Politics and Banking
For instance, despite (or because of?) scant familiarity with the recent secondary historical literature, Hoffmann gets the Jacksonians with their commitment to hard money exactly right, putting her book alongside Major L. Wilson's classic THE PRESIDENCY OF MARTIN VAN BUREN (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1984) as among the few that refrains from distorting the Jacksonians by trying to shoe-horn them into modern ideological categories. She is similarly sensitive to the political differences between the structures of the First and Second Banks of the United States. Having had occasion to read the charters myself, I also had noted that the First Bank was more private and less political, having no government-appointed directors, whereas the president appointed five of the twenty-five directors of the Second Bank. Although some older secondary accounts were aware of this difference, more recent accounts seem generally to overlook it. Indeed, one Federal Reserve historical pamphlet falls into the careless error of treating the two charters as absolutely identical except for the size of the institutions.
Hoffmann also introduces her book with a nice survey of what she considers to be the five "public philosophies," all variants of liberalism, that have battled over banking regulation in American history: classic liberalism, neoliberalism, populism, progressivism, and utilitarianism. She suggests a provocative distinction between the classic liberalism of Jefferson and Adam Smith versus the neoliberalism of modern defenders of the free market. Classic liberals viewed the corporation as an unnatural creature of the State that violated the private/public boundary, but neoliberals have embraced the corporation as "arising naturally in the private sphere." Indeed, she contends that a primary cause of divergence among the five versions of American liberalism is their reaction to the rise of the corporation. She carries the story forward through modern financial deregulation, and libertarians will not find all her arguments congenial. But I cannot recommend this book too highly.
comments powered by Disqus
Sudha Shenoy - 3/23/2007
Whatever Americans may have thought, common lawyers certainly know that limited liability was the result of legislation, in the later 19th century. And Hayek was well aware that the 'corporation' was the creation of statute. See his 'The corporation in a democratic society', Studies in PPE.
- Moving Photographs of Japanese American Internees, Then and Now
- A One-of-a-Kind Trove Reveals What 19th-Century American Boyhood Was Really Like
- St. Louis University moves controversial statue after protests
- UNC Renames Building That Honored Ku Klux Klan Leader
- A Wartime Bomb, Unearthed in Germany, Recalls Darker Days
- NYT hosts debate including Eric Foner: How Americans should remember Reconstruction
- William Leuchtenburg says historians and the media have been too hard on Obama
- Hugh Ambrose, historian who helped develop WWII Museum, dead at 48
- Historian discounts claim that Churchill and other British PM's were gay
- Nick Bunker Wins $50,000 2015 George Washington Book Prize