@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 ignorant 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.
@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 ?
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.
Repetition of ignorance is ignorance raised to the power two.
All hail King Derry!!
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
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.
Repetition of ignorance is ignorance raised to the power two.
.
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 ignorant 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.
.
.
If there is "tons of evidence", then it shouldn't be so hard to post a little bit of it ?
.