Historical
See other Historical Articles
Title: The New Deal and Roosevelt’s Seizure of Gold: A Legacy of Theft and Inflation, Part 1
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0608d.asp
Published: Dec 6, 2006
Author: William L. Anderson
Post Date: 2011-02-07 10:51:20 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 70172
Comments: 74
In a recent discussion on the economy with a faculty colleague, I reminded her of some of the absurdities of New Deal economic policies (many of which have been laid out in previous issues of Freedom Daily and elsewhere). She reminded me that Franklin D. Roosevelt is a “hero” to her and other Democrats, which, translated, means that the New Deal cannot be criticized in any form.
Indeed, in May the New York Times op-ed page paid homage to Roosevelt. Ted Widmer wrote that a book by Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter, who he says “has nurtured a schoolboy crush on F.D.R.,” reflects “on the way that Roosevelt reinvented the presidency during his first hundred days in office, through bold policy innovations, brilliant speeches and broadcasts and a personal connection with the American people that has not been equaled since.”
Democrats today may think of themselves as belonging to a “modern” political party, but Roosevelt still is its central figure and any policy “innovations” that come forth from party intellectuals ultimately must be in line with the New Deal. The shocked Widmer writes that
a recent spate of books from the right, including Jim Powell’s FDR’s Folly and Thomas E. Woods Jr.’s Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, have accused [Roosevelt] of prolonging the Great Depression and generally screwing up America.
Admirers of Roosevelt — including the editorialists at the New York Times — hold such thinking to be nonsense, especially the first part about the New Deal’s prolonging the Great Depression instead of ending it. After all, has not the Times’s favorite economist, Paul Krugman, himself said that capitalism had created conditions in which “inadequate” aggregate demand existed during the 1930s, leading Roosevelt to attempt to increase aggregate demand through government spending?
While most analyses of the New Deal look at the various programs and policies that expanded government bureaucracies, the New Deal as we know it would not have been possible without the issuance of Executive Order 6102 in 1933. With Roosevelt’s signature, gold as legal money disappeared in the United States, paving the way for the government to engage in near-unconstrained debasement of the currency. Historians generally pass by EO 6102, but without it Roosevelt’s economic programs never would have gained traction.
Understanding the New Deal
Most articles, books, and papers that cover the New Deal concentrate on the myriad of programs and policies of the Roosevelt administration, such as the National Industrial Recovery Act, the Agricultural Adjustment Act, and the Wagner Act, and the battles between Roosevelt and the U.S. Supreme Court, which had struck down some key elements of the New Deal in 1935. For the most part — and especially in those writings that are favorable to Roosevelt — authors tend to emphasize the vast unemployment and helplessness that gripped the United States (and much of the world) in 1933.
Certainly the horrifying numbers are there. In February 1933, a month before Roosevelt took office, the nation’s overall rate of unemployment stood at 28.3 percent. Nearly half the banks in the United States had failed, millions of people were homeless, and the country’s manufacturing facilities operated at perhaps two-thirds or less of their capacity. Farming communities were devastated, as commodity prices fell drastically, making it impossible for farmers to pay their debts and crippling the small rural banks that held the mortgages.
To right the economic ship, the Roosevelt administration proposed a set of programs that came to be known as the New Deal. The problem, however, was not with Roosevelt’s desire to halt the Depression but rather in the misjudging of its causes and with implementing policies that ultimately would prolong it. It is not surprising, then, that Roosevelt and his “brain trust” of intellectual advisors (mostly from Columbia University) blamed free-market capitalism for the economic free fall and set about to ensure that government would set the agenda for the economy.
Progressives who dominated the Roosevelt administration held that the principal cause of the economic downturn was falling prices, along with falling wages. Furthermore, they believed that the cause of falling prices was “overproduction,” so the “cure” was to find ways to limit the production of goods. Thus, in the minds of the New Dealers, the government needed to restrict production and force up prices. As prices rose, so would wages, and high wages would bring the country out of the Depression. For inspiration and direction, they used the economic programs of Italy’s fascist dictator, Benito Mussolini, as their model.
If one applies even simple logic to such a plan, it is obvious that restricting output also would mean that less labor would be required, which would translate into more unemployment. Yet that is exactly opposite from what Roosevelt and his “brain trust” claimed: that restricting production somehow would mean that fewer businesses would fail, thus eliminating unemployment.
For example, his vaunted National Industrial Recovery Act attempted to organize the entire U.S. economy into a series of cartels that would restrict production, force up prices, and keep wages high. Ironically, the NIRA was a comprehensive plan of what Herbert Hoover’s administration had tried to do in a piecemeal fashion — with disastrous results.
The Agricultural Adjustment Act, while aimed at keeping crop prices high, did so by ordering the mass destruction of crops, as well as animals such as pigs and chickens. In order to pay for the destruction of crops, the Roosevelt administration had Congress enact a tax on agricultural products. Thus, the economic ethos of the New Deal was that production was bad and nonproduction was good.
While many economists and astute journalists such as H.L. Mencken immediately pointed out the folly of such policies, the New Dealers believed that they had an ace in the hole: inflation. Yes, they reasoned, these are restrictive policies, but if the government could find a way to massively inflate the currency, then somehow people would start buying more goods as their dollars depreciated, and the ensuing spending spree would wipe out unemployment.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: A K A Stone (#0)
Gold was never confiscated, it was purchased at fair market value. Check your facts before making ridiculous statements.
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
Don't be a moron. The government forced everyone to turn in their gold or they would be fined TWICE the amount of gold that they owned. After Roosevelts mafia stole the gold they doubled the price of it. They only paid the people twenty dollars an ounce for the gold they stole. If you took that twenty dollars and put it under your mattress how much would it be worth compared to when it was stolen? How much would that gold be worth now?
eminent domain is a bitch. Imagine the value of govt seized real estate in today's money? Thus your argument falls apart.
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
Strong arm robbery by the communist FDR. If the owners of gold had wanted paper, they would have gone out and bought some. The Lincon/Bolshevik Republicans of the day loved it, protestations notwithstanding.
It's not robbery if you are compensated - that's why no one rose up in arms - the USA had a small army back then. It would have been easy - but no one rose up in arms over this. You did not see roving band of so called patriot militias attacking the Federal govt over this - thus this episode in history is actually something modern day right wing kooks latch on to as part of their fear - piss your pants - conspiracy mongering. Though, resistance did come in the form of the rich trying to organize some sort of coup ("Business Plot") around retired Major General Smedley Butler, but he ratted them out. The modern day so called conservative movement is the offspring of those coup plotters since they are beholden to Koch money (financiers of the Birchers).
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
the government does it according to statists nationwide.
Bottom line FDR was a piece of shit robber and constitution destroyer.
There was an exception for coin collectors, and of course jewelers and dentists could buy gold (I was a jeweler back in the day and did buy gold). Limiting the order to "gold hoarders" along with compensation probably accounted for acceptance of the order. Speaking of hoarding - when the Hunt bros decided to corner the world silver market in the 70s, driving up the price of silver, they put a lot of Indian and other artisans out of business. (an example of the free market creating jobs?) Worthy of note in the context of this discussion: Nelson Hunt... "has been extremely active in conservative political causes[8] and as of 2008[update] is a member of the Council of the John Birch Society."[3]
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson
I think that had more to do with the wealthy believing that Hitler and the Nazis were on the right path to prosperity and that FDR stood in their way. (thank God the "conservatives" didn't win that one)
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson
With Wilson Harding Cooledge Hoover Truman LBJ Nixon Ford Carter Reagan bush41 Clinton bush43 Obama kicking his boots. The US has been nothing but a Corporate Empire masking as a Republic. The Constitution short circuited from the start, just like a baby strangles in the crib. "...the control of Washington's foreign policy agenda. The general line among the imperial courtiers and their media sycophants was that the uprising had reached its peak and was now receding. It was all a lie, part of the remarkably witless self-delusion that has afflicted the Washington-Cairo power structure from the beginning of the uprising: the illusion that they are still in control of events, that they can tinker a bit here, recalibrate a bit there, and still end up with the same system of elite domination and corruption basically in place." Meet the new boss. Same as the Old Boss. ;}
If private property is forcibly confiscated, compensation is irrelevant. Robbery has occurred. The government took what was a dependable store of value and forced citizens to exchange it for something that was a very poor store of value, in many cases against their will. It trampled all over the concept of property rights and the idea of basic personal sovereignty. People didn't riot because they didn't understand what was being done to them.
I am one of those who do not believe that a national debt is a national blessing, but rather a curse to a republic; inasmuch as it is calculated to raise around the administration a moneyed aristocracy dangerous to the liberties of the country.-Andrew Jackson
That's an understatement. He's probably responsible for more human misery than any human that ever lived.
I am one of those who do not believe that a national debt is a national blessing, but rather a curse to a republic; inasmuch as it is calculated to raise around the administration a moneyed aristocracy dangerous to the liberties of the country.-Andrew Jackson
I believe you should check your own facts. How much was it purchased for again?
I am one of those who do not believe that a national debt is a national blessing, but rather a curse to a republic; inasmuch as it is calculated to raise around the administration a moneyed aristocracy dangerous to the liberties of the country.-Andrew Jackson
Bullshit. The congress is responsible via the constitution for regulating monetary policy and can seize private property for the greater good with compensation through eminent domain. It can also take away private property via amendments without compensation like it did when it freed the slaves. Suck on that reality, tea bagger.
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
In exchange, these individuals received $20.67 per troy ounce if my google search was accurate. I think I used the term before of "fair market value" but the actual wording of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution says 'nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Seems people at the time thought it was "just" because they did not act like the goofy tea baggers did last year, nor did they take up arms or protest in any way. In fact the only protest of any scale was before FDR took office with the unarmed veterans bonus army protest that the Republican administration beat down with force of arms.
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
All I can say to that is lol.
Another think about conservatives is that they are obsessed with past history as if they are fighting a battle their ancestors lost...could be a southern lost cause thing......
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
Are you saying in a round about way that you don't like the spotlight of truth shined on the misdeeds of dead traitors?
You are arguing about events that were not in your lifetime in some cases (who knows maybe some of you here are that old). FDR won 4 elections in a row. That makes any of your arguments on him being a traitor kooky since none of the Republicans who ran for president called him that. Maybe you tea baggers can build a time machine and go back in time and demonstrate against him. Which would be kind of funny because when you tea baggers come back from the time slip you will not have social security or medicare and die.
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
Eminent Domain is theft. Beside the fact that it's abuse is rampant,it is a morally repugnant idea. Monetary policy and eminent domain are two different things. The government derives no justification for ED through monetary policy. Should one person be able to own another? Not in my opinion. So the slaves were never private property to begin with. I'm no tea-bagger, I'm an anarchist. You should work on your labeling skills, it makes it easier for you to divide everyone into groups and build straw men.
I am one of those who do not believe that a national debt is a national blessing, but rather a curse to a republic; inasmuch as it is calculated to raise around the administration a moneyed aristocracy dangerous to the liberties of the country.-Andrew Jackson
Of course you are aware that soon after the gold was confiscated, FDR raised the price to $33 an ounce for sale to other people in the world.
I am one of those who do not believe that a national debt is a national blessing, but rather a curse to a republic; inasmuch as it is calculated to raise around the administration a moneyed aristocracy dangerous to the liberties of the country.-Andrew Jackson
Then leave my beloved USA because eminent domain is in the constitution you filthy traitor.
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
The Founding Fathers thought national debt was a national blessing, you anti- American traitor: Alexander Hamilton, deeply read in economic theory and politics, understood how useful an instrument a national debt could be in asserting national power. Britain had founded the Bank of England in 1694 and its government bonds traded freely in the marketplace. Thus it was able to borrow at much lower cost than France and repeatedly defeat its much larger and theoretically more powerful rival in the endless wars that punctuated the 18th century. Hamilton firmly believed that a similar type of national debt, "if it is not excessive, will be to us a national blessing."
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
Bush won reelection for the maximum time a president is allowed to serve. Therefore everything he did was good. The military didn't start a civil war. So everything Bush did was good. That is your argument.
Thomas Jefferson, who was probably our best president disagrees with Hamilton. Do you know about this or do I have to look up something to post?
Bush stole the first election.
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
Hamilton's economic policies worked. Jefferson was a great man but not an economist and I think he died owning money.
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
That is crazy talk. Bush clearly won for better or worse. If Bush stole the first election the people would have voted him out. He wasn't voted out therefore the people love Bush and all of his policies. That is your logic.
At least we can agree on that one. :)
Bush stole the first election. The second election is suspect as well.
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
Turns out Jefferson was right. Debt is destroying us. What is that the Bible says about debt?
It is common knowledge that FDR stole the election in New York in 1928 and he probably did the same thing when he ran for president.
Debt is not destroying America. Not raising taxes on the blood sucking rich is destroying America. "Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." Matthew 5:42
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
The verse I was referring to is that the debtor is the slave to the creditor. I'm by no means rich. But lets face it the rich pay the majority of the taxes.
FDR ran for president in 1932.
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
I know he did. He stole the governors race in 1928 and probably did the same in the presidential election 4 years later.
New Testament rule overrules Old Testamnet rule which only applied to Jews anyway.
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
Is this how you are defending the charge that Bush stole his election? In any case no one in the 30s used these kook arguments against FDR you modern kooks invented to justify some modern conservative insanity.
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
The new testament is just the old testament revealed. Jesus didn't come to destroy a single law. He said words to that effect.
No I am pointing out that Roosevelt was an election thief. People in America back then were much more trusting of the government then people today. Two basic reasons. 1. They had a good government for the most part throughout history. and didn't see it coming or have access to the information that would have warned them. 2. We now have access to more information then the citizens of that time knew about. So we can make wiser decisions. Your constant pronouncements that someone didn't do something in the past such as protest or start a civil war is not evidence that what happened war right or even constitutional.
Comments (41 - 74) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestRoosevelt’s Seizure of Gold
#2. To: Godwinson (#1)
#3. To: A K A Stone (#2)
They only paid the people twenty dollars an ounce for the gold they stole. If you took that twenty dollars and put it under your mattress how much would it be worth compared to when it was stolen? How much would that gold be worth now?
#4. To: A K A Stone (#2)
(Edited)
#5. To: hondo68, A K A Stone, war, go65, lucysmom, Brian S, mcgowanjm (#4)
#6. To: Godwinson (#5)
It's not robbery if
#7. To: hondo68 (#4)
#8. To: Godwinson (#5)
It's not robbery if you are compensated - that's why no one rose up in arms - the USA had a small army back then. It would have been easy - but no one rose up in arms over this.
#9. To: Godwinson (#5)
Though, resistance did come in the form of the rich trying to organize some sort of coup ("Business Plot") around retired Major General Smedley Butler, but he ratted them out.
#10. To: A K A Stone (#7)
Bottom line FDR was a piece of shit robber and constitution destroyer.
#11. To: Godwinson (#5)
It's not robbery if you are compensated
#12. To: A K A Stone (#7)
Bottom line FDR was a piece of shit robber and constitution destroyer.
#13. To: Godwinson (#1)
Gold was never confiscated, it was purchased at fair market value. Check your facts before making ridiculous statements.
#14. To: Andrew Jackson (#11)
If private property is forcibly confiscated, compensation is irrelevant. Robbery has occurred.
#15. To: Andrew Jackson (#13)
(Edited)
How much was it purchased for again?
#16. To: Godwinson (#14)
eminent domain
#17. To: A K A Stone (#16)
#18. To: Godwinson (#17)
#19. To: A K A Stone, lucysmom, go65, war (#18)
Are you saying in a round about way that you don't like the spotlight of truth shined on the misdeeds of dead traitors?
#20. To: Godwinson (#14)
#21. To: Godwinson (#15)
In exchange, these individuals received $20.67 per troy ounce if my google search was accurate.
#22. To: Andrew Jackson (#20)
Eminent Domain is theft. Beside the fact that it's abuse is rampant,it is a morally repugnant idea.
#23. To: Andrew Jackson (#21)
I am one of those who do not believe that a national debt is a national blessing,
#24. To: Godwinson (#19)
FDR won 4 elections in a row
#25. To: Godwinson (#23)
#26. To: A K A Stone (#24)
Bush won reelection for the maximum time a president is allowed to serve. Therefore everything he did was good. The military didn't start a civil war. So everything Bush did was good. That is your argument.
#27. To: A K A Stone (#25)
Thomas Jefferson, who was probably our best president disagrees with Hamilton. Do you know about this or do I have to look up something to post?
#28. To: Godwinson (#26)
Bush stole the first election.
#29. To: Godwinson (#27)
Jefferson was a great man
#30. To: A K A Stone (#28)
Bush stole the first election the people would have voted him out.
#31. To: Godwinson (#27)
#32. To: Godwinson (#30)
#33. To: A K A Stone, Lucysmom (#31)
Turns out Jefferson was right. Debt is destroying us. What is that the Bible says about debt?
#34. To: Godwinson (#33)
#35. To: A K A Stone (#32)
It is common knowledge that FDR stole the election in New York in 1928 and he probably did the same thing when he ran for president.
#36. To: Godwinson (#35)
#37. To: A K A Stone (#34)
The verse I was referring to is that the debtor is the slave to the creditor.
#38. To: A K A Stone (#36)
I know he did. He stole the governors race in 1928 and probably did the same in the presidential election 4 years later.
#39. To: Godwinson (#37)
#40. To: Godwinson (#38)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]