Para Mí Son Enigmas

Un debate es una lucha que fortalece a todos los que participan.

EL PÁNICO DE 1907 (PARTE VII)

Si habéis seguido esta serie, véis que nos hemos quedado en una situación en que la mitad de reservas de oro de los Estados Unidos provienen de John Pierpont Morgan, que había fundado en 1895 una Banca de inversión llamada JP Morgan & Co y la otra mitad provienen de la familia Rothschild, oro que había sido comprado por el Tesoro y por tanto estaba en deuda con estos ricos personajes (solamente existía otra familia de banqueros que se les pudiera equiparar en influencia en el mundo, los Baring Brothers). La historia se va volviendo cada vez más compleja y van apareciendo más nombres, pero intentaré explicarlo lo más claro posible yendo a las causas iniciales. Solo al final podremos conectar todos esos elementos.

ANACONDA COPPER COMPANY.

La Anaconda Copper fue una potente industria dedicada a la minería del cobre, que empezó con la compra de unas minas en Montana en 1881, y fue fundada por Marcus Daly. Con el tiempo se va expandiendo incluso a países como Perú y Chile, precisamente en Chile está la mayor mina de cobre del mundo y de ahí la empresa llego a obtener dos terceras partes de sus beneficios. En la década de 1890, los Rothschild estaban intentando hacerse con el mercado del cobre en el mundo, y en 1895 consiguen comprar una cuarta parte de esta empresa.

[IMG]https://i0.wp.com/i61.tinypic.com/2mwfm2o.jpg[/IMG]

En 1899 además, Marcus Daly formó un equipo con dos importantes directivos de la Standard Oil (uno de ellos era William Rockefeller, hermano del más famoso John D. Rockefeller) y se convirtió en la Amalgamated Copper Company.

STANDARD OIL.

Standard Oil fue una empresa petrolífera que comenzó en 1870 en el estado de Ohio, fundada por John D. Rockefeller. Sin embargo este hombre hizo las cosas de tal manera que llegó a tener el monopolio total y absoluto del petróleo no solo de Estados Unidos, sino de gran parte del mundo, e incluyendo todos los procesos de la industria: extracción, transporte, refinación, distribución, etc.

[IMG]https://i1.wp.com/i62.tinypic.com/243gpro.jpg[/IMG]

NATIONAL CITY BANK.

El Citibank había sido fundado en 1812, pero en 1865 se convierte en el Banco Nacional de Nueva York (debido a la ley de 1863 de bancos nacionales) y llega a convertirse en uno de los principales bancos de inversión del país. Su edificio lo podéis encontrar en el número 55 de Wall Street.

[IMG]https://i1.wp.com/i57.tinypic.com/29wn3vr.jpg[/IMG]

KUHN LOEB & COMPANY.

Es otro de los enormes bancos de inversión que hubo a principios del siglo XX, fundado en 1867 por Abraham Kuhn y Salomon Loeb, sin embargo, pronto pasaría a estar dirigida por otra persona, Jacob Schiff, al que veis en la foto abajo.

[IMG]https://i0.wp.com/i58.tinypic.com/5lqv11.jpg[/IMG]

Jacob Schiff tuvo un papel importante, por ejemplo, financió la guerra de Japón en contra de la Rusia zarista. También aparentemente, financió la revolución bolchevique más adelante. Fue el más importante defensor del judaísmo y el sionismo en Estados Unidos en esa época. Su influencia era enorme, ya que no solamente controlaba Kuhn, Loeb & Co sino también llegó a dirigir el National City Bank, Wells Fargo (que a día de hoy sigue siendo uno de los mayores bancos del mundo) o la Equitable Life Assurance, una poderosa empresa de seguros.

Curiosamente, Schiff dijo poco antes del pánico financiero de 1907 lo siguiente:

“Unless we have a central bank with adequate control of credit resources, this country is going to undergo the most severe and far reaching money panic in its history”

KNICKERBOCKER TRUST COMPANY.

Se trata de un Banco de inversión (las ‘trust companies’ son entidades bancarias que actúan como intermediarias entre los compradores y vendedores o si se prefiere, entre accionistas y empresarios, actuando en la Bolsa generalmente) que llegó a ser uno de los más grandes a principios del siglo XX. Fue fundada en 1884 por Frederick G. Eldridge, amigo de J.P. Morgan.

[IMG]https://i2.wp.com/i61.tinypic.com/ot42zm.jpg[/IMG]

UNITED COPPER COMPANY.

La United Copper fue una gran empresa dedicada al cobre que fundó Fritz Augustus Heinze en 1902 para competir con la Anaconda Copper. En ella tenía también influencia Otto Heinze, hermano del anterior. La United Copper se formó mediante la fusión de las acciones de varias empresas dedicadas al cobre. Una de ellas era la Belmont Mining Company.

EL PÁNICO DE 1907, O PÁNICO DE LOS BANQUEROS.

Bueno, ahora se comprenderá por qué he tenido que desgranar esta información arriba, y es que toda ella sirve para entender por qué se produjo un pánico financiero en 1907. Son variados los motivos por los que se entiende que se produjo esta situación, pero si nos centramos podemos ver en él varias etapas que lo explican perfectamente.

En primer lugar se habla de la mala situación económica en general antes del pánico debido a varios factores que disminuyeron la cantidad de dinero en circulación, causando bajadas considerables en el precio de las acciones. Uno de ellos fue el terremoto de San Francisco de 1906, que hizo que esa ciudad recibiese mucho dinero para su reconstrucción. Otro fue la subida de tipos de interés por parte del Banco de Inglaterra, obviamente esto disminuye los préstamos hechos a los Estados Unidos. También se habla de la Hepburn Act de 1906, por la cual, no solamente todo el mundo tenía que pagar su billete excepto los trabajadores de las empresas, sino que, se ponían límites “razonables” a la actividad de las empresas de ferrocarriles.

Sin embargo, el origen concreto de que el mercado entrase en una situación de pánico es una maniobra financiera especulativa hecha por Otto y Fritz Heinze, que intentaban hacerse con el control total del mercado de cobre. Esta maniobra, conocida en su jerga como “arrinconar al mercado” implica la compra masiva de acciones de cierta empresa para luego revenderlas a un precio mayor. Esto tiene una explicación. Fritz Heinze se había unido a un especulador llamado Charles W. Morse, quien ya antes se había hecho con el monopolio del mercado de hielo en Estados Unidos. Entre ellos consiguieron controlar: 6 bancos nacionales, 10 bancos estatales, 5 trusts companies, y 4 firmas de seguros. Como os podéis imaginar, su influencia y su liquidez eran grandes. Es por ello que emplearon este dinero en el intento de obtener beneficios con esta compra masiva de acciones del mercado de cobre. Sin embargo fracasaron ya que no consiguieron revender una gran parte de las acciones que habían adquirido, y esto les llevó a la ruina, a ellos y a las entidades que controlaban.

Se corrió el rumor o la noticia de que Charles T. Barney, que dirigía el Knickerbocker Trust Company, había hecho tratos con Morse y los hermanos Heinze y de hecho, se obligó a dimitir a Barney, que a continuación se suicidó, aparentemente. Todo esto causó una retirada masiva de dinero de esta importante entidad bancaria. Y aquí ocurre un paso fundamental: el Knickerbocker Trust acude a JP Morgan para que le ayude financieramente, sin embargo, Morgan se niega a hacerlo. Esto aumenta el pánico a otros bancos en especial tres de los grandes: el Mercantile National Bank, el New Amsterdam Bank y el National Bank of North America. Estos bancos reciben a enormes cantidades de gente que va a retirar su dinero.

Esto se llaman corridas bancarias (bank runs) y es importante saber que solo sucede en bancos que utilizan el método de la reserva fraccional, es decir, que no tienen realmente el dinero total de los depósitos realizados en esos bancos. Aquí abajo, una famosa foto de 1907.

[IMG]https://i0.wp.com/i59.tinypic.com/2hzsg0y.jpg[/IMG]

LA SOLUCIÓN.

El 22 de octubre de 1907, Morgan se reúne en sus oficinas junto a importantes banqueros: George F. Baker (del First National Bank) James Stillman (del National City Bank) y George B. Cortelyou (secretario del Tesoro en ese momento, de Theodore Roosevelt). Entre ellos deciden aportar dinero para ayudar al Trust Company of America. Incluso el gobierno iba a aportar dinero. Pero, Morgan sabía que eso no sería suficiente para poder superar la masiva retirada de dinero, por lo que reunió esta vez a todos los dirigentes de los otros ‘trusts’ y les encomió a ayudar a esta entidad para salvarla de la ruina. El gobierno puso 25 millones de dólares en varios bancos de Nueva York. John Rockefeller puso 10 millones en en National City Bank.

Todo esto les hizo quedar como héroes salvadores pero no fue suficiente. Morgan, demostrando así un poder de control e influencia considerable, reunió a los presidentes de bancos del país en sus oficinas, y les cerró la puerta con llave para que ellos decidieran cómo ayudar a resolver el problema financiero. Incluso recibió elogios de Lord Rothschild por esta disciplina. Los banqueros decidieron ayudar a solventar esta situación.

Las consecuencias que tuvo todo esto, la vuelta a la existencia de un Banco Central en Estados Unidos, las veremos en la siguiente entrada.

Anuncios

septiembre 7, 2015 - Posted by | Control de la sociedad, Historia, Revolución / Capitalismo

12 comentarios »

  1. Al igual que los artículos anteriores es ameno e interesante de leer.

    Respecto a lo de Belmont, creo que es por una ciudad que hay en Nevada, donde se producía mucha plata, pero también cobre, ahí puede estar la relación.

    Actualmente la ciudad está totalmente vacía.

    Comentario por MAGI | septiembre 7, 2015 | Responder

  2. Reblogueó esto en yagovelis.

    Comentario por yagovelis | septiembre 7, 2015 | Responder

  3. Hola de nuevo Victor!

    Falta algo para otro momento:

    Detras de Rockefeller, al menos al principio, estaban los banqueros de la City de Londres, con Rothschild en cabeza que le ayudaron a que acumulase gran poder.

    JP Morgan era la persona mas rica de EEUU en la epoca, despues de su muerte se descubrio que simplemente era el testaferro, u hombre de paja de Rothschild.

    Jackob Schiff esta interrelacionado con lazos de sangre con los Rothschild de Frankfurt del S. XVIII, para ser mas claros, los Schiff eran judios, vecinos y quasi socios del padre de la Saga. Meyer Amschel Bauer (que se cambio el apellido al Rothschild, o escudo rojo). Quizas los menciones mas adelante, los Warburg (que tienen origen italiano, son la familia veneciana Del Banco), tb estan interrelacionados con los Rothschild, creo que fueron los primeros socios de los Rothschild.

    En un sistema bancario basado en aire, en parte o en cuasi su totalidad, como es el sistema FIAT actual (el dinero se basa en deuda por un lado, y los bancos solo estan obligados a guardar un % minimo de dinero en efectivo), si se junta con el principio de la multiplicacion de los panes y los peces, se entiende que en el mundo de humo espejos, solo el 5/6% del dinero del mundo sea fisico. Normal que si se juntan todos los depositantes de un banco, para sacar dinero, dicho banco salga en bancarrota.

    Comentario por fpmadlax | septiembre 7, 2015 | Responder

    • La historia da más miedo a medida que la conoces.

      Comentario por paramisonenigmas | septiembre 7, 2015 | Responder

      • Depende, yo no tengo miedo a lo desconocido, sino a lo que me cuentan con tanta naturalidad, que no me resulta coherente, con informacion paralela (sobre la historia de un pais, o un hecho historico); por ej. el por que hicieron los “derechos civiles” antiguamente hubiese jurado mi admiración eterna para dicho pais, como EEUU donde apuestan por dichos derechos, pero sabiendo la verdad, mi gozo en un pozo.

        Aprovechando… sabes que Morgan (JP) viene directamente de la familia Morgan, famosa por el pirata (Creo que del siglo XVII), y que han tenido relación con la “Corona Britanica” o si se prefiere, el imperio comercial Britanico-Veneciano, desde entonces? lo mismo y mas antiguo con la familia de Cecil Rodhes, cuyo antepasado del s XVI? ya iba apoyando a la oligarquia economico-financiera Britanica.

        Hay un par de nombres que en el futuro puedo ayudarte a buscar, y que son importanes: Baruch, y luego los dos fundadores de la Secta Skull and Bones, que ambos eran traficantes… (uno era Russell). Tambien Harrimann…

        Aqui info sobre Morgan: https://circulodeanalisiseconomicodelderecho.wordpress.com/2015/01/10/el-pirata-morgan-y-la-creacion-de-su-banca-jp-morgan/

        Saludos, M.

        Comentario por fpmadlax | septiembre 8, 2015

  4. Por otro lado, el tema de las crisis economicas… dichos banqueros sabian de sobra antes de finales del S. XIX que dichas crisis podian ser causadas de forma artificial, siempre y cuando uno dominase, de forma centralizada, el dominio de crear moneda.

    Muy probablemente lo descubrieran de casualidad, observando, pero despues de 2 siglos, saben como jugar con la economia y el humo (llamado dinero por muchos, pero si se basa en aire, es humo).

    No hay que olvidar que muchas veces las primeras y/o muchas de las facultades de economia, estaban y estan financiadas por los bancos.

    Ademas que sabian de sobra, que en tema de deuda, y por tanto de economia y dinero, sea cual sea, la confianza es vital, por eso es necesario un banco central y no varios bancos independientes, que funcionen como una red distribuida, eso no es bueno, si quieres “potenciar” el mercado de dinero y sus productos adyacentes (derivadas, seguros, swaps, reaseguros, productos premium, banca comercial, “banca privada”), todo se basa en la confianza, y mejor confiar en un pulpo, poderoso que lo domine todo, a una red distribuida.

    Fijate la cantidad de economistas, calculo el 99%, que son los mamporreros de la deuda (y otros asuntos), es decir, entienden que la deuda es un factor natural que existe, cuando es un factor abstracto y solo existe en la mente

    http://tonyfdez.blogspot.de/2015/09/el-origen-de-las-crisis-economicas.html

    Aqui voy a poner mas videos y/o nombres de gente que habla de economia, de forma realista, es decir, en oro, plata, fraudes y como se comportan los bancos de verdad:

    Mike Maloney, Paul Craig Roberts, Lyndon Larouche, Ron Paul, Bill Still. Max Kaiser.

    Aqui un poco mas (en dicho canal teneis de todo sobre oro, plata y su valor):

    Comentario por fpmadlax | septiembre 7, 2015 | Responder

  5. Me gustaría dejaros con una charla muy conocida en la historia de Estados Unidos, que dió el candidato demócrata William Jennings Bryan el 9 de junio de 1896, llamada la “Charla de la Cruz de Oro” :

    I would be presumptuous, indeed, to present myself against the distinguished gentlemen to whom you have listened if this were but a measuring of ability; but this is not a contest among persons. The humblest citizen in all the land when clad in the armor of a righteous cause is stronger than all the whole hosts of error that they can bring. I come to speak to you in defense of a cause as holy as the cause of liberty—the cause of humanity. When this debate is concluded, a motion will be made to lay upon the table the resolution offered in commendation of the administration and also the resolution in condemnation of the administration. I shall object to bringing this question down to a level of persons. The individual is but an atom; he is born, he acts, he dies; but principles are eternal; and this has been a contest of principle.

    Never before in the history of this country has there been witnessed such a contest as that through which we have passed. Never before in the history of American politics has a great issue been fought out as this issue has been by the voters themselves.

    On the 4th of March, 1895, a few Democrats, most of them members of Congress, issued an address to the Democrats of the nation asserting that the money question was the paramount issue of the hour; asserting also the right of a majority of the Democratic Party to control the position of the party on this paramount issue; concluding with the request that all believers in free coinage of silver in the Democratic Party should organize and take charge of and control the policy of the Democratic Party. Three months later, at Memphis, an organization was perfected, and the silver Democrats went forth openly and boldly and courageously proclaiming their belief and declaring that if successful they would crystallize in a platform the declaration which they had made; and then began the conflict with a zeal approaching the zeal which inspired the crusaders who followed Peter the Hermit. Our silver Democrats went forth from victory unto victory, until they are assembled now, not to discuss, not to debate, but to enter up the judgment rendered by the plain people of this country.

    But in this contest, brother has been arrayed against brother, and father against son. The warmest ties of love and acquaintance and association have been disregarded. Old leaders have been cast aside when they refused to give expression to the sentiments of those whom they would lead, and new leaders have sprung up to give direction to this cause of freedom. Thus has the contest been waged, and we have assembled here under as binding and solemn instructions as were ever fastened upon the representatives of a people.

    We do not come as individuals. Why, as individuals we might have been glad to compliment the gentleman from New York [Senator Hill], but we knew that the people for whom we speak would never be willing to put him in a position where he could thwart the will of the Democratic Party. I say it was not a question of persons; it was a question of principle; and it is not with gladness, my friends, that we find ourselves brought into conflict with those who are now arrayed on the other side. The gentleman who just preceded me [Governor Russell] spoke of the old state of Massachusetts. Let me assure him that not one person in all this convention entertains the least hostility to the people of the state of Massachusetts.

    But we stand here representing people who are the equals before the law of the largest cities in the state of Massachusetts. When you come before us and tell us that we shall disturb your business interests, we reply that you have disturbed our business interests by your action. We say to you that you have made too limited in its application the definition of a businessman. The man who is employed for wages is as much a businessman as his employer. The attorney in a country town is as much a businessman as the corporation counsel in a great metropolis. The merchant at the crossroads store is as much a businessman as the merchant of New York. The farmer who goes forth in the morning and toils all day, begins in the spring and toils all summer, and by the application of brain and muscle to the natural resources of this country creates wealth, is as much a businessman as the man who goes upon the Board of Trade and bets upon the price of grain. The miners who go 1,000 feet into the earth or climb 2,000 feet upon the cliffs and bring forth from their hiding places the precious metals to be poured in the channels of trade are as much businessmen as the few financial magnates who in a backroom corner the money of the world.

    We come to speak for this broader class of businessmen. Ah. my friends, we say not one word against those who live upon the Atlantic Coast; but those hardy pioneers who braved all the dangers of the wilderness, who have made the desert to blossom as the rose—those pioneers away out there, rearing their children near to nature’s heart, where they can mingle their voices with the voices of the birds—out there where they have erected schoolhouses for the education of their children and churches where they praise their Creator, and the cemeteries where sleep the ashes of their dead—are as deserving of the consideration of this party as any people in this country.

    It is for these that we speak. We do not come as aggressors. Our war is not a war of conquest. We are fighting in the defense of our homes, our families, and posterity. We have petitioned, and our petitions have been scorned. We have entreated, and our entreaties have been disregarded. We have begged, and they have mocked when our calamity came.

    We beg no longer; we entreat no more; we petition no more. We defy them!

    The gentleman from Wisconsin has said he fears a Robespierre. My friend, in this land of the free you need fear no tyrant who will spring up from among the people. What we need is an Andrew Jackson to stand as Jackson stood, against the encroachments of aggregated wealth.

    They tell us that this platform was made to catch votes. We reply to them that changing conditions make new issues; that the principles upon which rest Democracy are as everlasting as the hills; but that they must be applied to new conditions as they arise. Conditions have arisen and we are attempting to meet those conditions. They tell us that the income tax ought not to be brought in here; that is not a new idea. They criticize us for our criticism of the Supreme Court of the United States. My friends, we have made no criticism. We have simply called attention to what you know. If you want criticisms, read the dissenting opinions of the Court. That will give you criticisms.

    They say we passed an unconstitutional law. I deny it. The income tax was not unconstitutional when it was passed. It was not unconstitutional when it went before the Supreme Court for the first time. It did not become unconstitutional until one judge changed his mind; and we cannot be expected to know when a judge will change his mind.

    The income tax is a just law. It simply intends to put the burdens of government justly upon the backs of the people. I am in favor of an income tax. When I find a man who is not willing to pay his share of the burden of the government which protects him, I find a man who is unworthy to enjoy the blessings of a government like ours.

    He says that we are opposing the national bank currency. It is true. If you will read what Thomas Benton said, you will find that he said that in searching history he could find but one parallel to Andrew Jackson. That was Cicero, who destroyed the conspiracies of Cataline and saved Rome. He did for Rome what Jackson did when he destroyed the bank conspiracy and saved America.

    We say in our platform that we believe that the right to coin money and issue money is a function of government. We believe it. We believe it is a part of sovereignty and can no more with safety be delegated to private individuals than can the power to make penal statutes or levy laws for taxation.

    Mr. Jefferson, who was once regarded as good Democratic authority, seems to have a different opinion from the gentleman who has addressed us on the part of the minority. Those who are opposed to this proposition tell us that the issue of paper money is a function of the bank and that the government ought to go out of the banking business. I stand with Jefferson rather than with them, and tell them, as he did, that the issue of money is a function of the government and that the banks should go out of the governing business.

    They complain about the plank which declares against the life tenure in office. They have tried to strain it to mean that which it does not mean. What we oppose in that plank is the life tenure that is being built up in Washington which establishes an office-holding class and excludes from participation in the benefits the humbler members of our society. . . .

    Let me call attention to two or three great things. The gentleman from New York says that he will propose an amendment providing that this change in our law shall not affect contracts which, according to the present laws, are made payable in gold. But if he means to say that we cannot change our monetary system without protecting those who have loaned money before the change was made, I want to ask him where, in law or in morals, he can find authority for not protecting the debtors when the act of 1873 was passed when he now insists that we must protect the creditor. He says he also wants to amend this platform so as to provide that if we fail to maintain the parity within a year that we will then suspend the coinage of silver. We reply that when we advocate a thing which we believe will be successful we are not compelled to raise a doubt as to our own sincerity by trying to show what we will do if we are wrong.

    I ask him, if he will apply his logic to us, why he does not apply it to himself. He says that he wants this country to try to secure an international agreement. Why doesn’t he tell us what he is going to do if they fail to secure an international agreement. There is more reason for him to do that than for us to expect to fail to maintain the parity. They have tried for thirty years—thirty years—to secure an international agreement, and those are waiting for it most patiently who don’t want it at all.

    Now, my friends, let me come to the great paramount issue. If they ask us here why it is we say more on the money question than we say upon the tariff question, I reply that if protection has slain its thousands the gold standard has slain its tens of thousands. If they ask us why we did not embody all these things in our platform which we believe, we reply to them that when we have restored the money of the Constitution, all other necessary reforms will be possible, and that until that is done there is no reform that can be accomplished.

    Why is it that within three months such a change has come over the sentiments of the country? Three months ago, when it was confidently asserted that those who believed in the gold standard would frame our platforms and nominate our candidates, even the advocates of the gold standard did not think that we could elect a President; but they had good reasons for the suspicion, because there is scarcely a state here today asking for the gold standard that is not within the absolute control of the Republican Party.

    But note the change. Mr. McKinley was nominated at St. Louis upon a platform that declared for the maintenance of the gold standard until it should be changed into bimetallism by an international agreement. Mr. McKinley was the most popular man among the Republicans ; and everybody three months ago in the Republican Party prophesied his election. How is it today? Why, that man who used to boast that he looked like Napoleon, that man shudders today when he thinks that he was nominated on the anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo. Not only that, but as he listens he can hear with ever increasing distinctness the sound of the waves as they beat upon the lonely shores of St. Helena.

    Why this change? Ah, my friends. is not the change evident to anyone who will look at the matter? It is because no private character, however pure, no personal popularity, however great, can protect from the avenging wrath of an indignant people the man who will either declare that he is in favor of fastening the gold standard upon this people, or who is willing to surrender the right of self-government and place legislative control in the hands of foreign potentates and powers. . . .

    We go forth confident that we shall win. Why? Because upon the paramount issue in this campaign there is not a spot of ground upon which the enemy will dare to challenge battle. Why, if they tell us that the gold standard is a good thing, we point to their platform and tell them that their platform pledges the party to get rid of a gold standard and substitute bimetallism. If the gold standard is a good thing, why try to get rid of it? If the gold standard, and I might call your attention to the fact that some of the very people who are in this convention today and who tell you that we ought to declare in favor of international bimetallism and thereby declare that the gold standard is wrong and that the principles of bimetallism are better—these very people four months ago were open and avowed advocates of the gold standard and telling us that we could not legislate two metals together even with all the world.

    I want to suggest this truth, that if the gold standard is a good thing we ought to declare in favor of its retention and not in favor of abandoning it; and if the gold standard is a bad thing, why should we wait until some other nations are willing to help us to let it go?

    Here is the line of battle. We care not upon which issue they force the fight. We are prepared to meet them on either issue or on both. If they tell us that the gold standard is the standard of civilization, we reply to them that this, the most enlightened of all nations of the earth, has never declared for a gold standard, and both the parties this year are declaring against it. If the gold standard is the standard of civilization, why, my friends, should we not have it? So if they come to meet us on that, we can present the history of our nation. More than that, we can tell them this, that they will search the pages of history in vain to find a single instance in which the common people of any land ever declared themselves in favor of a gold standard. They can find where the holders of fixed investments have.

    Mr. Carlisle said in 1878 that this was a struggle between the idle holders of idle capital and the struggling masses who produce the wealth and pay the taxes of the country; and my friends, it is simply a question that we shall decide upon which side shall the Democratic Party fight. Upon the side of the idle holders of idle capital, or upon the side of the struggling masses? That is the question that the party must answer first; and then it must be answered by each individual hereafter. The sympathies of the Democratic Party, as described by the platform, are on the side of the struggling masses, who have ever been the foundation of the Democratic Party.

    There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it.

    You come to us and tell us that the great cities are in favor of the gold standard. I tell you that the great cities rest upon these broad and fertile prairies. Burn down your cities and leave our farms, and your cities will spring up again as if by magic. But destroy our farms and the grass will grow in the streets of every city in the country.

    My friends, we shall declare that this nation is able to legislate for its own people on every question without waiting for the aid or consent of any other nation on earth, and upon that issue we expect to carry every single state in the Union.

    I shall not slander the fair state of Massachusetts nor the state of New York by saying that when citizens are confronted with the proposition, “Is this nation able to attend to its own business?”—I will not slander either one by saying that the people of those states will declare our helpless impotency as a nation to attend to our own business. It is the issue of 1776 over again. Our ancestors, when but 3 million, had the courage to declare their political independence of every other nation upon earth. Shall we, their descendants, when we have grown to 70 million, declare that we are less independent than our forefathers? No, my friends, it will never be the judgment of this people. Therefore, we care not upon what lines the battle is fought. If they say bimetallism is good but we cannot have it till some nation helps us, we reply that, instead of having a gold standard because England has, we shall restore bimetallism, and then let England have bimetallism because the United States have.

    If they dare to come out in the open field and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we shall fight them to the uttermost, having behind us the producing masses of the nation and the world. Having behind us the commercial interests and the laboring interests and all the toiling masses, we shall answer their demands for a gold standard by saying to them, you shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.

    http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5354/

    Comentario por paramisonenigmas | septiembre 8, 2015 | Responder

  6. La Carta del indio salvaje, narrada por Joaquín Cardiel, bajista de Héroes del Silencio.

    El texto corresponde al discurso pronunciado por el Jefe indio Seathl (1786-1866), Gran Jefe de los Duwamish ante Isaac Stephens, Gobernador del Territorio de Washington, el 10 de enero de 1854. El Dr. Henry Smith, presente durante el discurso, tomó extensas notas del mismo mientras el Jefe Seathl hablaba en el dialecto Suquamish conocido como Salish hablado en Pudget Sound Central (Lushootseed) que nunca se han encontrado.

    Comentario por paramisonenigmas | septiembre 9, 2015 | Responder

    • No conocía este discurso , pero me ha gustado escuchar estas palabras. Por lo que he leído sobre ellos , los indigenas de América conocían y respetaban bastante la naturaleza.

      Gracias por compartir este vídeo.

      Comentario por MAGI | septiembre 9, 2015 | Responder

  7. […] EL PÁNICO DE 1907 (PARTE VII) […]

    Pingback por ARTÍCULOS QUE TE RECOMENDAMOS. | educacionlibreysoberana | octubre 12, 2015 | Responder


Responder

Introduce tus datos o haz clic en un icono para iniciar sesión:

Logo de WordPress.com

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de WordPress.com. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Imagen de Twitter

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Twitter. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Foto de Facebook

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Facebook. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Google+ photo

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Google+. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Conectando a %s

Reflexiones Antropológicas

Pensamientos acerca del pasado y el ahora desde una perspectiva enfocada en el hombre y sus diversas manifestaciones.

Un rincón que te abrigue

Mis escritos, mis canciones, mi reflejo

El foco

Reseñas de cine

How to blue

Un blog acerca mi vida personal sientete libre de juzgar.

DERRIBANDO EL MURO

Rompiendo el Paradigma

Reparaciones profesionales 24 horas

Persianista-Fontanero-Cerrajero-Electricista

Yo Soy Tu Profe

Aprender ciencias es mucho más fácil de lo que te imaginas

literatoluisrodriguez

Literatura y consejos.

Geografía e Historia en la educación permanente

El profesor Luis Durán quiere acercarte al Ámbito de Sociedad en la educación de adultos.

mariacarmenossapena

Relato momentos que cualquier persona en un momentos determinados podemos sentir; como una ausencia, un duelo, momentos que para uno se hacen duros, pero al transcribirlos de papel a formato on line y dándole así vida, se puede hacer entender a alguién que los momentos de alegría y pena es un estado que como ser humano y ser individual; nos toca pasar. Situaciones que nos hacen crecer; hacía un enriquecimiento personal, humano y con el entorno, familia,amigos, parejas, experiencias que son necesarias tener para ir creciendo en nuestro interior.El día que escribí esto lo escribí de un tirón y no mire las normas de ortografía; simplemente me deje llevar y quedo así como en prosa, pero sin normas preestablecidas.Quiero decir que escribo como hobby, y si encuentran errores es porque soy nueva por aquí y poco a poco intentaré hacerlo mejor . Pd : y Gracias por leerlo y opinar también se puede acepto todo tipo de critica constructiva.Saludos a todos.

UNIVERSO PARALELOS

Historias, personajes únicos, relatos ficticios y un extraño hombre que nos alcanza semanalmente sus raras teorías.

" Una Voz en el Silencio "

Literatura, reflexiones, pensamientos, fotografía, arte, musica, cine y cosas de actualidad

A %d blogueros les gusta esto: