Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 95

Thread: Gold Standard (Return) 'Is there Gold in Fort Knox' CBS

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by Stratovarious View Post
    this is one of very few places where our government should be in charge, but I guess
    Actually, government has no business getting involved in money, a government controlled gold-standard has been tried & failed, & it fails because it is government controlled.

    You don't need government being "in-charge" of money any more than you want them to in-charge of producing food or clothes or whatever.

    All that is necessary is to remove legal tender laws & remove taxes imposed on gold, silver, etc. so that they can compete with dollars; this is exactly what Ron Paul tried to do with his "competing currencies" bills.

    Going back to a government-controlled gold-standard would be a terrible thing for the gold-standard itself because as has happened before, governments will ruin it (governments ruin anything they put their hands on) & then they'll say "see, gold-standard doesn't work".

    So anybody who believes in free markets should support a market-based gold-standard, not a government-controlled one.

    Quote Originally Posted by ctiger2 View Post
    If the Govt deems Gold is money again, then Gold is FIAT as well. 'let it be'

    BTW we're probably going all digital by 2017, no Gold standard.
    I agree, if govt declares gold to be legal tender then gold will be fiat but I don't see why "going digital" has anything to do with a gold-standard, irrespective of whether it's fiat or market-based, either way I don't think people are going to carry all their gold in their pockets or store them under their mattresses, most of it will be deposited in banks & used electronically anyway.
    There is enormous inertia — a tyranny of the status quo — in private and especially governmental arrangements. Only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable
    - Milton Friedman



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    Nonsense.

    He's just telling you who signs his paychecks. That's all.
    Then I suggest you get yourself a dictionary and look up "banker".

    Then look up "debtor" and "liability".

    We are not the bankers. Theye are the bankers. We are the asset pool whence the bankers draw their funds. We do so at the ends of barrels, ultimately speaking. That pretty well makes us slaves. Many consent, believing the rafts of bull$#@! such as "you didn't build that..." and all the other bull$#@! that underpins it. In any event we are made the debtors by the decrees of whim issued by the bankers or their in-pocket agents ("governments").

    To equate the two roles is unsound. To take poetic license with the words in this way and in this context is unsound. In the affairs of men's freedoms, clarity, concision, completeness, and precision are paramount considerations and not fancy linguistic twists.

    Taking poetic license with words is always something of risky business and there are those arenas of consideration where such antics ought to be fully restricted because it leads to the improper use of those words and, therefore, improper understanding. Worse yet, is when those words are imbued with very specific meanings as jargon, the average man remaining ignorant of such, as well as the means by which they are put to effective use. By this, of course, I refer to legal applications in courts of law, mainly.

    Do as you please, of course, but I choose the more cautious path in such matters.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  4. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    Then I suggest you get yourself a dictionary and look up "banker".

    Then look up "debtor" and "liability".

    We are not the bankers. Theye are the bankers. We are the asset pool whence the bankers draw their funds. We do so at the ends of barrels, ultimately speaking. That pretty well makes us slaves. Many consent, believing the rafts of bull$#@! such as "you didn't build that..." and all the other bull$#@! that underpins it. In any event we are made the debtors by the decrees of whim issued by the bankers or their in-pocket agents ("governments").

    To equate the two roles is unsound. To take poetic license with the words in this way and in this context is unsound. In the affairs of men's freedoms, clarity, concision, completeness, and precision are paramount considerations and not fancy linguistic twists.

    Taking poetic license with words is always something of risky business and there are those arenas of consideration where such antics ought to be fully restricted because it leads to the improper use of those words and, therefore, improper understanding. Worse yet, is when those words are imbued with very specific meanings as jargon, the average man remaining ignorant of such, as well as the means by which they are put to effective use. By this, of course, I refer to legal applications in courts of law, mainly.

    Do as you please, of course, but I choose the more cautious path in such matters.
    osan, what on earth does any of that have to do with who pays Z2.0 and TheCount to come here and harass us?

    We is another interesting word. When TheCount says 'we', he could mean you, me and him, or he could mean him and Z2.0. What's more, he could honestly mean him and Z2.0 and dishonestly want you to think he means you, me and him.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    You only want the freedoms that will undermine the nation and lead to the destruction of liberty.

  5. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    Good point. But then... where's all the gold?

    Speaking of the Fed... did Germany every get to audit its gold holdings in the NY Fed?
    http://www.pfhub.com/german-reserve-...ive-audit-884/

    Last year, Germany blew up headlines when its central bank – the Bundesbank – announced that it was planning to repatriate its gold from the United States Federal Reserve, the Bank of England and the Banque de France. The Bundesbank owns nearly $200 billion worth of gold, but only a third of it is stored in Frankfurt.
    A German delegation was sent to New York to audit the nation’s gold holdings because one hadn’t been performed in a few decades. The group confirmed that everything was fine and that it would be easier to just simply store its gold reserves outside of the country for emergency swaps.



  6. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  7. #65
    The group confirmed that everything was fine...
    ...and left, after which the Fed took down the signs that said 'Germany's Gold' and put back the signs that said, 'Treasury Gold'.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    You only want the freedoms that will undermine the nation and lead to the destruction of liberty.

  8. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Or Nothing II View Post
    Actually, government has no business getting involved in money, a government controlled gold-standard has been tried & failed, & it fails because it is government controlled.

    You don't need government being "in-charge" of money any more than you want them to in-charge of producing food or clothes or whatever.

    All that is necessary is to remove legal tender laws & remove taxes imposed on gold, silver, etc. so that they can compete with dollars; this is exactly what Ron Paul tried to do with his "competing currencies" bills.

    Going back to a government-controlled gold-standard would be a terrible thing for the gold-standard itself because as has happened before, governments will ruin it (governments ruin anything they put their hands on) & then they'll say "see, gold-standard doesn't work".

    So anybody who believes in free markets should support a market-based gold-standard, not a government-controlled one.



    I agree, if govt declares gold to be legal tender then gold will be fiat but I don't see why "going digital" has anything to do with a gold-standard, irrespective of whether it's fiat or market-based, either way I don't think people are going to carry all their gold in their pockets or store them under their mattresses, most of it will be deposited in banks & used electronically anyway.
    I don't know that it failed, in so much as the argument is equally valid; Richard Nixon got greedy and wanted to expand our world presence , probably can't control the world with real money....
    Ergo...Milton Bradley !!!!! Yahoooooo!!!!! Let's get em boys......
    , ,

  9. #67
    Going 'digital' just sounds bad to me, sure it's impossible to hack .....lollollollollollollollollollollollollollollol lollollollolo.....

    , ,

  10. #68
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    1,125
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Paul or Nothing 11 dreams: "You don't need government being "in-charge" of money any more than you want them to in-charge of producing food or clothes or whatever."


    (i'm a dreamer too!..unfortunately, i believe you'll find that the last 5000 years shows little evidence/few examples of people hip about 'the wheel, etc.' who were/are not under some governmental monetary order...and if you want to change things for the better a decent respect for the opinions of mankind requires that you educate yourself about the past and present...

    ...and holding views like 'we used to have a gold standard and we need to return to it' displays a terrible ignorance of the past...

    ...(take comfort, i used to be a republicrat monetary ignoramus too...and like all republicrats, i too, 'knew just enough to be dangerous'...
    Last edited by H. E. Panqui; 04-16-2015 at 05:29 AM.

  11. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by Stratovarious View Post
    I don't know that it failed, in so much as the argument is equally valid; Richard Nixon got greedy and wanted to expand our world presence , probably can't control the world with real money....
    Ergo...Milton Bradley !!!!! Yahoooooo!!!!! Let's get em boys......
    , ,
    The government-controlled gold-standard failed because government would set an exchange-rate between gold & dollars, & as government needed more money, they printed more dollars than they'd gold, which meant that they were not in a position to redeem all the dollars in gold, which is why Nixon had to abolish it. While Nixon certainly should take part of the blame (he could have just devalued the dollar & kept the gold-standard if he wished) but printing of dollars probably had been going on for years before Nixon took office.

    Again, the point being that the government shouldn't be in-charge of money; just as markets can manage so many other things, it can also manage money on its own. Under a market-based gold-standard, the term dollar (or even pound, euro, etc) would be obsolete & prices would be denominated in grams/ounces of gold so there's no need for a government to "set" gold's price against some arbitrary concept like the dollar.

    Quote Originally Posted by H. E. Panqui View Post
    [COLOR=#111111] i believe you'll find that the last 5000 years shows little evidence/few examples of people hip about 'the wheel, etc.' who were/are not under some governmental monetary order...
    You're basically saying that we should let government control money just because that's been more or less the norm over the last few thousand years; I don't agree, that's like saying that just because tyranny has more or less been the norm, we should just accept tyranny. Good luck with that!

    Quote Originally Posted by H. E. Panqui View Post
    ...and holding views like 'we used to have a gold standard and we need to return to it' displays a terrible ignorance of the past...
    I think I've been clear in my earlier post that I don't wish to "return" to the gold-standard that existed since it was government-controlled & thereby a defective one, susceptible to failure; my view is that IF we ever get to a point where gold-standard becomes a realistic option then we should insist on a market-based gold-standard, not a government-controlled one. This does NOT mean that I think it will be an easy task, it won't be.
    There is enormous inertia — a tyranny of the status quo — in private and especially governmental arrangements. Only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable
    - Milton Friedman

  12. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Or Nothing II View Post
    The government-controlled gold-standard failed because government would set an exchange-rate between gold & dollars, & as government needed more money, they printed more dollars than they'd gold, which meant that they were not in a position to redeem all the dollars in gold, which is why Nixon had to abolish it. While Nixon certainly should take part of the blame (he could have just devalued the dollar & kept the gold-standard if he wished) but printing of dollars probably had been going on for years before Nixon took office.

    Again, the point being that the government shouldn't be in-charge of money; just as markets can manage so many other things, it can also manage money on its own. Under a market-based gold-standard, the term dollar (or even pound, euro, etc) would be obsolete & prices would be denominated in grams/ounces of gold so there's no need for a government to "set" gold's price against some arbitrary concept like the dollar.



    You're basically saying that we should let government control money just because that's been more or less the norm over the last few thousand years; I don't agree, that's like saying that just because tyranny has more or less been the norm, we should just accept tyranny. Good luck with that!



    I think I've been clear in my earlier post that I don't wish to "return" to the gold-standard that existed since it was government-controlled & thereby a defective one, susceptible to failure; my view is that IF we ever get to a point where gold-standard becomes a realistic option then we should insist on a market-based gold-standard, not a government-controlled one. This does NOT mean that I think it will be an easy task, it won't be.
    " The government-controlled gold-standard failed because government would set an exchange-rate between gold & dollars, & as government needed more money, they printed more dollars than they'd gold..."

    The Gold Standard did not fail , gov wanted to grow so it killed it, like a petulant child that wants more.
    The 2nd quickest way to end a marriage is to want more, get more by borrowing money above and beyond
    your net worth and ability to pay down the debt, fight over which activities and items need to be cut from the budget.
    Eventually it becomes obvious to the wife , the real problem is us.....lol voila divorce.

    If we continue to live beyond out means , China and the rest of the World will start calling in the debt , our government
    is selling us out to the highest bidder.
    At what point does our government allow the Chinese, Japanese, Brazil to start aquiring large chunks of our Country to pay off debt?

    The seriousness of this vulnerablility to allowing OUR government* to sell us out is completely ignored in national politics, the
    threat is present.


    *Note; I don't declare vulnerability to foreigners, rather the sellout by our gov (by design, to; SECRET FED RESERVE/SECRET CRIMINAL GLOBAL BANKING CARTEL).



    , ,
    Last edited by Stratovarious; 04-18-2015 at 08:08 AM.

  13. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by Stratovarious View Post
    The Gold Standard did not fail , gov wanted to grow so it killed it,
    It's ok if that's how you want to put it, that's fine by me but my point has been that that's why government shouldn't be in-charge of it if we ever get to the point where gold-standard becomes a realistic option.
    There is enormous inertia — a tyranny of the status quo — in private and especially governmental arrangements. Only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable
    - Milton Friedman

  14. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Or Nothing II View Post
    The government-controlled gold-standard failed...
    Is there such a thing as a non-governmental gold 'standard'?

    The pro trolls are talking about how a gold standard is "fiat" because government approves of it, even though gold has value whether the government declares it to have value or not. And here you are calling a free market, where gold has value, as some kind of mythical non-governmental gold 'standard'.

    If you were to stop talking about a free market for money--a thing where people use whatever means of exchange suits them, and therefore set their own standards--as some kind of "gold-standard" it might clear up some confusion. After all, there's no guarantee that a free market for means of exchange would take any special interest in gold at all. Silver is far more likely to gain ascendancy for everyday transactions, as middle aged people don't need magnifying glasses to see the proper amount of it to buy, say, a coffee pot with.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    You only want the freedoms that will undermine the nation and lead to the destruction of liberty.



  15. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  16. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Or Nothing II View Post
    It's ok if that's how you want to put it, that's fine by me but my point has been that that's why government shouldn't be in-charge of it if we ever get to the point where gold-standard becomes a realistic option.
    Secret Global Banks should not have anything to do with managing our money.
    Foreign BANSTERS should not be secretly managing, manipulation, printing and giving away our money.


    I don't feel that addressing the Government control is relevant at this point, I'm not accussing you at all ,
    but it is strange to me that you seem to want this conversation to focus away from the ;

    CRIMINAL FEDERAL RESERVE FOREIGN BANKSTERS
    , do I have this all wrong ?
    , ,

  17. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by Stratovarious View Post
    Secret Global Banks should not have anything to do with managing our money.
    Foreign BANSTERS should not be secretly managing, manipulation, printing and giving away our money.


    I don't feel that addressing the Government control is relevant at this point, I'm not accussing you at all ,
    but it is strange to me that you seem to want this conversation to focus away from the ;

    CRIMINAL FEDERAL RESERVE FOREIGN BANKSTERS
    , do I have this all wrong ?
    , ,
    I'm not big on conspiracy-theories so I see Fed as just another arm of the government, so I don't think Fed should control money but neither should Congress. As I've said several times, I believe in market-based money, it could be market-based gold-standard, silver-standard, bitcoins or whatever; everybody should be free to choose what they want to use, & the markets will generally gravitate towards the best alternative (although, all things being equal, I'd probably prefer a market-based gold-standard due to historical precedence).
    There is enormous inertia — a tyranny of the status quo — in private and especially governmental arrangements. Only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable
    - Milton Friedman

  18. #75
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    1,125
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Paul or Nothing: I'm not big on conspiracy-theories so I see Fed as just another arm of the government, so I don't think Fed should control money but neither should Congress.



    (i believe you'll find congress is authorized by the constitution to 'control money'..reality...i believe if you 'metalists' think about it, you'll come to the conclusion that the same secret-squirrel criminals who now control us through their control over frn'$ will control us similarly through their control over your favorite metal..(btw, i bet i've stacked more metal than any of you here!)

    ...won't it be great ripping apart and poisoning mother earth so we can 'expand the money supply'...

  19. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by H. E. Panqui View Post

    (i believe you'll find congress is authorized by the constitution to 'control money'
    I'm not a "Constitutionalist". Although I think a Constitutional Minarchy would be a massive improvement over the present situation, I don't think that could be the end-goal for those seeking true freedom & equality.
    Besides, even Ron Paul, who himself supports a free market in money, had said that just because the Constitution has vested Congress with a particular power doesn't mean that it must use it, Congress can choose not to exercise certain powers if people believe it shouldn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by H. E. Panqui View Post
    i believe if you 'metalists' think about it,
    And what are you supposed to be? A paper-ist?

    Quote Originally Posted by H. E. Panqui View Post
    you'll come to the conclusion that the same secret-squirrel criminals who now control us through their control over frn'$ will control us similarly through their control over your favorite metal..
    Same could be said about anything, even the "solution" proposed by the socialist monetarist Zarlenga, whom you seem to hold in high esteem.

    Quote Originally Posted by H. E. Panqui View Post
    (btw, i bet i've stacked more metal than any of you here!)

    ...won't it be great ripping apart and poisoning mother earth so we can 'expand the money supply'...
    If you think it's such a bad thing then you shouldn't have stocked up on it.....
    There is enormous inertia — a tyranny of the status quo — in private and especially governmental arrangements. Only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable
    - Milton Friedman

  20. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Or Nothing II View Post
    If you think it's such a bad thing then you shouldn't have stocked up on it.....
    He doesn't think it's a bad thing. He just wants all of it. Which is hard to arrange if they keep digging more up.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    You only want the freedoms that will undermine the nation and lead to the destruction of liberty.

  21. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    He doesn't think it's a bad thing. He just wants all of it. Which is hard to arrange if they keep digging more up.
    Considering the way he words himself, yeah, he could have easily meant that to be honest
    There is enormous inertia — a tyranny of the status quo — in private and especially governmental arrangements. Only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable
    - Milton Friedman

  22. #79
    the last "gold standard" was still fraud because fractional reserves were allowed via paper notes/accounting, no??? crooks cannot stand limiting their means to defraud the marks!!!

    in that sense physical=money ....paper/electronic etc. (pyramid scheme waiting for the shoe to drop)
    "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God."--Thomas Jefferson

  23. #80
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    1,125
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    actuptulsa licks wound$ and quibbles: He doesn't think it's a bad thing. He just wants all of it. Which is hard to arrange if they keep digging more up.



    (i also possess a rare, and absolutely fantastic!, tortoise-shell guitar pick...and sorry, but, i don't want 'them' making more 'new ones'...(fashioning new picks from old pick-guards, jewelry, etc...is ok...i guess..as long as i get a fair $hot at them...
    Last edited by H. E. Panqui; 04-23-2015 at 07:00 AM.



  24. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  25. #81
    I was licking wounds?

    I had wounds to lick?

    Geez, I'm glad someone told me. I was too busy laughing to notice.

    Please, do keep pretending to be a gold bug, and trying to make all gold bugs look as crazy as yourself, and just generally passing out insults like candy. Just so long as this thread gets bumped, so Z3.0 can't start another thread to blur the definition of sound money to seem to the children to be price fixing, and PB&J can't derail any discussions of the devalued dollar with talk about how being homeless with a smart phone today is better than being middle class was in 1900.
    Last edited by acptulsa; 04-23-2015 at 08:04 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    You only want the freedoms that will undermine the nation and lead to the destruction of liberty.

  26. #82
    There is no scenario of any standard that ends in success as long as the criminals own the authority and subvert the rule of law with impunity. Anyone who argues against that is certifiably deficient and should be in Iraq looking for WMD.

    Andrew Carnegie, son of Scottish immigrants, who built Carnegie Steel into an industrial giant, sold out to the Rothschilds in 1901, making him "publicly" the richest man on earth (a dubious distinction, as the actual richest man has been a Rothschild since the 18th century). The deal was concluded between Morgan and Carnegie alone. No lawyers or accountants present. The price was $480 million. As Carnegie opened the door to leave, Morgan said, "Andy, just so you know, I would have gone to $500 million". Andy said, as he turned back toward the door and exited, "Just so you know, I would have taken $400 million".

    That purchase formed United States Steel, giving the Rothschilds a virtual steel production monopoly. As there were no anti-trust laws, the deal was unopposed by any authority. US Steel was the merger of 11 companies, 10 of them having already been purchased by Morgan (a Rothschild agent) before the Carnegie acquisition. US Steel controlled 70% of steel production and was the first US company to generate a billion dollars in revenue.

    Conveniently for the Rothschilds, WWI began 4 years later and US Steel's revenue doubled to $2 billion and remained at that amount through the 1920s until the GD.

    The point is that this country has been completely owned and economically controlled by foreign bankers through their stateside agents for more than a century with no rule of law, no oversight, window dressing anti-trust cases and lots and lots of war propaganda and war.

    Fort Knox has no gold. Zippy, et al, have no proof there is a single ounce of gold there as the gold has never been audited.

    In 2011, Ron Paul introduced a bill to audit US gold in Fort Knox, at the FED and anywhere else it may be held, suggesting that the FED has used our gold to manipulate it's price on the "free" market and as a result, Fort Knox could be empty for all we know. Before zippy, et al, point to previous audits (like Zippy's lame posting of the supposed gold audit of the FED for Germany, which is a whole 'nuther bull$#@! story), all previous "audits" of US gold have consisted of "samples".

    Then Treasury Inspector General Eric Thorson said, basically, that "…we know it's there, no one has moved any of it, so trust us…". Zippy ate that $#@! burger like it was filet mignon and he expects us to follow his lead in that respect. $#@! you, Zippy. Show us the gold.

    You say it's all there… PROVE IT.

  27. #83
    Ft. Knox contains the best-guarded echo in the world.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    You only want the freedoms that will undermine the nation and lead to the destruction of liberty.

  28. #84
    Interesting blog on the topic: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/...miss-the-point

    For those who comment on the role of gold in the international monetary system, one of the most frequently asked questions involves the existence of the U.S. gold hoard. Officially the U.S. Treasury is in possession of 8,133 metric tons of gold stored mostly in two large depositories—Ft. Knox, Ky. and West Point, N.Y.—with smaller amounts on deposit at the Denver Mint and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

    Yet, as a writer and speaker on the role of gold, the most frequent question I encounter is, "How do you know the gold is actually there?" or some variant. The suggestion is always that the United States long ago dumped its gold on world markets to suppress the price and that the vaults in Ft. Knox are actually empty or, at most, filled with tungsten bars lightly coated with gold paint.


    Invariably these critics point to the fact that the Treasury will not permit an audit of the gold as proof of their suspicion. A proper audit would verify both the quantity and purity of the U.S. gold hoard. Ideally, each gold ingot would be individually numbered and tested and at the end a reputable nongovernment auditor such as a major accounting firm would attest a complete inventory of separately numbered ingots. This should be a fairly straightforward task. The failure to conduct the audit is perennially advanced as evidence that the gold does not exist.

    Analysis should always be based on the best available evidence and not speculation. I have seen some evidence, gathered from military and Treasury officials, that the gold is where the government says it is. I have seen no evidence whatsoever that it is not. Based on this, I assume the gold is there. If I learn differently someday, I'll change my view, but until then I'll base my economic and monetary analyses on the fact that the United States is the proud owner of 8,133 metric tons.

    But what about the audit? What harm can there be in that if the gold is where the Treasury says it is?

    There are two powerful reasons not to do the audit even if the gold is in the vaults. The first has to do with the credibility of gold as a component of international reserves and monetary systems in general. Gold was officially demonetized by the International Monetary Fund in 1973 not long after President Nixon ended the convertibility of dollars into gold in 1971. Since then gold has been continually disparaged as a monetary asset, most recently in the remarks of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke that the possession of gold by the United States was a mere "tradition." If that were so, why would the United States audit something so unimportant? An audit suggests that gold is somehow meaningful and deserving of respect. The official position is that gold is a legacy asset of no particular importance. In this context, refusing an audit makes sense. An audit would give gold too much credit and start to erode the official propaganda that gold is not a monetary asset. After all, no one audits the number of acorns in the national parks—they are too unimportant.

    Another reason has to do with not calling attention to a host of ancillary questions. Assume the audit were conducted and everything was in good order, that the United States had the right number of ingots of 99.99 percent purity and everything was numbered and in its place. This would immediately lead to other questions. Is the gold leased? To whom? On what terms?

    Some naively assume that if the gold is leased to commercial banks such as J.P. Morgan that the leasing bank backs up a truck and takes it away. That is not true. The gold can be leased in paper transactions without ever leaving Ft. Knox or West Point. The leased gold can then be rehypothecated by J.P. Morgan to other banks and so on until multiple parties all claim some title to the same physical gold. That gold goes on to support an even larger inverted pyramid of "paper gold" transactions in futures, options, forwards, swaps, and so-called unallocated storage. One reason not to do an audit is to avoid all of the awkward legal title questions that would arise once the physical existence issue was settled. The Treasury would rather ignore gold than open Pandora's Box.

    Gold remains the 8,000 ton gorilla in the room; the thing that is too big to ignore but that no one wants to discuss. The international monetary system and the role of the dollar are in dire straits even if all of the gold is where it is supposed to be. It is not necessary to fantasize about phantom gold in order to see that a monetary crisis is imminent. The Fed and Treasury refusal to audit gold is part of their painstaking effort to deny that gold is still at the heart of the system. No more elaborate explanation is required.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 05-12-2015 at 01:37 PM.

  29. #85
    There are two powerful reasons not to do the audit even if the gold is in the vaults. The first has to do with the credibility of gold as a component of international reserves and monetary systems in general. Gold was officially demonetized by the International Monetary Fund in 1973 not long after President Nixon ended the convertibility of dollars into gold in 1971. Since then gold has been continually disparaged as a monetary asset, most recently in the remarks of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke that the possession of gold by the United States was a mere "tradition." If that were so, why would the United States audit something so unimportant? An audit suggests that gold is somehow meaningful and deserving of respect. The official position is that gold is a legacy asset of no particular importance. In this context, refusing an audit makes sense. An audit would give gold too much credit and start to erode the official propaganda that gold is not a monetary asset. After all, no one audits the number of acorns in the national parks—they are too unimportant.
    The acorns grow on trees.

    And paper clips are too unimportant. Yet there are literally thousands of government workers who, in part, keep track of them anyway.

    I would say this argument doesn't hold water. But 'The government doesn't care if government workers steal your gold because we aren't using it anyway' doesn't even qualify as an argument.

    Another reason has to do with not calling attention to a host of ancillary questions. Assume the audit were conducted and everything was in good order, that the United States had the right number of ingots of 99.99 percent purity and everything was numbered and in its place. This would immediately lead to other questions. Is the gold leased? To whom? On what terms?
    Gee, this blogger is a big believer in transparency in government. Don't answer questions because there might be other questions. So? Does the fact that we, some of the citizens of this republic, might like to know if it's leased mean that we, the citizens of this republic, have no right to know if our gold is still around?
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    You only want the freedoms that will undermine the nation and lead to the destruction of liberty.

  30. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    Gee, this blogger is a big believer in transparency in government. Don't answer questions because there might be other questions.
    I think he's just attempting to explain their rationale. Jim Rickards is not "anti-gold." In fact, he's in the doomsday camp, predicting 5-digit gold prices. His most recent book is titled, "The Death of Money: The Coming Collapse of the International Monetary System."

  31. #87
    What's interesting about that article Zippy? It's 3 years old.
    Last edited by devil21; 05-12-2015 at 03:43 PM.
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing."-Ron Paul

    "We have set them on the hobby-horse of an idea about the absorption of individuality by the symbolic unit of COLLECTIVISM. They have never yet and they never will have the sense to reflect that this hobby-horse is a manifest violation of the most important law of nature, which has established from the very creation of the world one unit unlike another and precisely for the purpose of instituting individuality."- A Quote From Some Old Book

  32. #88
    dblp
    Last edited by devil21; 05-12-2015 at 03:44 PM.
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing."-Ron Paul

    "We have set them on the hobby-horse of an idea about the absorption of individuality by the symbolic unit of COLLECTIVISM. They have never yet and they never will have the sense to reflect that this hobby-horse is a manifest violation of the most important law of nature, which has established from the very creation of the world one unit unlike another and precisely for the purpose of instituting individuality."- A Quote From Some Old Book



  33. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  34. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by muh_roads View Post
    How about an independent 3rd-party audit unexpectedly?
    "Do you expect an independent 3rd-party audit?"
    "No, Mr. muh_roads! ..."



    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 05-12-2015 at 04:58 PM.
    The Bastiat Collection · FREE PDF · FREE EPUB · PAPER
    Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)

    • "When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law."
      -- The Law (p. 54)
    • "Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
      -- Government (p. 99)
    • "[W]ar is always begun in the interest of the few, and at the expense of the many."
      -- Economic Sophisms - Second Series (p. 312)
    • "There are two principles that can never be reconciled - Liberty and Constraint."
      -- Harmonies of Political Economy - Book One (p. 447)

    · tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito ·

  35. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    What's interesting about that article Zippy? It's 3 years old.
    So? Is the information out of date in it?

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Gold Standard (Return) 'Is there Gold in Fort Knox' CBS
    By Stratovarious in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 04-06-2015, 07:31 AM
  2. Ron Paul Wants to Know: Is There Gold in Fort Knox?
    By bobbyw24 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-29-2010, 11:54 AM
  3. Is There Any Gold in Fort Knox? (Ron Paul wants to find out.)
    By IPSecure in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-17-2010, 07:05 AM
  4. Who has all the gold? Fort Knox?
    By Deborah K in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 07-20-2009, 03:20 PM
  5. Is there nay gold in Fort Knox
    By Up The Deise in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 03-28-2009, 06:27 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •