# Harriet Tubman to replace Andrew Jackson on the face of the $20 bill Discussion in 'World Events' started by Plazma Inferno!, Apr 21, 2016. 1. ### iceauraValued Senior Member Messages: 30,109 You also posted this, from the Federal Reserve site itself, which you apparently regarded as the last and definitive word on the matter: For native speakers of English unfamiliar with the wordsmithing of modern American politics, that is a claim that a Federal Reserve bank is not financed by sale of "shares" to a collection of private investors who provide its entire working capital and its entire executive management, contract for all infrastructural support, and receive dividends from the profits based on their investment. Which would be of course a false claim, so that can't be what is meant. A clue, or warning to the naive, is found in the term "independent entity within government", which although it avoids the direct lie of "agency" is still clearly oxymoronic. Suspicions aroused, one can investigate the context of the odd assertion and - as the bluecollar folks put it - get a clue. The Federal Reserve banks are not "within" the government in any ordinary sense of the term. They are not even audited by the GAO - the US government does not have access to their account books. But it is not clear what you think it meant, since you were posting it in an apparent attempt to contradict (not support) the observation that the Federal Reserve banking system is a consortium of private banks earning a handsome profit from their investments in a heavily government-regulated and overseen monopoly of a peculiar kind. If you take a look, you will find direct denials - by the US Government - that the Post Office is owned by the Federal Government, as (say) Amtrak is. Instead, you will find that it is an oddly set up agency of the Government, organized under the Executive Branch (there are three branches: Executive, Legislative, Judicial). The FDIC, on the other hand, is explicitly described as not a Government agency but instead a Government owned corporation, like Amtrak. One way to tell is by the name: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Deposit_Insurance_Corporation The Federal Reserve system is neither of those: is not organized as an agency under one of the three Branches, and it is not a corporation owned by the Federal Government as a whole. And I vote for Tubman over Parks, on the money - she was there at the beginning, critically involved in the most significant economic issue facing the United States in its history. Last edited: Apr 23, 2016 2. ### Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement to hide all adverts. 3. ### joepistoleDeacon BluesValued Senior Member Messages: 22,908 Except, as with most of your other posts, it simply isn't true. The Federal Reserve is audited regularly and by the GAO. And the only person trying to "wordsmith" is you. You are making shit up again as is your custom. "Yes, the Board of Governors, the 12 Federal Reserve Banks, and the Federal Reserve System as a whole are all subject to several levels of audit and review: Instead of running off posting crap that you have no knowledge of and acting as if you did, your time would be better spent doing a little research. In addition to the regular audits by the GAO, and independent accounts, the Federal Reserve chairman reports to congress at least twice a year per the Hawkins Full Employment Act and the Feds financials are disclosed and posted monthly. Everything you have alleged has been proven wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humphrey–Hawkins_Full_Employment_Act Unfortunately for you there was nothing "unclear" in my previous post. Per previous references, the Federal Reserve is an independent agency of US federal government. It isn't a "consortium of private banks" as you have asserted. And contrary to your assertion, the Federal Reserve is regularly audited by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) and others. And you think any of that makes sense....seriously? Where are these "denials"? They don't exist. You are making shit up again. What don't you understand about "independent agency"? Apparently everything....the Federal Reserve is an independent federal agency. The link below lists all independent agencies of the US federal government. Note: The US Federal Reserve is clearly listed as an independent agency of the US federal government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_government How would you know? You know nothing of economics or much of American history. Tubman fought slavery. She helped free slaves. She wasn't an economist. She was one of the country's earliest civil rights advocates. Last edited: Apr 23, 2016 4. ### Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement to hide all adverts. 5. ### iceauraValued Senior Member Messages: 30,109 Which belief must make the ongoing and quite public, newspaper reported (on the inside pages), poorly understood but cause celebre issue of both the "left" and the "libertarian" political activists of this country, "audit the Fed", somewhat mysterious to you. I wonder why you think this kind of legislation would even have occurred to anyone, let alone become the focus of such an effort: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ts-to-audit-the-fed-rand-paul-is-a-latecomer/ (forgive the obviously nonsensical "conservative" and "liberal" labels - WaPo drank that koolaid long ago) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Transparency_Act updated matters from recently: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/...-on-Rand-Paul-s-ridiculous-Audit-the-Fed-bill Note that Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders disagree on this particular bill. Also that it was blocked by Senate filibuster rules - not majority vote. But if you are curious, here's some information from this thread you may find reliable: Notice that in addition to some slippery language (you have to read between the lines to notice that some major factors in Federal Reserve activity, especially collective and individual Bank's open market transactions involving foreign financial concerns, are invisible to Congressional oversight) according to that information the following statement is completely and incontrovertibly a matter of fact: " The Federal Reserve banks are not "within" the government in any ordinary sense of the term. They are not even audited by the GAO - the US government does not have access to their account books." And in the world of the Clinton supporter, the effects of slavery are not only not an economic issue now, but never were; and the forces Harriet Tubman was fighting did not include the major capitalists - the Andrew Jacksons of her time, elite plantation owners - at a time when the largest single pool of capital in the US was its slave population. 6. ### Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement to hide all adverts. 7. ### krash661[MK6] transitioning scifi to realityValued Senior Member Messages: 2,973 " Harriet Tubman to replace Andrew Jackson on the face of the$20 bill "--
who fuccking cares. paper currency is nothing more than fiat(look- up fiat currency).

8. ### joepistoleDeacon BluesValued Senior Member

Messages:
22,908
Mysterious.....why would that be? There is nothing mysterious about ignorance and demagoguery. They are all too common.

Is it odd, that extremists on both sides of the ideological divide both share the same conspiracy stories? I don't think so. Just because a demagogue says something, it does not make it true. It's that old demagogue thingy. It's what demagogues do.

Except all of that is pure bullshit, and it has been repeatedly disproved in this thread. Repeating it will not make it any less false.

The only one using "slippery language" is you. The only one who needs to insert material "between the lines" is you and those like you. The many and credible sources I have referenced here have discredited you and your beliefs (i.e. assertions).

Just where is this "according to that information the following statement is completely and incontrovertibly a matter of fact"? It doesn't exist, and that should be a problem for you. But it isn't. Because, as with all demagogues and ideologues, facts and reason are immaterial to you.

The fact is you have been shown very credible evidence from a number of sources which has disproved all of your allegations about the Federal Reserve. The Fed isn't privately owned. It's an independent agency of the US federal government. It's leaders are appointed by the US President and confirmed by the US Senate. It uses government forms required of all government agencies. Its employees are government employees. It is audited by the Government Accountability Office and the Office of the Inspector General and by independent accounting firms. It's financials are published weekly. And it reports to Congress at least twice a year, per the previously referenced materials. You can watch those reports on TV. And I'm sure you can find them on youtube. Its profits are transferred to the US Treasury's general fund.

Below is a youtube video of the Federal Reserve Chairman, Janet Yelllen, being question by one of your partisan idols during one of these meetings with Congress. Usually these sessions last 2 days, one day in the House and one day in the Senate.

You ignore all the many documented and credible evidence which disproves your many assertions in favor of unproven assertions made by partisan demagogues. You mindlessly believe the partisan demagogues and carelessly disregard the truth. That's the mark, that's the brand of an extremist be they on the left or right of the ideological spectrum.

LOL...well that is you going off the deep end again. I suggest you go back and read what I actually wrote - not what you wanted me to write.

This is what I wrote, "How would you know? You know nothing of economics or much of American history." Tubman fought slavery. She helped free slaves. She wasn't an economist. She was one of the country's earliest civil rights advocates.". Tubman wasn't an economist. She was just a simple woman who, among many others, worked to free slaves. She was a hero. She was a scout for the Union Army, and she was terribly abused as a slave and she actively help free many slaves. But she wasn't an economist and it is wrong for you to represent her as one. For Tubman, and for abolitionists in general, slavery wasn't an economic issue. It was a moral issue, and rightly so.

Last edited: Apr 24, 2016

Messages:
2,973

10. ### iceauraValued Senior Member

Messages:
30,109
So in your opinion Ron Paul, Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, and the rest of those guys, for sixty years and running,

including the dozens who have voted for and against these various bills

have been ignorant of the manner in which the Federal Reserve banks were being audited?
The mystery you face is not the conspiracy stories - confusing as it must be for you to imagine people like rightwing Ron Paul (who is not a demagogue) and leftwing Bernie Sanders (who isn't either) sharing the same "conspiracy stories".

The mystery you face is how legislation calling for the Federal Reserve banks to be audited as all government agencies are audited could possibly be controversial - since according to you (despite the obvious evidence you yourself posted) that is already happening.

A description of what the GAO does: http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/encyclopedia/For-Gol/General-Accounting-Office-GAO.html Why do you suppose there would be controversy and voting over special legislation to have the GAO audit the Federal Reserve banks?

Meanwhile, the following remains demonstrated, and I have now quoted you among the rest of my links and sources as my authority: "" The Federal Reserve banks are not "within" the government in any ordinary sense of the term. They are not even audited by the GAO - the US government does not have access to their account books."

re Tubman:
? That imagination of yours takes some strange turns.

Neither was Andrew Jackson, of course. Famously. So they are equal in that respect.

11. ### joepistoleDeacon BluesValued Senior Member

Messages:
22,908
I don't know what Ron Paul, Bernie Sanders, or Kucinich know. But they should know about the Federal Reserve. I never accused them of ignorance, I accused people like you of ignorance. What I have accused the politicians who bring about this kind of legislation of is demagoguery. It's like congressmen who want to default on the national debt without defaulting by failing to raise the debt ceiling. As I said before, I accuse people who do that of demagoguery. And I accuse the people who repeat and promulgate that crap of demagoguery or ignorance or both.

As I told you before, despite your machinations, it isn't a mystery to me. It's called demagoguery. It's done often in Washington by both sides of the isle. As you noted, the evidence is "obvious evidence you yourself posted". There is no mystery, other than why people continue to fall victim to this crap.

Why have congressmen over many decades threaten to cause a debt default by not raising the debt ceiling? As has been repeatedly explained to you, it's demagoguery. I've got news for you, politicians lie. They grandstand, they demagogue issues. They produce silly legislation for the headlines. They even read children stories on the floor of the US Senate. They do it to manipulate the ignorant.

The fact is you have been repeatedly shown a number of credible sources which demonstrate that Federal Reserve is audited frequently and routinely. You have been shown the law which requires the Federal Reserve to report to Congress twice a years. You have been shown video of the chairman of the Federal Reserve actually reporting to Congress during one of those reports and being questioned by one of your favorite Senators.

Meanwhile you continue to lie, and continue to deny inconvenient facts, and you have absolutely NO credible evidence to support your assertions as is customary with you. Repeated references to your unfounded assertion isn't evidence of anything but your dishonesty.

What you have done is make an unfounded assertion and you have repeatedly cited it as evidence. It's evidence you made an incorrect assertion and you have repeated it and misrepresented it as evidence. You may as well assert there are little green men running around naked on Mars, you would have similar evidence.

Reminding you of the truth is a strange turn? Unfortunately, it is the norm.

Well, you didn't represent Andrew Jackson as an economist. Jackson wasn't an economist, and as I previously noted, his notions about banking led to a severe and prolonged depression. That's one of the parts people who hate the Fed like to leave out when they cite Jackson.

Last edited: Apr 25, 2016
12. ### iceauraValued Senior Member

Messages:
30,109
Which required no legislation at all, because that law already exists.

The law requiring and empowering the GAO to audit the twelve Federal Reserve banks does not exist. The latest attempt was filibustered in the Senate, by Democrats who don't like some of the wording.
That explains only the speeches by the proponents. It does not explain the opposition to these bills. If this auditing is already required and already being done, as you claim, and nobody minds, why are people opposed to requiring that it be done?
This is the claim I made:
Or Harriet Tubman. That was you, hallucinating.

What I posted was an approval of Harriet Tubman, rather than Rosa Parks or someone similar, as a replacement for Andrew Jackson, because she and Jackson are in many ways mirror images, opposite sides of the same coin so to speak, choose your metaphor, of the central economic issue of the US at the critical time in American History during which Jackson was celebrated in the first place. Like this: "And I vote for Tubman over Parks, on the money - she was there at the beginning, critically involved in the most significant economic issue facing the United States in its history."

Last edited: Apr 25, 2016
13. ### joepistoleDeacon BluesValued Senior Member

Messages:
22,908
Wrong again, the debt ceiling must be periodically increased. So it does require new legislation by congress. I guess you don't remember the government shut down and threats of default?

Except it does it exist, under Title 31 of the US Code Subchapter II. It requires the GAO to investigate the receipt and disbursements of all public funds...oops. And let's take a moment to remember your assertions. You asserted the Federal Reserve was a private enterprise (i.e. consortium). It isn't, as has been repeatedly proven in this threat. Then you said it wasn't audited, and you have been provided ample credible evidence that it is audited routinely and frequently by the GAO and Office of the Inspector General and an independent auditor. Then you said there wasn't a law which required the Fed to be audited, and that too has been disproved.

It's a silly piece of legislation, that's probably why it was rejected. Moreover and more importantly, it was an attempt to politize the Federal Reserve, and that would be very dangerous. There was more than just a requriement for the Fed to be audited. I suggest you actually read the bill. This is what Senator Brown said of the bill, "Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), the ranking member of the Banking Committee, added ahead of the vote that the legislation “really solves nothing but to politicize the Fed.http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/265589-senate-rejects-pauls-audit-the-fed-push

We don't need a politicized Fed. That would certainly kill the economy. An apolitical Fed is the only thing that has been keeping this economy alive.

This is the claim you have repeatedly made, "Meanwhile, the following remains demonstrated, and I have now quoted you among the rest of my links and sources as my authority: "" The Federal Reserve banks are not "within" the government in any ordinary sense of the term. They are not even audited by the GAO - the US government does not have access to their account books."

And just what is it about my posts makes you think any of what you have written above to be true? As has been repeatedly proved, the Federal Reserve is "within" the US government in the "ordinary" sense of the word. As has been repeated several times now, it is an independent agency. Being an independent agency doesn't make the Fed unusual as there are many independent governmental agencies. And contrary to your assertion, it is audited by the GAO and others. The Fed is part of the government, so the government certainly has access to the Fed's books since they are one and the same. As also pointed out to you, the Fed reports directly to Congress. Congress is free to make any inquiry it wishes of the Fed. It can also change the laws which upon which the Fed operates.

And you also wrote, "the Federal Reserve banking system is a consortium of private banks earning a handsome profit from their investments in a heavily government-regulated and overseen monopoly of a peculiar kind." That too isn't true and has been repeatedly debunked.

No, what you did was clearly credited Tubman with some sort of mystical economic powers. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you now, she was one of the nation's first civil rights advocates. She was an abused slave. She witnessed the horrors of slavery first hand. She fought slavery. She was a scout and spy for the Union. She was a hero. But she wasn't an economist.

Yeah, you have said several times now you "vote" for Tubman. I don't think anyone doubts you want to put Tubman's image on the 20 dollar bill. As I previously wrote, slavery was a moral issue for Tubman and all abolitionists. For them, it wasn't about economics. The South viewed slavery as a "states' rights" issue, not as an economic issue, thought to be sure slave holders would be adversely affected if slaves were freed. Slavery was a moral issue, not a economic issue. The South did just fine after the slaves were freed.

Last edited: Apr 25, 2016
14. ### iceauraValued Senior Member

Messages:
30,109
Aside from the various government deposits and check-clearings, what does "receipt and disbursement of public funds" have to do with the Federal Reserve banks? They are not publicly owned or managed, and their working capital is invested money from private banks.

The GAO does not audit the twelve Federal Reserve banks. It never has. It is not legally even allowed to, let alone required.
You don't know what "consortium" means (or "demagogue"), and I have now quoted myself four times in a wasted effort to get you to read what I posted. Here it is again: " The Federal Reserve banks are not "within" the government in any ordinary sense of the term. They are not even audited by the GAO - the US government does not have access to their account books."

? Uh - circling that and moving along:
Slavery was the largest single source of wealth, slaves the largest single store of capital, in the United States. When they were freed, the Slave States went from being among the wealthiest in the US to being the poorest, and have never recovered. Not even the flight of millions of its poorest people into the city slums of the North was enough to raise the comparative per capita wealth of the South to the newly lowered Northern levels, after slavery ended.

The Confederacy has not been doing fine. And Harriet Tubman replacing Andrew Jackson is a good symbol of that.

Last edited: Apr 25, 2016
15. ### joepistoleDeacon BluesValued Senior Member

Messages:
22,908
Just what do thing the Federal Reserve banks do if not take deposits and make disbursements? That's kind of the point of what the Fed does, and that too has been repeatedly pointed out to you.

Your assertions have been repeatedly disproved using credible information from a number sources. What you have done is repeatedly lie which is you custom. You said the Federal Reserve is a private consortium and not publicly owned. You have offered no evidence to back that assertion and ignored all evidence to the contrary. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, the Federal Reserve was created by an act of Congress. It's leaders are appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the US Senate. It's profits are transferred to the US Treasury's general fund.

You asserted the Federal Reserve wasn't audited and you offered as evidence a bill which was misrepresented as a bill to require the Fed to undergo federal audits. The implication being the Fed wasn't audited when in fact it undergoes extensive audits from a number of sources including the GAO. The results of these audits are publicly posted. Below is a link to one of those audits.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/combinedfinstmt2015.pdf

Had you read the bill you claimed as evidence the Fed wasn't being audited, you would know the bill cited clearly states the Fed is and has been audited. But you didn't read the bill. You just mindlessly accepted what the demagogues told you. And you ignored all of the credible evidence from a variety of sources which proved the Fed does undergo regular and frequent audits.

Unfortunately for you and those like you, assertions are not evidence of anything. They are just assertions. As I previously pointed out to you, you may as well assert there are little naked green men running around on Mars, you would have as much evidence for that assertion as you do for your assertions about the Federal Reserve.

What you have repeatedly done, is to be intellectually dishonest. It's what you do in this and many other threads.

Oh, and where is the evidence for that assertion? You have none. Just because you assert something it does not make it true. It's pretty apparent, you don't even know what an audit is.

Oh, well then demonstrate where I have misused the terms. What you have done 4 times and more is to misrepresent your posts. What you have consistently done in this and many other threads is to be intellectually dishonest. You have seen multiple references that the Fed is audited by a numbers of agencies. You have been presented with the actual result of a Fed audit. Yet you say, the Federal Reserve isn't audited.

And has been proven to you multiple times now, the Federal Reserve is an independent agency of the Federal Government. Being part of the government, the government certainly has access to its books. Moreover, the Federal Reserve reports to congress, as required by law, at least twice a year. You were presented with video clip of a portion of one of those reports. The Federal Reserve chairman appears before Congress at least twice a year and reports on Federal Reserve operations. During those sessions, congressmen question the chairman. They can ask the chairman whatever they want, and those sessions are open to the public. And if you ever listen to one of those sessions, there is lot of communication going on between the Fed and Congress both before and after those sessions. The fact is, as with most thinks, you don't have a clue; hence your need for all this deception.

Oh, and where is the evidence to back that up? You don't have any. You are making shit up again as is your custom.

"In 1860, the South was still predominantly agricultural, highly dependent upon the sale of staples to a world market. By 1815, cotton was the most valuable export in the United States; by 1840, it was worth more than all other exports combined. But while the southern states produced two-thirds of the world's supply of cotton, the South had little manufacturing capability, about 29 percent of the railroad tracks, and only 13 percent of the nation's banks. The South did experiment with using slave labor in manufacturing, but for the most part it was well satisfied with its agricultural economy.

The North, by contrast, was well on its way toward a commercial and manufacturing economy, which would have a direct impact on its war making ability. By 1860, 90 percent of the nation's manufacturing output came from northern states. The North produced 17 times more cotton and woolen textiles than the South, 30 times more leather goods, 20 times more pig iron, and 32 times more firearms. The North produced 3,200 firearms to every 100 produced in the South. Only about 40 percent of the Northern population was still engaged in agriculture by 1860, as compared to 84 percent of the South." https://www.nps.gov/resources/story.htm?id=251

Where is your evidence for that crap? They didn't even measure per capita wealth back then...oops.

The South was devastated by the war but not because the slaves were freed. It was devastated because its commercial infrastructure had been destroyed by warfare. It's railroads had been destroyed. It's crops had been destroyed. What limited manufacturing existed in the South had been destroyed. As previously pointed out, if you were a Southern slave owner, you lost your slaves and a portion of your wealth. But most of those slaves were later employed by their former owners as sharecroppers. Former slaves didn't disappear from the labor force.

I suggest you read up on the Civil War history. Pay particular attention to Sherman's March and Reconstruction.

Well this again is another case of you misrepresenting facts and making shit up. Who said the Confederacy has been doing fine? You are making shit up again. No one said or even intimidated that. The Confederacy is dead. It died with the end of the Civil War.

Two, as previously pointed out, Jackson isn't being removed from the 20 dollar bill. His imaged is just being move to the other side of the bill. And yeah, I think everyone knows you like Tubman.

16. ### iceauraValued Senior Member

Messages:
30,109
From the US Government. Don't forget.
Among other things, they engage in large scale open market financial transactions of various kinds, including in international markets with foreign governments and their State banks, on their own account. https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/FOMC_OMOReserveBanks.pdf
And so there's no point in opposing a piece of legislation that gives the Federal Government's auditing and financial control agency, the GAO, access to the complete books of the Federal Reserve banks - all twelve of them, all their operations.

Because that's already happening, we are told. So it's not at all controversial, right?

The slaves of the Confederacy were the largest single store of capital in the entire US, much less the Confederacy. Their owners lost that investment, in the Civil War, without compensation. All the money they had invested in slaves disappeared as completely as if it had been invested in a building and the building burned without insurance.

Harriet Tubman and Andrew Jackson were on opposite sides of that conflict between capitalist and the labor force, at the beginning - when the economic structure of the US was just being set up. So replacing Jackson's face with hers is fitting.

17. ### joepistoleDeacon BluesValued Senior Member

Messages:
22,908
And how is that the least bit relevant? It doesn't change the fact the Fed is an independent agency of the US government. It doesn't change the fact that the GAO is required by law to audit the Fed, per previously referenced materials.

As Senator Brown (Democrat) said, there is no sense in passing a law that does nothing but politicize the Federal Reserve. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, the GAO already has access to the Federal Reserve's books - all 12 of them. You seem to be under the impression you can audit the whole without auditing the parts. That's just as astoundingly stupid as it sounds.

You have been repeatedly asked for some evidence to back up your assertion, and you have repeatedly failed to do so. Just repeating your assertion isn't evidence of its veracity or correctness. Slaves are not money, they were not and are not capital. They were and are slaves and treated like any other investment. They don't "store capital". Further, they lose value over time because they age and die. The value of a slave rests in his or her labor. As previously pointed out to you, that value didn't end when slavery was abolished. Unfortunately for you, slave owners didn't buy slaves and stick them in a safe. Slaves are not capital, nor are they a store of capital. They depreciate over time.

The money slave holders used to purchase their slaves vanished the day they bought their slaves. The end of slavery ended the profitability of slavery. And those who were dependent upon slavery for their fortunes were hurt. It didn't end the value of the labor slaves provided. The slaves still produced goods and services as they did before.

Well, while Jackson was sympathetic to slave owners, he wasn't immune to abolitionists pleas. Tubman was a young slave when Jackson died, and she was a slave for years thereafter, and the Civil War wouldn't occur for another 16 years after Jackson's death. Jackson didn't accept the Texan request to enter the Union because Texas demanded to be accepted into the Union as a slave state.

Two, where do you get this crap about "when the economic structure of the US was just being set up"? You think the US economy began with Harriet Tubman? I've got news for you Iceaura, the US had an economy centuries before Harriett Tubman was born and it has evolved over time. So your assertion is nonsensical. The American economy didn't begin with Harriett Tubman not did it end with her.
,

Last edited: Apr 25, 2016
18. ### iceauraValued Senior Member

Messages:
30,109
The open market trading that the Federal Reserve banks do on their own account is not audited by the GAO. None of your sources say it is.

So you don't know what "capital" is. Ok.
? Jackson was one of the larger, elite, Southern plantation owners - he owned hundreds of slaves, at one time or another, and many acres of land.

19. ### joepistoleDeacon BluesValued Senior Member

Messages:
22,908
I suggest you read the audit I provided.

LOL....That's funny. You said slaves were a "store of capital". They weren't. As previously discussed, they were treated as capital asset like any other piece of machinery. They didn't retain value, so they were not a "store" of capital, and it took resources to support them.

Capital:

"wealth in the form of money"

And none of that supports you contentions that slaves were the largest "store of capital". You have been repeatedly asked to provide some evidence to support your assertion. What you have repeatedly done and continue to do is obfuscate.

Actually,his farm was large for the time, but it wasn't that large (i.e. about a thousand acres), and he didn't own "hundreds of slaves". At most, he owned about 150 slaves.

And none of that changes the facts here. He wasn't immune to the abolitionist cause. That doesn't make him a saint. It's just a fact.

20. ### iceauraValued Senior Member

Messages:
30,109
You could just do a quick net search on this stuff. Even a second rate dictionary, let alone a basic economics textbook, will have a reasonable definition of "capital" in it. here, say: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/capital
Or here:
Harriet Tubman stole herself from the likes of Andrew Jackson, and arranged to steal more - that is a key point in describing the economic development of the US. With the loss of their primary capital, the large slave plantations went from being among the very wealthiest of US capitalist businesses to being centers of poverty, and their regions went from being the wealthiest in the US to being the poorest - which they have remained.

21. ### Billy TUse Sugar Cane Alcohol car FuelValued Senior Member

Messages:
23,198
Yes. It is still true, when you want to change an immoral system, don't use moral arguments - hit that system economically:

"When I became the tactical leader of The Civic Interest Group, I dropped the prior arguments about the injustice, lack of morality, etc. in refusing to serve blacks in restaurants, etc. I focused on economics. By precise timing of our strikes we defeated the RA's (Restaurant Association's) "telephone alert system" that got doors of most restaurants, locked when we got inside the first one or two. (They had a waitress stationed at the door to open it for whites.)

With simultaneous strikes, we could enter more than 20 and on a good Sunday about 30 restaurants, and cost them at least \$25,000 in lost business each Sunday. After a couple of months of this, the RA flipped 180 degrees and joined The Civic Interest Group's request to the MD legislature that discrimination based on skin color be made illegal, and it was in record time. I could then return to my Ph. D. research."

Quote from post 141 of the "Bernie Sanders alternative to Clinton" thread.

22. ### joepistoleDeacon BluesValued Senior Member

Messages:
22,908
LOL...well now try googling the words you used (i.e. "store of capital"). Then try googling the words "capital asset".

The facts remain, the Federal Reserve of today isn't the central bank of Jackson's time. It isn't privately owned or controlled as it was in Jackson's time. And contrary to your assertion to the contrary, it is audited frequently and routinely by a number of agencies including an outside auditor.

I have told you several times now slaves are not nor where they every money (i.e. capital). As you were previously told, they were capital assets like a plow or barn. And as with all capital assets, they depreciate over time, so they are a poor "store of value" (i.e. capital). There is a difference between capital and capital assets - a big difference. Two, that wasn't the issue, the issue was your claims about Tubman's economic contribution to the US. Tubman didn't make economic contributions to the US. What she did, as has been repeatedly noted in this thread, was free slaves and serve as a Union scout and spy.

As has been repeatedly brought to your attention, the value of a slave rests in the value of his or her labor. That labor and the value of that labor didn't go away with the abolition of slavery. "Stealing" slaves didn't eliminate the labor of slaves or the value of their labors. It just changed who benefited from the labors of former slaves. After slavery, the value of what was slave labor was shared with former slaves. Transferring money from one owner to another doesn't diminish an economy. It actually enhances it. It's the argument liberals are now making. So it's more than interesting to see you, a rabid liberal, argue the exact opposite when it pertains to Tubman.

Additionally, as is your custom, you continue to ignore inconvenient facts. We have already had the discussion about Southern wealth and your assertions about Southern wealth in this thread. It's, as with virtually all of your assertions, factually incorrect. While there were wealthy Southern plantation owners, it doesn't mean everyone in the South or even most people in the South were wealthy. The vast majority of folks living in the South were not wealthy. You just make shit up Iceaura.

"As a nation, the United States was still primarily agricultural in the years before, during and immediately after the Civil War. About three-quarters of the population lived in rural areas, including farms and small towns. Nevertheless, the Industrial Revolution that had hit England decades before gradually established itself in the "former colonies."

While factories were built all over the North and South, the vast majority of industrial manufacturing was taking place in the North. The South had almost 25% of the country's free population, but only 10% of the country's capital in 1860. The North had five times the number of factories as the South, and over ten times the number of factory workers. In addition, 90% of the nation's skilled workers were in the North." http://www.historycentral.com/CivilWar/AMERICA/Economics.html

And I guess you haven't traveled in much, because if you had you would know the South isn't the economic wasteland you think it to be. Atlanta is an economic powerhouse. The poorest states are now in the North. Unfortunately for you Iceaura, facts to matter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP

23. ### iceauraValued Senior Member

Messages:
30,109
You didn't do that yourself, or you would know better.

Or maybe, since you posted this
, you wouldn't know better. Hard to say.

At any rate, I did: Google searching "store of capital" gets little of relevance, except this tangent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Store_of_value - which specifically mentions "livestock" as a commonly employed store of value (slaves were of course much more valuable, and notably slower to depreciate etc, than the other livestock on the Plantations of the American south. The productive lifespan of a human being is twice that of even the best horse, and five times that of a dairy cow or breeding bull).

Recall that cattle were at the source of the word "capital" itself - one of the earliest stores of capital.

Google searching "capital asset" turns up this: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capitalasset.asp I'm not sure what you think such restrictions as the category "capital asset" imply, but the only reason a slave would not be one is that slaves could be rented out or sold for quick cash at need. Is that what you meant - that slaves were not a "store of capital" because they could be easily sold or rented out for money?

Like this? : http://www.civilwarcauses.org/stat.htm
Note that this author is conservative in their comparative valuation of slaves - modern economists like Thomas Piketty estimate it as even greater. But even conservatively their Confederacy was almost 50% wealthier, per capita, than the Union, before the Civil War - entirely due to the capital value of slaves.

And never since.

So this source is counting slaves as neither "skilled workers" (which many were) nor "capital". Any idea what category they were put in?

Here's an article based on what standard modern economists who do have a category for slaves (capital) have routinely concluded: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/30/king-cottons-long-shadow/?_r=0
With the legacy we have all around us now:
You have an odd definition of "poorest".

Try this map - it's linked from the same page as yours:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per_capita_in_U.S._dollars_(2012).svg
Notice that doesn't even record per capita wealth - in which the contrast between the Confederacy and the rest of the country, even 150 years after the Civil War, is even greater.

Or try this measure of "poor" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_Gini_coefficient in which even the recent explosive growth of income inequality in a couple of northern States (Michigan, Alaska, New York, etc),

on top of the 20th Century's migration of six million of the Confederacy's poorest people into that north, still not integrated into the northern civilization,

has not made up for the legacy of slavery.

Because Tubman's side won the Civil War. The capital she and her allies stole, the major wealth of the South and the single largest store of capital in the US, was never returned to the Andrew Jacksons of the Confederacy. And they never figured out what they were doing wrong.

Last edited: Apr 26, 2016