There are 15 comments.

1. Member
   Bob Thompson

   @BobThompson

   Post author

   8:32 PM EST ⋅ Feb 22, 2025

   That’s a big fix but it goes directly to the cause of the problem!

2. Member
   Arahant

   @Arahant

   8:43 PM EST ⋅ Feb 22, 2025

   Amen, brother!

3. Member
   Jimmy Carter

   @JimmyCarter

   

   8:53 PM EST ⋅ Feb 22, 2025

   I’m sorely disappointed in Trump.

   I ain’t heard or read of “celebrities” that have fled the Nation, yet.

4. Member
   Bob Thompson

   @BobThompson

   Post author

   8:58 PM EST ⋅ Feb 22, 2025

   Jimmy Carter (View Comment):

   I’m sorely disappointed in Trump.

   I ain’t heard or read of “celebrities” that have fled the Nation, yet.

   Why would they leave the greatest nation on earth? Has anyone been leaving? That is not the problem we have.

5. Member
   Jimmy Carter

   @JimmyCarter

   

   9:03 PM EST ⋅ Feb 22, 2025

   Bob Thompson (View Comment):

   Jimmy Carter (View Comment):

   I’m sorely disappointed in Trump.

   I ain’t heard or read of “celebrities” that have fled the Nation, yet.

   Why would they leave the greatest nation on earth?

   Because They keep claiming to if Trump is elected.

   Actually, They keep claiming to if any Republican is elected. 

6. Member
   Jimmy Carter

   @JimmyCarter

   

   9:09 PM EST ⋅ Feb 22, 2025

   Bob Thompson (View Comment):

   Jimmy Carter (View Comment):

   I’m sorely disappointed in Trump.

   I ain’t heard or read of “celebrities” that have fled the Nation, yet.

   Why would they leave the greatest nation on earth? Has anyone been leaving? That is not the problem we have.

   

7. Member
   Bob Thompson

   @BobThompson

   Post author

   9:13 PM EST ⋅ Feb 22, 2025

   Jimmy Carter (View Comment):

   Bob Thompson (View Comment):

   Jimmy Carter (View Comment):

   I’m sorely disappointed in Trump.

   I ain’t heard or read of “celebrities” that have fled the Nation, yet.

   Why would they leave the greatest nation on earth? Has anyone been leaving? That is not the problem we have.

   

   I know.  Most of the celebrities don’t have a clue. Robert DeNiro.

8. Coolidge
   DonG (¡Afuera!)

   @DonG

   10:10 PM EST ⋅ Feb 22, 2025

   Bob Thompson: began the trip that has landed us where we are today in 1913 with the 16th and 17th Amendments to the Constitution and the creation of the Federal Reserve as a central bank.

   It was a crazy time.  I think those things were symptoms of a fork in the road.   America took a left turn and embraced the idea of a society run by experts and apparatchiks–where utopia was a just one more government program away.   It is a 100 years later and we are just starting to change course.   Will it take a 100 years to unwind the road we’ve traveled? 

    

   For the record, I am OK with the 16th Amendment and the Federal Reserve.   If Congress wasn’t so corrupt and spendthrift, a small income tax would not be onerous.  Also, the Federal Reserve would be fine, if Congress did not piss away money. 

9. Member
   Bob Thompson

   @BobThompson

   Post author

   10:43 PM EST ⋅ Feb 22, 2025

   DonG (¡Afuera!) (View Comment):

   Bob Thompson: began the trip that has landed us where we are today in 1913 with the 16th and 17th Amendments to the Constitution and the creation of the Federal Reserve as a central bank.

   It was a crazy time. I think those things were symptoms of a fork in the road. America took a left turn and embraced the idea of a society run by experts and apparatchiks–where utopia was a just one more government program away. It is a 100 years later and we are just starting to change course. Will it take a 100 years to unwind the road we’ve traveled?

   For the record, I am OK with the 16th Amendment and the Federal Reserve. If Congress wasn’t so corrupt and spendthrift, a small income tax would not be onerous. Also, the Federal Reserve would be fine, if Congress did not piss away money.

   That’s why I use the term enabling instead of cause. Yeah, it’s the Congress. Then, when the banks went international and we stopped enforcing the Sherman Anti-Trust provisions, it opened it up.

   I didn’t think we would get THE SURPRISE this quick.

10. Member
    Mark Camp

    @MarkCamp

    7:32 AM EST ⋅ Feb 23, 2025

    OP:

    I suspect the part to be played by the Federal Reserve was inhibited over the course of the 20th century by the McFadden Act which restricted national banks from branching beyond the state in which they were chartered and restricted branching within that state to the same terms allowed for state-chartered banks.

    If you want to understand the effects, positive and negative, of government restrictions on branch banking, please read Steven Horwitz and George A. Selgin, Interstate Banking: The Reform That Won’t Go Away (Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 97, December 15, 1987)

    Very briefly, you will find that this form of well-intentioned shift from free enterprise toward central planning actually destabilizes a banking system, leading to the demand for even more intervention, including federal control of banking (by the Federal Reserve.)

    The paper is very well-written and gives both theoretical results and historical data that confirm those results.

    The most important of the lessons from history come from studying the long-term results of

    (a) countries that had such restrictions (the US and England), and had theoretically predictable frequent bank panics and widespread bank failures

    and

    (b) countries where decisions over branch banking were made through the private enterprise system rather than populist politicians and indifferent bureaucrats (Canada and Scottish banking), where bank panics and bank failures were almost non-existent and easily corrected without government interference.

    Here is a sample of the historical evidence against a system based on central State control vs. market control of the financial economy:

    Perhaps the most convincing evidence of the reduction in failures comes from Canada. While U.S. banks reeled from the panic of 1907, Canadians were barely aware of the trouble. In the northern United States, merchants sold their goods at bargain prices across the border to obtain much-needed currency–even though it was Canadian–to ease the currency shortage in this country. This was the only evidence the Canadians had of anything unusual going on.[33]

    From 1921 to 1929, Canada recorded only one bank failure, the Home Bank in 1923, which cost depositors $15
    million. This compared with $565 million lost to depositors in the United States during the same period.[34] In the early 1930s, while U.S. banks failed everywhere, no Canadian bank failed, even though the Canadian economy was also depressed. When a number of Detroit banks failed in the early thirties and bank runs set in, Detroit’s neighbor across the river, Windsor, Ontario, felt no ill effects and gained millions in U.S. deposits.[35]

11. Coolidge
    Stad

    @Stad

    9:01 AM EST ⋅ Feb 23, 2025

    You mentioned the 17th Amendment.  The direct election of Senators by statewide popular vote watered down the separation of powers as envisioned by the Founding Fathers.  House members were supposed to represent the interests of only the people in their districts.  The President was supposed to represent the interests all the people of the country.  And the Senate was supposed to represent the interest of the states.  This latter choice was created so that states could better preserve their sovereignty.

    Changing the original intent of the Founders weakened the states’ power (and rights) to the point we are today – a massive Federal bureaucracy that’s serves its own interests, not those of the President, the House districts, or the states . . .

12. Member
    Bob Thompson

    @BobThompson

    Post author

    9:15 AM EST ⋅ Feb 23, 2025

    Stad (View Comment):

    You mentioned the 17th Amendment. The direct election of Senators by statewide popular vote watered down the separation of powers as envisioned by the Founding Fathers. House members were supposed to represent the interests of only the people in their districts. The President was supposed to represent the interests all the people of the country. And the Senate was supposed to represent the interest of the states. This latter choice was created so that states could better preserve their sovereignty.

    Changing the original intent of the Founders weakened the states’ power (and rights) to the point we are today – a massive Federal bureaucracy that’s serves its own interests, not those of the President, the House districts, or the states . . .

    Thanks for adding this. I think a big negative result supporting what you describe as a massive dilution of state sovereignty has been the political behavior of governors who enhance their chance of election by shifting taxation (which means a shift in control) to the federal government. The creation of the Department of Education is an example of this being the totality of the effect.

13. Coolidge
    Red Herring

    @EHerring

    10:01 AM EST ⋅ Feb 23, 2025

    I think you do both, then tax the states per capita, rather than tax people. States would then decide how to pay its share and senators would he motivated to vote against increased spending. Also, states wouldn’t be motivated to cheat on the census or to count illegals to get more House seats.

14. Member
    Nanocelt TheContrarian

    @NanoceltTheContrarian

    9:50 PM EST ⋅ Feb 23, 2025

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    I think you do both, then tot the states per capita, not the people. States would then decide how to pay its share and senators would he motivated to vote against increased spending. Also, states wouldn’t be motivated to cheat on the census or to count illegals to get more House seats.

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    OP:

    I suspect the part to be played by the Federal Reserve was inhibited over the course of the 20th century by the McFadden Act which restricted national banks from branching beyond the state in which they were chartered and restricted branching within that state to the same terms allowed for state-chartered banks.

    If you want to understand the effects, positive and negative, of government restrictions on branch banking, please read Steven Horwitz and George A. Selgin, Interstate Banking: The Reform That Won’t Go Away (Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 97, December 15, 1987)

    Very briefly, you will find that this form of well-intentioned shift from free enterprise toward central planning actually destabilizes a banking system, leading to the demand for even more intervention, including federal control of banking (by the Federal Reserve.)

    The paper is very well-written and gives both theoretical results and historical data that confirm those results.

    The most important of the lessons from history come from studying the long-term results of

    (a) countries that had such restrictions (the US and England), and had theoretically predictable frequent bank panics and widespread bank failures

    and

    (b) countries where decisions over branch banking were made through the private enterprise system rather than populist politicians and indifferent bureaucrats (Canada and Scottish banking), where bank panics and bank failures were almost non-existent and easily corrected without government interference.

    Here is a sample of the historical evidence against a system based on central State control vs. market control of the financial economy:

    Perhaps the most convincing evidence of the reduction in failures comes from Canada. While U.S. banks reeled from the panic of 1907, Canadians were barely aware of the trouble. In the northern United States, merchants sold their goods at bargain prices across the border to obtain much-needed currency–even though it was Canadian–to ease the currency shortage in this country. This was the only evidence the Canadians had of anything unusual going on.[33]

    From 1921 to 1929, Canada recorded only one bank failure, the Home Bank in 1923, which cost depositors $15
    million. This compared with $565 million lost to depositors in the United States during the same period.[34] In the early 1930s, while U.S. banks failed everywhere, no Canadian bank failed, even though the Canadian economy was also depressed. When a number of Detroit banks failed in the early thirties and bank runs set in, Detroit’s neighbor across the river, Windsor, Ontario, felt no ill effects and gained millions in U.S. deposits.[35]

    Trump recently complained that Canada wouldn’t let American banks operate  in Canada. Why would they with this history?  Seems very prudent of Canadians. 

15. Member
    RufusRJones

    @RufusRJones

    4:55 AM EST ⋅ Feb 24, 2025

    Nanocelt TheContrarian (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    I think you do both, then tot the states per capita, not the people. States would then decide how to pay its share and senators would he motivated to vote against increased spending. Also, states wouldn’t be motivated to cheat on the census or to count illegals to get more House seats.

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    OP:

    I suspect the part to be played by the Federal Reserve was inhibited over the course of the 20th century by the McFadden Act which restricted national banks from branching beyond the state in which they were chartered and restricted branching within that state to the same terms allowed for state-chartered banks.

    If you want to understand the effects, positive and negative, of government restrictions on branch banking, please read Steven Horwitz and George A. Selgin, Interstate Banking: The Reform That Won’t Go Away (Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 97, December 15, 1987)

    Very briefly, you will find that this form of well-intentioned shift from free enterprise toward central planning actually destabilizes a banking system, leading to the demand for even more intervention, including federal control of banking (by the Federal Reserve.)

    The paper is very well-written and gives both theoretical results and historical data that confirm those results.

    The most important of the lessons from history come from studying the long-term results of

    (a) countries that had such restrictions (the US and England), and had theoretically predictable frequent bank panics and widespread bank failures

    and

    (b) countries where decisions over branch banking were made through the private enterprise system rather than populist politicians and indifferent bureaucrats (Canada and Scottish banking), where bank panics and bank failures were almost non-existent and easily corrected without government interference.

    Here is a sample of the historical evidence against a system based on central State control vs. market control of the financial economy:

    Perhaps the most convincing evidence of the reduction in failures comes from Canada. While U.S. banks reeled from the panic of 1907, Canadians were barely aware of the trouble. In the northern United States, merchants sold their goods at bargain prices across the border to obtain much-needed currency–even though it was Canadian–to ease the currency shortage in this country. This was the only evidence the Canadians had of anything unusual going on.[33]

    From 1921 to 1929, Canada recorded only one bank failure, the Home Bank in 1923, which cost depositors $15
    million. This compared with $565 million lost to depositors in the United States during the same period.[34] In the early 1930s, while U.S. banks failed everywhere, no Canadian bank failed, even though the Canadian economy was also depressed. When a number of Detroit banks failed in the early thirties and bank runs set in, Detroit’s neighbor across the river, Windsor, Ontario, felt no ill effects and gained millions in U.S. deposits.[35]

    Trump recently complained that Canada wouldn’t let American banks operate in Canada. Why would they with this history? Seems very prudent of Canadians.

    I forget all of the details, but Canadian and Scottish Banks never fail. The United States does not know how to hold together a fractional reserve banking system. We just fix everything with inflation which magnifies social problems and then they whine about socialists and populists