This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
What 40 Years Of Gold Confiscation By The US Government Looks Like
The chart below, which is a time series showing the total "Gold Held by the US Treasury and the Federal Reserve" (which for all intents and purposes are interchangeable), demonstrates vividly the moment when the US government enacted Executive Order 6102, aka the "forbidding the Hoarding of Gold Coin, Gold Bullion, and Gold Certificates within the continental United States" order which criminalized the possession of monetary gold "by any individual, partnership, association or corporation." But not the government of course. Spot the moment after which gold confiscation by the US government (also known as USD devaluation) from its citizens was legalized.
The actual April 5, 1933 order, which in the coming years will make a repeat appearance with absolute certainty, is below.
What was the point of Executive Order 6102? It was two fold.
- First, in order to make the confiscation legitimate, the US government required the delivery of all gold coin, bullion, and certificates to be concluded by May 1, 1933 in exchange for $20.67/ounce. Several months later, the new, official gold exchange price (which however was merely the government's bid as nobody could actually buy gold at this price) became $35.00, which remained until 1971 when the last trace of the dollar's pseudo convertibility into gold was wiped out by Nixon. In effect, what FDR did was to devalue the USD by 70% overnight.
- Second, not only did the government remove the incentive for ordinary citizens to hold gold by establishing price and criminal controls over possession, it also changed the rules in the middle of the game allowing it to build up a massive gold hoard of over 8000 tons today which is maintained at Fort Knox, and is, to the best of our knowledge, unauditable by any mere mortal. Critically, it made the US government the sole source and monopoly agent of gold purchases, using reserve fiat currency it could print with impunity, beginning in 1933 and continuing through 1974 when the limitation on gold ownership was repealed after President Gerald Ford signed a bill legalizing private ownership of gold coins, bars and certificates by an act of Congress codified in Pub.L. 93-373, which went into effect December 31, 1974. In summary, the US government, which is now the largest official holder of physical gold in the world, had 40 years of uncontested zero cost gold accumulation in which it could build a gold inventory that was second to none.
As for the process the government had in place to deal with those who refused to voluntarily hand over their gold quietly, curiously there was only one case of prosecution, which however should make it very clear that holding gold in "authorized" bank safes is about the dumbest thing one can do the next time the US government decides to devalue the dollar, and change the rules.
The circumstances of the case were that a New York attorney, Frederick Barber Campbell, had on deposit at Chase National over 5,000 troy ounces (160 kg) of gold. When Campbell attempted to withdraw the gold Chase refused and Campbell sued Chase. A federal prosecutor then indicted Campbell on the following day (September 27, 1933) for failing to surrender his gold. Ultimately, the prosecution of Campbell failed, but the authority of the federal government to seize gold was upheld, and Campbell's gold was confiscated.
The fact that the custodial bank of the 5000 ounces of gold is the bank that would subsequently become JPMorgan is not lost on us.
Finally, to those who have some gold ETF certificates in a brokerage account, which by law are the possession by DTCC's Cede & Co. - a bank owned institution - we wish the best of luck to anyone hoping to preserve of even recover any of the invested wealth in such instruments.
And remember: when in doubt, recall Bernanke's immortal words: "gold is not money."
- 53471 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -




What tripe. Everyone knows Clarence Thomas can't read. Swiss cheese hatchet job.
Guilt by association? That how it works? Rand wrote about the type of position Greenspan occupied, as a fundamental source of collapse. Greenspan is a bureaucrat...a mystic. Best case he was attempting to end that which is flatly unsustainable, hence destined to end anyway.
This better demonstrates the insanity of handing a few SELFISH people all the guns, and giving them a monopoly on force. If there is one major flaw with Rand's writings, it was her inability to make this final leap.
Greenspan co-wrote some of her works. He was one of Rand's closest friends. Are you one of those people who would keep going to the same church of the anti-gay pro-family preacher after it was discovered that he was leading a double life of male prostitutes and drugs. Would you say, "he was right, he just didn't happen to personally follow his own preachings?" Or would you perhaps question whether the underlying message was just a cover all along for the guy making big money and addressing his personal demons?
Have you rescinded your support for elected government because some people who support elected government have feet of clay? If not, why not?
"He was one of Rand's closest friends."
Total bullshit. Greenspan was too weak to be a close friend of Ayn Rand and Paul Ryan is just an opportunistic name-dropper, not a follower.
How coincidental that every single high profile person who is a self-proclaimed Randist turns out to be nothing more than a self-interested whore who does whatever benefits him personally, whether it is growing government or imposing tyranny or taking away reproduction rights or debasing the dollar or creating asset bubbles or anything else that is supposedly anti-Rand.
Do you understand what you're pointing at here? What leads to "high-profile" these days? Answer: Attention from mainstream media. And what generates mainstream media attention? Answer: Being part of government or some other pack of power-hungry predators.
Therefore, it is nearly impossible to become high profile unless your actions are 100% opposite of Ayn Rand. Look at these two cases. Alan Greenspasm became the Darth Vadar of the 1990s, at least to anyone who cared about honesty, ethics, production or individualism. After all, "predators-DBA-federal-reserve" and "predators-DBA-government" are the most extreme opposites of honesty, ethics, productivity and individualism that anyone could name. So the point you make is almost inherently true --- anyone who becomes high profile is almost certain to be polar opposite to everything Ayn Rand advocated.
Let me make this point from the opposite direction. Please name ANY of the 100 most productive human beings on earth. Now, I am a huge fan of creative, inventive, productive behavior. Yet I must admit that I have no freaking idea, not even the slightest hint, who might be one of the 100 most productive human beings. Which makes this point from the opposite direction --- being highly honest, highly ethical, highly productive or highly individualistic does not make you high profile. In fact, these behaviors tend to assure you will never achieve high profile in the world of today.
Given the above, it is virtually NECESSARY that anyone who is high-profile AND has any [claimed] association with Ayn Rand, is/was a fraud, or has become the polar opposite of Ayn Rand and her philosophy. Therefore, your point may be true, but is inherently unsurprising.
What CAN BE surprising, is that a human being can be as utterly and completely disingenuous as Alan Greenspasm. I mean, that truly is a bold move to pretend to be pro-liberty and pro-individualist... then become the EXACT antithesis.
That is, indeed, stunning... no matter how you view rand, objectivism, liberty, individualism or anything else.
This is true especially because you are correct to say "he hung out with her". Yes he did, though perhaps he was not nearly as central in her cabal as you imagine. But that's only a minor quibble. Alan Greenspasm did indeed betray liberty and individualism just about as utterly and totally as can be imagined.
Paul Ryan is a vastly different case. I assume that you would agree the connection between Greenspasm was much closer than someone who simply states "I was inspired by Ayn Rand". I mean, probably millions of people could say that to some degree, and probably 90% of them barely understand 10% of the ideas in any philosophy, much less hers, so any connections between random morons who once were impressed by rand or her books pales into insignificance.
As an aside, how could anyone keep a straight face and state, "Atlas Shrugged [or Ayn Rand] inspired me to become a politician"? The very thought is hilarious and revolting at the same time. Can we remember a single "politician hero" in Atlas Shrugged... or any Rand novel?
So we are left with Alan Greenspasm, the great betrayer and DarthVadar to liberty and individualism on the one hand... and millions of morons who barely have a vague notion of any philosophy at all, including the bits and pieces of objectivism they read [but never grasp in any significant, serious way].
What can be made of this? Answer: Not much. But we definitely can say without any doubt whatsoever, that Alan Greenspasm utterly and completely rejected rand, ethics, liberty and individualism.
I'm not sure, but I can't really believe that you are maybe saying the following: that because the word "selfishness" (in a non-conventional sense) can be found in the philosophy of ayn rand... that somehow this means ayn rand and all her advocates and admirers are ANTI-ethics, ANTI-liberty, ANTI-productivity, ANTI-individualism... and in fact are necessarily the exact polar opposites: PRO-evil, PRO-totalitarianism, PRO-destruction, PRO-collectivism?
If so, you really must go back and read carefully what is said about selfishness. I don't think she did a good job of explaining "selfishness". I really, truly don't. However, I don't see how anyone can read what she wrote and come away thinking "selfishness" means anything remotely like the crude, conventional meaning of "selfishness". Her writing isn't that confusing or unclear. Not if you made a serious effort to understand what she was trying to say.
I personally think it was unwise for Ayn to purposely poke people in the eye with the word "selfishness" the way she did, though I do understand part of her motive. She wanted to startle people enough to get them to sit up and think about what she was trying to say about selfishness in the simple clinical sense. What she did was to grossly overestimated the willingness of people to withhold final judgement for more than 10 seconds, and thus she accidentally caused others to reject her points before learning what they were. I'll leave it to others to decide how much of this was her failure, and how much was a failure of others to think rather than emote.
My attempt to explain the intended meaning of "selfishness" won't be fully satisfactory either. Nonetheless, I will make an attempt. The following is my attempt to explain "selfishness" in the sense she meant, or should have meant, according to me.
Certain goods and actions benefit the health and well-being of human beings. I'd include: clean water (for hydration); clean untainted meat, veggies, fruits, nuts and other foods (for nourishment); clean, well-made clothing (for warmth and protection), dwellings (for warmth, protection, and storing/securing other goods); transportation (for observing, exploring, learning, trading); literature (to provisionally expand the realm of observations and ideas to consider); and all sorts of other real, physical goods. I even include a modest quantity of pure enjoyment to provide variety and refresh the senses and mind (travel for example, but even including sports though not that important to me).
The natural processes of earth do not create sufficient goods for 7 billion humans... not even a tiny fraction of 7 billion humans. Tens of thousand of years ago, when human population was tens or perhaps hundreds of thousands, the natural processes of earth were sufficient, and humans could live as predators like other animals, and live by just grabbing whatever they needed to survive or whatever they wanted to enjoy.
Somewhere along the line, some human or humans discovered "production". They discovered they could take certain actions that would then cause goods to come to exist that would not otherwise have come to exist. Those humans literally became the first creators... the first producers. These intentionally productive actions were vastly more efficient at creating goods than random processes, so goods became plentiful... especially when more and more humans started to take productive actions themselves.
As a consequence of productive actions --- taking actions that produced goods that were GOOD for humans (which is why they are called "goods", afterall) --- human population exploded. These actions were certainly "selfish" in the sense that the consequences of those actions (the "goods") increased the health and enjoyment of those who took those actions and produced those goods. Those humans who took those actions clearly invested their time and effort and work and resources to create the goods in order to gain health, benefits and enjoyment for THEM SELF.
To this day, some percentage of humans have held onto the "old ways"... the old "predator ways". Today, we call those humans "politicians", "corrupt businessmen" and "common criminals". They are ALL predators. They do not take actions to create/produce what they need and want, they just grab whatever they can get away with. That is the modus-operandi of predators, and is the equivalent of a set of ideas that producers created out of necessity called "ethics". The producers noticed (probably only intuitively) that production was "cause and effect" --- as applied to human actions. And they made the basic connection of ethics... "that he who takes actions that is cause should enjoy/bare/suffer ALL the consequences of those actions, and enjoy/bare/suffer ZERO consequences of the actions of others".
Yes, this is my soundbite expression of ethics, not theirs. But they understood this point in some way back then, and any modern humans who dare be honest about reality and human actions hold some similar notion in their minds today.
So I'll try to wrap up my brief attempt to explain the meaning of "selfishness" to any honest, ethical human being by saying this. It is okay to need and want "just a little". It is okay to need or want "a moderate amount". It is okay to need or want "egregious quantity and quality of goods and goodies". All of these is perfectly OKAY...
IF AND ONLY IF YOU CREATE THEM.
Now, I must admit to being a bit of a minimalist. I hate piles of "junk", but appreciate high quality and creativity in the few things I have. But I don't particularly care whether some other folks want "tons of garbage" (or "tons of good stuff")...
AS LONG AS THEY CREATE THOSE GOODS.
Hopefully now I can say what needs to be said. Whether we create "just enough to survive", or "just enough to survive comfortably", or "just enough to survive very comfortably", or "just enough to live in extreme luxury"... all those actions we take to create the goods required to live those lifestyles are SELFISH... in the sense that we "do the work in order to enjoy the goods we created --- for our self.
Any way you slice this... we invest our time, effort, skills, knowledge and resources to create/produce goods and goodies FOR OUR SELF.
Got that? This... is... as an unavoidable fact of reality... SELF-ISH.
And guess what, folks? There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with this. NOTHING. Hey, it is WE who must invest the extra time, effort, skills, expertise and resources to create the "extra stuff"... beyond what we absolutely require to barely survive. We didn't require others to just "donate our goods and goodies to us", and we did not "just grab what we want" like the predators of this world (and the parasites who accept crumbs from the predators for their votes and for support in their theft from producers).
This is the nature of selfishness.
Please note this important fact. NOTHING above says ANYTHING about harming others. In fact, everything is about manipulating (mostly inorganic) reality (but also veggies and such) to create goods and goodies. NONE of us who believe in honesty, ethics, productivity and individualism would ever advocate stealing from other humans. EVERYONE who advocates any kind of force against other humans (except self-defence) is a predator, not a producer.
It is the PREDATORS who practice what the rest of you mean by "selfishness". We utterly, totally and completely abhor and reject that modus-operandi. The brand of "selfishness" practised by predators is indeed horrible, despicable, disgusting and destructive... and we hate it more than anyone, because we understand the distinction better than anyone.
So yes indeed, those of us who consider ourselves "selfish" in the benevolent sense do indeed take actions that produce goods and goodies that benefit us. Damn straight we do! What should we do? Just sit down and wait until we die? We say "no" to "just sit down and die". We also say "no" to "scam, defraud or steal-from others". We say, "here is reality, here is our brain, here are our hands, and we can take actions and perform work that creates whatever goods and goodies we need to survive, and whatever goods and goodies we want to enjoy".
Clearly a HUGE number of people have never bothered to understand there even ARE two very different meanings of the term "selfishness". But people better, because the difference is huge and crucial. If some people say, "that was a stupid choice, to adopt the term 'selfishness' to mean doing productive work to create goods and goodies"... well... maybe more of us individualists should acknowledge this, and find something with a better (more intuitively precise) ring to it. I'm all for this, if it helps.
I hope that makes the intended meaning of "selfishness" clear.
I for one don't think Ayn Rand expressed this point as clearly as she could have. And I'm sure I didn't express it as clearly as I could in my stream of consciousness attempt above. But please, those of you who go nuts about the term "selfishness", please consider the above, please understand that your knee-jerk impression of the meaning of "selfishness" is NOT AT ALL what honest, ethical, individualists advocate or mean by that term. If you continue your diatribes, you simply empower the predators of this world, and assure endless destructive behavior with no benefit to anyone, including yourselves.
Fucking WOW!
This is one of the finest posts I have ever read here on ZeroHedge.
Thank you, thank you, thank you Honestann.
Thanks for the compliment. However, I could have been much clearer. Someday, hopefully, I'll get around to writing the book I've been wanting to write, and take enough time and re-writes to make it more exact, more complete, and easier to understand. Until then, these squirts of brain juice will have to suffice. But thanks.
Paul Ryan is NOTHING like Ron Paul. Geez, maybe you should check out Ryan's record and Paul's record before you go saying things like that. The day I vote for a record like Ryans is the day I lose any hope for this country. (No, you couldn't pay me enough money to vote for Obama, either. Both parties are downright scary.)
I'm with you, El, and I HAVE lost all hope for this country. I will be writing in 'Ron Paul' with my own blood.
The only other possibility to vote for/with is the Constitution Party, but I'm not sure they endorse slitting throats. I haven't paid too much attention to them, but will going forward.
I'm using a Chinese lead filled crayon to write in Ron Paul, that way if they lick it - well, you know the rest.
GTFO MF
Well they both do walk on two legs and breath oxygen. Ron Paul thinks actively though, and from there the differences only become larger.
Very few of us, if any of us are Randians. Most of us are Austrian School supporters, and read stuff from Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard. You know the guys Rand wished she was in company with. I can not fathom why it's so hard for you to understand that we do not like you, or your hero's policies.
Let me see... party line thing at the bottom and talking about washing out risk somehow as if the answers are simple... pass. No thanks. Piss off.
Nobody 2012.
USD pegged to GM corn... Are you a fucking idiot? Do you know why you were originally allowed to patent a mousetrap but not an ear of corn? It was because a mousetrap can't go out there and replicate itself... Using metals as currency as opposed to seeds kind of followed (predicated) the same line of thinking. How do you peg a currency to a commodity that can grow wild, and also spoil if not used in a certain amount of time. The only way to get back to a free money system is the use of coinage. If you are personally dumb enough to keep your coins in someone else's vault in exchange for a paper promise, then great. That's just a little more chlorine in the dirty end of the gene pool, as far as I see it, as you will not be able to afford to raise children. And the as far as the Paul Ryan quote about Ayn Rand being his motivation to get into politics... that was not only just to troll for votes from idiots like you who think that they are Libertarians, yet who clearly don't understand a free marketplace/economy, but would also make Ayn herself roll in her grave as she hated politicians. Please see your higher than MDB and Robot Trader number of down votes as a sign that we would all be very greatful if you could cease to smear this fine community with your smatterings of complete bullshit.
"...this fine community..."
I almost shot milk out of my nose...good one!
We are well aware our vote matters..
THAT'S WHY EVERYONE I KNOW IS GOING TO WRITE IN RON PAUL!!!
Romney/Ryan/Obama There is no difference...................
The cool thing about ZH readers is that if you say the words "Ron Paul," you will be voted up about 30-65 times depending on how much the article is read...
+1 for ZH Fans
seriously ---tyler, please, eliminate this guys account.
lame
Well, Ron Paul differs from Paul Ryan in one fundamental way.
Ron Paul isn't totally full of shit, saying complete crap he doesn't believe to pander to voters, assuming the people he's speaking to are so incredibly stupid and lazy that they can't differentiate actual actions from empty words.
Does it?
You see the problem I have with this, is that a bunch of scumbags did everything they could to subvert Paul's campaign and since they (people like you I mean) disenfranchised us, it's not like we're going to jump on the shitwagon now.
Duh!!!! I'm a wetoddid Ame?ikan. I'm two stupid to no when sombudy is blowing smoke up my ass!!! DUH!!! I get all my information from da TEEVEE. I never lokied at Paul Ryan's record!!! I believe Mitt Romney is different than Obama!! I'm that fucking stupid.
And you want my vote.
GO FUCK YOURSELF.
OOH OOH...let me get a shot in on em'
Paul Ryan’s Guru Ayn Rand Worshipped A Serial Killer Who Kidnapped and Dismembered Little Girls - By Mark Ames - The eXiled - http://bit.ly/TMaNcY
Do Svidanya comrade!
PS - I meant our troll.
Paul Ryan? Why even bother with that empty head cult follower.
Just look into his zany eyes. Looks perpetually on something. You know I'm right.
Kool Aid or some trendy tranquilizer?
If Rand was his "most influential" person in his study of econ, he sure failed to grasp what she was teaching. His votes for TARP, bailouts (banks, GM, Chrysler), Medicare Part D, the Iraq War, NDAA, and the BS numbers in his budget plan put the lie to that assertion.
Vote for Romney/Ryan? Not a chance in hell. There's only one candidiate in this race who ever banned guns, and his name is NOT Obama. I'm not voting for either. I'm writing in Paul. If Romney/Ryan is the best that the shills in the GOP can come up with, then they deserve to lose.
Your vote matters!
Romney/Ryan 2012
Dont vote. Even if it did matter (which it doesnt), it only encourages tools and shills like this "person."
Here's how some Objectivists (people who live by Ayn Rand's philosophy) are considering the moral principles involved in the 2012 presidential vote:
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/08/principle-vs-pragmatism-in-supporting-romney-ryan/#disqus_thread
One of the greatest thefts of wealth of all time.
http://ericsprott.blogspot.ca/
please someone show me one person that handed over their gold to the US govt and I will show u a fucking moron..... Gold confiscation is a myth told by coin dealers to sell pricey "unconfiscatable" coins to muppets....its bullshit
Correct. I knew quite a few that had gold, in gold coins. They saved them and passed them down to their heirs. They had no choice. They wouldn't dare use those coins for anything because of the penalties so they simply put them away in a safe place.
Roosevelt devalued the US dollar by just over 40% ... not what is said in article above « In effect, what FDR did was to devalue the USD by 70% overnight »
It is funny how often the 1933 Roosevelt devaluation of the dollar is cited wrongly ... one also sees 60% or other erroneous figures as well. Here are the maths:
When it took US $20.67 to buy an ounce of gold, then 1 dollar was worth .0483 ounces of gold
When it took US $35.00 to buy an ounce of gold, then 1 dollar was worth .0285 ounces of gold
So the dollar would buy .0198 ounces less of gold than the earlier quantity of .0483 ounces ... in other words, 40.9% less (Take 40.9% of 483 and you get 198)
Of course Americans in their 'land of freedom', just having won the right to drink back after 14 years of religious fanatic Prohibition of alcohol, now couldn't buy gold again until the 1970s ...
There is a difference between alcohol and gold, docha know.
Gold was forbidden by Dictate. <unconstitutional>
Alcohol was forbidden by Constitutional Admendment. <constitutional>
If you wonder if the forbidding certain drugs at the Federal level is constitutional, see Alcohol. There is no Constitutional Admendment forbbiding any other drugs.
Note also TPTB are attacking the Post Office relentlessly, yet it is authorized by the Constitution - and not a word about profit.
All the other BS like Dept of Education, Energy, Housing, etc, all just that, bullshit.
They attack the Post Office because it serves a real purpose and does real work unlike the other bullshit. BTW, I don't now nor never have worked for the post office and I do not have any relatives that work there. However, it is the only Federal Agency I ever saw that actually gave disabled [combat] veterans preference. Another reason TPTB attack them.
Please show this graph to all that think their government/central banks are working for them and have their best interests at heart.
I doubt if any such order would work this time... after all... fool me once... etc, etc...
already happening via debt.
I say hoard silver then, and buy farmland, fine wines, and gold plated shower faucets!
I bought a gold ring in case I need "legal non-hyper devalued currency" if they do pass an order to confiscate gold again.
It never occurred to me to increase my gold jewelry holdings because jewelry is so over priced. Is this something I should reconsider, if anyone knows?
I tend to think that they won't try to confiscate again. Much more likely they will just impose a tax that effectively wipes out the gain for anyone who tries to cash in. If that happens, the tax would apply equally to bullion or jewelry so you'd be better off with bullion in small quantities that you could use for off the books transactions, e.g., junk silver coin for a few chickens, gold coin for a suit, etc. Of course no one would engage in such transactions without reporting them because that would be wrong.
The point of confiscating gold back then was because gold was money; they weren't confiscating something that was 'worth' x dollars, they were confiscating the underlying value of the dollars themselves so they could devalue the paper that represented it.
The only reason they'd start enacting outright financial repression against gold holders (besides the present suppression of price) would be if they were planning to re-instate some kind of gold standard, in which case, if they were to heavily tax gold it would find its way offshore in exchange for some other central bank's notes, which would be exactly what they wouldn't want. And no, there wouldn't be global co-ordination by monetary and fiscal authorities to ensure global gold taxes; a re-instatement of a gold standard would be proof that the present co-ordination (that keeps the USD afloat) had broken down.
Confiscating gold now would be pointless, expensive, counter-productive, and impractical.
Big Jim:
See my post on the following page. The context was very different back then. Now we own, or have on our soil under the effective protection of our military, most of the sovereign gold in the world. Confiscation accomplishes nothing at this point. The FLOW of gold (Tyler loves discsussing flows normally) is 3% of the stock. Thus, on any meaningful timeframe, the USG is in the global driver's seat. The Fed and UST should keep accumulating slowly, making it all the more expensive for China to try to develop a currency that has the backing of real money...
Gold will not be confiscated, but all fiat currencies will drop with respect to gold...
The USA is the largest holder of gold (supposedly).
The USA is ALSO manipulating gold price low. WHAT is the advantage in that ?
Largest holder of gold? How on earth could they suppress the price gold for 40 years without selling all or part of the 8,000 tons in Fort Knox?
These are two commonly quoted "facts".
All analysis says we have +- 8000 tonnes, China is second with ~ 2000 tonnes.
ALL the doomsday, conspiracy theorists say USA holds price of gold down.
I see no advantage to it. Anyone have any insight into this?
Boogerbently wrote: "ALL the doomsday, conspiracy theorists say USA holds price of gold down.
I see no advantage to it. Anyone have any insight into this?"
My guesses are...
1. To avoid a rush away from the dollar.
2. To prop up the dollar to preserve it's world Reserve Currency status.
1) The bigger the rush, the faster gold goes up, the less we need to sell to become solvent. (OR the more printing we could do). We buy most of our own debt, anyway.
2) If we own most of the gold, the higher the price of gold goes, the more our currency is "propped up".
THAT'S the basis of my question. It seems to me the USA would want the price of gold as high as possible.
IF the govt. is holding the price down, what POSSIBLE advantage is that to them?
N. Korea Vs. S. Korea....gold goes up.
Iran Vs. Israel......gold goes up.
USA/Russia/China get involved in any of the "conflicts".......gold goes up.
EU prints.....gold goes up.
EU fails......gold goes up.
China prints.....gold goes up.
BenB prints.....gold goes up.
Oil/drought inflation....gold goes up.
A global return to a "gold standard".....gold goes up.
Muppets see futility in negative yield treasuries.....gold goes up.
It's hard to imagine a scenario under which gold doesn't go up.
Unless gold was actually being used as the medium of exchange. Or if the rest of the world demanded it.
Not a bad way to diversify precious metal holdings, in my opinion.
I recently bought a nice antique gold pocket watch at an estate auction but it was missing the chain. My mom used to work in jewelry and is talking to some goldsmith friends about making a nice heavy chain for it.
some estate jewelers, that buy back old jewlry, will sell back old aged rings , necklaces at very reasonable prices.
i have bout some rings that are too old and worn to be any good but for scrap to them, and got at close to spot.
Jewlery .5% to 1% over spot. Is that over priced?
At some point, you'll be happy to pay 50% to 100% over spot...
I foresee an exponential increase of tragic boating accidents.
yup.... also lost it in a poker game. So sorry.
Hmmm, I didn't set the alarm system because I was just stepping out for a little bit. Oh well.
There's a murder evey night in my city. If they cannot control violent crime across the nation, forget about controlling those Barbarian Goldbugs.
"If you take out the killings, Washington actually has a very very low crime rate." -- M. Barry, Mayor of Washington, DC
"If you take out the crack, Washington actually has a very very low crack rate." -- M. 'Crack' Barry, Mayor of Washington, DC
DC and Chicago are emblematic of the gun control vs. crime rate debate in this country. Kennesaw, GA
"After weeks of media reports about Chicago homicides – which so far are up nearly 38 percent from last year – Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy defiantly said during a news conference that the gang strategies in place before McCarthy arrived were the ones that failed, not the new ones."
"Fueled by a 39 percent spike in Chicago’s homicide rate that has become a media obsession both locally and nationally, African-American aldermen were demanding the return of specialized police units disbanded to put more officers on beat patrol."
Chicago now run by a Mossad Israeli. Nice.
I have a old "silver certificate" in fact got it in change in the last 5 years. Did they issue a gold certificate in the printing of paper money? I still like the sound of a Morgan hitting the bar. Cartwheels my old man used to call them...real money.
Yes, they did issue gold certificates. I have a silver certificate from the fifties and had a silver certificate from 1936, but I think I gave that one away.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_certificate
I got a gold certificate for a crazy ol' bastard in my family last year for Christmas.
I spent $100 for a $20 gold certificate. It's the thought that counts.
LOL
good luck getting my gold.
Or mine. You better be a good swimmer.
If you own gold you are undermining the fiancial stability of the United States, therefore you qualify for enemy combatant or terrorist status. Under NDAA you can be detained indefinitely without a warrant and a charge. We won't politely ask you to explain your boating accident. Instead, we would waterboard you to extract whatever info we need. This is how they think
"Finally, to those who have some gold ETF certificates in a brokerage account, which by law are the possession by DTCC's Cede & Co. - a bank owned institution - we wish the best of luck to anyone hoping to preserve of even recover any of the invested wealth in such instruments."
Nearly everything else is held at DTCC, so why the distinction for GLD?
Just looking at that executive order makes me think some very unkind thoughts.
Luckily in the age of the internet that crime will never be forgotten...
I'm sure Satan has a very... special... place for people like FDR.
This [the US government's gold confiscation] of course makes Bernanke's remarks to Congress that he, "Doesn't know" if the Fed has any gold, laughable. He followed up not knowing by having someone in the audience (a lawyer perhaps) tell him they do, and he parrots, "We do.....in the form of certificates."
This means one of two things:
Either Bernanke does not know what is on his balance sheet, or, he is a bold faced liar. Either way it looks bad for the Fed, their housed Treasury, and especially bad for economics as a whole, as this liar (or ignoramous) has been led around by the balls by Neo-Keynesian economics - the same economics that dictates fiat/debt is "money".
Oh, and now that we know (as if we didn't before) that the Fed does indeed have gold (and lots of it) we can understand what its best performing asset is and how it is the best performer; because the government/Federal Reserve got it for free and now loans against it creating the ultimate rehypothecated/fractionally reserved asset in the world - the dollar. Yes, oh but remember, gold is not money.
Heh......maybe Bernanke, like Arlen Specter, will turn to standup comedy once he is run out of office.
Or he knows, like everyone on this website, that if it aint in your hot little hand, it aint yours. The 261 million oz of gold on the Fed's BS (valued at $42/oz, not marked to market you see) is "held" for them at Ft Knox. I suppose they could count the gold held by the NY Fed under the streets of Manhattan, but that "belongs" to foreign CBs. BTW, whatever happened to the German request for the return of their gold held by the NY Fed?
Gold confiscation implies a gold standard. I will gladly convert at the correct price to go back on a gold standard. That is the whole point. If they didn't do it the correct and fair way, they would end up making everyone else on the planet rich except US citizens, one way or the other.
The last thing a short should ever want is the US government to show up with a 50k bid tomorrow morning calling it confiscation. Sadly, for the longs who want that confiscation price, if they didn't do it in 1980, they won't do it now.
The new gold standard when hyper-inflation eventually occurs is any gold will be worth more than any Federal Reserve brand peice of toilet/wall paper.
The whole point is to devalue a currency in absolute terms, as opposed to the relative closed loop devaluation exhibited every day which is one huge circle jerk that merely shifts the burden of a strong currency for a brief period of time to someone else. The US government would be delighted to devalue the US currency relative to everyone else on the planet if it meant inflating the US debt.
As to the mechanics, considering it is well known that based on the US monetary base, gold would have to be at a price of $10K for a "fair value" full backing, the US government would confiscate gold at any price and then, just as in 1933, revalue it to $10k/ounce overnight, in the process devaluing the USD by XX%.
Source
Of course, all this assumes there would not be comparable confiscations devaluations by the other "developed world" nations.
Finally, since China is now openly accumulating gold, who says we won't revert to a forced gold standard if one day China makes the CNY convertible into gold (or hard asset basket), at which point it will be back to whoever has the most gold, wins?
Whatever sort of convertability, devaluation or backing happens, it doesn't work with gold down at $1600--Unless the government has been lying about its gold reserves by several orders of magnitude. I am guessing they are lying, but not in a positive way.
It works if the fiat holders everywhere take a huge haircut.
Such as what would happen in a cascading sovereign default come bank holiday scenario.
Balancing the ledger can happen in more than one way.
Just more food for thought....
On a relative basis, the average guy does not own any gold. Supposedly the US has all this gold in it's vault, so why not just revalue it now?
Cuz they're not done stealin' yet.
Sorry, boat accident...nothing to see here, move along.
Don't have one here, you may not make it back to shore. And we have those out back on privately owned lakes that aren't hunted. Makes it unlikely anyone's going diving there ;)
I hate gators ;-)
FSU fan?
PS. Found a 2 footer on the way to the mailbox this week. Nasty temper on that one. We get them everywhere around here and I'm at 200ft of elevation.
Is there a like-chart which takes into account (...in the parlance of our times) the modern equivalent: rehypothecation?
The mega-billionaires of Asia and South America would NEVER buy GLD or SLV - only the morons like Paulsen would amass a paper "trade" on gold cuz to hm, it is all about the 'trade".
Ebola's baaack.....this time it's beyond Ugandan borders! 2 different strains - either highly coincidental, or a mutation?
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/21/world/africa/congo-ebola/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
Can you explain why you would think that the gov't will make gold illegal to own again? The current FRN is in no way backed by gold and can be printed to infinity, something that was not possible back then and was exasperating officials when they were trying to reflate the economy.
If they outlaw gold, it makes no difference at all from the standpoint of an ability to manage the money supply, so what would be the explanation for this change in law? Are they going to remonitize gold and then outlaw the ownership of gold, thus telling the population they can no longer hold money? It would be an absurd statement to the rest of the world and wouldn't make a bit of difference to the dollar and it's reserve currency status (which is shot).
As an aside, this whole idea that the gov't can tell a "free society" that they can't hold an item which is not a threat to others is quite offensive. To say nothing of the fact that the constution defines money as gold & silver and has never been amended otherwise. Fuck these assholes.
"keceph anah" ... Sliver and Gold as money predates whatever this 'government' created or defined.
They'll do it, because they don't own enough themselves. If the dollar is devalued enough, they can say they need it so that they can continue to accumulate oil for the strategic national reserve (especially if other countries refuse to take the dollar, because it becomes very volatile) and other commodities the country needs as well. They've passed a few recent unconstitutional laws in the 21st century, what is to stop them from continuing to do so?
That explanation makes no sense to me. The gov't claims to have 8200 tonnes. If they don't, they'd better have a good explanation as to why. If they do have it then that exceeds by magnitudes how much citizens have in their possession. Hell, cash for gold places have all but cleaned out joe sixpack. It is just the guys on forums like this that have gold (besides hedgies and institutions) and how much could that be? Do you really feel the gov't would put itself on report with the rest of the world over a fraction of the amount it already controls? They'll have to go door to door to get it in any event. so I don't see it happening.
Or . . . what? Holder will pounce? The laws apply to us, not them.
To think they will use logic and reasoning to make decisions is to pretend our government is not controlled by corrupt thieves. They will do it, because they want to control what has value in our society.
I know right now it could be hard to see that the government wants to control every apect of the economy (/sarcasm), but go back and take a look at the measure in Obamacare to require 1099s for transactions over $600. The reason it was scrapped was because it would have destroyed our economy outright and also I believe people who hire illegals would be breaking the law by not reporting their wages (can't have illegal immigration be exposed, now can we?).
If you look at the rest of the world, they pretty much have their hands full right now. The EU is on the constant verge of collapse due to defaults, China can't allow its economy to slow down for fear of a revolution, and Canada and Australia will suffer from China's economic breakdown. All these problems will take years to unravel.
They did it before and they most likely will do it again.
When all is said and done our new national anthem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yDrtNEr_5M
ALL Executive Orders are ILLEGAL, UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and NEED NOT BE FOLLOWED.
Fuck the polizei!
1947.52 degrees F
Al: "We’re illegal. Our whole goal is to get annexed to the united fuckin’ states. We
start holdin’ trials, what’s to keep the United States fuckin’ Congress from sayin’,
“Oh, excuse us, we didn’t realize you were a fuckin’ sovereign community and
nation out there. Where’s your cocksucker’s flag? Where’s your fuckin’ navy or
the like? Maybe when we make our treaty with the Sioux we should treat you
people like renegade fuckin’ Indians. Deny your fuckin’ gold and property
claims. And hand everything over instead to our ne’er-do-well cousins and
brother’s in law.”
Cy: "That we don’t want."
Greatest character ever!
AL (after the shootout): Wave a pair of panties under the Jew's nose. It'll bring 'em right 'round.
It was actually "Wave a penny under the Jew's nose; if they got living breath in them, brings them right around." This was meant by Al to be a funny aspersion towards Sol.
Ahh, see how I betray myself in how I remembered it? The true line is even better, and it was one of my favorite before.
Hey, that chart is cool.
Now can you chart "Mortgages Held by the US Treasury and the Federal Reserve"?
"The actual April 5, 1933 order, which in the coming years will make a repeat appearance with absolute certainty, is below."
sorry, the world is a different place now, full of litigators, hedge funds, bloggers, easy access to other countries, etc etc etc. this will not happen.
"In summary, the US government, which is now the largest official holder of physical gold in the world, had 40 years of uncontested zero cost gold accumulation in which it could build a gold inventory that was second to none."
and it still wont even cover a years worth of deficits so what's the point?
and it still wont even cover a years worth of deficits so what's the point?
Well, revaluation for one thing.
behind every gold hoard there is a lead hoard.
Fool THEM once, shame on THEM!...I got my lesson, from THEM!...
I'm not THEM!!...to the grave
It'll be an interesting day when the Ponzi Police try to sweep in for a big gold snort off the tits of the American public again. They won't like the buzz this time around.
Looks to me like they are taking peoples gold by raising prices on everything and keeping wages supressed. So the average person is selling his 'unwanted old gold jewelry' at these supposedly high gold prices to buy gas and food. Most investors and hedgies use GLD etc as ' investment vehicles'.
Gold is the extinguisher of debt, therefore the price of gold will be allowed to rise to fantastic levels of fiat value to soak up as much debt as possible before it is confiscated ( if at all ), at which point it also needs to be linked to fiat to restore fiats credibility. Bonds then ( now that they are linked to gold) can be managed upward to make fiat more desirable as they were under Volker and gold can then be released to the public and devalued again with the ususal paper and fraud games.
Two problems with this post:
1) percentage change is calculated as (price - cost) / cost x 100...meaning that in this case, the dollar was actually devalued by ($35 - $20.67) / $20.67 = 0.6933 x 100 = 69.33%
2) per the recent decision by Judge Tinder of the 7th Circuit: "IF YOU DON'T HOLD IT, YOU DON'T OWN IT."
Bitchez.
Yes, I always wonder why people say the dollar was devalued 40%, when it took 69% to buy the same amount of gold with after they'd devalued it.
Typo. Corrected.
US dollar hegemony f*cked up the whole world. As in all other countries ship their wealth to US and then to avoid inflation in their countries use them to purchase more of US bonds, thus ensuring US dollar hegemony continuation, which in turn lets US print dollars at will, since there will be no immediate monetary penalty...thus monopolized corruption spreads more in the world via US dollar.
Now that the USG has the largest reserves by far (and a far higher percentage stored on our soil and effectively under the control of our military), there is no need to confiscate gold. China can only really catch up at the rate of the FLOW of new gold, which is what 3% of the stock?
We, the US, control the gold and the game. So long as the Fed and Treasury do not sell gold, we will have the most hard currency backing and thus the most wealth in the end game.
There's no need to destablize through confiscation and it will not happen. The demand from everyone trying to play "catch up" will STRENGTHEN the Treasury's position...
China is in a very different and strategically vulnerable position so long as we (investors and the Fed/Treasury) continue to accumulate. China will never catch up and never had an independent backing for its currency...
An audit will blow their scene. Otherwise they would have done so already. People are growing increasingly skeptical of paper promises.
Fear is the mind killer.
...pry it from my cold dead fingers.
the heat won't have a problem with that.
Everyone's a fuckin' commando until the pigs go tactical on your asses.
Oh, they will if they have to. Bastards.
A quick 'back of the envelope' calculation...
over 700 trillion in derivitives 'notional' value compared to all the gols that's been mined on the planet.
Price of gold to cover said derivitives $3400 per troy ounce - give or take
I'd say more "give" than take. There are 32,150 ounces in a ton. There has been between 140,000 tonnes and 165,000 tonnes mined in history depending on who you ask (google)
165,000 X 32,150 = 5,304,750,000 ounces.$700,000,000,000,000/5.3 billion (approx) is $132,075 ounce (approx) unless I totally hosed up the zeros as my cell phone calculator doesn't handle anything past 10 mil.
And also not the people. Note: an "individual" is not a living, breathing man. In a legal dictionary (the only ones that count when it comes to government), an "individual" is a person, and a person is a body corporate, a.k.a. a fiction. Same as in the Citizens United v. FEC ruling where the court reiterates that a corporation is a person. All the idiots spewing forth about how the Supreme Court turned corporations into people need to invest in a legal dictionary themselves and spend some time improving their reading comprehension. A corporation is a person and has always been such, and a person is a corporation and has always been such. They are both fictions created for operating within the game of commerce. Your person is your personal property, just like your car. It's the vehicle in which you go about in the commercial world.
So the gold confiscation was only directed at persons ("individuals, partnerships, associations, corporations", i.e. fictional entities) because the government only has jurisdiction over other fictions. Anyone who gave up their gold who was not an "individual, partnership, association or corporation" volunteered a donation to the United States corporation.
I am Chumbawamba.
From what I have heard they went to the houses of rich prominent citizens and took their gold from them while they watched.
As long as the State exists, you have no right's.
as long as you continue to think it so, the State will continue to exist.
Thanks for pushing your statism onto me. ;-)
de nada amigo, that's what friends are for :)
If they didn't properly object then they consented.
I am Chumbawamba.
People with Right's are called Soveriegns by the same legal theory. Notice that even in England, only the Royal Family are referred to as the Soveriegns, everyone else is merely a subject to the commons, and thusly they have no Right's. It's the same with the British Commonwealths even to this day. People in Australia and Canada have only the Right's granted to them by the State, and the State can only grant the Right's given to it by the Soveriegn, which in this case is the English Crown.
This is the idea that shaped political and legal theory in the USA. It's still being used daily. The difference is that those that do not recognize it will be eaten as the State through it's mechanisms strip the power from the commons. That whole idea that we are all created equal is true under this political theory, as the people that are not born of the Soveriegns are thought to have been created to support the Sovereigns. Some people simply do not understand what Liberal Philosophy and the American Revolution actually meant.
If someone identifies themself as the entity created by the sovereign then that creates the joinder between the man and the statute law of the Crown. In plain English, the name on the birth certificate, driver's license, etc., is a name registered with the government. That name is their property (legal ownership), with the man assigned to that name being given beneficial use of that property. Once you admit to being the name on the paper instrument, you are conceding jurisdiction to the government. All one ever should do is only admit that the named person is their property, and everyone has a right to defend their beneficial interest in their property, but you aren't the property. Therefore, the charges don't stick to you, the man, but to your person (the name on the paper).
We are all sovereign under the Creator, until which time we identify with the creation of another, and then we become subject to that creator. Never forget who you are: an immortal living spirit made in the image of the Creator, subject only to the Creator's Law. But if you forget and identify yourself as the name on your license, or birth certificate, or any other government issued identification, you are then taking on the persona of that entity, and all the obligations and charges associated with said entity.
I am Chumbawamba.
That's a laugh. Every court in the land will laugh at you for trying such a "legal" tactic. You are under the laws of the land you stand on and are born on until you leave. You need not ever have a name or birth certificate. Unnamed and "sovereign" you are the same slave - just with less power to work, save and survive the system.
You are IN the system if your feet are on the same ground as the slaves with birth cerificates. It's fiction you have any additional power with this tactic or plan to use this tactic.
My Dad lived through that time (hes 90 now). He said most people did not give up their gold then. They buried it in their backyard.
FDR was a bankster and a rotten son of a bitch.
already been doing it on the sly via MFG, PFGB, and thru JPM and GS. before confiscation will be bernak threatening to "sell" their "gold" at the "market price" of 35$/oz, or 50, or whatever arbitrarily low number they decide. empty threat of course, most they would do is lay on more digital shorts, but by then more commerce will have gone grey or black resulting in a lesser effect from their virtual shenannigans. but the gum flapping works, temporarily.
So, the begged question is this.
What good is all the "you have to hold the physical" tripe about gold that litters ZH?
What matters, what gives value to every asset you own is simply one thing.
The 2nd Amendment.
And the 2nd Amendment was NOT about hunting.
The 2nd Amendment was part of the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights was specifically written to protect citizens from the government by clearly defining the rights of citizens that they retained and that could NEVER be taken from them by a rule of law.
To frame or discuss the 2nd Amendment in any limiting terms, is to deny the very reasons why the Bill of Rights and 2nd Amendment were written and the very foundational principles they were written upon.
To discuss the 2nd Amendment in "hunting" terms is beyond offensive to the principles under which the Bill of Rights were written.
The question ONLY question that needs to be asked when considering limitations of the 2nd Amendment is this;
....will this limitation prohibit me and my fellow citizens from defending ourselves from the government?
Because the only relevant "hunting" question regarding the 2nd Amendment is who will be the hunter and who will be the hunted?
All your gold. All your land. All your possessions.
Your very life.
It can all be taken away and made worthless,
without the 2nd Amendment.
So if you want to truly protect yourself from TPTB.
Start fighting to take back the 2nd Amendment and your Bill of Rights.
Violence begit's Violence. Statism is systematic Violence, and only leads to more Statism.
Pacifism begets slavery and suicide.
+1000
We are NRA Members and donors. We must preserve the 2nd Amendment.
Keeping guns and knives in your colonial American home was a given .... the 2nd Amendment had little to do with home defense and hunting and olympic shooting events (as the liberals would have you believe) .... it's all about the citizens retaining enough armed might to overthrow a tyrannical upstart retard .... like Obama ! We should have sufficient weapons to give us a fighting chance if the Socialists are successful in ending our democracy !
Agreed. Of course, this is also an issue here: COMBAT ROBOTS: http://vinay.howtolivewiki.com/blog/bigdeal/the-second-amendment-in-iraq...
The 2nd Amendment codifies what would otherwise be legal into only being legal by writ of law.
To the PTB our gun rights are mere pacification ...They will take your guns, and your gold, and everything else because, you all, and that includes me...Submit to authority.
We have one foot in this system, one in the next, and for some of us both feet end up in a grave...
For those deep in this rabbit hole, death looks better than this fucked up future....Maybe that's why Anthony Scott jumped...He couldn't take this shit anymore...But WTF do I know...
Yea it's wrong I said it, but there is just too much shit going on...
I'm all for the right to guns but this is a new age.
Your enemy now has nerve-gas agents, drones and rockets. You got those fancy things? No? Then you're fucked when they're deployed.
Don't fuck with my gold.
President's "Book of Secrets" reads, "Oh, by the way, there is no gold in Fort Knox."
Crap. I knew it.
“Since I was a child I remember that gold was given as a gift on various occasions and people used to say: ‘Put it aside’,” said Ivana Ciabatti, who represents gold– and silversmiths at employers’ lobby Confindustria. “We used to laugh at it, but they turned out to be right. Many families are surviving thanks to this gold.”
In hard times, “I buy gold” is Italy’s boom business
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business...
All you who whine about "republicrats" (and there is some truth to that) suddenly get real partisan about Nixon taking us off the gold standard .... although, it just happened to occur on his watch ! 100 years of Keynesian democrat federal reserve .... and Nixon is the scapegoat ? Fucking talking point retards !
I just listened to this.
Im really confused, not cause its confusing...but cause it all makes sense.
This is why schills are all over the place for starts.
I think myself to be a free thinking person....dont know if this is the right story to put this out there and im not pumping anything....just figured i might get some educated un-indoctrinated feedback on this.
I dunno im on the fence. What you guys think?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=W3-yq24DIjc
I know its a bit long..im sorry for that.
Silver bitchez?
it's interesting. It's very long. Well ... thanks
I'm tired of these fear-based articles.
Truth is truth, brother.
Don't care if they confiscate it again. Still buying it. Bought some today. What else you gonna do? Save their clown bucks? That's a for sure loss. At least you still stand a chance if you buy gold.