Our Socialist Founding Fathers?

After a summer of reading fiction, I decided to return to my roots and read some good academic history. While in Amhearst last month, I picked up an item in a used textbook store called “The Economy of Colonial America”. It revealed some interesting information, based on economic historical research, which is all the more interesting in light of current political discourse.

One of the significant economic issues in the colonies was the lack of money. The colonial economy was overwhelmingly agricultural and raw materials were the basis of its exports. Notably, however, most economic activity was among the colonies, not goods for export. The exported products were mainly tobacco, wheat, corn, fish, animal skins, lumber products and the like. These products were sold to England, to southern Europe and to the plantations in the Caribbean. By law, some products - like tobacco and ship masts - could only be sold to English firms. Also by law, hard currency in the form of gold and silver coin could not be sent from England to the colonies nor could the colonies establish a mint. Hard currency, which was the primary currency of the day, was gathered mostly in the form of Spanish coins earned through sales in southern Europe and the Caribbean. But this international trade was a relatively small portion of the overall economy. Of note, some of the currency to reach our shores was courtesy of pirates who came to the east coast to spend freely after unburdening a Spanish ship of it’s chests of gold and silver!

Colonial governments did a number of things that were very innovative at the time in order to address the money issue and promote their economy. First, some colonies created “commodity currency” wherein the government set up a warehouse for farmers to deposit non-perishable products such as tobacco or beaver skins. Farmers were issued bills denominated in that commodity such as a bill worth one hogshead of tobacco. The farmer used this currency to buy other goods and the eventual holder of the bill took it to the warehouse for credit against imported English goods when the harvest was sold. One problem with this method, however, was that the ultimate value of the bill was dependent upon the “price” that the harvest eventually yielded.

Another government program in many colonies was the establishment of a land loan program. There were no banks in the colonies and most credit was provided by English merchants extending credit to exporting farmers. To help facilitate the purchase of land, the colonial governments set up programs to loan money for the purchase of land and held those mortgages. Typically, the government would lend up to 50% of the land value and collect a modest interest on the loan. This was a important method for providing credit to the largest segment of the economy. It also made the colonial governments large stakeholders in the largest portion of the economy by holding the mortgages (and taking possession of the land if it defaulted).

Finally, colonial governments issued their own currency, starting in 1690. This currency is unlike currency today, however. Since colonial governments were very small and money was tight, they turned to issuing paper money when confronted with a large expense. Large expenses occurred when colonial soldiers were mustered for one of the frequent border hostilities with the French or Indians. They were also incurred when colonial governments decided to issue currency as a way to promote more economic activity during economic slumps. For example, after successful economic stimulus issuances in Pennsylvania and New York, Maryland did a currency issuance in 1733 where it gave 30 shillings to every taxable individual. Amounts due for taxable indentured servants and slaves were given to their masters. Thirty shillings, at that time, was about 15% of the average annual income of a colonist.

These currencies were redeemable usually after two or three years as payment against public debts – meaning the payment of taxes, fees or loan repayments for land. Once turned in to the government, the currency was destroyed. Some colonial governments tried to make the currency legal for private debts as well. This met with resistance from English merchants who were the primary lenders to colonists. These merchants did not want a colonial court to order them to accept colonial currency to settle their debts. Parliament twice passed laws, in 1751 and 1764 to prohibit or limit the widespread use of colonial currencies but colonies persisted in doing so, with many colonies rolling one expired issuance into another in a stream of regular governmental debt in the form of paper money.

The overall effect of colonial governmental actions, combined with a myriad of other factors such as cheap land, shortages of labor and abundant natural resources, is that the colonial economy grew steadily throughout the pre-Revolutionary period. In fact, the average colonist on the eve of the Revolution was healthier than an Englishman, taller by about two inches (owing to better nutrition) and wealthier (since wealth was generally gathered through land ownership).

But how would these policies be viewed in today’s political atmosphere? One could argue that they are the sensible actions of a government dedicated to improving the life of its citizens by using government resources to support economic growth. Conversely, one might argue that government ownership of the major industry – agriculture (through land mortgages and, sometimes, foreclosures), it’s regulation of the main method of exportation (through commodity currency warehouses), it’s redistribution of wealth (through currency issuances) to stimulate the economy and it’s unending addiction to government debt (also through currency issuance) add up to just one thing. Socialism! Long before there was a Karl Marx, America was founded on socialism. I am ashamed.