We need an Andrew Jackson to take care of the World Bank and WTO

[Ignacio Upton]

I know this isn't exactly a topical thread, but the issue of abuse of a nation's economic sovereignty by entities such as the WTO and World Bank or IMF is still very much an issue. It got me thinking about a similar example of "monied elites" in American history: The Bank of the United States. Now, while Jackson would probably fit the Norquist mold of small government conservatism today in terms of government's role (and let's not get started about his role in Indian removal/genocide) the Bank of the US wasn't exactly an impeccable insitution. The first head of the Second Bank (the first one's charter expired in 1811 and wasn't renewed until long after the War of 1812, which created the second bank) filed for bankrupcy himself and the bank's last head was also a friend of Henry Clay and future Whigs (the members of Congress who eventually created the party didn't have an organized alternative to the Democrats at the time.) I would like to see an Andrew Jackson-type of figure phase out the World Bank and WTO for their practices over countries (although it should not be done in a way that is too hasty, because when Jackson killed the bank he did it in such a quick way that it contributed to the Panic of 1837). These groups could be replaced with looser organizations that don't have the power to dictate economic sovereignty (in the same way that the Federal Reserve was a looser replacement to the Bank of the United States.)

[cascadiance]

1. Rescind the treaty until "fair labor practices" are also enforced...

If labor unions can have equal or more "access" to the WTO that corporations do to make sure we have global labor standards to avoid the "race to the bottom" that MNC's are pursuing now, then the WTO could be useful. The way it is now, we should GET OUT of it.

[Ignacio Upton]

2. Agreed

Replace/reform the WTO so that it promotes fair trade, or it should be scrapped altogether.

[oscarguy]

3. We Need an Andrew Jackson for Now, for so Many Reasons.

The reasons you gave are good ones , but more importantly in my opinion, we need a truly courageous leader, who has proven himself as such, to lead us through these dangerous and difficult times. Jackson was arguably the most courageous President we ever had. Fought in the American Revolution while a boy, the Battle of New Orleans and on and on. A Great President in so many ways. ...Oscar

[Ignacio Upton]

4. My feelings of him are mostly negative

On one hand, he was responsible for elevating the country to being more democratic (ie. "Jacksonian Democracy) but on the other he did a lot of shitty things, such as Indian Removal, and being the first President to use the "spoils system."

[Redstone]

7. What, are there more Indians to starve? Is that why we need him?

Redstone

[oscarguy]

8. He did get legislation passed Re: West of Miss. River Indian Territory

I know these treaties never were enforced, but he did try to ensure adequate lands for the Indians. He tried. When you take into account his own harsh history, the suffering he endured, he seems to me a relatively compassionate man. He was a rugged man who grew up and lived a life filled with the deaths of his immediate family and having fought in many wars. Check into his Biography as President and what he tried to do to end the warfare between the white people and Indian Peoples as President. It may surprise you. ...Oscar

[Redstone]

5. Andrew Jackson was the fucking Devil.

We don't need him for anything.

Redstone

[Hippo_Tron]

6. Yea, let's kill some Native Americans while we're at it...

Oh yea, how about we dare the chief justice of the supreme court to try and enforce his decisions... An executive branch that doesn't listen to the supreme court is EXACTLY what we need right now.

[donheld]

9. Who will your Andrew Jackson drive down a "trail of tears?"

:shrug:

[Ignacio Upton]

10. I'm not supporting him for his politicies towards Native Americans

I mean that we need someone who will take on monied interests like he did with the Bank of the United States. I disagree with almost EVERYTHING ELSE he did as President. If he were President today he would probably be a Republican, only a bit more populist than the rest of them.