http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/023809.html

I have just returned from our grocery store where, upon exiting, I was greeted by a young man desirous of telling me of the political virtues of Lyndon LaRouche. I was wearing a button reading “Vote No for President,” in which he took interest. When I suggested to him that politics always diminishes individual liberty, he asked for examples. I responded that wars and depressions have been used by the state to expand its controls over people. I gave, as examples, the “great depression” of the 1930s and World War II. He praised FDR for ending the depression which, I told him, did not end until after World War II came to an end, a war into which Roosevelt had manipulated American involvement. This young man then told me that it was FDR’s policies during the 1930s - of which this man approved - that made it possible for the U.S. to enter that war. “Have you thought of the implications of what you just said?,” I asked. He failed to get my point, so I asked him: “if it was the government’s expanded powers, during the New Deal, that allowed FDR to enter and conduct World War II, do you understand what I meant when I said that crises always lead to an expansion of government authority?” He asked if I thought it was wrong for the U.S. to have participated in World War II. I told him that I thought all wars are wrong. In what he must have thought was a clincher argument, he responded: “but if Roosevelt hadn’t gotten us into World War II, we would be living under a fascist government, run by big corporations.”

You can’t make up this stuff!

::sigh::

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/…

Japan’s Defence Minister dismissed his air force chief yesterday for writing an essay that claims the country was not an aggressor in the Second World War and was trapped into getting involved by the United States.

Toshio Tamogami’s essay will likely upset relations with China and South Korea, which remain bitter about Japan’s wartime occupation and say Tokyo has failed to properly atone for its invasion of the Korean Peninsula, Taiwan and China.

The claims drew a swift rebuke from politicians, and Defence Minister Yasukazu Hamada said he would dismiss the general. “I think it is improper of the air force chief of staff to publicly state a view that clearly differs from the that of the government,” he told reporters after the essay was made public yesterday.

Is this guy full of it when he claims Japan was not an aggressor? Absolutely. Is there some truth in the claim the United States goaded the Japanese government? Absolutely. It’ll never be known how much was known and how much was deliberate but there are some interesting facts concerning the event. A quick Google search also reveals a History Channel special on the topic.

The topic is interesting but the reason for posting this story was what I highlighted above. The idea that a person, regardless of his association, should be dismissed due to his opinion “that clearly differs from that of the government.” Perhaps it’s a translation issue but apparently to say so succinctly that the issue was not that there was just a disagreement or that what he said was wrong but that if differs from that of the government line. Very nationalistic. Very “Country First.” Very unsurprising.

http://www.reuters.com/…

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission issued an emergency order on Friday temporarily halting the short selling of 799 financial stocks in an effort to protect investors and markets.

The measure underscores growing concerns that short-selling has led to sharp declines in U.S. and European financial stocks since the onset of the credit crunch.

“The emergency order temporarily banning short selling of financial stocks will restore equilibrium to markets,” SEC Chairman Christopher Cox said in a statement. “This action, which would not be necessary in a well-functioning market, is temporary in nature and part of the comprehensive set of steps being taken by the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, and the Congress.”

As Bill Anderson over at the Lew Rockwell blog has said:

The last line is a howler worthy of Paul Krugman’s twice-weekly missives in his New York Times column. The SEC is not “restoring” equilibrium; it is preventing equilibrium.

It seems that policy makers are making the same terrible errors committed by the Hoover and Roosevelt administrations during the 1930s. (The Daily Kos, a popular Democratic blog, is calling for a “New New Deal.” Frankly speaking, we are not rid of the old New Deal.) The government wants us to believe that the real problem is falling prices, so if the government can prop up prices of assets by any means, then it is doing us a favor.

Remember that Carl Menger wrote in his wonderful Grundsatze that “all things are subject to the law of cause and effect.” Indeed, Menger’s words live here; falling prices are an effect, not a cause. Short sellers and others who are helping to drive down asset prices are restoring the markets to their natural equilibrium, not preventing it. Unfortunately, the SEC is channeling Hoover and FDR, and they are preventing the economy from recovering.

The more they tinker… the more pain we will end up in.

http://mises.org/…

An Ironic Tribute: Franklin D. Roosevelt Commemorative Gold Coin

It’s been 75 years since the federal government, on the spurious grounds of fighting the Great Depression, ordered the confiscation of all monetary gold from Americans, permitting trivial amounts for ornamental or industrial use. This happens to be one of the episodes Kevin Gutzman and I describe in detail in our new book, Who Killed the Constitution? The Fate of American Liberty from World War I to George W. Bush. From the point of view of the typical American classroom, on the other hand, the incident may as well not have occurred.

A key piece of legislation in this story is the Emergency Banking Act of 1933, which Congress passed on March 9 without having read it and after only the most trivial debate. House Minority Leader Bertrand H. Snell (R-NY) generously conceded that it was “entirely out of the ordinary” to pass legislation that “is not even in print at the time it is offered.” He urged his colleagues to pass it all the same: “The house is burning down, and the President of the United States says this is the way to put out the fire. [Applause.] And to me at this time there is only one answer to this question, and that is to give the President what he demands and says is necessary to meet the situation.”

Among other things, the act retroactively approved the president’s closing of private banks throughout the country for several days the previous week, an act for which he had not bothered to provide a legal justification. It gave the secretary of the Treasury the power to require all individuals and corporations to hand over all their gold coin, gold bullion, or gold certificates if in his judgment “such action is necessary to protect the currency system of the United States.”

The Emergency Banking Act reached back in time to amend the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, which had originally been intended to criminalize economic intercourse between American citizens and declared enemies of the United States. One provision of the act granted the president the power to regulate and even prohibit “under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe … any transactions in foreign exchange, export or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency … by any person within the United States.” In 1918, the act was amended to extend its provisions two years beyond the conclusion of hostilities, and to allow the president to “investigate, regulate, or prohibit” even the “hoarding” of gold by an American.

…

A rather good summery of FDR’s gold theivery.