An economics, investment, trading and policy blog with a focus on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). We seek the truth, avoid the mainstream and are virulently anti-neoliberalism.
The Banks like Bank Americay are ruled by and for Republicans.
Obama should have Bill-Black'ed the banks 4 years ago but Obama was soft.
And this is affecting his ratings and affecting his strategy since the Tea party is winning with their rebellion.
The Tea Party is a subset of cowboys who can distance themselves from Republicans when they do their special operations so the Republicans can stay "clean" and then merge back with the Republicans when it is "safe and sound" if their strategy worked.
It might be working, this approach.
It is not a genuine independent political party, it is a subcommittee so that Republicans can vote twice and differently on the same issue so they can say they voted "yes" to constituents #1 and that they voted "no" to constituents #2.
He's very clear that the 1787 US Constitution bans the emission of paper money by both the Federal and state governments.
In 1787 a Constitutional Convention was held in Philadelphia. This Convention crafted a new U.S. Constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation. In Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, this new Constitution stated: “No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and {8} silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bills of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contract, or grant any Title of Nobility.”
This clause created a currency union within the United States. After 1787 states could not issue new bills of credit. Outstanding state bills could continue to circulate until they were redeemed and destroyed by their respective states.
Though not explicitly stating so, the U.S. Constitution also forbade the federal government from issuing bills of credit. At the Convention, the Constitution’s construction was understood to be such that any powers not explicitly granted to the federal government were denied to the federal government, and any powers not explicitly denied the states were granted to the states. The proposal to allow the federal government to emit bills of credit by inserting such a clause into the Constitution was voted down by the Convention delegates.
"THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND MONETARY POWERS: AN ANALYSIS OF THE 1787 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION AND HOW A CONSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION OF THE NATION’S MONETARY SYSTEM EMERGED" Farley Grubb Working Paper 11783
VIII. Epilogue {pp. 67-68}
Today the U.S. has the same written Constitution in terms of monetary powers that the founding fathers created in 1787. Yet we have a national paper money that is backed not by specie but only by federal government taxes, or the good faith and credit of the federal government—a government that also has power to institute price and exchange rate controls on said currency (Rockoff). This paper money is also a legal tender, with the legal tender clause “This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private” printed on each note. It is issued by the Federal Reserve Banking system that, while only a quasi-government agency in the strict legal sense, is about as close to a national banking system incorporated by the federal government as one can get. Unless we take the original intent of the founding fathers in their debates and votes at the 1787 Convention on monetary/banking powers to be a devious ruse, then it is hard not to conclude that we have strayed far away from what they tried to prohibit constitutionally.
Yes, Bob, we know that there is an originalist interpretation of constitutional law. Original intent is only one of a variety of theories within originalism. There are other competing theories in addition to originalism, and it is they that hold sway among jurists instead of original intent, which is a minority view.
Oh, and we also know that not only was there disagreement among the founders on major and minor points during the drafting and approval process, but also differences in the meaning and intent the constitution was adopted, e.g, the elastic clause ("necessary and proper") and enumerated, reserved, and denied powers vs. implied powers. An expansive reading of the Constitution was there right out of the box.
And there certainly is no "impled power" to emit bills of credit, paper money, or computer funny money from a clear ban on it by the states and a clear deletion of such power from proposed powers for the Feds.
This doctrine went on to become a well-known and much-studied doctrine of interpretation of constitutional law. This doctrine is derived from the conclusion to Section 8 of Article 1 of the Constitution that enumerates the powers of Congress. It states that Congress has the power “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” The rather plain language of this clause belies ascribing much genius to the creation of a “doctrine” of implied powers. Most anyone at the time could read, understand, and more-or-less agree on the broad meaning of this clause. For example, the Constitution did not give Congress the explicit power to create a mint, but it did give it the explicit power to coin {53} money. Almost everyone seemed to agree that the power to coin money implied the power to create a mint in order to coin money. The first Congress’ Congressional Mint Act was constitutionally uncontroversial. By contrast, Congress’ Constitutional power to coin money was not construed to imply the power to go into the goldsmith business or charter mining companies.24
Hamilton’s use of the implied-powers doctrine to assert that the First Bank of the U.S. was constitutional can be seen as a rhetorical smoke screen. Hamilton’s foes could read the implied-powers clause in the Constitution as well as he could.
Bob, whenever you quote Farley Grubb you should also include the following:
"In 1787 would-be bankers saw paper-money-creation power as a profit bonanza whose potential could be reaped only if they could be rid of competing government paper money. The U.S. dollar currency union was a counter-revolution led by merchant-bankers intent on usurping state and federal sovereign power over monetary matters to enhance their personal power and wealth... The chance timing of events circa 1787 gave merchant-bankers the opportunity to get rid of their principal money-creating competitor and to have said carved into the “stone tablets” of the U.S. Constitution"
y: Facts are facts. Grubb's history is consistent with Hamilton being a sleazeball for the financial elite
https://mises.org/store/Hamiltons-Curse-P534.aspx
and the problems caused by private bank issue of fractional reserve private bank notes as described in "The Panic of 1819".
http://mises.org/document/695/
Apparently you missed the fact that much of Austrian and libertarian analysis demonstrates that most historical problems are not caused by laissez faire but by capture of government powers by the financial elite and that laissez faire and crony capitalism are opposites.
According to Farley Grubb the supposed constitutional restriction on government-issued paper money was a scam engineered by private bankers to benefit their interests.
You agree with Grubb's analysis, but unlike him you think that this was a good thing.
You agree with Grubb's analysis, but unlike him you think that this was a good thing.
I see nothing in his recitation of the historical facts that are different than what I learned 40 years ago and which were never never ever mentioned in law school. However, the fact the all levels of government were prohibited from emitting paper money did not facilitate the subsequent actions taken by Hamiliton and the elite which Grubb describes as unconstitutional. Further, I claim that most private fractional reserve banking is just plain fraudulent which is not facilitated by a ban on state issue of paper money. Grubb seems to take a dim view if it too.
I guess this make Grubb and myself idiots in the view of the benevolent and omniscient Lord Keynes.
Grubb claims that the government was supposedly prohibited from issuing paper money due to a conspiracy by private bankers who were "intent on usurping state and federal sovereign power over monetary matters to enhance their personal power and wealth".
Grubb thinks the government should have the power to issue paper money, and claims that state-issued paper money generally functioned very well.
Yet for some reason you seem to think that quoting Grubb somehow supports your weird ideology.
I can only assume you believe this due to some sort of mental confusion.
Grubb thinks the government should have the power to issue paper money, and claims that state-issued paper money generally functioned very well.
Yet for some reason you seem to think that quoting Grubb somehow supports your weird ideology.
I quote Grubb for his historical research that proves that the constitution prohibits government issuance of paper money and that the drafters of the constitution meant that result. He is obviously has no familiarity whatsoever with libertarian analysis of the state or Austrian school economics. His analysis shows that the financial elite did control the government anyway, and contrary to the express language of the constitution.
It's the height of naivete to think that IF we could just make the government more powerful and IF my friends and I were to control it, things would be fine.
Once the government is granted the power to do anything it wants to "help" the economy, it can anything it wants, because a court is not going to second guess those decisions. Thus, when the inevitable looting by the elite takes place after the grant of such authority, "progressives" are shocked and libertarians say "I told you so".
If there is a consensus in society to do something, people can and will just do it voluntarily. Employing government means that there is no such consensus and cooperation must be gained by the police threatening people with guns and prison.
Grubb doesn't prove that the constitution prohibits government issuance of paper money, he claims that "though not explicitly stating so, the U.S. Constitution also forbade the federal government from issuing bills of credit".
This claim doesn't support your weird ideology in any way, yet for some reason you seem to get some satisfaction from quoting it.
By the way I have no interest in your idiotic, repugnant and dishonest ideology so there really is no point in reciting your dogma at me.
17 comments:
This is too late.
The Banks like Bank Americay are ruled by and for Republicans.
Obama should have Bill-Black'ed the banks 4 years ago
but Obama was soft.
And this is affecting his ratings and affecting his strategy since the Tea party is winning with their rebellion.
The Tea Party is a subset of cowboys who can distance themselves from Republicans when they do their special operations so the Republicans can stay "clean" and then merge back with the Republicans when it is "safe and sound" if their strategy worked.
It might be working, this approach.
It is not a genuine independent political party, it is a subcommittee so that Republicans can vote twice and differently on the same issue so they can say they voted "yes" to constituents #1 and that they voted "no" to constituents #2.
Did you actually read Farley Grubb?
He's very clear that the 1787 US Constitution bans the emission of paper money by both the Federal and state governments.
In 1787 a Constitutional Convention was held in Philadelphia. This Convention crafted a new U.S. Constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation. In Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, this new Constitution stated: “No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and {8} silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bills of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contract, or grant any Title of Nobility.”
This clause created a currency union within the United States. After 1787 states could not issue new bills of credit. Outstanding state bills could continue to circulate until they were redeemed and destroyed by their respective states.
Though not explicitly stating so, the U.S. Constitution also forbade the federal government from issuing bills of credit. At the Convention, the Constitution’s construction was understood to be such that any powers not explicitly granted to the federal government were denied to the federal government, and any powers not explicitly denied the states were granted to the states. The proposal to allow the federal government to emit bills of credit by inserting such a clause into the Constitution was voted down by the Convention delegates.
"THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND MONETARY POWERS: AN ANALYSIS OF THE 1787 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION AND HOW A CONSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION OF THE NATION’S MONETARY SYSTEM EMERGED"
Farley Grubb
Working Paper 11783
VIII. Epilogue {pp. 67-68}
Today the U.S. has the same written Constitution in terms of monetary powers that the founding fathers created in 1787. Yet we have a national paper money that is backed not by specie but only by federal government taxes, or the good faith and credit of the federal government—a government that also has power to institute price and exchange rate controls on said currency (Rockoff). This paper money is also a legal tender, with the legal tender clause “This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private” printed on each note. It is issued by the Federal Reserve Banking system that, while only a quasi-government agency in the strict legal sense, is about as close to a national banking system incorporated by the federal government as one can get. Unless we take the original intent of the founding fathers in their debates and votes at the 1787 Convention on monetary/banking powers to be a devious ruse, then it is hard not to conclude that we have strayed far away from what they tried to prohibit constitutionally.
http://www.modernmoneynetwork.org/uploads/1/2/5/3/12534585/grubb__us_constitution_and_monetary_powers.pdf
Yes, Bob, we know that there is an originalist interpretation of constitutional law. Original intent is only one of a variety of theories within originalism. There are other competing theories in addition to originalism, and it is they that hold sway among jurists instead of original intent, which is a minority view.
Oh, and we also know that not only was there disagreement among the founders on major and minor points during the drafting and approval process, but also differences in the meaning and intent the constitution was adopted, e.g, the elastic clause ("necessary and proper") and enumerated, reserved, and denied powers vs. implied powers. An expansive reading of the Constitution was there right out of the box.
What's this about "originalist interpretation"? Like what they wrote and what they said they meant by what they wrote?
Can't have that, can we? They sure never teach what they wrote and what they said they meant by what they wrote in academia, do they?
And there certainly is no "impled power" to emit bills of credit, paper money, or computer funny money from a clear ban on it by the states and a clear deletion of such power from proposed powers for the Feds.
This doctrine went on to become a well-known and much-studied doctrine of interpretation of constitutional law. This doctrine is derived from the conclusion to Section 8 of Article 1 of the Constitution that enumerates the powers of Congress. It states that Congress has the power “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” The rather plain language of this clause belies ascribing much genius to the creation of a “doctrine” of implied powers. Most anyone at the time could read, understand, and more-or-less agree on the broad meaning of this clause. For example, the Constitution did not give Congress the explicit power to create a mint, but it did give it the explicit power to coin {53} money. Almost everyone seemed to agree that the power to coin money implied the power to create a mint in order to coin money. The first Congress’ Congressional Mint Act was constitutionally uncontroversial. By contrast, Congress’ Constitutional power to coin money was not construed to imply the power to go into the goldsmith business or charter mining companies.24
Hamilton’s use of the implied-powers doctrine to assert that the First Bank of the U.S. was constitutional can be seen as a rhetorical smoke screen. Hamilton’s foes could read the implied-powers clause in the Constitution as well as he could.
Bob, constitutional law is what the courts say it is. Take it up with them.
Bob, whenever you quote Farley Grubb you should also include the following:
"In 1787 would-be bankers saw paper-money-creation power as a profit bonanza whose potential could be reaped only if they could be rid of competing government paper money. The U.S. dollar currency union was a counter-revolution led by merchant-bankers intent on usurping state and federal sovereign power over monetary matters to enhance their personal power and wealth... The chance timing of events circa 1787 gave merchant-bankers the opportunity to get rid of their principal money-creating competitor and to have said carved into the “stone tablets” of the U.S. Constitution"
http://graduate.lerner.udel.edu/sites/default/files/ECON/PDFs/RePEc/dlw/WorkingPapers/2004/UDWP2004-07.pdf
Because, you know, everything that Farley Grubb writes must be true.
y: Facts are facts. Grubb's history is consistent with Hamilton being a sleazeball for the financial elite
https://mises.org/store/Hamiltons-Curse-P534.aspx
and the problems caused by private bank issue of fractional reserve private bank notes as described in "The Panic of 1819".
http://mises.org/document/695/
Apparently you missed the fact that much of Austrian and libertarian analysis demonstrates that most historical problems are not caused by laissez faire but by capture of government powers by the financial elite and that laissez faire and crony capitalism are opposites.
According to Farley Grubb the supposed constitutional restriction on government-issued paper money was a scam engineered by private bankers to benefit their interests.
You agree with Grubb's analysis, but unlike him you think that this was a good thing.
You agree with Grubb's analysis, but unlike him you think that this was a good thing.
I see nothing in his recitation of the historical facts that are different than what I learned 40 years ago and which were never never ever mentioned in law school. However, the fact the all levels of government were prohibited from emitting paper money did not facilitate the subsequent actions taken by Hamiliton and the elite which Grubb describes as unconstitutional. Further, I claim that most private fractional reserve banking is just plain fraudulent which is not facilitated by a ban on state issue of paper money. Grubb seems to take a dim view if it too.
I guess this make Grubb and myself idiots in the view of the benevolent and omniscient Lord Keynes.
http://factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.com/2012/07/bob-roddis-makes-bad-argument.html?showComment=1342710030818#c2618524232434861358
Grubb claims that the government was supposedly prohibited from issuing paper money due to a conspiracy by private bankers who were "intent on usurping state and federal sovereign power over monetary matters to enhance their personal power and wealth".
Grubb thinks the government should have the power to issue paper money, and claims that state-issued paper money generally functioned very well.
Yet for some reason you seem to think that quoting Grubb somehow supports your weird ideology.
I can only assume you believe this due to some sort of mental confusion.
Grubb thinks the government should have the power to issue paper money, and claims that state-issued paper money generally functioned very well.
Yet for some reason you seem to think that quoting Grubb somehow supports your weird ideology.
I quote Grubb for his historical research that proves that the constitution prohibits government issuance of paper money and that the drafters of the constitution meant that result. He is obviously has no familiarity whatsoever with libertarian analysis of the state or Austrian school economics. His analysis shows that the financial elite did control the government anyway, and contrary to the express language of the constitution.
It's the height of naivete to think that IF we could just make the government more powerful and IF my friends and I were to control it, things would be fine.
Once the government is granted the power to do anything it wants to "help" the economy, it can anything it wants, because a court is not going to second guess those decisions. Thus, when the inevitable looting by the elite takes place after the grant of such authority, "progressives" are shocked and libertarians say "I told you so".
If there is a consensus in society to do something, people can and will just do it voluntarily. Employing government means that there is no such consensus and cooperation must be gained by the police threatening people with guns and prison.
Grubb doesn't prove that the constitution prohibits government issuance of paper money, he claims that "though not explicitly stating so, the U.S. Constitution also forbade the federal government from issuing bills of credit".
This claim doesn't support your weird ideology in any way, yet for some reason you seem to get some satisfaction from quoting it.
By the way I have no interest in your idiotic, repugnant and dishonest ideology so there really is no point in reciting your dogma at me.
y: I'm already well aware of what kind of a person you are.
Post a Comment