Previous Government Confiscation of Gold That as A Collector You Should Know

MAD4MORGANS

I posted this inside another thread concerning precious metals speculation, but don't think anyone noticed.

History repeats itself....only the names of the players (or victims) change.

The article linked below gives a little U.S. History concerning the previous confiscation of gold.

"...Doomed to repeat it"-Previous Government Confiscation of Gold That as A Collector You Should Know

Steve27

If you were talking about Chromium, Cobalt, Manganese, or Platinum, you might have a point, but gold is not a strategic mineral. Thus, the government would like to sell you gold, not take it from you.

pf70collector

Hmm interesting article. But what purpose will it solve for the U.S Government to confiscicate Gold. Would it strengthen the U.S. Dollar? I dont think so. We are a global economy and I think there are more factors involved and we are more interdependent now on other countries than we were in the 30's. e.g. middle eastern oil for one (OPEC rising oil on a whim) and now outsourcing our jobs to India. I am no economist but just want to know your thoughts about this. I am not saying I am right- these are just opinions and open for debate. A lot has changed since the 30's. Its seems Greenspan is relying more on manipulating interests rates(than hoarding Gold) in order to get the kind of economy that is desirable.

MAD4MORGANS

<< <i>but gold is not a strategic mineral >>



Didn't say gold was a strategic mineral, but a precious metal. It could be a strategic mineral but probably not in the context you may be thinking. The previous "strategy" was to fill the Government coffers during periods of crisis because..."He who owns the Gold makes the rules".
----
With the article, I was trying to point out how our Government outlawed it in the past (the precendent exists), still leaving collectors allowed to hold "antique" coins as collectibles. I would imagine if a deeper crisis ensued, no gold (or silver) would be safe for private ownership.

Both World and U.S. History has repeatedly shown rampant inflation caused by Governments solving their economic woes by cranking up the printing presses to full speed. There are cases where these Governments outlawed the private ownership of gold and issued paper currency.

A deeper crisis would be more global in nature as the world is more tied to the unbacked currencies than to our previous Gold and Silver standards. Why would our dollar weaken? Other countries may be dumping them because they are losing confidence as their purchasing power decreases with each spin of the printing press.

Why precious metals may be rising is more demand by the consumer (stock market?) buying it hedging against the weakening dollar because...the more you print, the less their worth.

How do you pay off the debts of a monster National Budget...simple...print more money!! History repeats itself, but who knows what spin it will take this time. what is our national debt up to....?


I wish I could expound on this more but alas...I have to go to work.

Steve27

"How do you pay off the debts of a monster National Budget...simple...print more money!!"

No, you balance the budget.

MAD4MORGANS

No, you balance the budget.

Good luck!! What's our Dollar backed by nowadays, I've lost track after it was backed by the Gross National Product...which we are consistenly trying to outsource.

Jdurg

In reality, gold and silver aren't that 'precious' of a metal. Metals like Platinum, Iridium, Rhodium, Palladium, Ruthenium, Rhenium and Osmium are far more valuable on an economical and industrial scale than silver and gold are. It's just that silver and gold have all the hype and attention around them. If someone offered to trade me an equal weight of rhodium or platinum for my gold and silver, I'd say yes in a heartbeat.

anablep

Don't forget titanium...

BillJones

The article has an interesting point of view, but I don’t think that we will be seeing the U.S. gold confiscating gold in the future.

Back in the 1930’s people still believed in the commodity theory of money – the assumption that money derived its value from the medal it contained or the gold or silver reserves that backed up paper money. In an attempt to make U.S. exports cheaper for foreign buyers, FDR artificially raised the price of gold from around $20.50 to $35.00 and an ounce. It was thought at the time that this would increase U.S. exports, which would stimulate the economy and create more jobs in the U.S.

In order to prevent windfall profits for those who owned gold, FDR issued the Gold Surrender Order. Ownership of gold was restricted in the U.S. after that for over 40 years.

Could it happen again? It’s not likely. For one thing all the gold in Fort Knox and all the gold in our collections could not save the U.S. dollar if it lost is buying power. Economists now know that money derives it value from what it can buy, not the amount of gold that one can get by melting it or redeeming it. We are off the gold standard, and that is a very good thing. Our economy should not be shackled by the amount of gold that our government owns.

mrearlygold

Whatever they think they can steal, they will steal.

Simple as that.


Tom

pharmer

I wouldn't worry about it. "They", whoever that refers to, probably have a few bigger fish to fry.

mrearlygold

<< <i>I wouldn't worry about it. "They", whoever that refers to, probably have a few bigger fish to fry. >>






Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. Last year they ( the government) audited all the waitresses at Ruth's Chris steak house in Ft Lauderdale.

Not very big fish.

I'm definitely not one to get caught up in the confiscation idea, but certainly anything can happen as it's already happened and the government needs to come up with as much money as it can to satisfy it's insatiable spending habit.

So who knows!

BillJones

Neither political party is perfect. BUT anyone says that they are concerned about "big government" and their economic human right to own property and do with it as they see fit should think twice before they vote for the Democrats.

The Democrats should be getting the message that high taxes and bloated, intrusive government are no longer popular in much of the country. BUT the Democrats never learn. They just drift further and further to the left.

Prethen

<< <i>Don't forget titanium... >>



If they confiscate titanium, will they come after the titanium rod in my leg? I guess if it's the government, it'll be painful.

mrearlygold

There is no difference between democrats and republicans with regards to the spending and confiscation of earnings.


None

fishcooker

flaminio

<< <i>Neither political party is perfect. BUT anyone says that they are concerned about "big government" and their economic human right to own property and do with it as they see fit should think twice before they vote for the Democrats. >>

Think twice about voting for Republicans, too, then. Despite the GOP's proclamation of being against "big government", the government gets ever bigger and more intrusive under their leadership as well.

Both major parties are just two sides of the same coin. It's high time to just chuck the coin altogether and get a new one.

pf70collector

Its not the Democrats running up high defecits-its Bush and the Republican Party.

flaminio

<< <i>Its not the Democrats running up high defecits-its Bush and the Republican Party. >>

Exactly. It's rather like this:

Democrats: Tax and Spend

Republicans: Don't Tax, but Still Spend

Libertarians: Don't Tax, Don't Spend

One of the above is not economically viable. Care to guess which?

beartracks42

I wouldn't worry about it. "They", whoever that refers to, probably have a few bigger fish to fry.

That must be the reason that the government prosecuted Martha Stewart for $40,000 worth of insider trading and has still done nothing with Kenneth Lay, the B*stard from Enron who ruined the lives of 10's of thousands of folks!!!!!

mrearlygold

<< <i>

<< <i>Its not the Democrats running up high defecits-its Bush and the Republican Party. >>

Exactly. It's rather like this:

Democrats: Tax and Spend

Republicans: Don't Tax, but Still Spend

Libertarians: Don't Tax, Don't Spend

One of the above is not economically viable. Care to guess which? >>







never mind, sorry not worth it.

BillJones

<< <i>Libertarians: Don't Tax, Don't Spend >>



Libertarians also can't win elections. They are also, sadly, isolationists when it comes to foreign policy. For that reason, I can't vote for them even though I am basically a libertarian. If you allow the terrorists to have safe haven in a stinkpot country, there is a good chance that a nuclear weapon will be landing somewhere in the U.S. before long.

Democrats are racists and sexists. They impose quotas upon the general population, but not for the members of their power elite, for the benefit of preferred genders and races. Even when the problems are going away, Democrats persist in preserving these policies with slogans like “mend it, don’t end it.” I’ve learned that you can’t reason Democrats; you can only vote against them.

It’s quite true that both Democrats and Republicans spend more that they take in and drive up the deficit. During the years of Bill Clinton’s “balanced budget” the liability for Social Security payments were conveniently excluded so that he could claim “surpluses.”

But at least the Republicans make an effort to allow productive citizens to keep more of what they earn. The Democrats view the producers in this country as cattle, who only deserve to be milked or slaughtered. The Democrats are socialist want-a-bees, who have no respect for the people who produce and “pull the wagon.” Democrats don’t have any respect for the freeloaders who ride in the wagon either. They just tell them what they want to hear and conveniently exclude them from meaningful leadership positions in their party and in government.

roadrunner

Economists now know that money derives it value from what it can buy, not the amount of gold that one can get by melting it or redeeming it. We are off the gold standard, and that is a very good thing. Our economy should not be shackled by the amount of gold that our government owns.

Most economists are pure quacks, in particular the Keynesian types who have basically ruined our economy with their inflationary theories since the 1930's. Frankly, they know nothing imo. And they certainly know nothing about the value of gold or anything precious. It's no different than ignoring an aetheist's opinion about God, just because they don't believe in God. Who decided economists knew something? Why did Greenspam change his tune from 100% pro-gold in the 1960's to pro-fiat once he became FED chief? Hint: It's not because he was wrong initially!

Gold has had value for thousands of years and will continue to have value. The economy must be shackled to something of value (gold, silver, palladium, whatever) to keep the corrupt politicians from free spending. It's as simple as it gets..........

Why gold continues to have value


roadrunner

flaminio

<< <i>Libertarians also can't win elections. They are also, sadly, isolationists when it comes to foreign policy. For that reason, I can't vote for them even though I am basically a libertarian. >>

No, you're not, you're a loyal member of the reigning duopoly. I vote Libertarian every election. I'd rather stay true to my values than sell out. And if letting other countries run their own affairs is isolationism, I'm all for it.

<< <i>If you allow the terrorists to have safe haven in a stinkpot country, there is a good chance that a nuclear weapon will be landing somewhere in the U.S. before long. >>

It is my opinion that there is a better chance of such eventuality if we keep meddling in the affairs of countries where we are not welcome in the first place. Terrorists do not bomb us because they hate our freedom and way of life, despite what the conservative talk radio hosts say. They bomb us because we bomb them. It's a vicious cycle. If the US just stopped being the world's bully, we'd find a lot fewer threats to our "homeland security".

<< <i>Democrats are racists and sexists. They impose quotas upon the general population, but not for the members of their power elite, for the benefit of preferred genders and races. Even when the problems are going away, Democrats persist in preserving these policies with slogans like “mend it, don’t end it.” I’ve learned that you can’t reason Democrats; you can only vote against them. >>

No argument there. Democrats build their base on platforms of racism and sexism, and need to perpetuate these abominations to keep their party propped up. But at least they have ulterior motives -- and all's fair in love and politics. Republicans are racists and sexists because they just don't know any better, which is sad.

<< <i>But at least the Republicans make an effort to allow productive citizens to keep more of what they earn. >>

It's doing none of us any good to let us keep our money, but spend the country into bankruptcy.

Both the Republicans and Democrats are corrupt to the core, and I won't have anything to do with either party. If that means I never see my candidate win an election, so be it.

(Over and out for this thread. Way too off-topic now.)

mrearlygold

with flaminio 100%

coynclecter

We can talk about how little value gold has becasue we have been brainwashed into believing the dollar is almighty. When the fiat system starts to fall anything paper will be dumped in favor of things that are real. Gold just happens to have the history or being the most valuable for its amount due to a lot of factors, mainly the recognition factor. As the fiat paper system continues to slide (not crumble as some believe) into inflation the people of India,China and elsewhere will continue to buy gold as a hedge. They won't be interested in a lengthy disertation about the industrial value of Rhodium, Palladium, Ruthenium etc. nor will they know what it looks like. What they will want is to dump those baskets of Ben Franklins for that shiny yellow metal.

mrearlygold

While in my doctors office today, they had the CNBC on the television in the waiting room ( hahaha), and the discussion on TV was "is a bear market for the dollar starting" ?

Hahahaha, incredible on both counts.

Tom

Ryana

When people start valuing dollars as shinplasters, so they will be. Fiat money is dangerous and inflation sucks for everyone involved unless you're at the top.

SMS

I wasn't gonna say anything and just happily read away like I normally do, but I have to input this one thing. My understanding is that the executive order (and any order that may foreseeably follow) was for the confiscation of gold EXCLUDING rare and coins of "numismatic" value. Because of that, I have no worry regarding my Silver, gold, or platinum eagles, because USC claims those particular items to be considered of "numismatic value" under U.S. Law and therefore exempt. I would only worry about my Libertads, Britannias, Pandas, etc. The inclusion of U.S. produced precious metal bullion has a two-fold affect. One, the buyer of U.S. Bullion can be assured that in the occurance of a surrender order, your U.S. bullion is protected and excluded, unlike foreign bullion. Secondly, this exclusion helps to "encourage" citizens to buy (and thus invest through the premiums added to spot) U.S. produced bullion, and further "strengthen" the economy.

Looks good on paper, and sound enough legally for me not to worry about buying "Made in the U.S.A"

Cam40

edited cause i cant even read what the hell i wrote...
good thread, nearly ot but a good provokative read

wam98

Wasn't the gold confiscation in a time when it was needed to back our U.S. currency ?

That not being the case today.
Money is printed with no regard to how it's going to be backed.

cladking

<< <i>Economists now know that money derives it value from what it can buy, not the amount of gold that one can get by melting it or redeeming it. We are off the gold standard, and that is a very good thing. Our economy should not be shackled by the amount of gold that our government owns.

Most economists are pure quacks, in particular the Keynesian types who have basically ruined our economy with their inflationary theories since the 1930's. Frankly, they know nothing imo. And they certainly know nothing about the value of gold or anything precious. It's no different than ignoring an aetheist's opinion about God, just because they don't believe in God. Who decided economists knew something? Why did Greenspam change his tune from 100% pro-gold in the 1960's to pro-fiat once he became FED chief? Hint: It's not because he was wrong initially!

Gold has had value for thousands of years and will continue to have value. The economy must be shackled to something of value (gold, silver, palladium, whatever) to keep the corrupt politicians from free spending. It's as simple as it gets..........




roadrunner >>




Exactly. Gold has had value for thousands of years and might continue to have value in the future.

The problem with gold is two fold. The lesser problem is that governments have always proven
adept at its devaluation even when it was the basis of money. Inflation isn't caused by not hav-
ing a sound currency it is the necessary result of the growth of government and its debt.

But to get an idea of the primary weakness of gold just look at its price since 1979! It has been up
and down dramatically. How can an economy operate when the yardstick of value oscillates
through a wide range?

It also has done a less than stellar job of protecting assets from inflation even considering the big
run-up in '80. Gold prices tend to be driven by several factors with the value of currency being the
greatest but these moves are compressed into short periods of time and make long term holding
to be unprofitable.

BillJones

The only advantage to the gold standard or any other metal-based monetary standard is that it can limit the amount of money circulation when the economy is overheated. It also can prevent “banana republic” type governments from issuing too much money to the keep the “rabble” happy, at least in the short run.

The disadvantages to gold standard are many. One is that it can place artificial limits on the money supply at a time when it should be expanded. It can also limit the supply of loanable funds at precisely the time that government should be encouraging provide investment.

Gold standards do nothing to maintain the value of a currency. If the gold is a circulating form, people will hoard it or melt when a nation’s currency is under stress. We saw that during the American Civil War when the population withdrew virtually all of the gold coins (and silver coins) from circulation. Those coins were exported, melted or traded at amounts that exceeded their face value. If gold is used to “back” a circulating paper currency, people will redeem those notes for the gold if the buying power of the currency is judged to be less than its gold redemption amount.

Bottom line: Gold is a commodity just like crude oil, orange concentrate and pork bellies. The forces of supply and demand set its value. For centuries it has been used as money because it is scarce, beautiful and impervious to many chemicals, which makes it ideal for circulating coinage. BUT gold is not a magic substance that can fix a nation’s or the world’s economic problems. That requires stable governments, economic expertise and the freedom to let capitalism work.

And oh yes, I studied enough economics in college to qualify as an amateur “quack.”

MAD4MORGANS

I guess I could have let this thread die the normal thread's horrible death into oblivion, but I figured I wanted to let those who were unaware of our past that no one's money is safe in ANY form. Once the Government takes it or makes it, regardless of political party, they consider it "theirs".

Provided we have

<< <i>stable governments, economic expertise and the freedom to let capitalism work >>

we may be OK. But let's don't forget...

"Some will rob you with a six-gun and some with a fountain pen".
-Woody Guthrie

My Icon's motto is "In God We Trust"...I'll leave it at that.