@GoldFinger1969 said: I read the 1933 Report of the Federal Reserve System. It says that the money supply in circulation was just under $7 billion.
Maybe FDR was referring to the 40% backing of FRN's with gold ?
Even if the oft-cited 4% figure was true...it doesn't justify the illegal confiscation of gold from the American public and there was no "bailout" of the Fed who OPPOSED (by and large) the gold edicts of FDR and Morgenthau.
.
The FED desperately wanted to be relieved of their gold obligations. What they may have said publicly about it is immaterial compared to what they asked of FDR behind closed doors. But if you have evidence that the FED actually opposed the negation of various gold obligations, then post it.
If any part of this chart is wrong, then prove it:
@dcarr said:
But if you have evidence that the FED actually opposed the negation of various gold obligations, then post it.
There's tons of evidence, entire books. The most famous was the opposition of Eugene Meyer, Fed Chairman, who was vociferous in his opposition. He would later buy The Washington Post and his daughter, Katherine Graham (Meyer), would bring it to new heights.
@derryb said:
New rule: bankers and financial planners/advisors must post a disclaimer in their sig line exposing their bias before >posting to the forum.
I have no bias. I state facts. Objectivity and bias are NOT the same thing -- except to the uninformed.
I'm also not a banker or financial planner. I do manage money, though, which means I am accountable, unlike uninformed anti-Fed Luddites.
@dcarr said:
If any part of this chart is wrong, then prove it:
The amounts of bills you cite are made up totals. Those are in aggregate, and don't include bills destroyed and taken out of circulation.
Even with the Gold Clause Cases before the Supreme Court, where the amount of gold might not have been able to cover the total, NOBODY wanted gold -- they wanted the appreciation in gold in dollars. A 4% cover rate for Gold Clauses was sufficient to keep it working.
@dcarr said:
If any part of this chart is wrong, then prove it:
The amounts of bills you cite are made up totals. Those are in aggregate, and don't include bills destroyed and taken out of circulation.
Even with the Gold Clause Cases before the Supreme Court, where the amount of gold might not have been able to cover the total, NOBODY wanted gold -- they wanted the appreciation in gold in dollars. A 4% cover rate for Gold Clauses was sufficient to keep it working.
.
THEY ARE NOT "MADE UP" TOTALS.
It is data from the BEP. I cited two references. You can look it up yourself if you must.
And now it is obvious that you never even read my article. And yet, you bash it in an nefarious fashion.
In my article I discuss how much of the paper money might have become worn out and how much would have still been outstanding.
For the time period in question (about 1913-1933), $5 is equivalent to today's $100. So it is reasonable to think that a $5 bill in 1920 would have a life expectancy of 23 years. Most commerce at that time was handled by cents through half dollars. $5 would have been a lot of money and would be tightly-held (and not circulate much). Also, that majority of the notes in question were the small-size, first issued in 1928. So for most of the notes, they would have been less than 5 years old in March 1933. So a rough estimate would be at least 85% of the notes issued would still be outstanding in 1933.
The events leading up to March 1933 constitute the greatest fraud ever perpetrated against the American People. The Federal Reserve should have been held accountable. But it was not in the slightest.
PS:
A low 4% reserve requirement is asking for trouble, especially in the era of a Gold Standard.
@dcarr said:
But if you have evidence that the FED actually opposed the negation of various gold obligations, then post it.
There's tons of evidence, entire books. The most famous was the opposition of Eugene Meyer, Fed Chairman, who was vociferous in his opposition. He would later buy The Washington Post and his daughter, Katherine Graham (Meyer), would bring it to new heights.
.
If there is "tons of evidence", then it shouldn't be so hard to post a little bit of it ?
@dcarr said:
But if you have evidence that the FED actually opposed the negation of various gold obligations, then post it.
There's tons of evidence, entire books. The most famous was the opposition of Eugene Meyer, Fed Chairman, who was vociferous in his opposition. He would later buy The Washington Post and his daughter, Katherine Graham (Meyer), would bring it to new heights.
It appears that Mr Meyer was looking out mostly for the interests of himself and his own family who benefited from international gold trading and in exporting gold to France.
From the web page above:
REPRESENTATIVE MCFADDEN: Lazard Freres, the international banking house of New York and Paris, was a Meyer family banking house. It frequently figures in imports and exports of gold, and one of the important functions of the Federal Reserve System has to do with gold movements in the maintenance of its own operations. In looking over the minutes of the hearing we had last Thursday, Senator Fletcher had asked Mr. Meyer, 'Have you any connections with international banking?' Mr. Meyer had answered, 'Me? Not personally.' This last question and answer do not appear in the stenographic transcript. Senator Fletcher remembers asking the question and the answer. It is an odd omission.
SENATOR BROOKHART: I understand that Mr. Meyer looked it over for corrections.
REPRESENTATIVE MCFADDEN: Mr. Meyer is a brother-in-law of George Blumenthal, a member of the firm of J.P. Morgan Company, which represents the Rothschild interests. He also is a liaison officer between the French Government and J.P. Morgan.
Edmund Platt, who had eight years to go on a term of ten years as Governor of the Federal Reserve Board, resigned to make room for Mr. Meyer. Platt was given a Vice-Presidency of Marine Midland Corporation by Meyer's brother-in-law Alfred A. Cook.
Eugene Meyer, Jr. as head of the War Finance Corporation, engaged in the placing of two billion dollars in Government securities, placed many of those orders first with the banking house now located at 14 Wall Street in the name of Eugene Meyer, Jr. Mr. Meyer is now a large stockholder in the Allied Chemical Corporation.
I call your attention to House Report No. 1635, 68th Congress, 2nd Session, which reveals that at least twenty-four million dollars in bonds were duplicated. Ten billion dollars worth of bonds surreptitiously destroyed. Our committee on Banking and Currency found the records of the War Finance Corporation under Eugene Meyer, Jr. extremely faulty. While the books were being brought before our committee by the people who were custodians of them and taken back to the Treasury at night, the committee discovered that alterations were being made in the permanent records.
@dcarr said:
If there is "tons of evidence", then it shouldn't be so hard to post a little bit of it ?
I just told you he opposed the Treasury's and FDR's involvement. It's well-known to anybody who has studied the Fed and monetary policy in this country. Clearly, you haven't.
The situation would not be resolved until the Treasury-Fed Accord of 1951.
@dcarr said:
If there is "tons of evidence", then it shouldn't be so hard to post a little bit of it ?
I just told you he opposed the Treasury's and FDR's involvement. It's well-known to anybody who has studied the Fed and monetary policy in this country. Clearly, you haven't.
The situation would not be resolved until the Treasury-Fed Accord of 1951.
.
I am not going to take your word for it, so you are going to have to prove it.
Cite one example posted on the internet where Eugen Meyer voiced public opposition to the gold confiscation.
It shouldn't be that hard if it is "well known to everybody",
This Eugene Meyer sounds like your banking hero type - cooking the books and rigging things to benefit himself and his family business.
@GoldFinger1969 said:
So the bottom line is you are defending the gold confiscators and those who wanted to abrogate the gold clauses.
.
Your are absolutely twisting the facts 180 degrees.
You are the one defending the FED, FDR, and their actions.
I call them the greatest swindlers in the history of capitalism.
@GoldFinger1969 said:
So the bottom line is you are defending the gold confiscators and those who wanted to abrogate the gold clauses.
.
Your are absolutely twisting the facts 180 degrees.
You are the one defending the FED, FDR, and their actions.
I call them the greatest swindlers in the history of capitalism.
.
I am not choosing sides but I do not think it's accurate to call them the greatest swindlers in the history of capitalism.
It is always easier to look back almost 100 years later with much more clarity.
Successful coin BST transactions with Gerard and segoja.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
@GoldFinger1969 said:
So the bottom line is you are defending the gold confiscators and those who wanted to abrogate the gold clauses.
.
Your are absolutely twisting the facts 180 degrees.
You are the one defending the FED, FDR, and their actions.
I call them the greatest swindlers in the history of capitalism.
.
I am not choosing sides but I do not think it's accurate to call them the greatest swindlers in the history of capitalism.
It is always easier to look back almost 100 years later with much more clarity.
Legally taking gold out of Americans' hands ranks up there with the greatest swindles. Asset forfeiture comes in a close second.
Gold has a world price entirely unaffected by accounting games between the Treasury and the Fed. - Jim Rickards
@dcarr said:
If there is "tons of evidence", then it shouldn't be so hard to post a little bit of it ?
I just told you he opposed the Treasury's and FDR's involvement. It's well-known to anybody who has studied the Fed and monetary policy in this country. Clearly, you haven't.
The situation would not be resolved until the Treasury-Fed Accord of 1951.
.
I am not going to take your word for it, so you are going to have to prove it.
Cite one example posted on the internet where Eugen Meyer voiced public opposition to the gold confiscation.
It shouldn't be that hard if it is "well known to everybody",
This Eugene Meyer sounds like your banking hero type - cooking the books and rigging things to benefit himself and his family business.
.
Please disclose yourself for who you really are. Perhaps an agent for the Feds? THKS!
@derryb said:
Legally taking gold out of Americans' hands ranks up there with the greatest swindles. Asset forfeiture comes in a >close second.
Taking gold away from Americans was wrong, but it's not a "swindle." The government does have the right to control monetary policy, they should have just increased the amount of high-powered money to offset the drop in velocity caused by the bank failures.
Oh, the number on your website about the amount of bonds with Gold Clauses in corporate America is off by about 50%. It was about $100 BB corporate, $22 BB in Federal obligations.
Taking us back 5 days in the discussion, @dcarr said "Banks should be nationalized..."
Are you really suggesting that we'd be better off if all retail, commercial, and investment banking were run by the Federal government. (or maybe run at the individual state level)? Or just retail? How about credit unions?
@derryb said:
Legally taking gold out of Americans' hands ranks up there with the greatest swindles. Asset forfeiture comes in a >close second.
Taking gold away from Americans was wrong, but it's not a "swindle." The government does have the right to control monetary policy, they should have just increased the amount of high-powered money to offset the drop in velocity caused by the bank failures.
Should they be able to take your car because of climate policy?
Gold has a world price entirely unaffected by accounting games between the Treasury and the Fed. - Jim Rickards
@dcarr said:
If there is "tons of evidence", then it shouldn't be so hard to post a little bit of it ?
I just told you he opposed the Treasury's and FDR's involvement. It's well-known to anybody who has studied the Fed and monetary policy in this country. Clearly, you haven't.
The situation would not be resolved until the Treasury-Fed Accord of 1951.
.
I am not going to take your word for it, so you are going to have to prove it.
Cite one example posted on the internet where Eugen Meyer voiced public opposition to the gold confiscation.
It shouldn't be that hard if it is "well known to everybody",
This Eugene Meyer sounds like your banking hero type - cooking the books and rigging things to benefit himself and his family business.
.
Please disclose yourself for who you really are. Perhaps an agent for the Feds? THKS!
.
The link to who I am and what I do has always been in my signature line.
I have never hidden that.
@dcarr said:
If there is "tons of evidence", then it shouldn't be so hard to post a little bit of it ?
I just told you he opposed the Treasury's and FDR's involvement. It's well-known to anybody who has studied the Fed and monetary policy in this country. Clearly, you haven't.
The situation would not be resolved until the Treasury-Fed Accord of 1951.
.
I am not going to take your word for it, so you are going to have to prove it.
Cite one example posted on the internet where Eugen Meyer voiced public opposition to the gold confiscation.
It shouldn't be that hard if it is "well known to everybody",
This Eugene Meyer sounds like your banking hero type - cooking the books and rigging things to benefit himself and his family business.
.
Please disclose yourself for who you really are. Perhaps an agent for the Feds? THKS!
.
The link to who I am and what I do has always been in my signature line.
I have never hidden that.
.
Still holding out hope for the "In gutter we trust" token but the hope continues to fade away. I may have to enlist one of your Chinese competitors to complete the job. RGDS!
@Higashiyama said:
Taking us back 5 days in the discussion, @dcarr said "Banks should be nationalized..."
Are you really suggesting that we'd be better off if all retail, commercial, and investment banking were run by the Federal government. (or maybe run at the individual state level)? Or just retail? How about credit unions?
.
The ability to create money (currency) should not be in the hands of a corporate-owned banking cartel. State-owned banks (like the one established by North Dakota) can be successful and benefit the people. A national banking system should be nationalized.
Beyond that, if someone wanted to be a customer of a private or corporate bank, that would be up to them. But no such bank should have an unfair advantage because they get special privileges, inside information, and bailouts as a member/owner of the central bank.
Now is the time to implement a US Treasury digital currency (USTDC). It could be set up in such a way that reasonable transaction fees would replace income taxes and sales taxes. As it is now, 3% is skimmed off the top of the economy by a "middle man" in the form of credit card fees. That 3% should instead go to fund government expenditures. Imagine not ever having to file income tax returns again. There would be no more tax cheating. Monetary policy could be implemented as needed by changing the transaction fee rate, and/or the interest rates on balances, and/or via injection of money into everyone's account. If this were implemented, there would be no need for banks to do every day commerce. Investment banking would be open to fair competition among private or corporate-owned investment banks.
@dcarr said:
If there is "tons of evidence", then it shouldn't be so hard to post a little bit of it ?
I just told you he opposed the Treasury's and FDR's involvement. It's well-known to anybody who has studied the Fed and monetary policy in this country. Clearly, you haven't.
The situation would not be resolved until the Treasury-Fed Accord of 1951.
.
I am not going to take your word for it, so you are going to have to prove it.
Cite one example posted on the internet where Eugen Meyer voiced public opposition to the gold confiscation.
It shouldn't be that hard if it is "well known to everybody",
This Eugene Meyer sounds like your banking hero type - cooking the books and rigging things to benefit himself and his family business.
.
Please disclose yourself for who you really are. Perhaps an agent for the Feds? THKS!
.
The link to who I am and what I do has always been in my signature line.
I have never hidden that.
.
Still holding out hope for the "In gutter we trust" token but the hope continues to fade away. I may have to enlist one of your Chinese competitors to complete the job. RGDS!
.
That would be a cheaper option. But hurry before the tariffs set in.
I don't view silver as a "gutter" material. So for that reason I don't really have any incentive to do such a project.
@derryb said:
Legally taking gold out of Americans' hands ranks up there with the greatest swindles. Asset forfeiture comes in a >close second.
Taking gold away from Americans was wrong, but it's not a "swindle." The government does have the right to control monetary policy, they should have just increased the amount of high-powered money to offset the drop in velocity caused by the bank failures.
Oh, the number on your website about the amount of bonds with Gold Clauses in corporate America is off by about 50%. It was about $100 BB corporate, $22 BB in Federal obligations.
.
The "swindle" part of it was before the gold confiscation. The Federal Reserve was presented as a benefit for the people. The people were not told that the real reason for the Federal Reserve was to earn large profits for the banks that owned it.
You wrote: "The government does have the right to control monetary policy". We can agree on that. So lets have the government (US Treasury) control monetary policy and take that control away from the corporate-owned Federal Reserve Bank.
07 May 1933 Fireside Chat by President Roosevelt:
Much has been said of late about Federal finances and inflation, the gold standard, etc. Let me make the facts very simple and my policy very clear. In the first place, government credit and government currency are really one and the same thing. Behind government bonds there is only a promise to pay. Behind government currency we have, in addition to the promise to pay, a reserve of gold and a small reserve of silver, neither of them anything like the total amount of the currency. In this connection it is worth while remembering that in the past the government has agreed to redeem nearly thirty billions of its debts and its currency in gold, and private corporations in this country have agreed to redeem another sixty or seventy billions of securities and mortgages in gold. The government and private corporations were making these agreements when they knew full well that all of the gold in the United States amounted to only between three and four billions and that all of the gold in all of the world amounted to only about eleven billions.
Note that Roosevelt admits that there is NO gold backing at all for government bonds.
At $20.67 per troy oz:
$30 billion (in government debt) = 45,000 metric tons of gold.
$60 billion (in US private sector debt) = 90,000 metric tons of gold.
$11 billion (all the gold in all the world) = 16,500 metric tons of gold.
So my chart is accurate according to the President of the United States. And I only include about one fourth of the total government debt (only the Liberty Loan bonds that funded WW1):
@dcarr said:
The ability to create money (currency) should not be in the hands of a corporate-owned banking cartel. State->owned banks (like the one established by North Dakota) can be successful and benefit the people. A national >banking system should be nationalized.
A rural economy and state with a population pretty much the same relative to the United States now as in 1950 as in 1920. You really think that would work in New York State and NYC with Wall Street ? You'd destroy America's leading financial role and kill the economy.
You say things like this because you aren't accountable to anybody like a Fed official who is held accountable for the economy or an investment manager who is benchmarked to the S&P 500.
The bank is also HEAVILY subsidized because it gets all the state funds as deposits and then underpays itself.
Beyond that, if someone wanted to be a customer of a private or corporate bank, that would be up to them. But no such bank should have an unfair advantage because they get special privileges, inside information, and bailouts as a member/owner of the central bank.
Nobody is getting a special privilege, inside information, or a bailout. These are all figments of your imagination.
Now is the time to implement a US Treasury digital currency (USTDC). It could be set up in such a way that >reasonable transaction fees would replace income taxes and sales taxes. As it is now, 3% is skimmed off the top of >the economy by a "middle man" in the form of credit card fees. That 3% should instead go to fund government >expenditures. Imagine not ever having to file income tax returns again. There would be no more tax cheating. >Monetary policy could be implemented as needed by changing the transaction fee rate, and/or the interest rates on >balances, and/or via injection of money into everyone's account. If this were implemented, there would be no need >for banks to do every day commerce. Investment banking would be open to fair competition among private or >corporate-owned investment banks.
3% is NOT skimmed off. That would be $900 billion, almost $1 trillion. Total credit card fees run about 150 billion a year, 1/6th your level.
The rest of your demands are something appropriate for a barter economy, circa 1750. Yeah, that would work in today's economy. You would set the U.S. economy back decades.
Spouting conspiracy stuff about the Fed, banks, and other financial matters is out of style.
@dcarr said:
The ability to create money (currency) should not be in the hands of a corporate-owned banking cartel. State->owned banks (like the one established by North Dakota) can be successful and benefit the people. A national >banking system should be nationalized.
A rural economy and state with a population pretty much the same relative to the United States now as in 1950 as in 1920. You really think that would work in New York State and NYC with Wall Street ? You'd destroy America's leading financial role and kill the economy.
You say things like this because you aren't accountable to anybody like a Fed official who is held accountable for the economy or an investment manager who is benchmarked to the S&P 500.
The bank is also HEAVILY subsidized because it gets all the state funds as deposits and then underpays itself.
Beyond that, if someone wanted to be a customer of a private or corporate bank, that would be up to them. But no such bank should have an unfair advantage because they get special privileges, inside information, and bailouts as a member/owner of the central bank.
Nobody is getting a special privilege, inside information, or a bailout. These are all figments of your imagination.
Now is the time to implement a US Treasury digital currency (USTDC). It could be set up in such a way that >reasonable transaction fees would replace income taxes and sales taxes. As it is now, 3% is skimmed off the top of >the economy by a "middle man" in the form of credit card fees. That 3% should instead go to fund government >expenditures. Imagine not ever having to file income tax returns again. There would be no more tax cheating. >Monetary policy could be implemented as needed by changing the transaction fee rate, and/or the interest rates on >balances, and/or via injection of money into everyone's account. If this were implemented, there would be no need >for banks to do every day commerce. Investment banking would be open to fair competition among private or >corporate-owned investment banks.
3% is NOT skimmed off. That would be $900 billion, almost $1 trillion. Total credit card fees run about 150 billion a year, 1/6th your level.
The rest of your demands are something appropriate for a barter economy, circa 1750. Yeah, that would work in today's economy. You would set the U.S. economy back decades.
Spouting conspiracy stuff about the Fed, banks, and other financial matters is out of style.
.
The North Dakota bank is scaled to fit the needs of North Dakota. It didn't "kill the economy" in North Dakota. In fact, it helped it. If you can't comprehend the concept of scaling something up to a larger size, then you can't be helped.
FED officials held accountable ? If only that were true, then some of them would have spent time in jail for insider trading.
So what if the North Dakota bank "underpays" itself ? In the past you've made a big deal about how the Federal Reserve hasn't paid dividends to its owners/members. The point of a nationalized central bank is that all proceeds go to the national treasury. I know what you are going to write - that the Federal Reserve already sends all their profits to the US Treasury. But that is not a requirement of their charter. They may choose to remit all of their profits, for some years, but that is not the same thing as a mandatory statute. If things were structured correctly, other "profits" would go to the US Treasury to fund expenditures. Those other things would include the 3% skimmed off the top of the economy by credit card companies.
If the FED member banks are not getting any special privilege (such as inside information and bailouts) as you claim, then they shouldn't care if they give up their membership/ownership, right ? Nationalize the FED.
You have apparently never had a merchant account or a been real businessperson who has to run a business in this environment. Credit card payments to merchants are "taxed" at about a 3% rate and that "tax" goes to the credit card companies for their benefit. Yes, those companies provide a service. But a fully digital currency and payment system would streamline everything and replace the onerous income tax system.
You brought up this Eugene Myer as a great guy who defended the right of the people to keep gold. That is typical "FED speak". Say one thing, but the reality behind it is quite different. In reality he was a despot who was only looking out for his own interests.
FED head Powell recently "testified" before the Senate. This odd exchange reeks of back-door deals being done to protect the FED's privileges:
Senator Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) did manage to get a categoric statement out of the central bank head when he asked about Powell’s position on a U.S. dollar CBDC. “Can I have your commitment that as long as you're the chairman of the Federal Reserve System, that we will never have a central bank digital currency?” he asked.
“Yes,” Powell replied.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if there was a "wink-wink" that went along with that.
Why wouldn't the FED want a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) ?
Because it would diminish their power and profits.
A CBDC would diminish the need for Federal Reserve Notes in circulation. Those notes are a major source of income for the FED, since they amount to a huge interest-free loan to the FED. The FED can then earn interest on that money.
A Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) comes with other "costs" that many Americans are not willing to give up. You may solve one problem, but create many others.
@dcarr said:
A CBDC would diminish the need for Federal Reserve Notes in circulation. Those notes are a major source of >income for the FED, since they amount to a huge interest-free loan to the FED. The FED can then earn interest on >that money.
Can you read a balance sheet or income statement ? The Fed already makes $50-$75 BB each year on Open Market Operations. They don't need the pennies from a CBDC.
All the profits get swept back to the Treasury/U.S. Government anyway. Once again, you assign nefarious activity when in fact every dollar they make gets swept back to the government.
The Fed is our only profit center -- naturally, you attack it.
Can you read a balance sheet or income statement ?
This type of condescension doesn't win any arguments.
The Fed already makes $50-$75 BB each year on Open Market Operations.
Weren't you the one saying that the banks weren't making any money?
All the profits get swept back to the Treasury/U.S. Government anyway. Once again, you assign nefarious activity when in fact every dollar they make gets swept back to the government.
@pmh1nic said:
The people “own” Yosemite and gold but we don’t control it. One of the major issues of this last election was accountability.
My question is why after the election was settled gold is still climbing. Uncertainty about the election was suppose to be the motivation for the price increases last year. What’s driving it even further now?
The uncertainty wasn't the election, but rather the effects of the election.
Would you say things are more or less certain today than 6 months ago?
I wouldn't say certain but you now can be certain Trump will push for tax cuts, promote policies to help businesses, close the border, stop funding of the war in Ukraine and push increased energy production.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@jmski52 said:
Weren't you the one saying that the banks weren't making any money?
No, I said their returns to their shareholders were pathetic the last 15-20 years. The next 10-15 years will be much better...lots of M&A coming. Down to 2,000 banks by 2035.
All the profits get swept back to the Treasury/U.S. Government anyway. Once again, you assign nefarious activity >when in fact every dollar they make gets swept back to the government.
BS. Why no audits?
The weakest ploy in modern times is to charge someone who has a valid point as a conspiracy theorist, and these so called "conspiracies" have more often than not turned out to be true. Provide something of note that isn't behind a paywall.
Better yet, audit the Fed and then dissolve it. There's no need for a quasi-governmental organization to be creating "money" out of thin air mainly for the benefit of their private owners.
The Treasury is perfectly capable of creating a currency and that would simply force Congress to be responsible for their spending. If Congress wants to create debt by selling bonds, let the chips fall where they may as the bonds seek their own value in a free market. Get rid of the shell game that is run by the banking cartel.
@jmski52 said:
The weakest ploy in modern times is to charge someone who has a valid point as a conspiracy theorist, and these so called "conspiracies" have more often than not turned out to be true. Provide something of note that isn't behind a paywall.
The problem Jim, is none of your "points" have come true. You've spent so much time in that bunker that it appears you can no longer distinguish fiction from reality. Sunshine and fresh air works wonders. Step out of that bunker and look around. It's a wonderful world out here. RGDS!
@pmh1nic said:
The people “own” Yosemite and gold but we don’t control it. One of the major issues of this last election was accountability.
My question is why after the election was settled gold is still climbing. Uncertainty about the election was suppose to be the motivation for the price increases last year. What’s driving it even further now?
The uncertainty wasn't the election, but rather the effects of the election.
Would you say things are more or less certain today than 6 months ago?
I wouldn't say certain but you now can be certain Trump will push for tax cuts, promote policies to help businesses, close the border, stop funding of the war in Ukraine and push increased energy production.
There is certainty in those efforts. And that's why gold continues to find support. Is it interesting that gold began this rally during the orange man's first go round?
@RedneckHB said:
Dcarr, would a Bailey Bridge be suitable for crossing the Atlantic? It is a good design being practical and modular.
That is a stupid question.
NO Bridge would be suitable for crossing the entire Atlantic ocean (too expensive to construct).
But the USS North Dakota would do just fine sailing back and forth.
@jmski52 said:
The weakest ploy in modern times is to charge someone who has a valid point as a conspiracy theorist, and these so called "conspiracies" have more often than not turned out to be true. Provide something of note that isn't behind a paywall.
yet the name callers never want to discuss conspiracy facts.
Gold has a world price entirely unaffected by accounting games between the Treasury and the Fed. - Jim Rickards
@RedneckHB said:
Dcarr, would a Bailey Bridge be suitable for crossing the Atlantic? It is a good design being practical and modular.
That is a stupid question.
NO Bridge would be suitable for crossing the entire Atlantic ocean (too expensive to construct).
It's not a stupid question because you have correctly seen the folly of applying a simple and small solution to a very large situation. Hopefully you will now see the folly of applying banking solution of a small, localized and specialized economy to a global and diverse exonony.
@jmski52 said:
The weakest ploy in modern times is to charge someone who has a valid point as a conspiracy theorist, and these so called "conspiracies" have more often than not turned out to be true. Provide something of note that isn't behind a paywall.
@pmh1nic said:
The people “own” Yosemite and gold but we don’t control it. One of the major issues of this last election was accountability.
My question is why after the election was settled gold is still climbing. Uncertainty about the election was suppose to be the motivation for the price increases last year. What’s driving it even further now?
I think that is pretty clear. The actions of the new administration in appointing unqualified people to high positions based on loyalty will result in very loyal people who don't know what they are doing. This is bad for America. Thus, trust that things will turn out alright have diminished. The way people react to fear and predictions of bad times is to buy gold for security, especialy if people feel the value of the dollar is in peril.
@RedneckHB said:
Dcarr, would a Bailey Bridge be suitable for crossing the Atlantic? It is a good design being practical and modular.
That is a stupid question.
NO Bridge would be suitable for crossing the entire Atlantic ocean (too expensive to construct).
It's not a stupid question because you have correctly seen the folly of applying a simple and small solution to a very large situation. Hopefully you will now see the folly of applying banking solution of a small, localized and specialized economy to a global and diverse exonony.
Ahh...
So you ADMIT it, that the state-run North Dakota Bank IS a solution to the (small) problem.
Apparently, you are not familiar with the concept of building a small scale model first, to test the feasibility of something, and then the full-scale version after that proof-of-concept.
The real "folly" is accepting financial fascism in the form of the Federal Reserve to be imposed on everyone.
@jmski52 said:
The weakest ploy in modern times is to charge someone who has a valid point as a conspiracy theorist, and these so called "conspiracies" have more often than not turned out to be true. Provide something of note that isn't behind a paywall.
.....conspiracy facts.
Is that an oxymoron?
It's a conspiracy theory that says conspiracy theories often become fact.
Gold has a world price entirely unaffected by accounting games between the Treasury and the Fed. - Jim Rickards
@RedneckHB said:
Dcarr, would a Bailey Bridge be suitable for crossing the Atlantic? It is a good design being practical and modular.
That is a stupid question.
NO Bridge would be suitable for crossing the entire Atlantic ocean (too expensive to construct).
It's not a stupid question because you have correctly seen the folly of applying a simple and small solution to a very large situation. Hopefully you will now see the folly of applying banking solution of a small, localized and specialized economy to a global and diverse exonony.
Ahh...
So you ADMIT it, that the state-run North Dakota Bank IS a solution to the (small) problem.
Nope. I didn't state anything about a problem.
Apparently, you are not familiar with the concept of building a small scale model first, to test the feasibility of something, and then the full-scale version after that proof-of-concept.
The small scale model was built 200+ years ago it's evolved since then with the US and the world.
The real "folly" is accepting financial fascism in the form of the Federal Reserve to be imposed on everyone.
@jmski52 said:
The weakest ploy in modern times is to charge someone who has a valid point as a conspiracy theorist, and these >so called "conspiracies" have more often than not turned out to be true. Provide something of note that isn't >behind a paywall.
Better yet, audit the Fed and then dissolve it. There's no need for a quasi-governmental organization to be creating >"money" out of thin air mainly for the benefit of their private owners.
Conspiracy guys who claim The Fed is owned by "private owners" don't know what they are talking about.
The Treasury is perfectly capable of creating a currency and that would simply force Congress to be responsible for >their spending. If Congress wants to create debt by selling bonds, let the chips fall where they may as the bonds >seek their own value in a free market. Get rid of the shell game that is run by the banking cartel.
There's no banking cartel and your lack of monetary policy expertise shows. You don't understand modern banking and you don't understand the role of credit in a modern economy.
We're not going back to a gold standard or a modern gold standard with a "digital currency" or other nonsense.
@taxbuster1040 said:
I think that is pretty clear. The actions of the new administration in appointing unqualified people to high positions >based on loyalty will result in very loyal people who don't know what they are doing. This is bad for America. Thus, >trust that things will turn out alright have diminished. The way people react to fear and predictions of bad times is >to buy gold for security, especialy if people feel the value of the dollar is in peril.
Comments
.
The FED desperately wanted to be relieved of their gold obligations. What they may have said publicly about it is immaterial compared to what they asked of FDR behind closed doors. But if you have evidence that the FED actually opposed the negation of various gold obligations, then post it.
If any part of this chart is wrong, then prove it:
New rule: bankers and financial planners/advisors must post a disclaimer in their sig line exposing their bias before posting to the forum.
Gold has a world price entirely unaffected by accounting games between the Treasury and the Fed. - Jim Rickards
All hail King Derry!!
That could win Worst Post Of The Year Award !!
There's tons of evidence, entire books. The most famous was the opposition of Eugene Meyer, Fed Chairman, who was vociferous in his opposition. He would later buy The Washington Post and his daughter, Katherine Graham (Meyer), would bring it to new heights.
I have no bias. I state facts. Objectivity and bias are NOT the same thing -- except to the uninformed.
I'm also not a banker or financial planner. I do manage money, though, which means I am accountable, unlike uninformed anti-Fed Luddites.
The amounts of bills you cite are made up totals. Those are in aggregate, and don't include bills destroyed and taken out of circulation.
Even with the Gold Clause Cases before the Supreme Court, where the amount of gold might not have been able to cover the total, NOBODY wanted gold -- they wanted the appreciation in gold in dollars. A 4% cover rate for Gold Clauses was sufficient to keep it working.
Kneel, you serf.
Gold has a world price entirely unaffected by accounting games between the Treasury and the Fed. - Jim Rickards
.
THEY ARE NOT "MADE UP" TOTALS.
It is data from the BEP. I cited two references. You can look it up yourself if you must.
And now it is obvious that you never even read my article. And yet, you bash it in an nefarious fashion.
In my article I discuss how much of the paper money might have become worn out and how much would have still been outstanding.
According to the Federal Reserve, higher denominations have a longer life expectancy than smaller denominations. The average life expectancy of a current $100 bill is about 23 years:
https://federalreserve.gov/faqs/how-long-is-the-life-span-of-us-paper-money.htm
For the time period in question (about 1913-1933), $5 is equivalent to today's $100. So it is reasonable to think that a $5 bill in 1920 would have a life expectancy of 23 years. Most commerce at that time was handled by cents through half dollars. $5 would have been a lot of money and would be tightly-held (and not circulate much). Also, that majority of the notes in question were the small-size, first issued in 1928. So for most of the notes, they would have been less than 5 years old in March 1933. So a rough estimate would be at least 85% of the notes issued would still be outstanding in 1933.
The events leading up to March 1933 constitute the greatest fraud ever perpetrated against the American People. The Federal Reserve should have been held accountable. But it was not in the slightest.
PS:
A low 4% reserve requirement is asking for trouble, especially in the era of a Gold Standard.
.
.
If there is "tons of evidence", then it shouldn't be so hard to post a little bit of it ?
.
PS:
This page contains transcripts from various congressional hearings and it paints a very unflattering portrait of Eugen Meyer:
https://modernhistoryproject.org/mhp?Article=FedReserve&C=13.0
It appears that Mr Meyer was looking out mostly for the interests of himself and his own family who benefited from international gold trading and in exporting gold to France.
From the web page above:
REPRESENTATIVE MCFADDEN: Lazard Freres, the international banking house of New York and Paris, was a Meyer family banking house. It frequently figures in imports and exports of gold, and one of the important functions of the Federal Reserve System has to do with gold movements in the maintenance of its own operations. In looking over the minutes of the hearing we had last Thursday, Senator Fletcher had asked Mr. Meyer, 'Have you any connections with international banking?' Mr. Meyer had answered, 'Me? Not personally.' This last question and answer do not appear in the stenographic transcript. Senator Fletcher remembers asking the question and the answer. It is an odd omission.
SENATOR BROOKHART: I understand that Mr. Meyer looked it over for corrections.
REPRESENTATIVE MCFADDEN: Mr. Meyer is a brother-in-law of George Blumenthal, a member of the firm of J.P. Morgan Company, which represents the Rothschild interests. He also is a liaison officer between the French Government and J.P. Morgan.
Edmund Platt, who had eight years to go on a term of ten years as Governor of the Federal Reserve Board, resigned to make room for Mr. Meyer. Platt was given a Vice-Presidency of Marine Midland Corporation by Meyer's brother-in-law Alfred A. Cook.
Eugene Meyer, Jr. as head of the War Finance Corporation, engaged in the placing of two billion dollars in Government securities, placed many of those orders first with the banking house now located at 14 Wall Street in the name of Eugene Meyer, Jr. Mr. Meyer is now a large stockholder in the Allied Chemical Corporation.
I call your attention to House Report No. 1635, 68th Congress, 2nd Session, which reveals that at least twenty-four million dollars in bonds were duplicated. Ten billion dollars worth of bonds surreptitiously destroyed. Our committee on Banking and Currency found the records of the War Finance Corporation under Eugene Meyer, Jr. extremely faulty. While the books were being brought before our committee by the people who were custodians of them and taken back to the Treasury at night, the committee discovered that alterations were being made in the permanent records.
We going fishing?
I just told you he opposed the Treasury's and FDR's involvement. It's well-known to anybody who has studied the Fed and monetary policy in this country. Clearly, you haven't.
The situation would not be resolved until the Treasury-Fed Accord of 1951.
So the bottom line is you are defending the gold confiscators and those who wanted to abrogate the gold clauses.
.
I am not going to take your word for it, so you are going to have to prove it.
Cite one example posted on the internet where Eugen Meyer voiced public opposition to the gold confiscation.
It shouldn't be that hard if it is "well known to everybody",
This Eugene Meyer sounds like your banking hero type - cooking the books and rigging things to benefit himself and his family business.
.
.
Your are absolutely twisting the facts 180 degrees.
You are the one defending the FED, FDR, and their actions.
I call them the greatest swindlers in the history of capitalism.
.
I am not choosing sides but I do not think it's accurate to call them the greatest swindlers in the history of capitalism.
It is always easier to look back almost 100 years later with much more clarity.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
Legally taking gold out of Americans' hands ranks up there with the greatest swindles. Asset forfeiture comes in a close second.
Gold has a world price entirely unaffected by accounting games between the Treasury and the Fed. - Jim Rickards
Please disclose yourself for who you really are. Perhaps an agent for the Feds? THKS!
Taking gold away from Americans was wrong, but it's not a "swindle." The government does have the right to control monetary policy, they should have just increased the amount of high-powered money to offset the drop in velocity caused by the bank failures.
Oh, the number on your website about the amount of bonds with Gold Clauses in corporate America is off by about 50%.
It was about $100 BB corporate, $22 BB in Federal obligations. 
Taking us back 5 days in the discussion, @dcarr said "Banks should be nationalized..."
Are you really suggesting that we'd be better off if all retail, commercial, and investment banking were run by the Federal government. (or maybe run at the individual state level)? Or just retail? How about credit unions?
Should they be able to take your car because of climate policy?
Gold has a world price entirely unaffected by accounting games between the Treasury and the Fed. - Jim Rickards
.
The link to who I am and what I do has always been in my signature line.
I have never hidden that.
.
Since the climate has been changing since the Hadean Era, I would say no.
Still holding out hope for the "In gutter we trust" token but the hope continues to fade away. I may have to enlist one of your Chinese competitors to complete the job. RGDS!
.
The ability to create money (currency) should not be in the hands of a corporate-owned banking cartel. State-owned banks (like the one established by North Dakota) can be successful and benefit the people. A national banking system should be nationalized.
Beyond that, if someone wanted to be a customer of a private or corporate bank, that would be up to them. But no such bank should have an unfair advantage because they get special privileges, inside information, and bailouts as a member/owner of the central bank.
Now is the time to implement a US Treasury digital currency (USTDC). It could be set up in such a way that reasonable transaction fees would replace income taxes and sales taxes. As it is now, 3% is skimmed off the top of the economy by a "middle man" in the form of credit card fees. That 3% should instead go to fund government expenditures. Imagine not ever having to file income tax returns again. There would be no more tax cheating. Monetary policy could be implemented as needed by changing the transaction fee rate, and/or the interest rates on balances, and/or via injection of money into everyone's account. If this were implemented, there would be no need for banks to do every day commerce. Investment banking would be open to fair competition among private or corporate-owned investment banks.
.
.
That would be a cheaper option. But hurry before the tariffs set in.
I don't view silver as a "gutter" material. So for that reason I don't really have any incentive to do such a project.
.
.
The "swindle" part of it was before the gold confiscation. The Federal Reserve was presented as a benefit for the people. The people were not told that the real reason for the Federal Reserve was to earn large profits for the banks that owned it.
You wrote: "The government does have the right to control monetary policy". We can agree on that. So lets have the government (US Treasury) control monetary policy and take that control away from the corporate-owned Federal Reserve Bank.
07 May 1933 Fireside Chat by President Roosevelt:
Much has been said of late about Federal finances and inflation, the gold standard, etc. Let me make the facts very simple and my policy very clear. In the first place, government credit and government currency are really one and the same thing. Behind government bonds there is only a promise to pay. Behind government currency we have, in addition to the promise to pay, a reserve of gold and a small reserve of silver, neither of them anything like the total amount of the currency. In this connection it is worth while remembering that in the past the government has agreed to redeem nearly thirty billions of its debts and its currency in gold, and private corporations in this country have agreed to redeem another sixty or seventy billions of securities and mortgages in gold. The government and private corporations were making these agreements when they knew full well that all of the gold in the United States amounted to only between three and four billions and that all of the gold in all of the world amounted to only about eleven billions.
Note that Roosevelt admits that there is NO gold backing at all for government bonds.
At $20.67 per troy oz:
$30 billion (in government debt) = 45,000 metric tons of gold.
$60 billion (in US private sector debt) = 90,000 metric tons of gold.
$11 billion (all the gold in all the world) = 16,500 metric tons of gold.
So my chart is accurate according to the President of the United States. And I only include about one fourth of the total government debt (only the Liberty Loan bonds that funded WW1):
A rural economy and state with a population pretty much the same relative to the United States now as in 1950 as in 1920. You really think that would work in New York State and NYC with Wall Street ? You'd destroy America's leading financial role and kill the economy.
You say things like this because you aren't accountable to anybody like a Fed official who is held accountable for the economy or an investment manager who is benchmarked to the S&P 500.
The bank is also HEAVILY subsidized because it gets all the state funds as deposits and then underpays itself.
Nobody is getting a special privilege, inside information, or a bailout.
These are all figments of your imagination.
3% is NOT skimmed off.
That would be $900 billion, almost $1 trillion. Total credit card fees run about 150 billion a year, 1/6th your level.
The rest of your demands are something appropriate for a barter economy, circa 1750. Yeah, that would work in today's economy. You would set the U.S. economy back decades.
Spouting conspiracy stuff about the Fed, banks, and other financial matters is out of style.
.
The North Dakota bank is scaled to fit the needs of North Dakota. It didn't "kill the economy" in North Dakota. In fact, it helped it. If you can't comprehend the concept of scaling something up to a larger size, then you can't be helped.
FED officials held accountable ? If only that were true, then some of them would have spent time in jail for insider trading.
So what if the North Dakota bank "underpays" itself ? In the past you've made a big deal about how the Federal Reserve hasn't paid dividends to its owners/members. The point of a nationalized central bank is that all proceeds go to the national treasury. I know what you are going to write - that the Federal Reserve already sends all their profits to the US Treasury. But that is not a requirement of their charter. They may choose to remit all of their profits, for some years, but that is not the same thing as a mandatory statute. If things were structured correctly, other "profits" would go to the US Treasury to fund expenditures. Those other things would include the 3% skimmed off the top of the economy by credit card companies.
If the FED member banks are not getting any special privilege (such as inside information and bailouts) as you claim, then they shouldn't care if they give up their membership/ownership, right ? Nationalize the FED.
You have apparently never had a merchant account or a been real businessperson who has to run a business in this environment. Credit card payments to merchants are "taxed" at about a 3% rate and that "tax" goes to the credit card companies for their benefit. Yes, those companies provide a service. But a fully digital currency and payment system would streamline everything and replace the onerous income tax system.
You brought up this Eugene Myer as a great guy who defended the right of the people to keep gold. That is typical "FED speak". Say one thing, but the reality behind it is quite different. In reality he was a despot who was only looking out for his own interests.
FED head Powell recently "testified" before the Senate. This odd exchange reeks of back-door deals being done to protect the FED's privileges:
Senator Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) did manage to get a categoric statement out of the central bank head when he asked about Powell’s position on a U.S. dollar CBDC. “Can I have your commitment that as long as you're the chairman of the Federal Reserve System, that we will never have a central bank digital currency?” he asked.
“Yes,” Powell replied.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if there was a "wink-wink" that went along with that.
Why wouldn't the FED want a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) ?
Because it would diminish their power and profits.
A CBDC would diminish the need for Federal Reserve Notes in circulation. Those notes are a major source of income for the FED, since they amount to a huge interest-free loan to the FED. The FED can then earn interest on that money.
Dcarr, would a Bailey Bridge be suitable for crossing the Atlantic? It is a good design being practical and modular.
A Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) comes with other "costs" that many Americans are not willing to give up. You may solve one problem, but create many others.
Can you read a balance sheet or income statement ? The Fed already makes $50-$75 BB each year on Open Market Operations. They don't need the pennies from a CBDC.
All the profits get swept back to the Treasury/U.S. Government anyway. Once again, you assign nefarious activity when in fact every dollar they make gets swept back to the government.
The Fed is our only profit center -- naturally, you attack it.
Can you read a balance sheet or income statement ?
This type of condescension doesn't win any arguments.
The Fed already makes $50-$75 BB each year on Open Market Operations.
Weren't you the one saying that the banks weren't making any money?
All the profits get swept back to the Treasury/U.S. Government anyway. Once again, you assign nefarious activity when in fact every dollar they make gets swept back to the government.
BS. Why no audits?
I wouldn't say certain but you now can be certain Trump will push for tax cuts, promote policies to help businesses, close the border, stop funding of the war in Ukraine and push increased energy production.
No, I said their returns to their shareholders were pathetic the last 15-20 years. The next 10-15 years will be much better...lots of M&A coming. Down to 2,000 banks by 2035.
Not BS, facts:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1386660/federal-reserve-net-income/
You want an audit ? Great, you pay for it.
Not sure what you are looking for but why should the rest of pay for conspiracy nonsense.
The weakest ploy in modern times is to charge someone who has a valid point as a conspiracy theorist, and these so called "conspiracies" have more often than not turned out to be true. Provide something of note that isn't behind a paywall.
Better yet, audit the Fed and then dissolve it. There's no need for a quasi-governmental organization to be creating "money" out of thin air mainly for the benefit of their private owners.
The Treasury is perfectly capable of creating a currency and that would simply force Congress to be responsible for their spending. If Congress wants to create debt by selling bonds, let the chips fall where they may as the bonds seek their own value in a free market. Get rid of the shell game that is run by the banking cartel.
The problem Jim, is none of your "points" have come true. You've spent so much time in that bunker that it appears you can no longer distinguish fiction from reality. Sunshine and fresh air works wonders. Step out of that bunker and look around. It's a wonderful world out here. RGDS!
You guys are on a roll this week. My belly feels like I've done 100 sit-ups.
There is certainty in those efforts. And that's why gold continues to find support. Is it interesting that gold began this rally during the orange man's first go round?
That is a stupid question.
NO Bridge would be suitable for crossing the entire Atlantic ocean (too expensive to construct).
But the USS North Dakota would do just fine sailing back and forth.
yet the name callers never want to discuss conspiracy facts.
Gold has a world price entirely unaffected by accounting games between the Treasury and the Fed. - Jim Rickards
It's not a stupid question because you have correctly seen the folly of applying a simple and small solution to a very large situation. Hopefully you will now see the folly of applying banking solution of a small, localized and specialized economy to a global and diverse exonony.
Is that an oxymoron?
I think that is pretty clear. The actions of the new administration in appointing unqualified people to high positions based on loyalty will result in very loyal people who don't know what they are doing. This is bad for America. Thus, trust that things will turn out alright have diminished. The way people react to fear and predictions of bad times is to buy gold for security, especialy if people feel the value of the dollar is in peril.
Ahh...
So you ADMIT it, that the state-run North Dakota Bank IS a solution to the (small) problem.
Apparently, you are not familiar with the concept of building a small scale model first, to test the feasibility of something, and then the full-scale version after that proof-of-concept.
The real "folly" is accepting financial fascism in the form of the Federal Reserve to be imposed on everyone.
It's a conspiracy theory that says conspiracy theories often become fact.
Gold has a world price entirely unaffected by accounting games between the Treasury and the Fed. - Jim Rickards
Nope. I didn't state anything about a problem.
The small scale model was built 200+ years ago it's evolved since then with the US and the world.
Says the guy who wants Congress control things. .
Conspiracy guys who claim The Fed is owned by "private owners" don't know what they are talking about.
There's no banking cartel and your lack of monetary policy expertise shows. You don't understand modern banking and you don't understand the role of credit in a modern economy.
We're not going back to a gold standard or a modern gold standard with a "digital currency" or other nonsense.
It's going up based on S&D.