Jackson "killed the bank", and what would occur is known as "one of the biggest financial disasters in the history of America."
If a central bank is so evil and ineffective, why was the economy in such ruins at the time? Banks were in shatters, and there needed to be some kind of central power to manage it all.
Also, what would the currency be? I've heard that we need competing currencies, but how would that work? One currency may be worth something in one part of the country yet lost most of that value in another. Don't you need some kind of all-encompassing currency to be fair and effective?
Anyone writing about the subject and using that terminology has very little acquaintence with it.
If a central bank is so evil and ineffective, why was the economy in such ruins at the time?
Because it created massive amounts of credit forthe banks to lend and when the loand couldn't be mismatched as they can today, the banks went bust and lost all of their money. Jackson ended the gratuitous line of credit for the government and private banks.
Banks were in shatters,
because they had lent too much money and didn't have the assets to make do.
and there needed to be some kind of central power to manage it all.
There was. Jackson ended the central bank in order to cut off the source of credit that had allowed banks to loan so much.
Off topic, but directed a tthe OP,
Have you ever read anything on rational inference or what it means to understand things? You need to read the literature that these topics inquire about. I ask about rational inference because it seems that you have contradictory views in the OP. Your demeanor in other threads is obviously hostile and I want to know if you are actually curious or if you are generating quotes that you are taking out of context when you write about them other places. Your quotes in the first sentence suggest that you are lifting phrases from a crude understanding of the material you are "trying to discuss" and posting leading questions here...
no ,we don't
no, he did not
Well economies were ruined in the presence of and absence of a central bank so having a central bank does not prevent economies from failing. The question is which is preferrable.
Andrew Jackson stopped the rechartering of the Second Bank of the United States in 1836. You are going to have to be more specific as to what is "the biggest financial disaster in the history of America." Do you mean now?
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
My understanding is that it was not Andrew Jackson who ruined the banks associated with the Second Bank of the USA, but the bank itself. The governing board of the bank purposely set out to destroy the subordinate banks to show the people that they really needed the central bank. Of course Jackson was so stubborn that he went ahead and closed it anyway.
As for the form of money, banks did what they always do when a central bank dissapears. First they tighten loan standards and stop lending as much money to build up more reserves. Then they get rid of paper reserves and switch to gold. Lastly they take deposits in specie: gold or silver, and then issue bank notes that the depositors use as money.
My question for you is how can an elite group of people even with all the software, hardware and expertise in the world resolve the two basic problems facing any bureaucrat with the power to set prices on any goods much less the most interchangable good money?
1. Knowledge Problem-Also known as the Complexity Problem. Only a market pricing system can deliver enough information to consumers and producers about relative scarcities of stuff and labor all with alternative uses to allow a human to make a non-destructive decision.
2. Calculation Problem-How do entrepreneurs (People guessing future demand) make these estimates when the future price of money is arbitrarily set by the central bank.
In other words how does the central bank avoid the business cycle?