Thomas DiLorenzo : Monetary History of 19th century USA

Just discovered Thomas DiLorenzo. He’s an economics prof who by private interest became interested in Abe Lincoln, wrote several books about him, clashing with establishment historians, and everything he says is pertinent to the current attempts of creating supernational blocks like the EU.

And of course, great insights about the historical figures right from the start of the USA to today.


5 thoughts on “Thomas DiLorenzo : Monetary History of 19th century USA”

  1. So, the “good guys” are human and make mistakes, too?! Who knew?!

    But seriously, this is excellent material, showing (if correct, and it seems to be) that America has always had undercurrents of Leftism, even in the most Conservative sectors. It explains “what happened” to the Conservatives.

    So often we here how wonderful one side is and how awful the other, but while that is in general true, they both share some of the same negatives and positives. Leftists may be on average worse, and Conservatives better, but they are both deteriorating over time, which explains why Leftists are so awful, and the Right Wing is becoming more like them.

    And while that’s just American history, and a highly specialized strand within it, one can still see similarities in other Western nations, most of which never had as strong a Conservative element. If we are all to avoid becoming Leftists basket cases, we’ll need leaders who may not currently exists, IMO.

    Sorry. I wanted to express that all more clearly, but maybe you’ll see what I mean, and perhaps even be able to suggest how to tighten it up a bit.


  2. I see where you’re going. But consider this: “Left” and “Right” are kind of perverted bastard children of Marxian class analysis – perverted because the Leftists claim Nazis are right wing; if we ignore that distortion, we could say, Left = Proletariat, Right = Bourgeouisie (IOW, upper middle class) and aristocracy (or, today’s “1%”).

    So. But there is a different class analysis that makes much more sense, libertarian class analysis by the likes of Murray Rothbard, that distinguish the taypayers from the tax takers. These classes explain all the modern EU dynamics; and the unlikely alliances we see today, when e.g. the government statists fight for the same goals as the welfare-fed extreme leftists.

    Lincoln was a Nationalist like Hamilton – nationalists are statists – Jefferson stands for Individualism and enshrined constitutional rights of the individual in the constitution.

    So, today’s establishment Republicans are 100% in sync with the crooked Democrat bosses: They are of the same class.


    1. And this reminds me of the murdered Jo Cox one week before the BREXIT vote. Now whether or not this was a lunatic or a false flag – as it happened right before a critical EU-related vote like the Anna Lindh murder 2003 3 days before Sweden’s vote on the EURO, giving regime and oligarch media a full news cycle for an emotion driven propaganda barrage – you use emotion once you have depleted your arguments which was surely the case at that point – doesn’t matter why she was murdered: She was a UK Labour war monger who called on her blog for war against Syria’s Assad.

      Now how come that the US Republican NeoCons talk EXACTLY like the UK Labour Blairites like Jo Cox?

      Simple: The left-right schism is a phantom. They are members of the same class: the tax takers.

      That’s also what makes Trump different. He’s from the tax PAYER class, from the private sector. He’s from OUR class. Like the German AfD or the British UKIP is.

      Journalists mostly seem to identify with the tax TAKER class so they’re trying to suck up to their sugar daddy, the tax taker – foundation-oligarch class.


      1. Thanks. That does help.

        Not sure that’s the whole story either, but I think it adds information I wasn’t aware of (more pieces of the puzzle).

        “The left-right schism is a phantom.”

        I’m not sure that’s always been entirely true, but it’s becoming more so today, what I sometimes refer to as “political theater” for us common folk, allowing them to pretend to be separate entities, when if you were to fit them to a Venn Diagram, you would be hard pressed to find any substantial difference.

        I’ll have to look for, and watch, more by DiLorenzo to see what else he has to say. If it’s as good as this one, it’ll be well worth it.

        Nice find!


  3. My main problem with question-and-answer periods is that the speaker hears the question or comment but nobody else does–especially the viewers. DiLorenzo repeats two questions, but the others are a mystery.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s