Benjamin Franklin advocated paper money and monetary expansion in his essay "A Modest Inquiry into the Nature and Necessity of a Paper Currency." John H. Wood in the Chicago Fed's Economic Perspectives tells that Franklin advocated inflation but that:
"Afterwards, however, in that most candid of autobiographies, Franklin suggested that his motives might not have been altogether altruistic.
"'My Friends [in the Assembly], who conceiv'd I had been of some service, thought fit to reward me by employing me in printing the money; a very profitable jobb and a great help to me.'
"This monopoly, which Franklin retained until 1764, must certainly have been 'a great help'to the struggling young printer. He was also heavily in debt, another reason to favor a monetary expansion. Forty years later, however, Franklin, grown prosperous and now a creditor, observed that, "I now think there are limits beyond which the quantity [of currency] may be hurtful."
In an article that appeared in The Journal of Economic History (Vol. 48, No. 1 (Mar., 1988), pp. 47-68) Charles W. Calomiris notes that not only Franklin but also a number of the Federalists, to include Madison, Hamilton, John Adams, Gouverneur Morris and Robert Morris also supported paper money expansion in the mid 18th century. In fact, although paper money was invented in China, its modern application was invented in America. The British discouraged acquisition of gold specie in America, and many contemporary observers believed that there was a shortage of money.
Calomiris notes that in 1729, at the age of twenty-three, Franklin wrote "A Modest Inquiry into the Nature and Necessity of a Paper Currency,":
"a polemic supporting the creation of land banks in Pennsylvania. Franklin argued that the expansion of properly backed paper currency could have a lasting real effect on the aggregate stock of money and the extent of trade. Franklin focused on the favorable developmental consequences for a capital-poor, land-rich economy of being able to substitute paper for exportable specie. Franklin expounded on the virtues of multiple deposit expansion in Europe and the great saving enjoyed through fractional reserve banking and consequent reductions in specie hold-ings. The mortgage-backed currency issued by land banks, he reasoned, would be even more efficient because it would not direct any real resources to production
"Franklin argues that abundant money leads to lower interest rates, greater production, immigration, and special- ization by enhancing the rapid settlement of debts and by insuring that traders will always be able to purchase the bundle of goods they desire. Furthermore, in a currency-scarce economy, merchants who deal in foreign goods often are forced to pay wages and debts in kind from inventories, and thereby promote the consumption of foreign goods to the detriment of local commerce. In this context, land-backed paper money has a developmental "bootstrapping" role in moving the economy beyond a critical initial threshold which allows exchange and specialization to thrive...
"Franklin addressed opponents of land banks who claimed that an increase in money always led to inflation. He maintained that credible land-backed money would not be inflationary, in part because its creation corresponded to the earmarking of a set of real assets which backed it. The importance of backing in determining the value of money was extended by analogy to the government's use of its assets (future taxes) as a means of redeeming and giving value to its debts, including currency."
However, "Adam Smith argued that the demand for money-like debt depended not only on the backing of money, but on the sufficiency of the supply of competing liquid claims in the economy as a whole. He allowed money demand, as well as land or tax backing, to influence the value of money-like claims through the liquidity premium money enjoys." Smith did not look favorably upon paper money expansion.
Calomiris notes (pp. 47-8):
“Whether the colonies suffered a scarcity of money has been a topic of debate among economic historians. Throughout eighteenth-century America there were a wide variety of circulating media- foreign coins and bills, a trivial number of domestic coins, and private, colonial, state and continental notes. Specie import cost was inflated before the Revolutionary War by mercantilistic prohibitions and duties intended to encourage the flow of specie from the colonies to Britain... Colonial bills were restricted in supply by prohibitions and limitations originating in Britain, as well as by local government prohibitions of private paper issues and local limits on emissions of legal-tender currency. Parliament enacted its prohibitions at the behest of British and colonial creditors who saw in paper money a means to reduce the value of hard-currency debt. Some colonials complained that government regulations and government unwillingness to supply sufficient paper bills caused unnec- essary monetary scarcity” (pp. 47-8).
Like Pennsylvania, New York experimented with paper money inflation. Calomiris quotes New York's Governor Hunter (p. 48):
"I do affirm that since the circulation of these bills, the trade of this place has increased at least above a half of what it was."
"The currency stock valued in real terms at roughly 8 million Spanish milled dollars was viewed as a severe shortage in 1775, and the trebling of real balances from 1775 to 1776 due to state and continental note issues confirms the earlier potential for growth in real money balances" (p. 48)
"Pelatiah Webster's estimate of total specie and bills in America at the beginning of 1775 is $10 million (specie equivalent)." From May 1775 to November 1776 the states, acting individually, issued $18 million in currency to help finance the Revolutionary War but:
"The greatest source of increase in liquidity during the early war years, however, was the bills first authorized by the Continental Congress in May 1775. By the end of 1776, Congress had issued $25 million in continentals for which it received $21 million in specie value."
"The value of the promise to redeem continentals depended crucially on the ability and willingness of Congress to tax. Under the Articles of Confederation, however, only states had taxation authority, while both Congress and states could issue money and other debt. The redemption of continentals required the completion of the following chain of events: the war had to be won, Congress had to want to redeem its currency, the states had to be willing to transfer resources to Congress or to vest it with the power to tax, and the public had to be sufficiently wealthy and willing to be taxed" (p. 60)
"To contemporaries it was clear that the difference between the state and continental bills was the expected value of each for extinguishing taxes" (p. 61)
Ultimately "It's not worth a continental" became a popular expression as the federal Continental was redeemed at 2 cents on the dollar. Calomiris argues that where taxation was used to repay notes that served as paper money, extending the money supply was not inflationary. But where there was no backing of the paper money with increased taxation it was.
He goes on to quote Benjamin Franklin (p. 63):
“The general effect of the depreciation among the inhabitants of the States has been this, that it has operated as a gradual tax upon them, and every man has paid his share of the tax according to the time he retained any of the money in his hands, and to the depreciation within that time. Thus it has proved a tax on money, a kind of property very difficult to be taxed in any other mode; and it has fallen more equally than many other taxes, as those people paid most, who, being richest, had most money passing through their hands.”
In effect, Franklin is arguing for holding hard assets (land, gold, inventory, Lexuses) rather than cash.
Calomiris offers an interesting concluding observation:
"The financial legacy of the American Revolution was distrust of government money which, when combined with the struggle over private bank chartering privileges, contributed to the prolonged inadequacy of financial institutions in the United States. Critics of government monetary control cited the revolutionary experience as proof that governments could not be trusted to repay their monetary obligations. Such bitter opposition to government bill issues led to the prohibition of state bill issues by the Constitution. Federal powers regarding paper money creation were left deliberately vague by the framers as a compromise between those who advocated absolute prohibition and those who saw the advantage of occasional issues. While a small amount of government currency was issued during the War of 1812, only the financial exigencies produced by the Civil War led the government once again to create a substantial supply of paper money. The somewhat credible commitment to resume specie backing of greenbacks limited their depreciation, and the achievement of resumption in 1879 set the stage for a permanent government role in supplying paper money. Thus the displacement of the post-Revolution for a discussion of the constitutional debate over federal monetary powers."
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Caroline Kennedy and the Progressive Hoax
"Progressivism" is the idea that government can "solve problems" that politicians, academic "experts" and "the media" identify. But what if these sources lack the ability to identify problems much less solve them? One would expect that those who claim that government can identify and solve "problems" would insist on political leaders who are competent to do so. Problem solving is hard work. If they do not require competence among their political leadership, why might they believe that government can solve problems?
Recently, "Progressives" claimed that Sarah Palin "lacks experience" and therefore is incapable of solving problems or representing the nation in the manner that "Progressives" require. At the same time, Barack Obama revealed ignorance of the most elementary aspects of foreign affairs. For instance, he was unaware that returning Jerusalem to Israel would cause resentment among the Arabs. This kind of whimsical picking and choosing, i.e., the people we don't like must have experience but the people we like need not, suggests that there no serious problems that "Progressives" have any ability to solve, and there is no problem solving. "Progressivism" is a hoax.
New York is one of the most "Progressive" states, a failed state that demonstrates the cruelty and viciousness of big government. New York's economy has been dismal for decades. Led by "Progressives" like Michael Bloomberg, Mario Cuomo, Nelson Rockefeller and George Pataki, New York City and State have failed to prepare for a Wall Street slowdown. Now that it is occurring, college-trained professionals are seeking work at the Bread Alone Bakery in Boiceville, NY. Mayor Bloomberg, himself an experienced trader, has served nearly two terms yet was not willing to take the most modest political risks necessary to attract alternative industries to the state and city. Doing so would have involved cutting massive waste in City Hall, cutting taxes, and reducing regulation.
Tonight Yahoo! features Larry Neumeister's AP release that quotes Kennedy:
"She said two events shaped her decision to ask Gov. David Paterson 11 days ago to consider her for the position if Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is confirmed as secretary of state: the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and her work for Barack Obama's presidential campaign."
If Kennedy were interested in public service and "Progressives" were interested in solving problems, they would have Kennedy serve as a staff analyst in the Senate or the State Assembly, and let her run for state senate office thereafter. After five or six years at the state or congressional level, she might be ready for a senate run.
But since "Progressives" don't solve problems and cannot identify them, the singularly inexperienced and unprepared Kennedy is hailed by the "Progressive" left.
Recently, "Progressives" claimed that Sarah Palin "lacks experience" and therefore is incapable of solving problems or representing the nation in the manner that "Progressives" require. At the same time, Barack Obama revealed ignorance of the most elementary aspects of foreign affairs. For instance, he was unaware that returning Jerusalem to Israel would cause resentment among the Arabs. This kind of whimsical picking and choosing, i.e., the people we don't like must have experience but the people we like need not, suggests that there no serious problems that "Progressives" have any ability to solve, and there is no problem solving. "Progressivism" is a hoax.
New York is one of the most "Progressive" states, a failed state that demonstrates the cruelty and viciousness of big government. New York's economy has been dismal for decades. Led by "Progressives" like Michael Bloomberg, Mario Cuomo, Nelson Rockefeller and George Pataki, New York City and State have failed to prepare for a Wall Street slowdown. Now that it is occurring, college-trained professionals are seeking work at the Bread Alone Bakery in Boiceville, NY. Mayor Bloomberg, himself an experienced trader, has served nearly two terms yet was not willing to take the most modest political risks necessary to attract alternative industries to the state and city. Doing so would have involved cutting massive waste in City Hall, cutting taxes, and reducing regulation.
Tonight Yahoo! features Larry Neumeister's AP release that quotes Kennedy:
"She said two events shaped her decision to ask Gov. David Paterson 11 days ago to consider her for the position if Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is confirmed as secretary of state: the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and her work for Barack Obama's presidential campaign."
If Kennedy were interested in public service and "Progressives" were interested in solving problems, they would have Kennedy serve as a staff analyst in the Senate or the State Assembly, and let her run for state senate office thereafter. After five or six years at the state or congressional level, she might be ready for a senate run.
But since "Progressives" don't solve problems and cannot identify them, the singularly inexperienced and unprepared Kennedy is hailed by the "Progressive" left.
Friday, December 26, 2008
Why Does Tony Rezko's Lawyer Own Barack Obama's House? And Why The Media Silence?
Bob Robbins and Jim Crum forwarded documentation of the property title of Barack Obama's house on 5046 S Greenwood, Washington, DC that appeared on News and Commentary for Thinking People (NCFTP). NCFTP posts the records here. If you were a senator or a presidential candidate, would you ask your former boss to hold the title to your house? Especially if your boss was a lawyer representing your friend who had been an indicted and now convicted felon? And if you were the news editor of anything that conceivably calls itself a news outlet, would you cover this story about a presidential candidate and now president-elect?
A few days ago Bob Robbins forwarded 48 pages of property records, the first page of which is copied from the PDF file below and appears in NCFTP's link.
Here is the article that appears today in Worldnet Daily:
>An attorney for convicted fundraiser Tony Rezko is listed as the owner and taxpayer for Barack Obama's Chicago mansion, according to records obtained by WND.
William Miceli is a lawyer at the Chicago law firm Miner, Barnhill & Galland, which also formerly employed Obama...
>Miner, Barnhill & Galland was Obama's employer when he did extensive legal work for Rezko, who awaits sentencing after he was convicted in June of fraud, money laundering and bribery-related counts.
>Miceli, as a senior attorney at the firm, supervised Obama when the future president wrote letters on behalf of Rezko urging public authorities to award him new public properties...
>Following the Jan. 21 Democratic Party primary debate, Miceli told the Washington Post that he was Obama's supervisor at the law firm, in response to Sen. Hillary Clinton's charges Obama had worked for a Chicago slumlord, Rezko...
WND confirmed the tax bill for the Obama home is mailed to Miceli, not to Obama or the Northern Trust account through which Obama has claimed the home was purchased.
>Records from the Cook County Treasurer's Office give the PIN number for the Obama property as 20-11-115-037-0000 and list Miceli as the person who receives Obama's property tax invoice by mail.
>Eric Herman, a spokesman for the Cook County assessor, confirmed to WND that the Treasurer's Office records were correct and that Miceli did receive the Obama property tax invoice by mail. ...
>Rosslyn Whitlock, an Internet support specialist at the Cook County Recorder of Deeds, confirmed to WND that the office has no information listed for the Obama home under the PIN number 20-11-115-037-0000, the number used by the Cook County Assessor's office for property tax purposes.
>WND was able to locate warranty information at the Cook County Recorder of Deeds , which Herman at the County Assessor's office told WND was the "old PIN number" assigned to the Obama home at 5046 S. Greenwood Avenue, before the home was sold to Obama.
>Neither spokesman could explain to WND the discrepancy in PIN numbers, nor why the Cook County Recorder of Deeds has no information filed under the new PIN number assigned to the property after the Obama purchase...
>Meanwhile, WND has reported that since arresting Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald has taken new interest in Rezko's involvement in the Obama mansion purchase.
>WND also reported real estate credit analyst Kenneth Conner has filed a civil suit alleging he was wrongfully dismissed by Mutual Bank of Harvey for objecting to what he considered a fraudulent appraisal of the vacant lot. The appraisal was submitted by the Rezkos at an intentionally high figure, he claims, permitting them to borrow an additional $125,000 that amounted to a "political payoff" to Obama.
Quoting Democracy Rules of News and Commentary for Thinking People:
>"The price was too high for Obama, so he went to Rezko for help. Rezko’s plan was to buy the adjacent property on the same day Obama bought the house. Obama would still have to overpay, even for just the house. But once the whole deal was finished, the package would become a reasonably good deal.
>"Obama (or William Miceli) bought the house, and Rezko’s wife bought the adjoining lot. Then Obama got a strip of the lot from Rezko’s wife for about $100,000. This did two things. It expanded the house lot, which increased the house value. The picture shows a new fence that Obama had built along the new property line. It also made the adjacent lot so narrow, it’s unlikely anyone who bought it could make money building something on it. They might not even be able to get a building permit. So essentially the deal gave Obama a house and the use of two lots...
>"But wait, there’s more! The mortgaged amount is very high. It’s so high it violates the ordinary lending rules for Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, which carries the mortgage. This is probably legal, because the owners set up a complicated land trust arrangement to bypass those rules. But why? And who pays this mortgage? Why would Obama pay a mortgage on a house he doesn’t own? Does he just pay rent, while Rezko’s lawyer pays the mortgage?
>"But wait, there’s even more! It’s now clear the adjacent lot was overvalued by Rezko’s bank. At the time, an appraiser said it was worth $500,000. But Rezko’s bank unilaterally upped the value to about $650,000. This enabled Rezko’s wife to get a bigger mortgage on the lot. Bank employee Kenneth J. Conner found out, and complained this was mortgage fraud. Overvaluing a property to get a bigger mortgage is against the law. Conner blew the whistle, but he was fired. Now he’s suing the bank.
>"Conner filed a civil complaint in October with the Illinois Circuit Court in Cook County alleging he was fired by Mutual Bank of Harvey, Ill., because he objected to land appraisals submitted on behalf of the Rezkos and the Obamas, with the complicity of the bank.
>After he was fired, Conner told World Net Daily that the bank and the Rezkos were engaged in "fraud, bribes or kickbacks, use whatever term you want," to benefit the Obamas...
1 OF 35 RECORD(S)
Assessment Record For COOK County
Owner Information
Original Name: WILLIAM MICELI
Standardized Name: MICELI, WILLIAM
Original Address: 14 W ERIE ST
CHICAGO, IL 60610-5397
Standardized Address: 14 W ERIE ST
CHICAGO, IL 60654-5397
COOK COUNTY
Property Information
Original Property Address: 5046 S GREENWOOD
CHICAGO, IL 60615
Standardized Property Address: 5046 S GREENWOOD AVE
CHICAGO, IL 60615-2806
COOK COUNTY
Land Use: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
Legal Information
Assessor's Parcel Number: 20-11-115-034
Recording Date: 06/21/2005
Legal Description: DISTRICT: 70; CITY/MUNI/TWNSP: HYDE PARK; SEC/TWN/RNG/MER:
SEC 11 TWN 38N RNG 14E; MAP 20-11-NW (C&D)
Sale Information
Recording Date: 06/21/2005
Sale Price: $1,650,000 - FULL AMOUNT
Document Number: 517233010
Assessment Information
Assessment Year: 2006
Assessed Land Value: $14,700
Assessed Improvement Value: $139,681
Total Assessed Value: $154,381
Tax Information
Tax Rate Code: 70001
Tax Amount: $22,162.47
Tax Year: 2006
Property Characteristics
Baths: 6
Partial Baths: 1
Fireplace: 3
Roof: SHINGLE (NOT WOOD)
Garage Type: DETACHED
Garage Size: 4 Car(s)
Building Area: 6,199 T TOTAL
Air Conditioning: CENTRAL
Construction: MASONRY
Page 1
Basement: UNFINISHED
Square Footage: 10500 SF
Important: The Public Records and commercially available data sources used on reports have errors. Data is sometimes entered
poorly, processed incorrectly and is generally not free from defect. This system should not be relied upon as definitively
accurate. Before relying on any data this system supplies, it should be independently verified. For Secretary of State
documents, the following data is for information purposes only and is not an official record. Certified copies may be obtained
from that individual state's Department of State.
Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
A few days ago Bob Robbins forwarded 48 pages of property records, the first page of which is copied from the PDF file below and appears in NCFTP's link.
Here is the article that appears today in Worldnet Daily:
>An attorney for convicted fundraiser Tony Rezko is listed as the owner and taxpayer for Barack Obama's Chicago mansion, according to records obtained by WND.
William Miceli is a lawyer at the Chicago law firm Miner, Barnhill & Galland, which also formerly employed Obama...
>Miner, Barnhill & Galland was Obama's employer when he did extensive legal work for Rezko, who awaits sentencing after he was convicted in June of fraud, money laundering and bribery-related counts.
>Miceli, as a senior attorney at the firm, supervised Obama when the future president wrote letters on behalf of Rezko urging public authorities to award him new public properties...
>Following the Jan. 21 Democratic Party primary debate, Miceli told the Washington Post that he was Obama's supervisor at the law firm, in response to Sen. Hillary Clinton's charges Obama had worked for a Chicago slumlord, Rezko...
WND confirmed the tax bill for the Obama home is mailed to Miceli, not to Obama or the Northern Trust account through which Obama has claimed the home was purchased.
>Records from the Cook County Treasurer's Office give the PIN number for the Obama property as 20-11-115-037-0000 and list Miceli as the person who receives Obama's property tax invoice by mail.
>Eric Herman, a spokesman for the Cook County assessor, confirmed to WND that the Treasurer's Office records were correct and that Miceli did receive the Obama property tax invoice by mail. ...
>Rosslyn Whitlock, an Internet support specialist at the Cook County Recorder of Deeds, confirmed to WND that the office has no information listed for the Obama home under the PIN number 20-11-115-037-0000, the number used by the Cook County Assessor's office for property tax purposes.
>WND was able to locate warranty information at the Cook County Recorder of Deeds , which Herman at the County Assessor's office told WND was the "old PIN number" assigned to the Obama home at 5046 S. Greenwood Avenue, before the home was sold to Obama.
>Neither spokesman could explain to WND the discrepancy in PIN numbers, nor why the Cook County Recorder of Deeds has no information filed under the new PIN number assigned to the property after the Obama purchase...
>Meanwhile, WND has reported that since arresting Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald has taken new interest in Rezko's involvement in the Obama mansion purchase.
>WND also reported real estate credit analyst Kenneth Conner has filed a civil suit alleging he was wrongfully dismissed by Mutual Bank of Harvey for objecting to what he considered a fraudulent appraisal of the vacant lot. The appraisal was submitted by the Rezkos at an intentionally high figure, he claims, permitting them to borrow an additional $125,000 that amounted to a "political payoff" to Obama.
Quoting Democracy Rules of News and Commentary for Thinking People:
>"The price was too high for Obama, so he went to Rezko for help. Rezko’s plan was to buy the adjacent property on the same day Obama bought the house. Obama would still have to overpay, even for just the house. But once the whole deal was finished, the package would become a reasonably good deal.
>"Obama (or William Miceli) bought the house, and Rezko’s wife bought the adjoining lot. Then Obama got a strip of the lot from Rezko’s wife for about $100,000. This did two things. It expanded the house lot, which increased the house value. The picture shows a new fence that Obama had built along the new property line. It also made the adjacent lot so narrow, it’s unlikely anyone who bought it could make money building something on it. They might not even be able to get a building permit. So essentially the deal gave Obama a house and the use of two lots...
>"But wait, there’s more! The mortgaged amount is very high. It’s so high it violates the ordinary lending rules for Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, which carries the mortgage. This is probably legal, because the owners set up a complicated land trust arrangement to bypass those rules. But why? And who pays this mortgage? Why would Obama pay a mortgage on a house he doesn’t own? Does he just pay rent, while Rezko’s lawyer pays the mortgage?
>"But wait, there’s even more! It’s now clear the adjacent lot was overvalued by Rezko’s bank. At the time, an appraiser said it was worth $500,000. But Rezko’s bank unilaterally upped the value to about $650,000. This enabled Rezko’s wife to get a bigger mortgage on the lot. Bank employee Kenneth J. Conner found out, and complained this was mortgage fraud. Overvaluing a property to get a bigger mortgage is against the law. Conner blew the whistle, but he was fired. Now he’s suing the bank.
>"Conner filed a civil complaint in October with the Illinois Circuit Court in Cook County alleging he was fired by Mutual Bank of Harvey, Ill., because he objected to land appraisals submitted on behalf of the Rezkos and the Obamas, with the complicity of the bank.
>After he was fired, Conner told World Net Daily that the bank and the Rezkos were engaged in "fraud, bribes or kickbacks, use whatever term you want," to benefit the Obamas...
1 OF 35 RECORD(S)
Assessment Record For COOK County
Owner Information
Original Name: WILLIAM MICELI
Standardized Name: MICELI, WILLIAM
Original Address: 14 W ERIE ST
CHICAGO, IL 60610-5397
Standardized Address: 14 W ERIE ST
CHICAGO, IL 60654-5397
COOK COUNTY
Property Information
Original Property Address: 5046 S GREENWOOD
CHICAGO, IL 60615
Standardized Property Address: 5046 S GREENWOOD AVE
CHICAGO, IL 60615-2806
COOK COUNTY
Land Use: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
Legal Information
Assessor's Parcel Number: 20-11-115-034
Recording Date: 06/21/2005
Legal Description: DISTRICT: 70; CITY/MUNI/TWNSP: HYDE PARK; SEC/TWN/RNG/MER:
SEC 11 TWN 38N RNG 14E; MAP 20-11-NW (C&D)
Sale Information
Recording Date: 06/21/2005
Sale Price: $1,650,000 - FULL AMOUNT
Document Number: 517233010
Assessment Information
Assessment Year: 2006
Assessed Land Value: $14,700
Assessed Improvement Value: $139,681
Total Assessed Value: $154,381
Tax Information
Tax Rate Code: 70001
Tax Amount: $22,162.47
Tax Year: 2006
Property Characteristics
Baths: 6
Partial Baths: 1
Fireplace: 3
Roof: SHINGLE (NOT WOOD)
Garage Type: DETACHED
Garage Size: 4 Car(s)
Building Area: 6,199 T TOTAL
Air Conditioning: CENTRAL
Construction: MASONRY
Page 1
Basement: UNFINISHED
Square Footage: 10500 SF
Important: The Public Records and commercially available data sources used on reports have errors. Data is sometimes entered
poorly, processed incorrectly and is generally not free from defect. This system should not be relied upon as definitively
accurate. Before relying on any data this system supplies, it should be independently verified. For Secretary of State
documents, the following data is for information purposes only and is not an official record. Certified copies may be obtained
from that individual state's Department of State.
Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
The First Failure of Socialism in America Circa 1609
"The early Jamestown settlers were brought over by the company* and given 'planter shares,' with profits to be divided five years later. Meanwhile, they were to live at the company's expense and work wholly for the company. In effect, the colony originally operated as a collective unit, in which both production methods and consumption were shared. But collectivity encouraged individuals to work less and resulted in much discontent. Unmarried men complained of working without recompense for other men's wives and children. Stronger, more able workers were embittered when they did not receive larger amounts of food and supplies than others who could or would not work as hard. In addition, common ownership stifled incentives to care for and improve lands and to make innovations in production.
"In addition, absentee direction from Engalnd created problems, because successful production required local managerial direction. Futile insistent demands from England for quick profits sidetracked productive efforts and added to the settlers' discouragement.
"Jamestown residents gained greater control over local matters in 1609 when small garden plots of land were given to individuals and again in 1612 when various institutional reforms were undertaken. To generate more flexible leadership and local autonomy in that hostile environment, a deputy governor was stationed in Vriginia. Steadily thereafter, centralized direction from England became less and less frequent.
"As private landholdings replaced common ownership** work incentives improved; the full return for individual effort became a reality, superseding output-sharing arrangments. In 1614 private landholdings of 3 acres were allowed. A second and more significant step toward private property came in 1618 with the establishment of the headright system. Under this system any settler who paid his own way to Virginia was given 50 acres and another 50 acres for anyone else whose transportation he paid. In 1623, only 16 years after the first Jamestown settlers had arrived--all landholdings were converted to private ownership."
---Gary M. Walton and Hugh Rockoff, History of the American Economy, Tenth Edition. South-Western, Cengage Learning, 2005, p. 33.
Part of the mythology of the left-wing ideologues who dominate the American academy and the education system is that "progressivism" involves the instutition of socialism or communism and equity as well as increased rationality or "planning" from a distant center. Rather, socialism or communism was medieval. The common field and collectivized output resulted in low living standards throughout the feudal period and gradually ended with the enclosures in England from the 13th to 17th centuries. The enclosures are usually depicted in high school as harmful because they dispossessed peasants from the common fields. But the enclosures vastly increased agricultural productivity, rapidly expanding the availability of food and resulting in a 50% increase in life expectancy in England by the 17th century. While this evolution away from backward medieval communism to the more modern and flexible system of private ownership and capitalism was culminating, the settlement of Virginia began.
The claim that socialism or communism are progressive rather than reactionary is duplicitous and ideologically motivated. The country with the most backward feudalism, Russia, was the chief European country to adopt communism only decades after it abolished serfdom. The Russians managed to replace medieval serfdom with a twentieth century replica garbed in the duplicitous claim that it was "progressive".
The adoption of communism in America preceded the adoption of private property and capitalism. Americans rejected communism because their lives depended on productivity. The hostile, unsettled terrain caused 6,000 of the first 8,000 settlers in Virginia to die, on average within two years of landing. Higher productivity meant survival. Hence, capitalism in America was forged on the basis of a desperate need to enhance productivity.
*The London Company, founded at the same time as the New Plymouth Company and Massachusetts Bay Company>
**Common ownership is another term for communism. Common fields or communism were common in England prior to the enclosures and existed throughout Europe. They were closely associated with the communism of the Russian mir, which ended only four decades before the re-establishment of communism under the reactionary(medievalist) Marxist ideology.
"In addition, absentee direction from Engalnd created problems, because successful production required local managerial direction. Futile insistent demands from England for quick profits sidetracked productive efforts and added to the settlers' discouragement.
"Jamestown residents gained greater control over local matters in 1609 when small garden plots of land were given to individuals and again in 1612 when various institutional reforms were undertaken. To generate more flexible leadership and local autonomy in that hostile environment, a deputy governor was stationed in Vriginia. Steadily thereafter, centralized direction from England became less and less frequent.
"As private landholdings replaced common ownership** work incentives improved; the full return for individual effort became a reality, superseding output-sharing arrangments. In 1614 private landholdings of 3 acres were allowed. A second and more significant step toward private property came in 1618 with the establishment of the headright system. Under this system any settler who paid his own way to Virginia was given 50 acres and another 50 acres for anyone else whose transportation he paid. In 1623, only 16 years after the first Jamestown settlers had arrived--all landholdings were converted to private ownership."
---Gary M. Walton and Hugh Rockoff, History of the American Economy, Tenth Edition. South-Western, Cengage Learning, 2005, p. 33.
Part of the mythology of the left-wing ideologues who dominate the American academy and the education system is that "progressivism" involves the instutition of socialism or communism and equity as well as increased rationality or "planning" from a distant center. Rather, socialism or communism was medieval. The common field and collectivized output resulted in low living standards throughout the feudal period and gradually ended with the enclosures in England from the 13th to 17th centuries. The enclosures are usually depicted in high school as harmful because they dispossessed peasants from the common fields. But the enclosures vastly increased agricultural productivity, rapidly expanding the availability of food and resulting in a 50% increase in life expectancy in England by the 17th century. While this evolution away from backward medieval communism to the more modern and flexible system of private ownership and capitalism was culminating, the settlement of Virginia began.
The claim that socialism or communism are progressive rather than reactionary is duplicitous and ideologically motivated. The country with the most backward feudalism, Russia, was the chief European country to adopt communism only decades after it abolished serfdom. The Russians managed to replace medieval serfdom with a twentieth century replica garbed in the duplicitous claim that it was "progressive".
The adoption of communism in America preceded the adoption of private property and capitalism. Americans rejected communism because their lives depended on productivity. The hostile, unsettled terrain caused 6,000 of the first 8,000 settlers in Virginia to die, on average within two years of landing. Higher productivity meant survival. Hence, capitalism in America was forged on the basis of a desperate need to enhance productivity.
*The London Company, founded at the same time as the New Plymouth Company and Massachusetts Bay Company>
**Common ownership is another term for communism. Common fields or communism were common in England prior to the enclosures and existed throughout Europe. They were closely associated with the communism of the Russian mir, which ended only four decades before the re-establishment of communism under the reactionary(medievalist) Marxist ideology.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
