Conservatives and Destructives.

Sounds like perfect description of MAGA and the Uniparty.

Also a game we should encourage our children to play from infancy, with the Destructives sporting garish dress, endlessly plotting perfidy, and the Conservatives fighting like righteous lions that love their cubs.

Yes, I believe that’s because after Clay died one of Carnegie’s men became the principle advocate for the American system and Lincoln’s economic advisor–Henry Carey, whose library was subsequently donated to the U of Penn on his death. Like Lincoln, Carey was in government principally to sow the ground for railroad cartels, the advent of which began the cartelization of the American economy we live in to this day. He was a huge advocate of the centralization of government power, of government intervention in the economy, and utopianism. Although somewhat strangely, unlike Clay, Carey was an advocate of free banking. Go figure. Marx was a reader of his work and considered him to be the only serious American economist.

With regards to money, you are talking about function, not nature or essence. There is a difference in nature between bank scrip, gold and/or silver standard, gold and/or silver specie, and FRNs. All four of those systems are different in nature while purporting to serve the same function (to a better or lesser degree). And we are not presently on any of those four systems. Money is now ledger money and FRNs are essentially a monetary substitute by this point in time. Present ledger money is debt, so it must be loaned into existence. As a thought experiment, in the world we live in, if all debts were paid, the money supply would be zero. That is not the world the American System was used in before, thus no analogy to those systems holds logically. Same with the size of the government, its share of GDP and the ability to finance that gov’t with trade, which as a whole is smaller than the government’s portion of GDP. Thus mathematically impossible, if that is the goal.

Secondly, American system advocates back in the day were advocates for central banking. A centralized banking system was thought essential to success. No American System economist today would ask for the dissolution of the Federal Reserve. Not to mention there have been British activists acting on our shores on a multiplicity of issues (some of them contradictory, and purposefully so) pretty much since the first congress. Bringing them up only serves to obfuscate. Regardless, South Carolina specifically threatened civil war specifically over the tariff system.

You have no way of no knowing current tariffs will not work when the historic evidence of the McKinnley era and during Trump term 1 prove otherwise.

I explicitly state that in my post. Dear lord. And it is quite obvious NO ONE can know whether it will succeed or fail. It is simply not possible, we are dealing with complex systems. Much like the Fed can’t steer the economy like a car. But hey, maybe you do have the powers, maybe you are an omniscient god. I have no idea. But I’m too humble to go there myself, hence the disclaimer you completely missed.

And it is not the job nor responsibility of America to ‘fix’ the Globalists’ global financial system. Never was and never will be.

So? What does this have to do with anything? If it came down to it, since the system is global, you’d want a say though, right? Other than that, this is a complete straw man, since nowhere in my post do I intimate such a thing. And one would think that since you are posting on this topic, you’d rather cure the root cause than attend to the symptom (America experiencing Dutch Disease). I’m okay with Trump trying the bandaid, because I don’t see the root causes changing without crisis, and even then there will be a battle over how to fix said crisis. So let’s do what we can for now.

Andrew Jackson ended the foreign owned Second Bank that led to an explosion of wealth generation in the US until the Civil War.

That’s correct, along with the reduction of tariffs that followed South Carolina taking its stand. Amongst many other things. Econ can rarely be simplified down to the reductionist level of your sentence.

Revisionist histories are easily dispelled and debunked when one knows enough history to expose the facts and contexts omitted from arguments intended to drive an agenda.

Precisely the reason for my original post. But I try to be gracious and respectful of others rather than indulging in snide putdowns. Your mileage seems to vary.