Friday, November 18, 2011

USD Money Supply is Underreported - Inflation On the Way

Amplify’d from www.zerohedge.com

Guest Post: U.S. Dollar Money Supply Is Underreported

US Dollar Money Supply Is Underreported

March 1, 2010 – As the financial crisis has unfolded over the last

two years, the Federal Reserve has been responding in a variety of

unprecedented ways.  Therefore, it is logical to assume that these

never-before-used actions have altered long-established ways of viewing

things.  One area that has been impacted is the US dollar money supply.

The quantity of dollars in circulation is being underreported by relying upon the traditional and now outdated definitions used to calculate M1 and M2

These ‘Ms’ are calculated and reported by the Federal Reserve based on

the following guidelines that identify the several different forms of

dollar currency used in commerce:

M1: The sum of currency held outside the vaults of depository institutions, Federal Reserve Banks, and the U.S. Treasury; travelers checks; and demand and other checkable deposits issued by financial institutions (except demand deposits due to the Treasury and depository institutions), minus cash items in process of collection and Federal

Reserve float.

M2: M1 plus savings deposits (including money market deposit accounts) and small-denomination (less than $100,000) time deposits issued by financial institutions; and shares in retail money market mutual funds (funds with initial investments of less than $50,000), net of retirement accounts.

These esoteric definitions can be confusing, so let’s bring US

dollar currency back to basics as the first step to explaining why

these definitions are no longer adequate. 

There are two types of dollar currency comprising the money supply –

cash currency and deposit currency.  Both are used in commerce to make

payments. 

1) Cash Currency

The cash currency we carry around in our pockets is issued by the

Federal Reserve.  Take a look at one of those green pieces of paper,

and you will see that they are labeled as a “Federal Reserve Note”.  A note

is a debt obligation, and a few decades ago one could take that note to

a Federal Reserve Bank and ask them to make good on their debt by

redeeming it for silver, or until 1933, gold.

These liabilities of the Federal Reserve are no longer redeemable into anything, and are therefore “I owe you nothing” currency, a phrase made famous by legendary advocate of sound money, John Exter.  Nevertheless, Federal Reserve notes remain a liability of the Federal Reserve.  

2) Deposit Currency

Deposit currency is comprised – as its name implies – of dollars on

deposit in the banking system.  These dollars circulate as currency

when payments in commerce are made with checks, wire transfers, plastic

cards and the like.  In contrast to cash currency which circulates from

hand-to-hand, deposit currency circulates from bank account to bank

account. 

Bank deposits take three standard forms – checking accounts, savings

accounts and time deposits.  They have different maturities, or tenor, to use a banking term.

Dollars in checking accounts are considered to be the most liquid

because they are available on demand.  Therefore, they are part of M1

because they are the most likely deposit currency to be used to make a

payment in commerce.  Dollars in savings accounts are less likely to be

used to make a payment, but nonetheless are currency because they are

spendable.  So they are part of M2, which comprises those dollars less

frequently used as currency. 

The dollars in time deposits are used even less, but are currency

and therefore available for use in commerce when they mature, or

immediately if the tenor of the deposit is broken.  They are –

depending on the size of the deposit – included in M2 or M3, which is no longer disclosed by the Federal Reserve.

 

Creating Currency

Having provided this background information, we can now get to the

heart of the matter by looking at how currency is created ‘out of thin

air’ by the Federal Reserve and banks and the impact of their actions

on the monetary balance sheet of the US dollar.  

Cash currency of course is simply printed, but every note issued is

recorded on the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet.  Basically, the Fed

‘monetizes’ an asset by turning it into currency. 

If, for example, a bank sells a $1 million T-bill to the Fed, the

Fed ‘pays’ for it with $1 million of newly printed cash currency.  The

Fed records the T-bill as an asset and the cash currency it issued as

its liability.  These Federal Reserve Notes are the “currency”

component in the definition of M1 above.

The creation of deposit currency is similar.  When a bank makes a

loan or purchases a security, it records the loan or security as its

asset and creates deposit currency as its liability.  Simple

bookkeeping entries increase the bank’s assets and liabilities by the

same amount. 

New deposit currency is created because the bank deposits the amount

of the loan in the borrower’s checking account, or similarly, credits

the account of the seller of the security it is purchasing.  These

dollars are now available on ‘demand’ of the borrower or the seller of

the security.

Regardless whether deposit currency is created by the banking system

or the Federal Reserve, the net effect is the same – the quantity of

dollars increases.   The total amount of deposit currency in checking

accounts is the “demand and other checkable deposits” component in the

definition of M1 above.

Measuring the Quantity of Dollars

As of January 31st, the quantity of cash currency in circulation (i.e., not in bank vaults) was $860 billion.  This amount comprises 51.3% of M1, which equaled $1,676 billion on that date.  As of January 31st, the quantity of demand and checkable deposits in circulation was $810 billion.  This amount comprises 48.3% of M1.

For historical reasons unimportant to the point of this analysis,

the Federal Reserve in the past has only created cash currency. 

However, the unprecedented changes it has engineered over the past two

years have resulted in a vast amount of deposit currency being created

by the Fed.  Instead of purchasing paper from the banking system solely

with cash currency – its traditional form of payment to ‘monetize’

assets by turning them into currency – the Federal Reserve since the

start of the financial crisis has increasingly relied upon deposit

currency to purchase paper.

Regardless how the Federal Reserve pays for the paper it purchases –

cash currency or deposit currency – it is creating dollar currency and

perforce expanding the money supply.  But the traditional definition of

M1 does not accurately capture this process when the Fed uses deposit

currency to pay for its purchase.  In fact, it is totally excluded. 

Because the Federal Reserve did not create deposit currency in the

past, none of the Ms take it into account. 

Consequently, the traditional definitions of the Ms are outdated

because they do not capture the total quantity of dollars in

circulation.  Because M1 is underreported, so too is M2.

Unprecedented Deposit Currency Creation by the Fed

There has been an unprecedented amount of deposit currency created

by the Fed over the past two years.  The following chart illustrates

this point.  It shows the quantity of demand and checkable deposits, i.e., the amount of deposit currency, at the Federal Reserve since December 2002.

From December 2002 until the collapse of Lehman Brothers in

September 2008, the quantity of deposit currency created by the Fed

averaged $11.8 billion, an amount that is relatively insignificant

compared to total M1.  Presently, it stands at a record high of

$1,246.2 billion, which of course is highly significant. 

More to the point, none of this deposit currency is captured in the

traditional definition of the Ms.  The quantity of dollar currency is

therefore significantly underreported, which is illustrated by the

following chart.

The Federal Reserve reports M1 to be $1,716 billion

as of February 15th.  When deposit currency created by the Federal

Reserve is added to the traditional definition of M1, M1 after

adjustment is actually 170% higher at $2,918 billion.  Its annual

growth increases to 29.5%, nearly 3-times the rate reported by the Fed

and more importantly, is an annual rate of growth in the quantity of

dollar currency that is approaching hyperinflationary levels. 

This restatement of M1 explains why crude oil is back at $80 per

barrel; copper is $3.25 per pound; and commodity prices in the main are

rising in the face of weak economic conditions.  The US dollar is being

inflated and worryingly, the rate of new currency creation is

approaching hyperinflationary levels.  Unless the Federal Reserve

changes course, the US is headed for a deposit currency hyperinflation like those that plagued much of Latin America in the 1980s and 1990s.

Read more at www.zerohedge.com
 

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Eurozone Contagion in the USA

Europe gets a cold, the US sneezes, or how does it go?

Economix - Explaining the Science of Everyday Life

The Euro Zone Crisis and the U.S.: A Primer

The potential effect of the euro zone crisis on the United States has been the subject of several recent articles, including Annie Lowrey’s on Saturday. Here’s a primer summarizing the three main channels through which the fiasco across the Atlantic could hurt the American economy: trade, stock markets and (most worrisome) a contagious credit crisis.

1) Trade. There are two ways that a European catastrophe could hurt American exports.

First, it could shrink our customer base in Europe. Europe buys 22 percent of our exports, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. If Greece and other countries implode, causing a severe recession in Europe, orders for American products and services would fall.

Second, the crisis could shrink the United States customer base around the world. As investors become more concerned about the stability of the euro zone, they will stop investing in the euro. When there is less demand for euros, the value of the euro gets cheaper. By comparison, the dollar gets more expensive. That makes American-made products more expensive, so American products become less attractive to customers worldwide.

2) The stock market. European stock markets and American stock markets are strongly correlated, as shown by indices for both in the chart below:

DESCRIPTION

Of course, this chart doesn’t show what’s cause and what’s effect. A statistical analysis by economists at Deutsche Bank, however, has found that American markets seemed to drive European markets from the onset of the financial crisis in 2007 to March 2010, and since then the reverse has been true: movements in the European markets seemed to be leading movements in American ones.

Additionally, many American companies depend on revenue from Europe, as you might have guessed from the export numbers noted above. Deutsche Bank analysts estimate that about 15 to 20 percent of corporate revenues of companies in the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index are generated by Europe. For companies in the materials, energy and tech sectors, the share earned in Europe is even higher.

When these companies do badly, and their shares drop, the pain is felt much more broadly in the United States. Declines in the stock market mean less valuable portfolios for Americans across the country, causing consumers to feel poorer and be less willing to spend money.

This is known as the wealth effect. We saw it when housing values first plunged, leading Americans to realize they weren’t as rich as they thought they were.

3) Debt exposure and a contagious credit crisis. This is the biggest worry, since global financial markets are deeply interconnected.

Europeans owe lots of money to one another — and to other countries — as you can see in this debt graphic. For example, American banks own a lot of French debt, and French banks own a lot of Italian debt. If Italy defaults, French banks are in trouble. If those French banks then default, American banks are likewise compromised. With these banks insolvent (or at the very least illiquid), it becomes harder for American companies and consumers to borrow.

The contagion can also spread rapidly because once one country falls, investors get antsy about the fate of their investments in similarly indebted countries. So investors start selling off those assets en masse too, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy and causing those countries to implode. And so the domino effect continues.

Even just worrying about these types of scenarios can seriously damage financial markets, because people stop lending if they suspect someone major somewhere won’t be able to pay the debt back. Already banks are tightening their lending standards for borrowers who have significant exposure to Europe, according to the Federal Reserve’s latest Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey on Bank Lending Practices.

Part of the reason the global Great Recession began (and was so devastating) was that healthy credit markets are crucial to the functioning of any economy. If there is a broad tightening of credit, economic activity seizes up as well.

Read more at economix.blogs.nytimes.com
 

Saturday, November 12, 2011

USD Money Supply is Underreported, Hyperinflation Underway #1 Reason to #EndTheFed #ronpaul #OccupyCongress

if this doesnt get the conversation going in Congress, we should occupy the halls until everyone is listening. We will end up like the Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany with hyperinflation if we do not stop the Federal Reserve monopoly from depressing the USD and inflating the cost of living and destroying the middle class.

Amplify’d from www.zerohedge.com

Guest Post: U.S. Dollar Money Supply Is Underreported

Submitted by James Turk, of FGMR.com

US Dollar Money Supply Is Underreported

March 1, 2010 – As the financial crisis has unfolded over the last

two years, the Federal Reserve has been responding in a variety of

unprecedented ways.  Therefore, it is logical to assume that these

never-before-used actions have altered long-established ways of viewing

things.  One area that has been impacted is the US dollar money supply.

The quantity of dollars in circulation is being underreported by relying upon the traditional and now outdated definitions used to calculate M1 and M2

These ‘Ms’ are calculated and reported by the Federal Reserve based on

the following guidelines that identify the several different forms of

dollar currency used in commerce:

M1: The sum of currency held outside the vaults of depository institutions, Federal Reserve Banks, and the U.S. Treasury; travelers checks; and demand and other checkable deposits issued by financial institutions (except demand deposits due to the Treasury and depository institutions), minus cash items in process of collection and Federal

Reserve float.

M2: M1 plus savings deposits (including money market deposit accounts) and small-denomination (less than $100,000) time deposits issued by financial institutions; and shares in retail money market mutual funds (funds with initial investments of less than $50,000), net of retirement accounts.

These esoteric definitions can be confusing, so let’s bring US

dollar currency back to basics as the first step to explaining why

these definitions are no longer adequate. 

There are two types of dollar currency comprising the money supply –

cash currency and deposit currency.  Both are used in commerce to make

payments. 

1) Cash Currency

The cash currency we carry around in our pockets is issued by the

Federal Reserve.  Take a look at one of those green pieces of paper,

and you will see that they are labeled as a “Federal Reserve Note”.  A note

is a debt obligation, and a few decades ago one could take that note to

a Federal Reserve Bank and ask them to make good on their debt by

redeeming it for silver, or until 1933, gold.

These liabilities of the Federal Reserve are no longer redeemable into anything, and are therefore “I owe you nothing” currency, a phrase made famous by legendary advocate of sound money, John Exter.  Nevertheless, Federal Reserve notes remain a liability of the Federal Reserve.  

2) Deposit Currency

Deposit currency is comprised – as its name implies – of dollars on

deposit in the banking system.  These dollars circulate as currency

when payments in commerce are made with checks, wire transfers, plastic

cards and the like.  In contrast to cash currency which circulates from

hand-to-hand, deposit currency circulates from bank account to bank

account. 

Bank deposits take three standard forms – checking accounts, savings

accounts and time deposits.  They have different maturities, or tenor, to use a banking term.

Dollars in checking accounts are considered to be the most liquid

because they are available on demand.  Therefore, they are part of M1

because they are the most likely deposit currency to be used to make a

payment in commerce.  Dollars in savings accounts are less likely to be

used to make a payment, but nonetheless are currency because they are

spendable.  So they are part of M2, which comprises those dollars less

frequently used as currency. 

The dollars in time deposits are used even less, but are currency

and therefore available for use in commerce when they mature, or

immediately if the tenor of the deposit is broken.  They are –

depending on the size of the deposit – included in M2 or M3, which is no longer disclosed by the Federal Reserve.

 

Creating Currency

Having provided this background information, we can now get to the

heart of the matter by looking at how currency is created ‘out of thin

air’ by the Federal Reserve and banks and the impact of their actions

on the monetary balance sheet of the US dollar.  

Cash currency of course is simply printed, but every note issued is

recorded on the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet.  Basically, the Fed

‘monetizes’ an asset by turning it into currency. 

If, for example, a bank sells a $1 million T-bill to the Fed, the

Fed ‘pays’ for it with $1 million of newly printed cash currency.  The

Fed records the T-bill as an asset and the cash currency it issued as

its liability.  These Federal Reserve Notes are the “currency”

component in the definition of M1 above.

The creation of deposit currency is similar.  When a bank makes a

loan or purchases a security, it records the loan or security as its

asset and creates deposit currency as its liability.  Simple

bookkeeping entries increase the bank’s assets and liabilities by the

same amount. 

New deposit currency is created because the bank deposits the amount

of the loan in the borrower’s checking account, or similarly, credits

the account of the seller of the security it is purchasing.  These

dollars are now available on ‘demand’ of the borrower or the seller of

the security.

Regardless whether deposit currency is created by the banking system

or the Federal Reserve, the net effect is the same – the quantity of

dollars increases.   The total amount of deposit currency in checking

accounts is the “demand and other checkable deposits” component in the

definition of M1 above.

Measuring the Quantity of Dollars

As of January 31st, the quantity of cash currency in circulation (i.e., not in bank vaults) was $860 billion.  This amount comprises 51.3% of M1, which equaled $1,676 billion on that date.  As of January 31st, the quantity of demand and checkable deposits in circulation was $810 billion.  This amount comprises 48.3% of M1.

For historical reasons unimportant to the point of this analysis,

the Federal Reserve in the past has only created cash currency. 

However, the unprecedented changes it has engineered over the past two

years have resulted in a vast amount of deposit currency being created

by the Fed.  Instead of purchasing paper from the banking system solely

with cash currency – its traditional form of payment to ‘monetize’

assets by turning them into currency – the Federal Reserve since the

start of the financial crisis has increasingly relied upon deposit

currency to purchase paper.

Regardless how the Federal Reserve pays for the paper it purchases –

cash currency or deposit currency – it is creating dollar currency and

perforce expanding the money supply.  But the traditional definition of

M1 does not accurately capture this process when the Fed uses deposit

currency to pay for its purchase.  In fact, it is totally excluded. 

Because the Federal Reserve did not create deposit currency in the

past, none of the Ms take it into account. 

Consequently, the traditional definitions of the Ms are outdated

because they do not capture the total quantity of dollars in

circulation.  Because M1 is underreported, so too is M2.

Unprecedented Deposit Currency Creation by the Fed

There has been an unprecedented amount of deposit currency created

by the Fed over the past two years.  The following chart illustrates

this point.  It shows the quantity of demand and checkable deposits, i.e., the amount of deposit currency, at the Federal Reserve since December 2002.

From December 2002 until the collapse of Lehman Brothers in

September 2008, the quantity of deposit currency created by the Fed

averaged $11.8 billion, an amount that is relatively insignificant

compared to total M1.  Presently, it stands at a record high of

$1,246.2 billion, which of course is highly significant. 

More to the point, none of this deposit currency is captured in the

traditional definition of the Ms.  The quantity of dollar currency is

therefore significantly underreported, which is illustrated by the

following chart.

The Federal Reserve reports M1 to be $1,716 billion

as of February 15th.  When deposit currency created by the Federal

Reserve is added to the traditional definition of M1, M1 after

adjustment is actually 170% higher at $2,918 billion.  Its annual

growth increases to 29.5%, nearly 3-times the rate reported by the Fed

and more importantly, is an annual rate of growth in the quantity of

dollar currency that is approaching hyperinflationary levels. 

This restatement of M1 explains why crude oil is back at $80 per

barrel; copper is $3.25 per pound; and commodity prices in the main are

rising in the face of weak economic conditions.  The US dollar is being

inflated and worryingly, the rate of new currency creation is

approaching hyperinflationary levels.  Unless the Federal Reserve

changes course, the US is headed for a deposit currency hyperinflation like those that plagued much of Latin America in the 1980s and 1990s.

Read more at www.zerohedge.com
 

As Economic Wars Continue, Greece Turns to Iran for Oil #peakoil #currencywars #energywars #peakdebt

Greece's creditors are pulling financing for everything including oil, but energy is the DNA of capitalism and that means the Greek economy can NEVER payback the bailout money and MUST default. The rug is being pulled out from under them... USA stirs up angst over Iran and Greece goes to them for oil...meanwhile there are shortages of fuel all around the globe.. this is peakoil and economic war

Amplify’d from arabnews.com

Greece turns to Iranian oil as default fears deter trade

Outgoing Prime Minister George Papandreou waves to the media as he leaves the presidential palace in Athens. (Reuters)














By REUTERS







Published: Nov 11, 2011 23:35
Updated: Nov 11, 2011 23:43

LONDON: Greece is relying on Iran for most of its oil as traders pull the plug on supplies and banks refuse to provide financing for fear that Athens will default on its debt.

Traders said Greece has turned to Iran as the supplier of last resort despite rising pressure from Washington and Brussels to stifle trade as part of a campaign against Tehran’s nuclear program.

The near paralysis of oil dealings with Greece, which has four refineries, shows how trade in Europe could stall due to a breakdown in trust caused by the euro zone debt crisis, which is threatening to spread to further countries.

“Companies like us cannot deal with them. There is too much risk. Maybe independent traders are more geared up for that,” said a trader with a major international oil company.

“Our finance department just refuses to deal with them. Not that they didn’t pay. It is just a precaution,” said a trader with a major trading house.

“We couldn’t find any bank willing to finance us. No bank wants to finance a deal for them. We missed some good opportunities there,” said a third trader.

More than two dozen European traders contacted by Reuters at oil majors and trading houses said the lack of bank financing has forced Greece to stop purchasing crude from Russia, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan in recent months.

Greece, with no domestic production, relies on oil imports and in 2010 imported 46 percent of its crude from Russia and 16 percent from Iran. Saudi Arabia and Kazakhstan provided 10 percent each, Libya 9 percent and Iraq 7 percent, according to data from the European Union.

“They are really making no secret when you speak to them and say they are surviving on Iranian stuff because others will simply not sell to them in the current environment,” one trader in the Mediterranean said.

Leading Greek refiner Hellenic Petroleum denied having any difficulty in buying crude and declined to comment on the exact breakdown of oil supplies. Greece’s second biggest refiner Motor Oil Hellas declined to comment.

Greece’s four refineries, belonging to Hellenic and Motor Oil, together can process around 400,000 barrels per day. That figure has fallen to around 330,000 bpd in recent months due to maintenances and upgrades.

“Our crude slate is broadly unchanged over the last few months and we are always viewing to optimise our refining operations,” a Hellenic spokesman said.

“Our supply agreements are based on purely commercial considerations, no other factors interfering,” he said.

Shipping data obtained by Reuters showed four cargoes taking crude from the Middle East outlet of Sidi Kerir on the Egyptian Mediterranean to Greece in September. Three sailed in October. Traders said all carried Iranian Heavy crude and more was coming in November.

“Iran is the only one who might be working on an “open credit” basis right now, given its own difficulty in selling crude,” one trader said.

Imports of Iranian oil to the United States are subject to sanctions but are still fully legal to Europe and Asia. The European Union said this week it may consider oil sanctions against Iran within weeks, after a UN agency said Tehran had worked to design nuclear bombs.

Iran denies trying to build atom bombs and an Iranian official, who declined to be named, said Tehran has no difficulty in selling its oil.

However, shipping sources said that interest in Iranian crude, which is cheaper than competing Russian grades but politically sensitive, has prompted the country to continue storing crude in the Red Sea, to make it available for swift delivery.

The rest of the oil industry drastically cut crude storage last year after forward prices for crude moved to a discount to prompt, making such operation loss-making.

Iran is storing crude in four very large crude carriers (VLCCs) in the Red Sea.

Read more at arabnews.com
 

Friday, November 11, 2011

Founding Fathers of the United States Were Radical Revolutionaries #ows

 #OWS is primarily made up of people who believe that the country is in dire need of massive reform in many areas.



Just because some of the founding fathers had slaves and were Episcopalian and there were no women allowed in the group doesn't mean we have to be that way now.
Amplify’d from en.wikipedia.org

Founding Fathers of the United States

The Founding Fathers of the United States of America were political leaders and statesmen who participated in the American Revolution by signing the United States Declaration of Independence, taking part in the American Revolutionary War, establishing the United States Constitution, or by some other key contribution. Within the large group known as the "Founding Fathers", there are two key subsets: the "Signers of the Declaration of Independence" (who signed the United States Declaration of Independence in 1776) and the Framers of the Constitution (who were delegates to the Federal Convention and took part in framing or drafting the proposed Constitution of the United States). A further subset is the group that signed the Articles of Confederation.[2]




The Committee of Five presenting their draft of the Declaration of Independence to the Congress on June 28, 1776. Painting by John Trumbull. Trumbull's painting can also be found on the back of the U.S. $2 bill.[1]


Some historians define the "Founding Fathers" to mean a larger group, including not only the Signers and the Framers but also all those who, whether as politicians, jurists, statesmen, soldiers, diplomats, or ordinary citizens, took part in winning American independence and creating the United States of America.[3] American historian Richard B. Morris, in his 1973 book Seven Who Shaped Our Destiny: The Founding Fathers as Revolutionaries, identified the following seven figures as the key Founding Fathers: John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington.[4]
The newspaper publisher Warren G. Harding, then a Republican Senator from Ohio, coined the phrase "Founding Fathers" in his keynote address to the 1916 Republican National Convention. He used it several times thereafter, most prominently in his 1921 inaugural address as President of the United States.[5]

[edit] Collective biography of the Framers of the Constitution

In the winter and spring of 1786-1787, twelve of the thirteen states chose a total of 74 delegates to attend what is now known as the Federal Convention in Philadelphia. Nineteen delegates chose not to accept election or attend the debates; for example, Patrick Henry of Virginia thought that state politics were far more interesting and important than national politics, though during the ratification controversy of 1787-1788 he claimed, "I smelled a rat." Rhode Island did not send delegates because of its politicians' suspicions of the Convention delegates' motivations. As a sanctuary for Baptists, Rhode Island's absence at the Convention in part explains the absence of Baptist affiliation among those who did attend. Of the 55 who did attend at some point, no more than 38 delegates showed up at one time.[6]
These delegates represented a cross-section of 18th century American leadership. Almost all of them were well-educated men of means who were leaders in their communities. Many were also prominent in national affairs. Virtually every one had taken part in the American Revolution; at least 29 had served in the Continental Army, most of them in positions of command. Several of the latter were instrumental in establishing the Society of the Cincinnati in 1783. Scholars have examined the collective biography of them as well as the signers of the Declaration and the Constitution.[7]

[edit] Political experience

The framers of the Constitution had extensive political experience. By 1787, four-fifths (41 individuals), were or had been members of the Continental Congress. Nearly all of the 55 delegates had experience in colonial and state government, and the majority had held county and local offices.[8]
  • The ones who lacked congressional experience were Bassett, Blair, Brearly, Broom, Davie, Dayton, Alexander Martin, Luther Martin, Mason, McClurg, Paterson, Charles Pinckney, Strong, Washington and Yates.
  • Six (Carroll, Dickinson, Gerry, Gouverneur Morris, Robert Morris, and Sherman) had affixed their signatures to the Articles of Confederation.
  • Two, Sherman and Robert Morris, signed all three of the nation's basic documents.
  • Dickinson, Franklin, Langdon, and Rutledge had been governors.

[edit] Occupations and finances

The 1787 delegates practiced a wide range of high and middle-status occupations, and many pursued more than one career simultaneously. They did not differ dramatically from the Loyalists, except they were generally younger and less senior in their professions.[9] Thirty-five had legal training, though not all of them practiced law. Some had also been local judges.[10]


  • At the time of the convention, 13 men were merchants: Blount, Broom, Clymer, Dayton, Fitzsimons, Shields, Gilman, Gorham, Langdon, Robert Morris, Pierce, Sherman, and Wilson.

  • Seven were major land speculators: Blount, Dayton, Fitzsimons, Gorham, Robert Morris, Washington and Wilson.

  • Eleven speculated in securities on a large scale: Bedford, Blair, Clymer, Dayton, Fitzsimons, Franklin, King, Langdon, Robert Morris, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, and Sherman.

  • Twelve owned or managed slave-operated plantations or large farms: Bassett, Blair, Blount, Butler, Carroll, Jenifer, Jefferson, Mason, Charles Pinckney, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Rutledge, Spaight, and Washington. Madison also owned slaves, as did Franklin, who later freed his slaves and was a key founder of the Pennsylvania Anti-Slavery Society. Alexander Hamilton was opposed to slavery and, with John Jay and other anti-slavery advocates, helped to found the first African free school in New York City. Jay helped to found the New York Manumission Society, Hamilton was an officer, and when Jay was governor of New York in 1798 he signed into law the state statute ending slavery as of 1821.

  • Broom and Few were small farmers.

  • Eight of the men received a substantial part of their income from public office: Baldwin, Blair, Brearly, Gilman, Livingston, Madison, and Rutledge.

  • Three had retired from active economic endeavors: Franklin, McHenry, and Mifflin.

  • Franklin and Williamson were scientists, in addition to their other activities.

  • McClurg, McHenry, and Williamson were physicians, and Johnson was a college president.

[edit] Family and finances


A few of the 1787 delegates were wealthy, but many of the country's top wealth-holders were Loyalists who went to Britain. Most of the others had financial resources that ranged from good to excellent, but there are other founders who were less than wealthy. On the whole they were less wealthy than the Loyalists.[11]

[edit] Demographics


Brown (1976) and Harris (1969) provide detailed demographic information on each man.


  • Most of the 1787 delegates were natives of the Thirteen Colonies. Only 9 were born elsewhere: four (Butler, Fitzsimons, McHenry, and Paterson) in Ireland, two (Davie and Robert Morris) in England, two (Wilson and Witherspoon) in Scotland, and one (Hamilton) in the West Indies.

  • Many of them had moved from one state to another. Seventeen individuals had already lived or worked in more than one state or colony: Baldwin, Bassett, Bedford, Dickinson, Few, Franklin, Ingersoll, Hamilton, Livingston, Alexander Martieno, Luther Martin, Mercer, Gouverneur Morris, Robert Morris, Read, Sherman, and Williamson.

  • Several others had studied or traveled abroad.

The Founding Fathers had strong educational backgrounds at some of the colonial colleges or abroad.[12] Some, like Franklin and Washington, were largely self-taught or learned through apprenticeship. Others had obtained instruction from private tutors or at academies. About half of the men had attended or graduated from college. Some men held medical degrees or advanced training in theology. Most of the education was in the colonies, but several were lawyers who had been trained at the Inns of Court in London.

[edit] Longevity and family life






Death age of the Founding Fathers.



For their era, the 1787 delegates (like the 1776 signers) were average in terms of life spans.[10] Their average age at death was about 67. The first to die was Houston in 1788; the last was Madison in 1836.

Secretary Charles Thomson lived to the age of 94. Johnson died at 92. John Adams lived to the age of 90. A few—Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Williamson, and Wythe—lived into their eighties. Either 15 or 16 (depending on Fitzsimons's exact age) died in their seventies, 20 or 21 in their sixties, eight in their fifties, and five only in their forties. Three (Alexander Hamilton, Richard Dobbs Spaight and Button Gwinnett) were killed in duels.

Most of the delegates married and raised children. Sherman fathered the largest family: 15 children by two wives. At least nine (Bassett, Brearly, Johnson, Mason, Paterson, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Sherman, Wilson, and Wythe) married more than once. Four (Baldwin, Gilman, Jenifer, and Alexander Martin) were lifelong bachelors.

[edit] Religion


Lambert (2003) has examined the religious affiliations and beliefs of the Founders. Of the 55 delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention, 49 were Protestants, and three were Roman Catholics (C. Carroll, D. Carroll, and Fitzsimons). Among the Protestant delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 28 were Church of England (or Episcopalian, after the American Revolutionary War was won), eight were Presbyterians, seven were Congregationalists, two were Lutherans, two were Dutch Reformed, and two were Methodists.

A few prominent Founding Fathers were anti-clerical Christians, such as Thomas Jefferson[13][14][15] (who created the so-called "Jefferson Bible") and Benjamin Franklin.[16] A few others (most notably Thomas Paine) were deists, or at least held beliefs very similar to those of deists.[17]

[edit] Post-convention careers


The 1787 delegates' subsequent careers reflected their abilities as well as the vagaries of fate.[18] Most were successful, although seven (Fitzsimons, Gorham, Luther Martin, Mifflin, Robert Morris, Pierce, and Wilson) suffered serious financial reverses that left them in or near bankruptcy. Two, Blount and Dayton, were involved in possibly treasonous activities. Yet, as they had done before the convention, most of the group continued to render public service, particularly to the new government they had helped to create.

[edit] Legacy


According to Joseph J. Ellis, the concept of the Founding Fathers of the U.S. emerged in the 1820s as the last survivors died out. Ellis says "the founders," or "the fathers," comprised an aggregate of semi-sacred figures whose particular accomplishments and singular achievements were decidedly less important than their sheer presence as a powerful but faceless symbol of past greatness. For the generation of national leaders coming of age in the 1820s and 1830s – men like Andrew Jackson, Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and John C. Calhoun – "the founders" represented a heroic but anonymous abstraction whose long shadow fell across all followers and whose legendary accomplishments defied comparison. "We can win no laurels in a war for independence," Webster acknowledged in 1825. "Earlier and worthier hands have gathered them all. Nor are there places for us ... [as] the founders of states. Our fathers have filled them. But there remains to us a great duty of defence and preservation."[19] The last remaining founders, also called the "Last of the Romans",[20] lived well into the nineteenth century; for example, Andrew Jackson served in the Revolutionary War, eventually became President, died in 1845, and is now sometimes considered a founding father.[21]

[edit] List of the Founding Fathers










[edit] Signers of the Declaration of Independence






[edit] Delegates to the Constitutional Convention


[edit] Signers of the Constitution



[edit] Delegates who left the Convention without signing



[edit] Convention delegates who refused to sign












[edit] Signers of the Articles of Confederation



The following people signed the Articles of Confederation:





[edit] Other founders


The following people are referred to in the cited reliable sources as having been fathers or founders of the United States.

Read more at en.wikipedia.org