As for your proof point that the depression and panic of 1837 is evidence that Hamiltonian big government/big business/big banking were the source of economic growth and that Jackson’s policies caused that depression (and that Jackson’s policies are a proxy for my position), well, there are historians who see the central bank and state banks causing that depression by their previous loose/inflationary monetary practices. Essentially, it proves the correctness of the Austrian school’s definition of the business cycle, not that Hamilton’s policies were sound. Indeed, Jackson’s hatred of “rag money” and interventions hastened this process, but I don’t see how any of this proves that I’m wrong about how wealth is created via mutually beneficial exchanges and comparative advantage.

Also, why are you so nasty about this? While I will never censor any commentary that is critical of me, I think that the best debates focus on ideas, not people. I will say that your comment has encouraged me to think more about Hamilton and his policies. It’s a very interesting subject. Please do continue this debate if you wish to, but can you please refrain from the ad hominem attacks? Thanks.

“For those of you who took economics, remember the concepts of comparative advantage and mutually beneficial exchanges? (for those who need a primer, click here ) Simply put, one person/company exchanges with another person/company based on the perceived value of their offerings. [...] That’s how we’ve become the wealthiest nation in the history of civilization, by creating a society where this happens freely and fairly (via contract laws, property rights, civil rights etc). It wasn’t through government programs or central planning – in fact it was because of the lack of all that claptrap that we’ve boomed the way we have. [...] Does anyone disagree with this line of thinking? I mean, it’s actually pretty simple to see. If you have even the faintest idea about economics, you already know this.”

Speaking of not having the faintest idea: You don’t know a goddamned thing about your own country’s economic history. Nothing. Less than nothing. In fact you believe claims about American economic history which are not merely inaccurate, but are in fact the diametric opposite of the truth.

Let me put it to you in the dumbed-down Manichean style to which you, as a libertarian, are accustomed.

You know that blond, mack-daddy-lookin’ dude on the front of the ten dollar bill? That’s Alexander Hamilton. People say he’s on the ten because he was George Washington’s Treasury Secretary. He’s actually on the ten because he founded the entire U.S. economy. He was a genius. (Also a total badass, but that’s another story.) From 1789-1800, Hamilton was the second-most-powerful man in America. He was practically the co-President. Shit, you could argue that he was the first-most-powerful American during the Adams administration.

Hamilton’s formidable network of allies, even before it was officially the Federalist Party, controlled the Senate uninterrupted from 1789-1800 and the the House for most of that period. If Hamilton were around today, “Tea Party” types would be calling him the Development Czar.

Hamilton elaborated on his economic scheme in Reports to the Congress. Read them. Read the Report on Manufactures. I fucking dare you.

Hamilton: “There are still, nevertheless, respectable patrons of opinions unfriendly to the encouragement of manufactures. The following are, substantially, the arguments by which these opinions are defended:”

…and now it’s your line, libertarian:

“To endeavor, by the extraordinary patronage of government, to accelerate the growth of manufactures, is, in fact, to endeavor, by force and art, to transfer the natural current of industry from a more to a less beneficial channel. Whatever has such a tendency, must necessarily be unwise; indeed, it can hardly ever be wise in a government to attempt to give a direction to the industry of its citizens. This, under the quick-sighted guidance of private interest, will, if left to itself, infallibly find its own way to the most profitable employment; and it is by such employment, that the public prosperity will be most effectually promoted. To leave industry to itself, therefore, is, in almost every case, the soundest as well as the simplest policy.”

Hamilton again:

“This mode of reasoning is founded upon facts and principles which have certainly respectable pretensions. If it had governed the conduct of nations more generally than it has done, there is room to suppose that it might have carried them faster to prosperity and greatness than they have attained by the pursuit of maxims too widely opposite. Most general theories, however, admit of numerous exceptions, and there are few, if any, of the political kind, which do not blend a considerable portion of error with the truths they inculcate. In order to an accurate judgment how far that which has been just stated ought to be deemed liable to a similar imputation, it is necessary to advert carefully to the considerations which plead in favor of manufactures, and which appear to recommend the special and positive encouragement of them in certain cases and under certain reasonable limitations.”

Alexander Hamilton explicitly endorsed federal intervention in the economy to promote favored sectors (in this case, manufactured goods) at the expense of others (in this case, agriculture).

And later, he gives one of his reasons for thinking this is a good idea: “besides the persons regularly engaged in [factory work], [factories] afford occasional and extra employment to industrious individuals and families, who are willing to devote the leisure resulting from the intermissions of their ordinary pursuits to collateral labors, as a resource for multiplying their acquisitions or their enjoyments. The husbandman himself experiences a new source of profit and support from the increased industry of his wife and daughters, invited and stimulated by the demands of the neighboring manufactories.”

OH SNAP! The guy on the front of the sawbuck is down with the federal government creating jobs. In the Year of our Lord Seventeen-Hundred and Ninety-Fucking-One.

By the way, Hamilton’s proposals were accepted, were implemented, and worked wonders. Later administrations continued in the same vein – even Jefferson, who was greatly opposed to them on ideological grounds, couldn’t argue with success.

The first really pro-free-market President to come along was Andrew Jackson. He was a regular man of the people, who tirelessly campaigned against the Eastern industrial élites. He paid down a vast portion of the national debt. He shut down the evil central bankers, replacing them with good sound silver and gold. The U.S. economy promptly imploded and sank into a long, deep depression.