A Short Banking History of the United States

http://wsj.com/article/SB122360636585322023.html

The reason I posted this is cause I know a lot of you are against the federal reserve and use Jefferson's comments on banking to justify your reservations with the federal reserve. This helps explain why Jefferson was against a national bank.

 

Bull****!!!

This is pure revision of history by the "winners."

The period of 1832 - 1907 may have had its share of extreme ups and downs, but it was also the time when the U.S.A. grew so rapidly and industrialized to the point it had become a global power. By 1890, the US economy generated one of the highest levels of output per person in the world. Why, exactly, do you think that millions of Europeans were immigrating to America during this time if their financial system was so much better than ours?

We had deflations during this period, but purchasing power ended up offsetting any nominal GDP losses. The Crashes were MUCH worse in Europe.

BTW, in 1907 JP Morgan CREATED the panic that he "Solved" (and he "solved" it with $25 million of federal money during our first illegal "bank bailout.") "The panic had long since been decreed and prepared and was inevitably on its way ... The Clearing House refused to help and [Knickerbocker Trust] had to close its doors."

You can read more about banking and Federal Reserve history at the link in my signature, going back to the 1760s and England's attempt to extend its bank onto the colonies as a large part of why the revolution began in the first place.

Whatever you do, don't trust this kind of history to the WSJ. Its just another branch of FoxNews these days...

 

Sourcing the a reputable newspaper like the WSJ is wrong becuase they were recently bought by News Corp, but sourcing blogs which make things up and don't source anything is acceptable.

 

Whatever. I've got encyclopedia and Federal Reserve sources on my blog. If you can't figure out how to read a footnoted source, I can't help you out.

Of course, the WSJ has the "good name" of Fox News and Rupert Murdoch behind it. Whoever wrote this original article is either ignorant of history or shilling intentionally for the banks.

Believe what you want, but don't try to teach until you've learned.

[1] The Currency Act, 1764 - http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/currencyact.htm

[2] Jefferson's Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank, 1791 - http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/amerdoc/bank-tj.htm

[3] National Bank Notes: A Uniform Curency (1865-1914) - http://www.occ.treas.gov/exhibits/histor4.htm

[4] F. Augustus Heinze of Montana and the Panic of 1907 - http://minneapolisfed.org/pubs/region/89-08/REG898C.cfm

[5] FDIC Learning Bank: 1900-1919 - http://www.fdic.gov/about/learn/learning/when/19-1919.html



[6] Depression-era bank failures: the great contagion or the great shakeout? - http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-132680382.html

 

This article is what I was taught in high school.

Federal Reserve - Good
Any alternative - Bad

This article is like reading why slavery was good for the United States.

This article purports the United States after the Civil War WITHOUT a central bank...

when inventions were everywhere,
railroads were connecting the cities,
the Industrial Revolution was in full force,
exports were strong,
government spending was low (by comparison), and
without Federal Income tax

was evidence of a weak economy. That is amazing.

In fact, many have argued the bank panics of that time were caused to force the United States to adopt a central bank. Despite the contrived panics, the economy still expanded like crazy.

If this is the article used to support Central Banks, it confirms my belief they are the greatest thieves in the country and the destroyers of economic independence in the United States.

They should call this artcle, "Short Propaganda on Banking History in the United States"

 

Yup yup, I'm glad someone gets it.

"On the rare occasion that a national bank failed, the government sold the securities held on deposit and reimbursed the note holders. No owner of a national bank note ever lost his or her money." -US Treasury 1865-1914

"President Theodore Roosevelt provides JP Morgan with $25 million in government funds to use to control the panic. Morgan, acting as a one-man central bank, decides which firms will fail and which firms will survive." -FDIC

 

Things weren't as great as you think. Manhattan was a huge slum with over 2 million people -- almost double today's population.

 

Considering that National Banks really didn't come into existence until the last 20 or years, its not surprising that no one lost money in a national bank. Banks were and still largely are regional banks, usually contained to a state.

 

I'm not sure what your point is.

A Central Bank would not have solved that problem anymore than it would have solved the problem of sanitation and immigration.

In some sense, you'd think Central Banks would have made the problem worse if their behavior today is any indication.

 

National Bank Notes were the currency from 1865-1914

Please read the link to the U.S. treasury website I referenced the quote from...

 

The 19th century wasn't as great as your post made it out to be.

Much of New York like the Empire State Building, George Washington Bridge, Lincolbn Tunnel and Laguardia Airport were built during the Great Depression.

 

No one is saying that the 19th century lives up to our 21st century concepts of engineering, sanitation, or medication.

What is in dispute is the article's claim that the U.S. economy did worse in the 19th century than its European counter-parts, or that the National Banking system required a Central Bank to function properly.

 

I am not sure what the 19th century has to do with Central Banking. Besides Manhattan is not the US.

Central Banks concentrate power in Washington DC and New York. That's the problem the US is facing today. A weak manufacturing sector and outsize banking sector with way too much influence in the government.

But, before central banks, there was the light bulb and electricity, the telegraph and telephone, the automobile, the steam engine, the internal combustion engine, modern-day steel, the camera and motion pictures, the assembly line, replaceable parts, air conditioning, central heating, indoor plumbing, modern day sanitation, explosives, the largest expansion in American borders, the oil rush, the gold rush, without the Federal Reserve, without the IRS and Federal Income Tax, without big government, and without an outsize military budget/Pentagon.

The Central Banks need America to steal its assets. The US does not need Central Banks.

 

You need to look at a map my friend. Wall Street, the United Nations, Empire State Building, Times Square, and Central Park are all located in Manhattan.

Last I checked Manhattan is located in the US.

You are missing the point. Sure the US had great invention but there was also great poverty. Manhattan was a great slum before the Federal Reserve and Income Tax.

Sure there can be something better.

 

Manhattan is not the United States.
Manhattan does not represent the United States.
My state does not elect people to serve in Manhattan.

The central banks want a strong Manhattan because it consolidates power away from the productive manufacturing sectors (energy, cars, food, clothing) to the unproductive financial sector (banking, finance, insurance, trading) and government sector (Washington DC).

There is still great poverty and great slums, believe or not. There is great imprisonment, great war mongering, great gang problem, great drug use, and great waste.

Central banks, the Federal Reserve, and IRS annually steal the wealth from productive America to deposit in Manhattan and Washington DC.

The country suffers so New York and DC can enjoy their wasteful, indulgent, nonproductive lifestyles at the hands of JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Citicorp, etc. The central bank experiment is a failure.

 

What you are talking about is the fractional reserve banking system. It permits banks to create money through loans and checks.

Today we are much more wealthy that the 19th century that you look so fondly on.

Yes there is still great proverty. But the world now supports billions of additional people.

 

bogart, you cannot wait for us to go under and not have food to buy...

 

I can wait maybe 3 hours before i become a cannibal...

 

There is a reason European immigrants flooded this country before the Federal Reserve and central banks.

The US was a manufacturing powerhouse. It created massive amounts of wealth, lots of jobs, and lots of wealth all over the country. The central bankers did not want to see power in Memphis, Milwaukee, Akron, New Orleans, St. Louis, Detroit, Denver, Baltimore, Louisville, etc.

They wanted it all in Manhattan (where they lived) and Washington DC (and maybe Boston).

The central bankers tried to control this country, with its system of credit, but so many US Presidents defied them.
Once the 20th century hit, it's like the US government ceased to represent the interests of the people and became an extension of the bank.

Barack Obama and John McCain are essentially the next Bank President of the United States.
=====================
If central banks used commodities to back the money, then it would encourage manufacturing. If every dollar was backed by corn, or wheat, or cars, or cotton, or some manufactured good, inflation would be much less extreme and fractional reserve banking would work better because you could literally PRODUCE wealth.

The way it is now, the central banks (Federal Reserve) create dollars out of thin air backed by nothing. So, if they want to steal the wealth of the United States, all they have to do is run the printing presses without needing to PRODUCE a single thing.

That is what is happening with all these bailouts. Instead of producing more food, energy, or goods, backing the $700 billion, the Federal Reserve prints it out of nothing and then gives it to more banks.

You say we are much more wealthy, but I am not sure. Land was a whole lot cheaper. Taxes weren't everywhere.
There was no massive military budget. There was no taxpayer-funded bailouts. People were a LOT more self-sufficient. People actually had savings!

Today, we live in debt. We don't produce anything we use. Did you make your car, house, clothes, or grow the food you eat? The country wastes money on new stadiums/arenas, golden parachutes, and locks up huge numbers of people in its prison/industrial complex.

At the same time, our roads, rails, education system, health care system, water, ports, and electrical/communications grid are all falling further behind the rest of the world.

Sure, we have more stuff, but our food is loaded with sugar, salt, and chemicals which makes us sick. We buy consumer products that just waste resources (buying a new cell phone ever year, buy a new car every 3 years, buy a new house every 5 years). We still use oil after 100 years, despite all the alternatives available 100 years ago.

All of this is because of central banks and their fractional reserve system which encourages waste because it is not backed by any manufacturing or production. It is backed by debt. The central banks make money by keeping the country in debt and controlling the system of credit.

The US is not the destination it used to be.
The US is not the production powerhouse it used to be.

This is unsustainable and it cannot last.

The Federal Reserve system doesn't work. The US needs to get back to production, saving, a small military, a local banking system, and commodity-based currency.

Central banks do not want the average citizen to have any wealth. The central banks want to hoard all the wealth and give it out only if you borrow it from them (it costs them nothing to create the money but they charge you interest to borrow it, that makes sense ).

 

With what commodity do we back our currency?