14 ms·

It’s ironic that they named it project Hamilton. He is probably rolling in his grave now thinking that Jefferson would be finally proven right with CBDC and the

It’s ironic that they named it project Hamilton. He is probably rolling in his grave now thinking that Jefferson would be finally proven right with CBDC and the insane ever increasing Public debt. "banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies," Thomas Jefferson

skybrian 5y ago
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.
- culturestate 5y ago
  > 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.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    > 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.
  - sp332 5y ago
    I think that argument had more power before a bunch of Canadians set the White House on fire.
    - soperj 5y ago
      the US started that war.
      - skybrian 5y ago
        This despite being mostly unprepared: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812#Unpreparedness 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.
- tryptophan 5y ago
  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.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    > 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 5y ago
    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.
  - bjelkeman-again 5y ago
    Do you have any good documentation that backs up your statement that is a lie? I’d be curious to read it.
  - skybrian 5y ago
    This isn't good history. You should read more about wildcat banks and the financial crises of that era.
    - notch656a 5y ago
      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.
- voakbasda 5y ago
  The high level of individual gun ownership in the US makes a coup a very risky proposition.
  - pphysch 5y ago
    What does civilians owning firearms have to do with a well-trained military force taking over the seats of power?
    - ur-whale 5y ago
      > 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.
      - krapp 5y ago
        >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.
        zozbot234 5y ago
        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.
- chewzerita 5y ago
  > military coups are a problem in many countries, but not the US I wonder why
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    They are generally not a risk in any advanced democracy.
  - goodluckchuck 5y ago
    Privately owned banks. Private, untraceable, accurate, high capacity banks.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > 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.
Kalanos 5y ago
It's apt, not ironic. https://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/history_article.html https://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/history_article.html
randomhodler84 5y ago
21st Century Jefferson would be stacking sats and telling everyone they knew about BTC. The antidote to 21st Century Hamilton CBDCs.
- jonathan-adly 5y ago
  I actually think both will be stacking sats. Hamilton was a practical libertarian, Jefferson was “we must have a revolution every now and then to show the government who is boss” libertarian.
psswrd12345 5y ago
It was named after Margaret Hamilton, not Alexander

skybrian 5y ago

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.

culturestate 5y ago
> 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.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > 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.
- sp332 5y ago
  I think that argument had more power before a bunch of Canadians set the White House on fire.
  - soperj 5y ago
    the US started that war.
    - skybrian 5y ago
      This despite being mostly unprepared: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812#Unpreparedness 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.
tryptophan 5y ago
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.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > 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 5y ago
  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.
- bjelkeman-again 5y ago
  Do you have any good documentation that backs up your statement that is a lie? I’d be curious to read it.
- skybrian 5y ago
  This isn't good history. You should read more about wildcat banks and the financial crises of that era.
  - notch656a 5y ago
    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.
voakbasda 5y ago
The high level of individual gun ownership in the US makes a coup a very risky proposition.
- pphysch 5y ago
  What does civilians owning firearms have to do with a well-trained military force taking over the seats of power?
  - ur-whale 5y ago
    > 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.
    - krapp 5y ago
      >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.
      - zozbot234 5y ago
        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.
chewzerita 5y ago
> military coups are a problem in many countries, but not the US I wonder why
- wolverine876 5y ago
  They are generally not a risk in any advanced democracy.
- goodluckchuck 5y ago
  Privately owned banks. Private, untraceable, accurate, high capacity banks.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> 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.

Kalanos 5y ago

It's apt, not ironic. https://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/history_article.html https://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/history_article.html

randomhodler84 5y ago

21st Century Jefferson would be stacking sats and telling everyone they knew about BTC. The antidote to 21st Century Hamilton CBDCs.

jonathan-adly 5y ago
I actually think both will be stacking sats. Hamilton was a practical libertarian, Jefferson was “we must have a revolution every now and then to show the government who is boss” libertarian.

psswrd12345 5y ago

It was named after Margaret Hamilton, not Alexander