Leadership by George Washington: Alexander Hamilton and the Private Central Bank

The story of Alexander Hamilton and the establishment of a private central bank in the United States is a multifaceted tale that intertwines economic theory, political strategy, and the enduring struggle between centralized authority and democratic principles. At its core lies Hamilton's ambitious vision for a robust and stable financial system that would serve as the bedrock of the nation's economic growth and development.

However, the actualization of this vision through the creation of the First Bank of the United States sparked intense debate and controversy, laying bare the inherent tensions between the perceived necessity of central banking and the principles of democratic governance.

Hamilton's economic philosophy, forged through his experiences as a self-made man and his studies of European financial systems, emphasized the critical role of credit, investment, and centralized fiscal policy in fostering economic prosperity. He believed that a strong national government, endowed with the authority to regulate commerce and manage public finances, was indispensable for the success of the fledgling nation. Central to his vision was the establishment of a private central bank, envisioned as the cornerstone of America's financial infrastructure, providing stability, liquidity, and confidence in the nation's currency.

In 1791, Hamilton's vision materialized with the chartering of the First Bank of the United States. Endowed with a twenty-year charter, the bank was empowered to issue currency, manage the national debt, and oversee the country's financial affairs. Proponents, including Hamilton’s Federalist allies, argued that the bank would stimulate economic growth, facilitate interstate commerce, and bolster the federal government's fiscal capabilities.

Yet, the birth of the First Bank of the United States also ignited vehement opposition from critics who feared the consolidation of economic power and the erosion of democratic ideals. Thomas Jefferson, a staunch opponent of Hamilton's financial agenda, sounded the alarm about the perils of a centralized banking system controlled by wealthy elites. He warned that such institutions would inevitably cater to the interests of the privileged few, subverting the principles of democracy and popular sovereignty.

The expiration of the First Bank of the United States' charter in 1811 marked the onset of a protracted and contentious saga in the relationship between central banking and American democracy. However, the demise of the First Bank did not signal the end of central banking in America. The Second Bank of the United States, chartered in 1816, encountered similar controversies, culminating in its eventual dissolution in the 1830s. Nonetheless, the legacy of central banking endured, evolving over time with the establishment of the Federal Reserve System in 1913 and subsequent developments in monetary policy and financial regulation.

Thomas Jefferson was deeply skeptical of the idea of a private central bank, as evidenced by his opposition to the establishment of the First Bank of the United States. He feared that such an institution would concentrate economic power in the hands of a few wealthy elites and undermine democratic principles. Jefferson believed that a central bank controlled by private interests would inevitably serve the interests of the wealthy at the expense of the common citizen, leading to financial instability and inequality.

In recent years, Jefferson's concerns about the dangers of a private central bank have been validated by a number of developments in the global financial system. The 2008 financial crisis, for example, exposed the risks inherent in a banking system dominated by large, privately-owned institutions. The collapse of major banks and financial institutions triggered a widespread economic downturn, resulting in massive job losses, home foreclosures, and a wave of bank bailouts funded by taxpayers.

Moreover, the role of central banks in responding to the financial crisis has raised questions about their independence and accountability. In the aftermath of the crisis, central banks around the world engaged in unprecedented monetary stimulus programs, including quantitative easing and low interest rate policies, in an effort to stimulate economic growth and stabilize financial markets. While these measures may have helped to prevent a deeper recession, they have also fueled asset bubbles, exacerbated income inequality, distorted financial markets, and caused greater inflation.

Furthermore, the growing influence of private banks and financial institutions in the political process has raised concerns about the capture of regulatory agencies and the revolving door between government and industry. The cozy relationship between regulators and the financial sector has enabled banks to engage in risky behavior with impunity, while ordinary citizens bear the brunt of the consequences.

In light of these developments, many people have come to see Thomas Jefferson's warnings about the dangers of a private central bank in a new light. His insistence on the importance of democratic control over the nation's monetary system and his skepticism of concentrated economic power resonate with contemporary concerns about financial stability, inequality, and democratic governance.

Today, the debate surrounding the role of central banking in America's economic system remains as contentious as ever. Advocates claim that central banks are indispensable for maintaining economic stability, controlling inflation, and averting financial crises. However, critics point out the dangers posed by centralized monetary authority, citing concerns about potential abuse, corruption, and undue influence by powerful financial interests.

As the United States navigates the complexities of the 21st century, the legacy of Alexander Hamilton and the central bank he championed continue to exert a profound influence on the nation's economic policies and political discourse. The unresolved tension between private central banking and democratic governance serves as a reminder of the enduring complexities inherent in America's economic system, underscoring the need for ongoing dialogue and careful consideration of the trade-offs involved.

All of this and more is discussed in “Den of Vipers: Central Banks & the Fake Economy.”