Founding Father economic vision was more egalitarian than the Ryan-Pence vision

[septimus]

From this Newsweek article:

@George Washington

[nine months before his inauguration as the first president] … America will be the most favorable country of any kind in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital, to inhabit. It will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property.

John Adams … feared “monopolies of land” would destroy the nation and that a business aristocracy born of inequality would manipulate voters, creating “a system of subordination to all… The capricious will of one or a very few” dominating the rest. Unless constrained “the rich and the proud” would wield economic and political power that “will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves.”

Late in life, Adams, pessimistic about whether the republic would endure, wrote that the goal of the democratic government was not to help the wealthy and powerful but to achieve “the greatest happiness for the greatest number.”

@James Madison

In every political society, parties are unavoidable. A difference of interests, real or supposed, is the most natural and fruitful source of them. The great object should be to combat the evil: (1) by establishing political equality among us all; (2) by withholding unnecessary opportunities from a few to increase the inequality of property by the immoderate, and especially an unmerited, accumulation of riches; (3) by the silent operation of laws, which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth toward a state of mediocrity and raise extreme indigence toward a state of comfort.

Alexander Hamilton … argued for widespread ownership of assets, warning in 1782 that, “whenever a discretionary power is lodged in any set of men over the property of their neighbors, they will abuse it.”

Research commissioned by Thomas Jefferson found that, when fishermen bargained for their pay in advance and shared in the profits, the operations were highly efficient… Washington and Jefferson recommended giving sharesmen five eighths of the subsidy, with the rest to ship owners. Owners who paid a fixed wage got nothing. It was a government carrot promoting both bargaining power for workers and more profitable enterprises.

RESOLVED: That the Founding Fathers would despise the wholesale theft by rich vested interests that we increasingly see today; and that they would favor measures tending to reduce wealth inequality and income inequality.

[Yllaria]

I forget where I read it, but more than a few of them believed that permanent corporations should not be allowed. Temporary ones, maybe, such as building a road and then collecting tolls for X number of years, but no permanent ones.

[septimus]

(The great capitalist economist Adam Smith also was not a fan of corporations.)

[John_Mace]

Resolved: Many of the FF were slave owners. Remind me again why we should care about what they might think about how we live today? I mean, many of those guys were smart and all, but they were the establishment rich of the day, and did not countenance shaking the actual establishment quo. It’s interesting to consider what they might think, but I don’t see any reason to idealize them.

[2sense]

Here’s the thing. Founding Father quotes are like “The Man on the Street” segments on TV shows. There will be plenty of footage of different answers which can be edited to suit your agenda. Similarly quotes of dead white guys can be found to make whatever point. Take them for a grain of salt when handed over piecemeal because a deeper look could provide contrary evidence. Lets examine some context around the James Madison quote:

In every political society, parties are unavoidable. A difference of interests, real or supposed, is the most natural and fruitful source of them. The great object should be to combat the evil: 1. By establishing a political equality among all. 2. By withholding unnecessary opportunities from a few, to increase the inequality of property, by an immoderate, and especially an unmerited, accumulation of riches. 3. By the silent operation of laws, which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigence towards a state of comfort. 4. By abstaining from measures which operate differently on different interests, and particularly such as favor one interest at the expence of another. 5. By making one party a check on the other, so far as the existence of parties cannot be prevented, nor their views accommodated. If this is not the language of reason, it is that of republicanism.

In all political societies, different interests and parties arise out of the nature of things, and the great art of politicians lies in making them checks and balances to each other. Let us then increase these natural distinctions by favoring an inequality of property; and let us add to them artificial distinctions, by establishing kings, and nobles, and plebeians. We shall then have the more checks to oppose to each other: we shall then have the more scales and the more weights to perfect and maintain the equilibrium. This is as little the voice of reason, as it is that of republicanism.

From the expediency, in politics, of making natural parties, mutual checks on each other, to infer the propriety of creating artificial parties, in order to form them into mutual checks, is not less absurd than it would be in ethics, to say, that new vices ought to be promoted, where they would counteract each other, because this use may be made of existing vices.

James Madison is not simply listing these pearls of wisdom for the benefit of future generations. Instead these proposals for reducing partisan disagreement, plus a fourth decrying favoritism, are offered in contrast to the fifth assertion of the usefulness of having different orders of men: royal, noble, and common to create a balance for the society. That was (and is) the foundation of the ancient constitution of the British empire the states had just seceded from. The fact that Madison makes this political argument indicates that there were opponents who were arguing in favor of social divisions.

And who were Madison’s opponents in 1792? Those we know as the Federalists. Those who agreed with Washington, Adams, and most particularly with Alexander Hamilton. It was the last who engineered the economic policies of the new Republic. The new central government consolidated the huge war debt from the states, and began paying interest on it, a huge boon to speculators, many of them wealthy and influential, who now had a literal interest in the new government. The money was raised in large part by the tax on whiskey which fell harder on smaller distillers and was particularly burdensome in rural areas where hard coin was rare.

The money was disbursed through a national bank. This bank, unlike the previous colonial loan offices and the latter Second Bank of the US under the Republicans, didn’t offer smaller long term, low interest loans suitable for farmers and small businessmen but short term, high interest loans chiefly useful to speculators. Speculation was mainly in land aided by the federal policy of selling only in large parcels. This led many newly independent farmers to emigrate to Canada where the government would sell you land directly and cheaply.

These policies were no accident. Hamilton and many like him strongly believed in the principles of the ancient constitution and sought a class of men with the wealth and social standing to stabilize the nation. He deliberately increased economic inequality by seeking to limit credit to gentlemen. The First Bank of the United States also pursued a hard money policy by actively buying up and redeeming notes from newly chartered state banks not only to remove them from circulation but to encourage banks to keep larger gold reserves. According to Gordon Wood* it was expansion of the money supply following the expiration of the First Bank’s charter 1811 that finally ended the decades of recurring agrarian unrest. For myself, I consider that to mark the end of the Revolution.

• • HOW DO YOU LIKE THEM APPLES?
    (I have books to cite these claims though only during the day when the rest of the family is awake.)

[Shodan]

Alexander Hamilton … argued for widespread ownership of assets, warning in 1782 that, “whenever a discretionary power is lodged in any set of men over the property of their neighbors, they will abuse it.”

I certainly agree with this part, but I don’t see how it is an argument that governments should be involved in income redistribution. Because government = a set of men.

Regards,
Shodan

[up_the_junction]

@septimus

(The great capitalist economist Adam Smith also was not a fan of corporations.)

Most of this stuff is cribbed from Adam Smith. These guys certainly weren’t bright enough to come up with it.

[puddleglum]

What wholesale theft by rich vested interests are you talking about?

[XT]

RESOLVED: That the Founding Fathers would despise the wholesale theft by rich vested interests that we increasingly see today; and that they would favor measures tending to reduce wealth inequality and income inequality.

Absolutely. That’s why they owned slaves and such, and advocated for paying a bunch in taxes so that the masses could be well taken care of with a host of safety nets and public services and the like. It’s not like the FF were rich white guys, after all, so they would certainly be appalled by the direction the country has taken since they were at the helm…

Ok, it’s hard to really talk about this with a straight face. Seriously…you think the FF would be opposed to corporations because they were egalitarian and wanted income inequality lowered? What did they, any of them, do to foster this during their own times? Did they break up the large estates that were the equivalent of this during their time? Did they increase the taxes on the rich (who comprised a much lower percentage relative to the population) to provide for the lower classes (we won’t even count the slaves or other brown folks, just the poor white boys)? The answer to those might tell you where they actually stood.

Don’t get me wrong, I think the FF were great men, and that their vision was far and away better than what our European brethren were doing by and large at the time, but taking a few out of context quotes and spinning that into your OP is laughable.

[septimus]

It’s amusing that right-wingers treat the Founding Fathers as Prophets of God when citing the First Amendment as ordaining unlimited corporate finance of political campaigns, or the Second Amendment as ordaining the proliferation of guns. But then twist their view 180° when confronted with Founding Father opposition to the right-wing brand of kleptocracy now infesting the U.S.A.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@septimus

It’s amusing that right-wingers treat the Founding Fathers as Prophets of God when citing the First Amendment as ordaining unlimited corporate finance of political campaigns, or the Second Amendment as ordaining the proliferation of guns. But then twist their view 180° when confronted with Founding Father opposition to the right-wing brand of kleptocracy now infesting the U.S.A.

That first thing you mentioned involves – as you said – a Constitutional Amendment. That second thing you mentioned also involves a Constitutional Amendment.

Does the third?

[XT]

@septimus

It’s amusing that right-wingers treat the Founding Fathers as Prophets of God when citing the First Amendment as ordaining unlimited corporate finance of political campaigns, or the Second Amendment as ordaining the proliferation of guns. But then twist their view 180° when confronted with Founding Father opposition to the right-wing brand of kleptocracy now infesting the U.S.A.

Not nearly as funny as you trotting out the right winger’s thingy in the hope of muddying the waters and covering your bad OP. Like in Bill and Ted…mumble mumble mumble…San Dimas football RULZ!

[SamuelA]

@puddleglum

What wholesale theft by rich vested interests are you talking about?

The national debt. The reason there is a national debt is not because of a shortage of money. The USA is the richest country in the world. It’s because for “mysterious” reasons, those who have all the money (mostly the rich) have set the tax rates to not be high enough for the government to take in as much money each year as it spends.

[puddleglum]

@SamuelA

The national debt. The reason there is a national debt is not because of a shortage of money. The USA is the richest country in the world. It’s because for “mysterious” reasons, those who have all the money (mostly the rich) have set the tax rates to not be high enough for the government to take in as much money each year as it spends.

That is ridiculous. For every dollar earned the top 20% of tax payers pay 22 cents in tax, the 60-80% quintile pays 10 cents in tax, the middle 40-60% quintile receives 5 cents more in benefits than tax, the 20-40% quintile receives 42 cents more in benefits, and poorest 20% receives three dollars and one cent.
The national debt is because the government spends more on the middle and lower classes than the rich pay in taxes. That is not the rich stealing from anyone.

[Richard_Parker]

@puddleglum

That is ridiculous. For every dollar earned the top 20% of tax payers pay 22 cents in tax, the 60-80% quintile pays 10 cents in tax, the middle 40-60% quintile receives 5 cents more in benefits than tax, the 20-40% quintile receives 42 cents more in benefits, and poorest 20% receives three dollars and one cent.
The national debt is because the government spends more on the middle and lower classes than the rich pay in taxes. That is not the rich stealing from anyone.

Those figures aren’t saying what you think they’re saying. They are not saying how tax money is spent except for the limited case of tax credits.

Conservatives take as an article of faith that the government mostly spends money on welfare. But it isn’t true.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@John_Mace

Remind me again why we should care about what they might think about how we live today?

Because some US Supreme Court justices believe in original intent and more than a few court decisions have been arrived at (at least in part) by original intent.

[SamuelA]

@puddleglum

That is ridiculous. For every dollar earned the top 20% of tax payers pay 22 cents in tax, the 60-80% quintile pays 10 cents in tax, the middle 40-60% quintile receives 5 cents more in benefits than tax, the 20-40% quintile receives 42 cents more in benefits, and poorest 20% receives three dollars and one cent.
The national debt is because the government spends more on the middle and lower classes than the rich pay in taxes. That is not the rich stealing from anyone.

Top 20% of taxpayers earn fifty percent of all income. So, whoops, you just made my point for me. They should pay 50% of all taxes, and would in a perfect flat tax system. Much less a progressive one.

Why should they pay 50% of all taxes? America is capitalism, baby. Your income (and resulting wealth from income transfers over time) is directly proportional to how much of America you get to enjoy. Damn straight if you make twice as much, you should have to pay twice as much.

[Shodan]

@SamuelA

Top 20% of taxpayers earn fifty percent of all income. So, whoops, you just made my point for me. They should pay 50% of all taxes, and would in a perfect flat tax system. Much less a progressive one.

Top 20% of Earners Pay 84% of Income Tax.

Regards,
Shodan

[iamthewalrus_3]

It’s hard to know what it is that George Washington thought or meant when he said: “It will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property.”

Because he and the modern world wouldn’t have even agreed on basic definitions for “the lowest class of people” and “property”.

[smiling_bandit]

@up_the_junction

Most of this stuff is cribbed from Adam Smith. These guys certainly weren’t bright enough to come up with it.

This is incorrect. The Founding Fathers were not strongly invested in economics writings of their time. Moreover, Adam Smith only published his Wealth of Nations after the Revolution was already underway, and was unlikely to have been a major source of any of the Founding Fathers. Smith’s work was successful in his own life, but took time to really influence political thought.