1832, which merged issues of sectional strife with disagreements over tariffs. Critics alleged that high tariffs (the “Tariff of Abominations”) on imports of common manufactured goods made in Europe made those goods more expensive than ones from the northern U.S., raising the prices paid by planters in the South. Southern politicians argued that tariffs benefited northern industrialists at the expense of southern farmers.
The issue came to a head when Vice President Calhoun, in the South Carolina Exposition and Protest of 1828, supported the claim of his home state, South Carolina, that it had the right to “nullify”—declare void—the tariff legislation of 1828, and more generally the right of a state to nullify any Federal laws that went against its interests. Although Jackson sympathized with the South in the tariff debate, he also vigorously supported a strong union, with effective powers for the central government. Jackson attempted to face down Calhoun over the issue, which developed into a bitter rivalry between the two men.
Particularly notable was an incident at the April 13, 1830, Jefferson Day dinner, involving after-dinner toasts. Robert Hayne began by toasting to “The Union of the States, and the Sovereignty of the States”. Jackson then rose, and in a booming voice added “Our federal Union: It must be preserved!” – a clear challenge to Calhoun. Calhoun clarified his position by responding “The Union: Next to our Liberty, the most dear!”[36]
With the legalization of cannabis in Colorado and Washington we are having another nullification crisis. However, Alcohol Prohibition set the precedent. The Federal Government can enforce its laws but States are not required to do so.
So much for the opening of the video. The speaker than goes on to rant about GMOs (plant breeding with a laser like focus rather than the normal sacattershot method of selective breeding) and Global Warming caused by CO2. But there has been no global warming for 16 years and currently the trend is a very slight cooling. Despite rising CO2 in the atmosphere.
The speaker may have some points. But he is way off on others.
Comments
22 responses to “All Wars Are Banker’s Wars”
International banks are the ultimate level to find most believable conspiracy theories. It’s all about power & they are good at it.
I could not verify the Franklin quote and it is listed here as misattributed:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin
conspiracy theories are about the mind of the creator, the “evidence” is an afterthought. Debunk all of the “evidence”and the conspiracy persists.
Eric,
From your link:
Some of the statement might be derived from those made during his examination by the British Parliament in February 1766, published in “The Examination of Benjamin Franklin” in The Parliamentary History of England from the Earliest Period to the Year 1803? (1813); when questioned why Parliament had lost respect among the people of the Colonies, he answered: “To a concurrence of causes: the restraints lately laid on their trade, by which the bringing of foreign gold and silver into the Colonies was prevented; the prohibition of making paper money among themselves, and then demanding a new and heavy tax by stamps; taking away, at the same time, trials by juries, and refusing to receive and hear their humble petitions”.
The one thing you can say about our current crisis is that it is a banking crisis more than anything else.
Look up “Catherine Austin Fitts Narco News”
Or read this:
http://classicalvalues.com/2011/11/why-we-must-not-end-prohibition/
Along these lines, you’d ought to read Angelo Codevilla’s piece in Forbes.
Neil,
As the Drug War collapses and people look at who was mainly persecuted for Drug Crimes and who the prohibition party is the “racist” epithet is going to stick. Not just as an accusation but as a reality. While the Republicans like “good Germans” say, “but we didn’t know”?
They know and don’t care. It is not just the leadership and the moochers who are rotten. It is 90% of the country. And that includes the “country – smaller government” faction. They want smaller government except for the cases where it persecutes people they don’t like.
BTW 50% of the people are against cannabis prohibition. About 70+% are against medical cannabis prohibition. Who represents them? Not even Democrats except at the State and local level.
Simon-
I noted that Codevilla’s article mentioned nothing about drug prohibition, except to say that SS Disability funds addiction.
Unfortunately, I’ve never noted any willingness among the anti-prohibition crowd to support economic freedom, free speech (freedom from “hate” speech codes and restrictions on political speech), self-defense rights, and child-rearing rights–the core causes of Codevilla’s misnamed “country class”. There are certainly libertarians who support all of these rights out of principle, but the much larger group of committed leftists who want an end to prohibition would have to move right on at least economics in order to make common cause.
I’ve never seen anything at all to indicate that any great mass of anti-prohibitionists would bend on economic freedom or any other civil right, if the right were to give up the drug war. My opinion is that it would simply weld them even more firmly to the left.
The government teat is at least as addictive as any drug, it would seem.
Even worse than being poorly attributed* to Franklin, the quote makes no sense.
The Money Act’s ban on locally issued [inflationary] paper is the opposite or “refusing to allow an honest money system”.
It’s much closer to requiring one.
(Now, the Colonies had good reasons for disliking it, in that the supply of specie was limited in the colonies, and this made for a constrained money supply and reinforced their lack of independence.
But that has nothing to do with the idea that it was not an “honest money system”.)
(* I also don’t believe the Rothschild quote for a second.)
Neil,
There are some that do. But any group that wants to reduce even a part of government I support.
The government teat is at least as addictive as any drug, it would seem.
Where the country class is worse is that they want to punish people for “moral” reasons.
Where as their opponents just want to use government for theft. “Nothing left to steal” people can get. “Moral improvement” is unlimited.
My division of the political system is not left/right. It is statist/anti-statist.
By that measure the political division in America is 90/10. With the anti-statists in the minority.
“Nothing left to steal” people can get.
That is where you and I really disagree. I submit that the next step after “Nothing left to steal” is “I just know there’s blood in this turnip!”. When the money runs out, that’s when the real repression will begin, to protect The People from the depredations of those capitalist roaders and wreckers, of course. As you say, morality knows no bounds, even if it’s Marxist morality. I would love to discover that you are correct, but I don’t think so.
In my opinion, economic freedom is the one which is most in need of rescuing, because there are very few constitutional protections left to it and because so long as the government controls your paycheck they control your actions.
As a matter of political strategy (meaning the the process of assembling a political coalition for retrieving economic freedom), I’m unconvinced that anti-prohibitionists would be willing to play a part in any such coalition. In my experience, they would be very happy to see private property abolished, so long as they can toke up on government-funded weed in their government-funded flat.
Neil,
You do have a point.
====
Re: weed. Unless grow your own is allowed government taxes will support a black market.
The current tax number widely used is $800 a lb wholesale at the State level. If a Federal tax comes into being it will probably be $800 an lb wholesale. Add in $800 for the grower and you are up to $2,400 an lb wholesale. Retail will roughly double that – say $5,000 an lb.
That is what top grade pot costs now.
At those prices who wouldn’t prefer government weed?
If you consider hot house tomatoes at about $5 an lb – and weed costs 5X that to produce who would care? $2 an OZ for top grade weed. A one to four month supply for the price of a beer or three.
So how about economic freedom for the weed?
The Rothschild quote is probably spurious. I looked. But if you look at the way they operated it does have a ring of truth.
@ Neil: Soma, just have some soma. And go read “Brave New World.”
@Simon, Neil’s got a point. Legalized and funded recreational drugs have played a large part in many dystopian novels. For good reason.
BUT. Still, drugs that have legitimate medical use should be legal and prescribable. Period.
And from the (very small l) libertarian standpoint, what right has the government got to say anyone can’t do what they want with their own bodies?
If they do, don’t insure it, fine…don’t fund it, fine. But you have no right in the constitution to ban it.
Kathy,
Funny enough the drugs in question were not a big problem until the government took control of them in 1914 and 1937.
Simon:
It’s probably true that drug use was not a major problem when government began prohibition efforts. It wasn’t really a problem until advances in the chemical industry and agriculture made large quantities of various drugs available.
Interestingly, alcoholism WAS a problem. Prohibition was a (misguided) effort to address a real cultural habit of binge drinking that was causing real problems. Americans didn’t drink for pleasure, they drank to get drunk. And to stay drunk. I think we’re finally starting to find some balance now. “Drink Responsibly”. “See you at AA”. “Don’t Drink and Drive”. A web of cultural permissions and limits on when and when not to drink.
I shudder to think of what will be required to find some balance on drug use. It probably starts, as you point out, with trying to understand who uses drugs habitually, and why. I support legalization, but I doubt it’s a panacea for responsible drug use. It’s certainly not a panacea for the Republicans, and probably not for economic freedom, either.
Neil,
You are now getting into an area I actually have some insight into.
Look at alcohol use in America from 1750 to 1900. It steadily declined from astronomical rates to more moderate rates. My theory is that hard conditions determine most use. Everyone gets PTSD short term from difficult events. Infant and child mortality say.
In America the preferred drug was alcohol. In China – opium. Although there was considerable opiate use post Civil War.
So what do we see today? In America opiate the opiate using population was 1.3%. After nearly 100 years of opiate prohibition it is still 1.3%.
That residual is due to long term PTSD. And the way to cut that back is to reduce child abuse. Especially sexual abuse in childhood. Current opiate use is highly correlated statistically and anecdotally with sexual abuse in childhood.
Alcohol use was already on a steep decline by 1920 and may have been near residual rates by the time Alcohol Prohibition was instituted. The problems with alcohol were still in memory but no longer much in actual evidence when Alcohol Prohibition was instituted. Typical government program.
[…] has a post up about the Mandarin mentality. Which fits into a comment I was responding to that my friend Neil made on a different post. Here is what Neil had to say. It’s probably true that drug use was not a […]
It’s certainly not a panacea for the Republicans, and probably not for economic freedom, either.
Only if you think black markets are an economic panacea.
“Funny enough the drugs in question were not a big problem until the government took control of them in 1914 and 1937.”
Reminds me of a tale from my childhood… was wandering with my far too extended family down “The Wharf” at Beach Haven (lately a serious victim of Hurricane Sandy – even if they did’nt call it that) back in 1971. We passed a little alleyway…my grandfather (then 71 years old, having been born in 1900) stopped dead in his tracks, sniffed, and announced that someone was smoking marijuana.
I asked him how he knew. I never got an answer. I knew he was right – I wanted to sneeze my lungs out. But I suspect his comment was, well, not really intended.
But he knew the smell, and probably from before prohibition. (Or whatever you want to call it.) I tried a few questions later but got no response. So I suspect he WAS a user early on. Why else deny all knowledge?