Dr. Thomas J. DiLorenzo writing at the Ludwig von Mises Institute:
Hamilton was the intellectual leader of the group of men at the time of the founding who wanted to import the system of British mercantilism and imperialistic government to America. As long as they were on the paying side of British mercantilism and imperialism, they opposed it and even fought a revolution against it. But being on the collecting side was altogether different. It’s good to be the king, as Mel Brooks might say.
It was Hamilton who coined the phrase “The American System” to describe his economic policy of corporate welfare, protectionist tariffs, central banking, and a large public debt, even though his political descendants, the Whig Party of Henry Clay, popularized the slogan. He was not well schooled in the economics of his day, as is argued by such writers as John Steele Gordon. Unlike Jefferson, who had read, understood, and supported the free-market economic ideas of Adam Smith, David Ricardo, John Baptiste Say (whom Jefferson invited to join the faculty of the University of Virginia), Richard Cantillon, and Turgot (a bust of whom still sits in the entrance to Monticello), Hamilton either ignored or was completely unaware of these ideas. Instead, he repeated the mercantilist myths and superstitions that had been concocted by apologists for the British mercantilist state, such as Sir James Steuart.
Hamilton championed the cause of a large public debt — which he called “a public blessing” — not to establish the credit of the US government or to finance any particular public works projects but for the Machiavellian idea of tying the interests of the more affluent to the state: being government bondholders, they would, he believed, then support all of his grandiose plans for heavy taxation and a government much larger than what was called for in the Constitution. He was right. They, along with Wall Street investment bankers who have marketed the government’s bonds, have always provided effective political support for bigger government and higher taxes. That is why Wall Street investment bankers were first in line for a bailout, administered by one of their fellow investment bankers, Treasury Secretary Paulson.
Hamilton argued for a large standing army not because he feared an invasion by France or England, but because he understood that the European monarchs had used such armies to intimidate their own citizens when it came to tax collection. Evidence of this is the fact that Hamilton personally led some 15,000 conscripts into Western Pennsylvania (with George Washington) to attempt to quell the famous Whiskey Rebellion. He was eventually put in charge of the entire expedition, and rounded up two dozen tax protesters, every one of whom he wanted to hang. They were all pardoned by George Washington, however, to Hamilton’s everlasting regret.
In a publication entitled “A History of Central Banking in America” the Fed proudly labels Hamilton as its founding father, boasting that he even spoke just like a contemporary Fed chairman. The First Bank of the United States, which was opposed by Jefferson and Madison, created 72 percent inflation in its first five years of operation, as Murray Rothbard wrote in A History of Money and Banking in the United States. It was not rechartered in 1811, but was resurrected by Congress in 1817, after which it created America’s first boom-and-bust cycle, which led to the Panic of 1819, the title of another of Rothbard’s great works on American economic history.
After years of generating political corruption and economic instability, Hamilton’s bank finally came to an end by the early 1840s, thanks to President Andrew Jackson. This led to the twenty-year “free banking” era. Hamiltonian central banking was resurrected once again in the 1860s with the National Currency Acts. This is an important reason why some historians have labeled the postwar decades as a period of “Hamiltonian hegemony.”
When Anna Schwartz, Michael Bordo, and Peter Rappaport evaluated this precursor to the Fed in an academic publication, they concluded that it was characterized by “monetary and cyclical instability, four banking panics, frequent stock market crashes, and other financial disturbances” (see their paper in Claudia Goldin, ed., Strategic Factors in Nineteenth-Century Economic Growth). Naturally, the government’s response to all of this economic panic and instability caused by centralized banking was to create an even more centralized banking system with the Federal Reserve Act.
Hamilton is perhaps best known among economists for his Report on Manufactures. In his 1905 biography of Hamilton, William Graham Sumner wrote that Hamilton’s report advocated “the old system of mercantilism of the English school, turned around and adjusted to the situation of the United States.” Thomas Jefferson also wrote that Hamilton’s “schemes” for protectionism, corporate welfare, and central banking were “the means by which the corrupt British system of government could be introduced into the United States.” They were right.
Hamilton’s reputation as having had great expertise in economics and finance has been greatly exaggerated, wrote Sumner, who also wrote that Hamilton’s economic thinking was marred by “confusion and contradiction” and that Hamilton was “befogged in the mists of mercantilism.” Unfortunately for us, all of Hamilton’s bad ideas “proved a welcome arsenal to the politicians” who succeeded him, noted Sumner.
At the constitutional convention Hamilton proposed a permanent president who would appoint all the governors of the states and would have veto power over all state legislation. His opponents correctly interpreted this as advocating a monarchy and, worse yet, a monarchy based on mercantilism. The reason for consolidating all political power first in the central government, and then in the hands of one man, the permanent president, was so that an American mercantilist empire could be centrally planned and controlled without any dissenters, such as tax protestors or free traders who resided in the various states. Hamilton (and his political heirs) understood that forced national uniformity is the only way in which such a central-planning scheme could work. The socialists of the 20th century understood this as well.
Hamiltonian mercantilism is essentially the economic and political system that Americans have lived under for several generations now: a king-like president who rules through “executive orders” and disregards any and all constitutional constraints on his powers; state governments that are mere puppets of the central government; corporate welfare run amok, especially in light of the most recent outrage, the Wall Street Plutocrat Bailout Bill; a $10 trillion national debt ($70 trillion if one counts the government’s unfunded liabilities); a perpetual boom-and-bust cycle caused by the Wizard of Oz–like central planners at the Fed; constant military aggression around the world that only seems to benefit defense contractors and other beneficiaries of the warfare state; and more than half of the population bribed with subsidies of every kind imaginable to support the never-ending growth of the state. This is Hamilton’s curse on America — a curse that must be exorcized if there is to be any hope of resurrecting American freedom and prosperity.
A crisis such as this is nothing to celebrate, but this cloud has a silver lining nevertheless: The collapse of every lie you were told in school is your opportunity to improve your understanding of how the world really works. The internet is awash in neglected intellectual capital, and the Ludwig von Mises Institute is a very good place to begin the process of learning the truth of economics.
Arlington homes for sale says:
Sounds like Hamilton had no place in being at the convention as he was not in spirit an American. I’m watching the John Adams series now and loving it. I don’t think Hamilton and Jefferson got along….And Hamilton would definitely vote for Obama today 🙂 with a party that has yet to pass Economics 077. Too bad republicans also got a C- in the class but at least they passed. Keep in mind it the scores of both parties were relative and rounded up so that at least 1 party passed officially instead of nobody so it does not inspire much confidence regardless.
I think Hamilton might have been comfortable with the Fairness Doctrine King Obama and his minions will try to pursue in order to curb/block political free speech–the antithesis of what the Founders had in mind of course. Pretty sure they’ll keep King Obama’s name out of it though even if he concurs with it but is too cowardly to state so publicly. Can you say “present”? After all that’s about all King Obama knows how to say when voting….
October 22, 2008 — 6:23 am
Sean Purcell says:
Greg,
Thank you. In this post and previous comments you have exposed me to new ideas and concepts. I am woefully ignorant with regard to the founding of the central bank and Hamilton’s philosophy as a whole. I am now reading as much as possible on this very important aspect of our economic and political development.
My education continues and grows here… a compliment of the highest magnitude.
October 22, 2008 — 8:43 am
Craig Klein says:
Thanks for getting this out there! You won’t hear this information any where else!
October 22, 2008 — 2:43 pm
Greg Swann says:
> I am now reading as much as possible on this very important aspect of our economic and political development.
When I was a teenager on my own in New York, it was always a huge thrill for me to make the trek down to Laissez Faire Books in Soho. At that time Andrea Millen Rich was keeping people like von Mises, Hayek and Hazlitt in print. There was nowhere else to go for their books. By now, Amazon has it covered, but there is nothing to replace that store in Soho, a place where true aliens — free market rebels in Manhattan — could go to feel like they might someday find a home.
Of von Mises’ books, by far the most important is Human Action.
October 22, 2008 — 9:15 pm
Geno Petro says:
Greg,
this was a great read.
Thanks,
G.
October 23, 2008 — 10:09 am
Joe Hayden says:
Greg…
…”silver lining” – Always the optimist!! 😉
I listened to Michael Medved shut down a guy promoting the Austrian school this afternoon on his show. His (Medved’s) argument that we need to “work within the system” and “the system brings a lot of benefits to America” basically brought to an end my view that he was a positive force for change. Working “within the system” equates to being dominated by the system.
Certainly there is no quick fix, and the loss of the bulk of the education system and media to compliant, agreeable types complicates the issue, but it is still possible to effect change…
You must vote. You must vote for candidates who understand, who found their principals on the bedrock of freedom, who recognize that the strength of a nation like America can do far greater good for the world than a weakened, demoralized America, who are willing and able to withstand the spoils of power. You must encourage such persons to run for office, support them financially when able, and support them through your words and actions always.
In absence of this method of ridding this Nation of the scourge of the entrenched politician and devastating central bank, we will have to accept our chains and be conquered. I hate to think of the alternatives…
I do want to again suggest two books that condense and unravel much of what we see around us today directly resulting from the central banking system / ruling elite…. “Tragedy and Hope” and “The Creature From Jekyll Island”. Great history and fascinating reads…
October 23, 2008 — 7:04 pm
Equity Release says:
Not only US, any country would have suffered the crisis had they also given loans like the US banks had given.
Some Asian countries are very strict about loan but still the fraud rate is very high.
October 23, 2008 — 8:34 pm
Michael Cook says:
Not sure I buy “This is Hamilton’s curse on America — a curse that must be exorcized if there is to be any hope of resurrecting American freedom and prosperity.”
The central bank of today is miles apart from the central bank of Hamilton. While I in no way defend or support Hamilton or Jefferson for that matter, one has to imagine the challenges of creating a financial system from nothing. The fact that they could even put such a massive system in place is a testament to something. I would have been much more suprised if it ran smoothly at all in the first 50 years. Developing countries today face similiar problems and rarely has anyone stepped in and been able to succeed unilaterally. Mexico is probably the best most recent example of a good central bank in action.
Perhaps if the same article was written about Alan Greenspan I would applaud wildly, but I found Volcker’s use of its powers to be in line with the spirit of central banking. You will be hard pressed to convince me that we do not need one at all, but I will whole heartedly support restricting its function significantly.
October 24, 2008 — 6:48 am