Anarchist420
Diamond Member
I'd say yes. Martin Van Buren and laissez-faire capitalism are smeared by mainstream historians.
Anyway, the boom bust cycle wasn't naturally as bad from the time SBUS was abolished to the time the National Banking Acts were enacted compared to the Federal Reserve.
When you have a central bank, the whole economy gets fucked up. When you had the panic of 1857, only the North got screwed, because banks in the north had looser credit policies than the ones in the south. Some southern states (e.g., LA) mandated a constantly high reserve ratio for banks in their states.
Mainstream Historians don't really like to admit that the Free banking era wasn't really free--there were inadequate state laws against fraud, many states (mostly in the North) reducing the reserve ratios that banks could operate on, and state-level precursors to the FDIC, which serves as a huge incentive for bad banks. Also, IL chartered its own state bank, IIRC, and some other northern states screwed up their economies from borrowing too much in failed attempts to build public railroads. IL was especially in debt because of that, and they went nowhere.
Basically, the South was, for the most part, fine during the "free banking" era, while the states that would not be part of the Confederacy, were screwed due to state-subsidized industrialization (those states would mandate low reserve ratios, so they could have lower interest rates when they borrowed money for public works projects). The North wanted to invade the South so the North could continue to charge southerners tariffs to build public works projects in the North.
Does it all make sense now?
The Constitution prohibits the Federal government from creating legal tender for private debts anyway. Basically, all the Fed does is serve as a safeguard for banks to loan out peoples' deposits. I don't see how anyone could not find that f***ed-up.
Anyway, the boom bust cycle wasn't naturally as bad from the time SBUS was abolished to the time the National Banking Acts were enacted compared to the Federal Reserve.
When you have a central bank, the whole economy gets fucked up. When you had the panic of 1857, only the North got screwed, because banks in the north had looser credit policies than the ones in the south. Some southern states (e.g., LA) mandated a constantly high reserve ratio for banks in their states.
Mainstream Historians don't really like to admit that the Free banking era wasn't really free--there were inadequate state laws against fraud, many states (mostly in the North) reducing the reserve ratios that banks could operate on, and state-level precursors to the FDIC, which serves as a huge incentive for bad banks. Also, IL chartered its own state bank, IIRC, and some other northern states screwed up their economies from borrowing too much in failed attempts to build public railroads. IL was especially in debt because of that, and they went nowhere.
Basically, the South was, for the most part, fine during the "free banking" era, while the states that would not be part of the Confederacy, were screwed due to state-subsidized industrialization (those states would mandate low reserve ratios, so they could have lower interest rates when they borrowed money for public works projects). The North wanted to invade the South so the North could continue to charge southerners tariffs to build public works projects in the North.
Does it all make sense now?
The Constitution prohibits the Federal government from creating legal tender for private debts anyway. Basically, all the Fed does is serve as a safeguard for banks to loan out peoples' deposits. I don't see how anyone could not find that f***ed-up.
