Ok, so why did the US government recall gold in 1933? What were the advantages of doing so and what would have happened if the recall did not take place? Would there be any reason for this to ever happen again?
You can get a lot of information with an internet search. The idea was that people were hoarding gold to protect themselves and gold was flowing out of the banking system. The replacement with paper money stopped that outflow and saved many banks. But the subsequent devaluation of the dollar against the confiscated gold robbed people of purchasing power and helped extend the Depression. Following the principles of Austrian economics, the credit boom leading up to the Great Depression guaranteed a bust would occur. In this case, Roosevelt choose to save the banks and hurt the people rather than save the people and hurt the banks. If there is another confiscation, it would have to be for a different reason since commercial banks don't use gold as money or reserves anymore.
Here is an interesting piece from 2004 by current economic nabob, Ben Bernanke. http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2004/200403022/default.htm In the above linked article the author touches on some of your querys. IMO there was a little battle going on between club members of the very rich and powerful, yet both were insulated from the consequences of their contest. The govt recalled gold in order to shore up reserves. The fed wanted to weed out weaker banks, a sort of economic Darwinism. Had the recall not taken place the gold standard would have been abandoned, which had been in place for decades. Had the recall not taken place many more banks would have collapsed, and the centralized banking system would have probably either been strengthened by laws which would probably be mostly ignored, or a more decentralized system would have arisen, such as did after Jacksons war with the banks, which helped form the more agrarian rural character of the nation. The old saw is History repeats itself, which is true but also false, compare that saying to the lament that the pentagon always refights its last war, what does repeat itself are the elements of human nature, often callous and venal, but sometimes noble and inspired. Can it happen again? It is happening again in a way, just as the leaders of those days were smart and felt themselves devoted to the common good, so do the ones of today, just as there were tons of self interested advisors out there who had the product or service that could ease troubled minds, there are the same today shilling their snake oil, wether it is ideological religious, or supposedly scientific, or whatever label they need to slap on it to make a buck. I think just as Mr. Bernanke identified many of the misstakes made in the 30s fighting the depression, some future brain will be dissecting the missteps of todays moguls. What I do not like is the emphasis today on macrothis and that. What I mean is that it seems to me to be counterproductive to actually solving problems, by amassing them with loads of other symptoms and then choosing the policy that will when fully executed and in place will solve all the problems at once, an economic panacea. It would seem a better course to me to break up all the big problems into their smallest most easily solvable components and attack them incrementally, little by little, bit by bit.
The U.S. is in debt.....serious debt. That means they owe somebody. If that somebody says, "I don't want your devalued dollars anymore. I need something tangible and worth something," the situation can change over night. I sure many people thought they were in an economic boom prior to Oct. 2008. Surprises happen. I wouldn't say this could never happen again.
What is the legal basis for an Executive Order Question: What is the legal justification for Executive Orders? Obviously, if a law is passed by congress and signed by the president, any penalties for violating that particular are legal (subject to judicial review). I don't seem to recall and provision in the constitution that gives the Executive branch the ability to unilaterally impose penalties or sanctions for violating a presidential directive. Did (some) congress pass a law giving the executive branch these powers? If so, when and what was the language used? Has it been tested in court?
Roosevelt had Congress amend the 1917 Trading With the Enemy Act to include any national emergency. The act included the power to regulate just about anything to prevent hoarding.
