.
.
.
BELIEVER IN STATE INTERVENTION: Alexander Hamilton, who served as U.S. Secretary of the Treasury under President George Washington, sent a report to Congress on December 5, 1791 entitled, “On the Subject of Manufactures,” which argued in favor of keeping tariffs on imported goods and urged that tax money be used to subsidize the growth of American industry.
I can’t help but notice that every time Tea Party Congresswoman Michele Bachmann opens her mouth, she sticks her foot in it. Bachmann did so at a recent Orange County gathering when she claimed to “believe in the free market system that created America and helped it grow.”
I’m sorry, but anybody who has ever bothered to study American economic history–much less read the writings of the handful of rich white lawyers, merchants, and slaveholders who founded this country–will discover they weren’t as giddy about “free markets” as Bachmann would have you think.
In fact, one of the first things George Washington did shortly after he was elected president was sign into law the Tariff Act of 1789, which imposed duties on imported goods. Its purpose was two-fold: to raise revenue and protect domestic producers from much cheaper foreign competitors.
The author of this legislation, Alexander Hamilton, who served as Secretary of the Treasury in the Washington administration, later sent a report to Congress in 1791 entitled, “On the Subject of Manufactures,” arguing tax money collected as tariffs be used to subsidize American industry.
It was Hamilton’s scheme of state protection and subsidy of an emerging capitalist class–in complete violation of “free market” principles–that many economists credit with helping transform the United States from a small agricultural nation to a major industrial superpower by the end of the 19th century.
So the next time you open up your wallet or purse and whip out a ten dollar bill to pay for a bag of groceries, you’ll now fully understand the reason why Hamilton’s face has been printed on this currency since 1929. And you can be rest assured that Bachmann’s mug will never ever be there.
Oh, yeah? Well, it has been proven that facts have a communist socialist liberal bias! Facts are treasonous and unconstitutional! We love Amurka and our freedoms! Everybody else hates us because we haz freedoms to not tax corporations and bazillionaires and to wipe out the middle class!
So there! And we haz brains too! Unlike you unconstitutional socialist communist libtards!
Dear moderator:
There were some minor errors to my previous post, namely, that it should have been in all caps and that the phrase “LOL” should have been inserted at several points (really anywhere). Also, after the “Oh, yeah” it would be great if there was a long serious of question marks and exclamation marks. If you could just make those minor corrections it would be greatly appreciated,
Thanks so much for your anticipated assistance, and thanks to my Yahoo friends for pointing out the errors.
what grade do you give our so called pres in not knowing how many states oh its ok he is a democrat rat he gets a pass .
“The great one” wrote:
> what grade do you give our so called pres in not knowing how many
> states
I might have given him a “grade” if I understood what you said.
> oh its ok he is a democrat rat he gets a pass .
I voted Ralph Nader for President in 2008.
Yes, GO, we’re all sure that Obama has no idea how many states are in the union. There you go. Now have mom make you a sandwich.
So, what DO these Republicans mean when they go on and on about the “free market?” Mainly, that they don’t want their wealthy and corporate funders encumbered by any REGULATIONS, and want them paying as little TAXES as possible; screw the societal needs that thus go unfunded. Also, they like “free trade” agreements with other countries that benefit the ruling classes here and there at the expense of the working class here and there.
Freedom is slavery, war is peace…
There you go again Vern with the false mantra about the rich not paying their fair share of taxes. Too bad for you the facts prove otherwise:
http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-rich-taxed-less-secretaries-070642868.html
Um, that article doesn’t address what I said, which is that Republicans would LIKE the rich to pay less and less taxes, as little as possible.
The article you linked to was sort of inspired by the new Warren Buffet meme that “millionaires pay at a lower rate than the rest of us.” And when it’s put THAT way, it’s a simplification that an eager right-wing scribbler can easily lampoon.
This writer stuck one of his more revealing passages near the bottom of his article: “Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was pressed at a White House briefing on the number of millionaires who pay taxes at a lower rate than middle-income families. He demurred, saying that people who make most of their money in wages pay taxes at a higher rate, while those who get most of their income from investments pay at lower rates.”
And Warren (and now Obama) are talking not about millionaires per se, but people who MAKE a million or more in a year, and those people generally do that through investments, and pay at a lower rate with lots of loopholes.
This is still distinct from what I wrote above, which was just a thumbnail sketch of what Republican politicians would like, and what they really mean with their “free market” talk.
And conservatives seem to feel that the “free market” is some morally-benign force that just needs to be left alone and watch it fly…just leave it be and it will march us inexorably into the promised land.
Just one problem with that little piece of pie-in-the-sky; the free market is made up of morally imperfect human beings. Sometimes, morally imperfect, very greedy human beings. Sometimes, the “free market” needs to be restrained from its own worst impulses.
As for regulations, this from James Surowiecki, writing in The New Yorker: “…over the past century or so, new regulatory initiatives have inevitably been greeted with predictions of doom from the very businesses they eventually helped. Meatpackers hated the Meat Inspection Act of 1906, but it rescued the industry from the aftereffects of the publication of “The Jungle.” Wall Street said that the creation of the S.E.C. would demolish stock trading, but the commission helped make the U.S. the world’s most liquid and trusted stock market. And bankers thought that the F.D.I.C. would sabotage their industry, but it transformed it by effectively ending bank runs. History suggests that business doesn’t always know what’s good for it.
“Anon” wrote:
> And conservatives seem to feel that the “free market” is some
> morally-benign force that just needs to be left alone and watch
> it fly…just leave it be and it will march us inexorably into the
> promised land.
But all this silly political rhetoric about so-called “free markets” usually doesn’t match reality. For example, I know of a Tea Party-backed Republican Congressman who serves a district where the biggest employer happens to be the federal government.
> James Surowiecki, writing in The New Yorker: “…over the past century or
> so, new regulatory initiatives have inevitably been greeted with predictions
> of doom from the very businesses they eventually helped. Meatpackers
> hated the Meat Inspection Act of 1906,
I beg to differ with Mr. Surowiecki. Sometimes business interests pushed for regulation because they knew it would enable them to monopolize markets. For example, the big meatpackers loved the Food and Drug laws because it bankrupted their smaller rivals.
“Sometimes business interests pushed for regulation because they knew it would enable them to monopolize markets.”
That’s why Surowiecki notes that they don’t “always” know what’s good for them. He’s not presenting an absolutist case.
This leads to a much more substantive discussion than, say, Sarah Palin’s Paul Revere flub a couple months back. Assess corporate media coverage time accordingly.
Did you just call corporate media “asses?”
Anyway, I don’t really know what this post has to do with Bachmann per se. This alleged “free market” is deified by all Republicans, and given much genuflection by many Dems as well.
Vern Nelson wrote:
> Anyway, I don’t really know what this post has to do with Bachmann per se.
I wrote it partially to expose the fact that Michele Bachmann–like many people affiliated with the Tea Party movement–don’t really know anything about American history.
Bachmann–like many Tea Party-types–call themselves “patriots.” Yet they don’t have the foggiest clue as to what the “founding fathers” of this nation really stood for.
The fact is, Bachmann’s interpretation of American history is totally wrong. What better way to show this than by using the writings of the “founding fathers” as proof of this?
“Yet they don’t have the foggiest clue as to what the “founding fathers” of this nation really stood for.”
That’s definitely true. But dig into the views of Founders like Jefferson and Madison, and the teabaggers can often find kindred spirits. The battle over the establishment of the National Bank was ALL about the power of the Federal government. These battles have been raging ever since our founding.
Much ground was broken during Washington’s first term, when many of the Founders took a look at the Constitution, and as incredible a document as it is, they often found it vague. What do we do about this issue? What do we do about that issue? The Constitution provided no guidance. Which is part of its greatness…the Framers left it to Congress, the Executive and the Courts to work out law and policy.
That’s one thing that’s so exasperating about people like Bachmann. They profess such reverence for the Constitution, yet they really don’t like the relative freedom it gave our branches of government.
Both Duane Roberts and Michele Bachmann are correct!
Thank you Duane Roberts, for your tireless, erudite, ongoing crusades against feckless, unintelligent pronouncements from our gaggle of Big Party presidential candidates, brought to you by corporate-controlled media!
In this instance–during September 16 rally at OC Fairgrounds in Costa Mesa–presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann reverently opined free enterprise was created by our nation’s Founding Fathers. But Duane correctly points out: George Washington’s first Administration, executed by Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, demonstrated anything but economic open markets. Crippling import tariffs, efforts to regulate interstate commerce (this was before Supreme Court’s definitive 1824 Gibbons v. Ogden), federalized stipends to stimulate manufacturing–where does Bachmann get “free enterprise” from these Executive fiats?!
I’ll tell you where, and it’s sad commentary upon both Bachmann, and our Founding Fathers. During Constitutional Convention preceding our nation’s first presidency, Alexander Hamilton extracted from political adversary Thomas Jefferson one of the best horse trades of the millennium. In exchange for Hamilton’s agreement to move our nation’s capital from New York City to unproductive swamp land nearby Virginia’s Potomac River, Jefferson provided crucial support to monetize all U.S. war debt, which created the federal government’s supremacy over states, and thrust Northern commercial interest before agrarian ones.
Coincidentally, these debentures had been stealthily accumulated by New York bankers from dispirited and impoverished American patriots–those very citizens for whom Michele Bachmann says she now stands! Having cornered the market on what were perceived as worthless bonds, Hamilton’s Wall Street operators made a real killing, and established a financial dominance over U.S. domestic and international policy which continues to this day.
In this sense, Michele Bachmann is historically correct when she “believes(s) in the free market system that created America and helped it grow.” Given less than 5% of a nation of four million people in 1789 was eligible to vote–no women, people of color, foreign-speakers, or non-WASP’s, thank you!–this free enterprise system was for benefit of a minuscule population, maybe 2,000 wealthy men. It’s unspeakably sad the America which this GOP candidate fondly remembers and extols hasn’t changed too much.
If this story of misplaced faith in U.S. free enterprise surprises, excites or enrages you, do something about it! Get your neighbor, your work buddy, your first cousin, your mother to register Green, the only ballot-ready political party which states its ironclad commitment for no war, no nukes, no Wall Street banks, and no corporate person hood or welfare! Vote Green, or watch your world turn to sh*t!
Sandy Stiasnni wrote:
> In this sense, Michele Bachmann is historically correct when she
> “believes(s) in the free market system that created America and
> helped it grow.” Given less than 5% of a nation of four million people
> in 1789 was eligible to vote–no women, people of color,
> foreign-speakers, or non-WASP’s, thank you!–this free enterprise
> system was for benefit of a minuscule population, maybe 2,000
> wealthy men.
The fact that slavery was a major economic institution in the United States when it was founded in 1787 also completely dismisses Bachmann’s claim that the “free market system.. created America and helped it grow.”
hey rapscallion im sure your classes at berkley taught you how many states are there . oh i forgot you where more likely protesting on how bad america is . or you where on your mommas boobs getting milk .
Tell us, then, O Grate One, since you’re the smartest guy here – how many states are there?
Until you work on formulating a coherent analysis/opinion with some sort of factual basis, GO, instead of just providing your illiterate jabber, you’re just embarrassing yourself here.
The United States was not created in a vacuum and the World Economy had already been created with the travels of Marco Polo….many years before.
.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Polo
.There were a few other things going on in 1776….other than Paul Revere’s ride! Try the Irish, the Dutch, The French, The Germans, The Portugese, The Spainards, even the Italians.. and of course the dumb English.
One thing that is happening today….which was happening then: Lack of liquidity in the economic markets. That is why they needed colonies….to rape, pillage and plunder to get those missing riches. The Hedge Funds, CDO’s and Credit Default Swaps of today! They learned there trade tactics well. Cheap goods from foreign ports…like pearls from the South Pacific….eh? Robber barons….all.
Well, today….it is getting harder to rip people off without giving them something. Even dumb places like Yemen and Somalia….have modern day pirates with AK-47’s rather than swords and spears. The Palenstinians still have rocks….there are exceptions.
Politians have it tough….anything they say is going to be a lie….to someone. War has become less popular and so are uncontrolled growth by developers in the domestic markets. The world has lent over $44 trillion dollars out in debted bonds…which someone will eventually have to either default on or pay back. It will be fun to watch the future results.