[skybrian]

History hasn't been kind to either of Jefferson's opinions in that sentence. The US did abolish the central bank for a while and nothing good happened as a result. Also, military coups are a problem in many countries, but not the US.

[tryptophan]

Nothing good has happened after central banking was established either. It's been one financial crisis after another.

Also fun fact - back when the US had private currencies, people WILLINGLY preferred to use them despite a gov currency existing. It is only after the government passed high taxes on these currencies(ie having to pay tax for each transaction to exchange them) that they went out of favor. If they were really so terrible, why did the gov feel the need to kill them?

Central banking is nothing but a power grab. The "it stabilizes the baking system" is nothing but a lie.

[SkyMarshal]

Fwiw in hindsight it appears that structural regulation like Glass-Steagal is what stabilizes the banking system.

Separating banking, investment banking, and insurance into separate legal entities and preventing the banks from consolidating into mega-banks prevented another a Great Depression for ~70years. Then roughly 8yrs after we repealed all that, we unsurprisingly had another Great Depression level financial crisis.

The Fed’s lending support, along with govt stimulus, prevented the actual depression from happening, so you could argue that the Central Bank does have some impact on banking system stability. But it was only necessary because we removed the structural regulation that had maintained a stable banking system for over half a century.

[tryptophan]

> Fwiw in hindsight it appears that structural regulation like Glass-Steagal is what stabilizes the banking system.

This is not at all clear.

> Separating banking, investment banking, and insurance into separate legal entities and preventing the banks from consolidating into mega-banks prevented another a Great Depression for ~70years. Then roughly 8yrs after we repealed all that, we unsurprisingly had another Great Depression level financial crisis.

Are we forgetting the inflationary period in the 70s? How the gold standard was lost during this time? All the emerging market crises? How the USD has lost 98% of its value since the 70s? How inequality is sky high due to interest rate suppression causing asset price inflation? How we have a massive trade defect leading to an extremely large negative net-foreign-investment balance? Does it makes sense to you that countries that are much "poorer" than us are lending us money?

> The Fed’s lending support, along with govt stimulus, prevented the actual depression from happening, so you could argue that the Central Bank does have some impact on banking system stability. But it was only necessary because we removed the structural regulation that had maintained a stable banking system for over half a century.

We trade depression for inflation then. Is this good? Bad? Not sure. We are living in that experiment though. One day this excessive debt and money printing will catch up with us. It has happened to every single fiat currency in history.

[SkyMarshal]

> Are we forgetting the inflationary period in the 70s? How the gold standard was lost during this time? All the emerging market crises? How the USD has lost 98% of its value since the 70s? How inequality is sky high due to interest rate suppression causing asset price inflation? How we have a massive trade defect leading to an extremely large negative net-foreign-investment balance? Does it makes sense to you that countries that are much "poorer" than us are lending us money

You’re conflating a bunch of unrelated things. The single most economically devastating type of event in a banking system is a credit crisis or credit collapse [1]. That’s what both the Great Depression and the Global Financial Crisis were.

All these other things you reference pale by comparison in the level of harm they can inflict on society. Are they bad? Sure. Are they remotely in the same league of harm as the GD or GFC? No.

The point of structural banking system regulation is to prevent this worst case scenario, not to solve every single problem with the banking system. If you can prevent credit collapses from occurring then you’ve significantly improved the stability of the banking system.

[1]: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/credit-crisis.asp

[pessimizer]

> How we have a massive trade defect leading to an extremely large negative net-foreign-investment balance? Does it makes sense to you that countries that are much "poorer" than us are lending us money?

If you're against this, what you want is more inflation, not less. This is the entirely intentional result of the strong dollar policy.

[CrazyStat]

>How the USD has lost 98% of its value since the 70s?

By what metric has the USD lost 98% of its value since the 70s?

[pessimizer]

It's hyperbole referring to how much US dollars stored in a mattress 50 years ago would be worth now. If, instead, you earned money from wages and/or invested in stocks/bonds/real estate/comic books, nothing of the sort happened.

[sgerenser]

Even if “the 70s” means 1970, it’s still not 98%, more like about 86% according to: https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

[wizzwizz4]

> Also fun fact - back when the US had private currencies, people WILLINGLY preferred to use them despite a gov currency existing.

I'm not much of a historian, but are you referring to company stores? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_store

> Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go // I owe my soul to the company store

— Johnny Cash, Sixteen Tons

[shkkmo]

There was an extended period when state chartered banks could print their own currency. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Banking_Era

[cgriswald]

That’s not a Johnny Cash song although he did release a cover of it:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteen_Tons

[wizzwizz4]

Drat. I knew I shouldn't've gone off memory. (Wikipedia says it's a Merle Travis song.)

[chromatin]

No, very different than company store (those "currencies" were referred to as "scrip")

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_scrip

[wizzwizz4]

That Wikipedia article seems to talk about company stores a lot, actually.

> […] even in [locations] that were not [poor], workers paid in scrip had little choice but to purchase goods at a company store, as exchange into currency, if even available, would exhaust some of the value via the exchange fee. With this economic monopoly, the employer could place large markups on goods, making workers dependent on the company, thus enforcing employee "loyalty".

[skybrian]

This isn't good history. You should read more about wildcat banks and the financial crises of that era.

[tryptophan]

https://www.alt-m.org/2021/07/06/the-fable-of-the-cats/

[notch656a]

The federal government is the worst 'wildcat' bank as it's a wildcat bank who has refused to redeem dollars for the gold they said it was backed by (eventually in '71 totally reneging their obligation), at one point even outlawing private ownership of gold (the item the currency was backed by) and actually intentionally destroy the currency by target of at least 2% each year. A wildcat bank whos notes you are compelled to purchase, at pain of being in violation of tax law.

At least in the old wildcat banks, you had a shot of redeeming for specie if you went out to the sticks where the main branch was.

[SantalBlush]

>Nothing good has happened after central banking was established either. It's been one financial crisis after another.

The US financial crises--terrible as they are--are not even remotely comparable to the damage inflicted by a military coup. Putting these two things in the same category is a nonstarter.

[bjelkeman-again]

Do you have any good documentation that backs up your statement that is a lie? I’d be curious to read it.

[wolverine876]

> Nothing good has happened after central banking was established either. It's been one financial crisis after another.

That's not what happened. After the Great Depression, we have not had any crises matching was a a regular cycle before then.

[edgyquant]

You’re entirely wrong here. We haven’t had a depression in over a century and our currency no longer rapidly swings in value depending on the year.

[culturestate]

> History hasn't been kind to either of Jefferson's opinions in that sentence...military coups are a problem in many countries, but not the US.

In fairness, if Jefferson had his way, there wouldn't be much of a military around to plot a coup in the first place.

He'd also be considered a staunch non-interventionist were he alive today - "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations and entangling alliances with none." Not much use for a standing army when that’s how you see your role in global affairs.

[sp332]

I think that argument had more power before a bunch of Canadians set the White House on fire.

[soperj]

the US started that war.

[skybrian]

This despite being mostly unprepared:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812#Unpreparedness

Apparently having a very small army didn't help when Jefferson's party wanted a war. I guess they over-rated state militias?

A lot of the founders' ideas didn't work out they way they hoped. (For example, they tried to prevent political parties and failed utterly.)

When people quote American founders out of context, it's as if it settles things, but they were just making it up at the time, often based just on what sounds good. Jefferson in particular was often a rather impractical man, but a popular politician who promoted a lot of bad ideas (and a few good ones) that made for good politics at the time. He's hardly the only one.

[wolverine876]

> if Jefferson had his way, there wouldn't be much of a military around to plot a coup in the first place

That was the general approach of the United States until ~ the early 20th century. Before that, the 'standing' military was generally tiny, the employer of last resort (criminals, drunks, etc.), and was greatly expanded by volunteers in times of warfare.

[chewzerita]

> military coups are a problem in many countries, but not the US

I wonder why

[wolverine876]

They are generally not a risk in any advanced democracy.

[goodluckchuck]

Privately owned banks.

Private, untraceable, accurate, high capacity banks.

[dragonwriter]

> Also, military coups are a problem in many countries, but not the US

Standing armies’ threat to liberty isn't exclusively, or even mostly, via military coup, it's through acting without effective oversight against citizens when employed in a domestic security role, heightened by the separate culture and us-vs- them attitude standing forces create.

And, since the mid-19th century, it's mostly been realized in the US through standing paramilitary police forces rather than an normal standing military, as the former were established as permanent entities before regular standing armies in the US, and displaced regular standing armies from the dangerous domestic role that is the main underpinning of them being in Jefferson’s statement.

[voakbasda]

The high level of individual gun ownership in the US makes a coup a very risky proposition.

[pphysch]

What does civilians owning firearms have to do with a well-trained military force taking over the seats of power?

[ur-whale]

> What does civilians owning firearms have to do with a well-trained military force taking over the seats of power?

Such a military force would be facing a very well armed citizen-led guerilla response.

Given the amount of private gun ownership in the US, holding on to power after a coup would prove a rather difficult proposition.

[culturestate]

> Such a military force would be facing a very well armed citizen-led guerilla response.

As well-armed as the citizenry may be, the military is infinitely more so - they have, you know, tanks and planes and smart bombs - and in this fantasy civil war-esque scenario I don’t think the junta would be shy about exploiting that advantage.

[salawat]

...All of which require extensive logistics to employ that have hitherto been predicated in the Armed Forces not being on the wrong side of the American public's ire. I.e. you can handle hostile logistics in Afghanistan because it isn't that hard to get the raw materials stateside, and move them through Allied supply chains.

Remove the part where it's easy to get things Stateside, and I assure you, a U.S. military coup/junta will be fighting a two sided war as well. Both internal from the populace, and external from former Allies who in no way, shape, or form are going to sit idly by and be threatened by a militaristic U.S. Armed Forces that's even remotely controversial enough to even be considered a coup by the populace.

People forget: The Army Sabotage Manual is public domain.

The military knows exactly the hell it will be entrenched in if it ever goes against the public's wishes. They literally wrote the book.

[Supermancho]

In America, it certainly isn't about who you can kill or how fast. Any individual can kill multiple individuals on a micro scale and multiply that every time a weapon kills a soldier or a soldier trades weaponry.

The US military problem would be that it has to subdue a population that has been socialized to resist (to the point that it already birthed paramilitary during the previous democracy) and constitutes the replacements for that military (and the industries necessary for supply) for coming generations. Hell, once it had a democracy the first time, it still went to civil war. Thinking about the short term doesn't get you much.

Predator drones, nukes, etc won't solve the problems that couldnt be solved in a foreign land. Domestically it would be harder and longer fought.

[acdha]

> The military knows exactly the hell it will be entrenched in if it ever goes against the public's wishes. They literally wrote the book.

The entire public’s wishes, yes. Now consider what would have happened if the military leadership hadn’t resisted the call to join the January 6th insurrection — it’s much easier to imagine something like 90s Serbia where a substantial fraction of the population hopped up on propaganda supports the military efforts and will keep their neighbors from forming an effective resistance.

[EL_Loco]

Yeah, that's a complete fantasy. Since in US society the riot police doesn't come around with tanks and machine guns mowing down protesters, people have created this delusionthat that if they grabbed a couple of hundred M4s they could take on a government with a full blown army, and that when the shit hit the fan that army would still choose to fight with just shields and batons. There is a clip from the January invasion where a woman is fleeing the scene crying, because of the a 'violent' response from the police. I even think she just got pepper-sprayed (can't remember exactly). When asked what was she doing there, she said she went there to start a revolution. There's a passage in a book (can't remember now either) about the Mexican revolution, where a man hopped on a donkey and left his tiny village to join the armed struggle. About 5 miles from a conflict site, he heard the boom of a cannon going off. He stopped, turned the donkey 180 degrees and went back to his village.

[jimbob45]

That's a weird argument. Yes, obviously the US government can win any engagement against anyone, including its own civilians, by nuking them at any time. Clearly there is additional nuance to this argument since the US didn't just nuke the Vietnamese, Iraqis, or Jan 6 protesters from the get-go.

[brimble]

I haven't seen any real-world evidence that high levels of individual firearm ownership correlate with the preservation of liberty and democracy. Most examples people like to bring out are resistance to a foreign occupation, typically with external assistance from a real military and/or shipments of military arms. And, perhaps tellingly, the result after the occupiers leave is rarely democracy.

Meanwhile improvised bombs seem to be far more important to and effective for a modern insurgency than firearms.

Add in that it sure seems to be more common to read about private militias aiding an authoritarian coup than successfully resisting it and I think the pro-widespread-individual-firearm-ownership faction has an uphill battle just to demonstrate that the practice is a wash, let alone beneficial to the preservation of liberty and democracy.

There are a few cases of private arms being used in anti-corruption "wars" or stand-offs in the US, but at least as many in which they're used for essentially the opposite purpose (supporting anti-liberty, and especially racist, policies and actions). In any case, the national guard stepping in tends to end these in a hurry.

The notion that the 2nd amendment is vital to the preservation of liberty and democracy in 2022 seems to be dubious at best. I'm not in favor of a blanket gun ban but I think that particular argument in favor of gun rights—which seems to be what anti-gun-regulation folks fall back on very quickly, when challenged, which makes sense as it's the reason given in founders' writings and, arguably, in the constitution—is, at best, pretty weak.

[notch656a]

>I haven't seen any real-world evidence that high levels of individual firearm ownership correlate with the preservation of liberty and democracy.

Kurds in Northern Syria.

[pphysch]

US military is occupying Northern Syria, it isn't just Kurds fighting the government on their own

[gscott]

Mexico

[krapp]

>Such a military force would be facing a very well armed citizen-led guerilla response.

Unless enough citizens were on the side of the coup. I don't know why no one ever seems to acknowledge that as a possibility, especially after Jan. 6. Gun owners are just as driven by politics and ideology as anyone else.

Plus just because you have a gun in a safe and maybe sometimes shoot watermelons in the backyard with it doesn't mean you'll be effective in guerilla warfare against an actual military. I know Americans like to bring up Afghanistan and Vietnam as examples of guerilla warfare succeeding against the US, but fighters in both cases still went through training that would break the average American gun owner.

[goodluckchuck]

> Unless enough citizens were on the side of the coup.

That was kinda the whole point of the revolutionary war. #DemocracySpeaksManyLanguages

[zozbot234]

The flip side is that many people in the military would absolutely sabotage the coup. Keep in mind that everyone in the military is bound by an oath to defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic.

[AutumnCurtain]

Purely anecdotal, but from discussion with my military friends there is widespread belief more than half of enlisted soldiers would've supported the Jan 6th coup attempt militarily. That percentage is far smaller along officers. With two exceptions though the people telling me this are officers and that will slant their view.

[selectodude]

It would be interesting to see how these "3 percenters" would do living in the mountains and eating bush meat for five years.

[edgyquant]

You’d be surprised what pure spite can lead a man to deal with

[klyrs]

How do guerilla forces defend themselves against Predator drones?