We all know that those two little fort-towns didn't stay that way for very long, and successive wave after wave of other British people, and Scottish, and Scots-Irish, and Welsh, Irish, Germans, Poles, Dutch, French, Spanish Jews, more Africans, and even a smattering of early Italian immigrants, made their way to these shores in the century-and-a-half that followed.
The settlements grew from two small towns to thirteen colonies, ports and cities, which stretched from the tip of Maine in the north to the southern border where Spanish Florida started.
In the aftermath of the Civil War, Reconstruction, and further growth of industry, the late nineteenth century paved the way for the expansion of the state and banks. The new industries had created a new type of entrepreneur, one who was adept at establishing a monopoly, manipulating the stock market, and understood how to take their millions, and make them into billions. Robber barons like J.P. Morgan and the like, aided the "powers that be" to get back on track with Hamilton's original vision of America as a debt machine. In league with big industry, the Fed grew into a big corrupt business, and that business needed more control. It probably didn't hurt that the alliance between those forces also controlled industrial manufacturing as we mechanized. Long before President Dwight Eisenhower condemned the Military-Industrial Complex, it was already flexing its tentacles before World War One.
After World War Two, the United States experienced its greatest increase of wealth ever, and thus, the banks were ready for their next move. They needed us to abandon the gold standard. Without gold to back up paper money, they could just print more money to pay off debts. Hell, if it devalued the currency, they could just print more.
President John F. Kennedy issued the final last stand in a valiant attempt to reverse the "fiatization" of the USD with executive order 10001 in 1963, shortly before his assassination. Did I imply those events were related? Or did you just infer them to be so? Who knows? Seems like a pattern though.
A few years later in 1971, President Richard Nixon finally capitulated to the finance wizards of the day, and took us off the gold standard, nearly two-thirds of the way through the 20th century. We had long since been a nation of farmers and had long been industrialized. Why now, you may ask?
4. The Big Picture - The Global Economy, Globalism, and International Banking
Interestingly one foreign president did try to get his nation back on the gold standard in the 1980's and 1990's. Iraqi Ba'thist Socialist Secularist dictator Saddam Hussein, engaged the dual cardinal sin against the international banks by introducing the "gold dirham" at the same time as suggesting that gasoline be traded in Euros rather than USD.
Don't get me wrong, I am not 100% against all taxation, just income and estate taxes, and I have always propounded an alternative to income and estate taxes - a flat nationwide sales tax at 10%, which would reflect actual consumer purchasing is, for me, the answer.
High but competitive tariffs and a lower Corporate tax rate are essential for the sound functioning of fair international trade and small businesses. A few new laws could also force that as well, and keep corporate money on shore rather than abroad.
As far as tactics go, I'm not quite sure how to go about either removing income taxation or on how to tame the Fed. The recently passed tax break bill is a good start though, with a middle class tax break and lower Corporate tax rate.
It insures no taxes for those making under 12k a year, and minimal under 24k. Excuse me if I'm wrong but at that income level those people are considered "the poor", aren't they? Oh, champions of the under class.
It's estimated that the reform part of the bill will lower middle class tax burden by about 2k. True, hyper growth will only leave us with a hangover later, but, if we are going to spend, we should invest in fixing infrastructure and the like, so the at least when and if the economy does dip to the negative again, that won't be such a pressing issue. Sure, giving people more money will just stimulate consumer purchasing in the short run, and while I'm as suspect of trickle down as the next guy, I can't imagine that a competitive corporate tax rate wouldn't make at least some manufacturers employ here instead of abroad.
Obviously, whether in the new bill, general Republican entitlement cuts, or my anti-income tax stance, we will always need SOME federal programs and infrastructure, such as the national military, highway system, social security, medicare, and certain government agencies. But at least with my 10% sales tax proposal that money would then come from commerce, rather than a redistribution of wealth, which is Marxist-thinking.
Till next time.