Can someone please give me a concise libertarian defense of Jackson's decision to terminate the Second Bank of the United States? Also, does anybody know of any libertarian writings on the subject, besides Peter Temin's crap?
Well I just read The Money Men by a professor from UT and there was a whole chapter devoted to Jacksonian democracy. To be honest, I think Jackson was in the wrong in abolishing this bank. He had ZERO financial knowledge vs Nicholas Biddle's genius on the matter and he merely used his hate of the bank to get popular support for the elections.
Its not that getting rid of the bank was a bad idea, it is just that he had no other ideas for what to do about money at that time (a time when the country was still getting started) and this resulted in thousands of private banks that all had different currencies. Since they all had different currencies, it was nearly impossible to invest in other states. Also, many of the currencies just flat out defaulted, which I guess some libertarians would say is creative destruction or w/e but the fact of the matter is that innocent people lost their savings due to a faulty financial system
I cannot, but Rothbard's Mystery of Banking would probably be good. Looks like there is some history of Central Banking in there that covers that period, however a defense of it probably lies in the understanding of the remainder of the book.
Julio: Can someone please give me a concise libertarian defense of Jackson's decision to terminate the Second Bank of the United States? Also, does anybody know of any libertarian writings on the subject, besides Peter Temin's crap?
probably rothbards a history of money and banking in the us
TravisWadman: Well I just read The Money Men by a professor from UT and there was a whole chapter devoted to Jacksonian democracy. To be honest, I think Jackson was in the wrong in abolishing this bank. He had ZERO financial knowledge vs Nicholas Biddle's genius on the matter and he merely used his hate of the bank to get popular support for the elections.
Are you even a libertarian?
TravisWadman:but the fact of the matter is that innocent people lost their savings due to a faulty financial system
I don't think many innocent people kept their money in banks back then. It's not as if they were offering interest bearing savings accounts or checking accounts to the general public. Banks raised capital with which to back their notes by selling stock. The people who bought bank stock, borrowed from a bank, or accepted a bank's notes in payment generally knew what sort of risk they were taking and factored this into their decision making.
There was one serious bit of faultiness in the banking system that caused honest people to lose their money though. The legal tender laws forced honest creditors to accept paper as payment for loans that had been made in specie. Tom Woods has a great quote from Reverend John Witherspoon in one of his lectures:
"For two or three years we were treated to the spectacle of creditors fleeing their debtors, with debtors pursuing them in triumph and paying them without mercy."
sicsempertyrannis:Are you even a libertarian?
I fail to see the relevance of this question..
But to answer anyway, of course not. Perhaps I have some libertarian views, but it is of supreme ignorance to limit yourself to one set of views. That is why you see so many fools on these forums arguing against EVERYTHING non-libertarian without even considering the opposite. I prefer to take the best of all sides. The TRUTH is that Andrew Jackson didn't know a thing about banking and Nicholas Biddle did. The TRUTH is that Andrew Jackson used to bank debate for popular support in the elections while Nicholas Biddle defended it to help the economy. Whether he is correct that a central bank would help the economy is, of course debatable, but I will give credit where credit is due.
And to the guy saying not many people used banks back then... I find it hard to accept this as truth. Of course I wasn't alive back then so I have to take historian's words for it, but how could there be over a thousand banks open during the Free Banking Era and none of them hold savings of innocent people?
Well, the fact is, that you seem to be another troll :-)
Get your facts straight, as if you do not, someone else here will happily disolve your "knowledge" about Jackson, banking, fraud and the foundation of the USA (at least until the war over southern secession).
Have a great time
In the begining there was nothing, and it exploded.
Terry Pratchett (on the big bang theory)