Cornering The Silver Market, Mr. Binion?
hedgehog847
Posts: 371
Did Binion Sr. try to corner the silver market sometime in the 70's? Was that the reason for his hoard? I seem to remember a coin dealer tell me something like that when I was a kid. Anybody have more info?
0
Comments
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>It was the Hunt brothers from Texas. >>
Yep! The Hunt Brothers ... They started out as billionaires and managed to end up in bankruptcy.
Just goes to show what can happen to you when you mess with the futures market too much.
They took some smaller fish down with them, which in some cases was kind of sad, but in other cases …
They legally purchased physical silver and had they not been stopped by US government ....approval.... of an ILLEGAL change in the rules on the Chicago Board of Trade, they quite possibly would have caused the United States to realize just exactly how fragile and crooked its government is.
They bought silver. That was their crime. And for this they have been blamed for almost 30 years as the "cause" of the crash.
Yeah. Google "Hunt Brothers."
Had they been successful in their attempt to call America's attention to just how despicable our Federal Reserve is in 1980, we might now be using real money that had CONSTANTLY appreciated against ALL other currencies.
AND.....we might still have our STRATEGIC silver reserves that Congress illegally sold ALL of when they were only "authorized" to sell half.
ANYONE who has the guts and the money to challenge the US government, no matter HOW wealthy or correct their assertions may be....... WILL..... be humiliated and destroyed by the government of the people, of the people and OF the people.
Phony money forever!
Just TRY and change it.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
"The silver is mine and the gold is mine,' declares the LORD GOD Almighty."
The commodity theory of money has been disproved for what, 100 years or more. Yet it still has its adherents.
Less than 1% of the money supply is in coin form. About 19% of it is paper. The rest is computer records. Nope, hard currency is an unrealizable dream. And thank goodness while closest to being realized, we had the Panic of 1837.
You can attack me for writing that, but you had better have some history behind your attacks. Here's some advice, history will not back up your assertions. Just look at the U.S. economy during the 19th century ... It was a mess.
It would be nice if the US gummint (for all the support they give the Fed) got the immense profit it makes instead of just bein satisfied to get some crumbs in the form of ....well....maybe.... "accomodative POLICY" (when the gummint asks nicely for some)
Some Sunday readin'
Anyway, the Binion silver hoard belonged to Ted Binion. He wasnt trying to corner anything, he just kept any silver the casino took in. (people were actually using silver dollars in vegas way more recently than anywhere else in the country.) He stored it in an underground vault in pahrump, NV.
It was a friend of Ted's girlfriend that built him the vault, and also that killed him.
<< <i>and also that killed him >>
Not according to a court of law.
Cheers,
Bob
"managed" to end up bankrupt? They managed that by the intrusion of the US govt to increase margin requirements as the
Hunts were buying up all the silver. The silver comex game is still rigged and crooked today. Bill, what if the US govt placed a 40% tax on all coin purchases? You as dealer would manage to go bankrupt too! And history would show it to be your fault!
Just goes to show what can happen to you when you mess with the futures market too much.
No. It only goes to show how your life can be ruined when the govt doesn't approve of you getting the upper hand in their rigged game.
[The commodity theory of money has been disproved for what, 100 years or more. Yet it still has its adherents.
What nonsense. The commodity value of money has been proven over 5000 years of recorded civilization. In fact every empire in the history of the world that continued to devalue their currency lost their power (Rome, Spain, France, England, and now the U.S.). That is what history has showed us. And the loss of that power was strongly linked to a weak currency. No significant long term inflation was experienced in the 19th century just because of the commodity based system. Yes, there were panics and defaults that lasted several years but for the most part, the value of goods and services was relatively constant. We've had no modern day equivalents since the great depression but we can also inflate all of our "problems." However at some point the piper has to be paid.
The excesses of the past 40 years of monetary excesses have to be paid.
Less than 1% of the money supply is in coin form. About 19% of it is paper. The rest is computer records. Nope, hard currency is an unrealizable dream. And thank goodness while closest to being realized, we had the Panic of 1837.
Had we stayed on a system where at least 5% of our currency was backed by gold we would have been far better off than where we stand today. Hard currency was a realized dream that lasted 120 years. We are only 92 years on the FED system and a dollar today is worth the same as nickel was in 1913. Success story?
AND the Federal Reserve has greatly improved the quality of our lives
The great depression of 1929 was the first big event of a fiat currency instituted by the FED in 1913. From 1913-1920 we printed more money than was backed by gold and inflationary times commenced. President Wilson later stated that he knew he ruined the country by allowing the FED system to come to power. The depression of 1929 in fact came to be because of the FED system abuses (too much money and easy credit). And since that time we have come off the gold standard and reduced the value of our currency by 95%. Now tell me how that is good? And stable? And leads to quality of life? The power behind the FED was old money like the Rothschilds. It is anything but good for the US. I'd have to call it the one major force behind the eventual bankrupting of our country and transferring our wealth to old European money. Those that have the power to print money have all the cards. And the final dagger was giving up the gold standard in 1974. Our quality of life came from using up the world's savings to fund our credit backed society for the past 30 years. It won't continue to work and you will see a decline in our quality of life.
You can attack me for writing that, but you had better have some history behind your attacks. Here's some advice, history will not back up your assertions. Just look at the U.S. economy during the 19th century ... It was a mess
History doesn't support your statement. And a 95% debasement of our currency in the 20th century is no great shakes either. For the first 120 years of our repubic we had no real inflation. The creation of the FED, an agency outside the controls of the US govt, was the single most destructive economic event of the 20th century. The fact that the US was able to retain reserve currency status from 1944 on, is the reason you have been able to enjoy your heightened standard of living. And the fact that the world has gone along with us printing money willy nilly ever since has continued to maintain your standard of living on the backs of the rest of the world. Don't give this credit to the FED. Had we stayed
backed by gold (even fractionally), many of the bubble assets you know see today would not exist.
The FED is responsible for the current bubble manias in the stock and housing markets. And they have no idea how to get us out of this mess....other than to keep on printing money and borrowing from overseas to delay the inevitable crash. Let's re-evaluate the all knowing FED when that time comes. Let's not forget either that Greenspan was a leading proponent of the gold standard in the 1960's. Interesting how he has changed his tune as he has risen in political circles.
With little inflation over the 19th century and little if anything in taxes, the people kept the wealth they earned. Today we pay taxes on the "inflationary" gains of our income and investments. It's absurd when you think about it. We pay taxes on income and gains that do not exist. Gotta love it. I know the govt does. It takes 2 wage earners today to maintain the standard of living we had in the 1960's. That's not progress. I don't know if I would agree that our standard of living today is better than 30-40 years ago. We work further into the year than ever before just to pay our taxes off.
If it does seem to appear that we have a better standard of living today it is only because we are far more leveraged on credit than ever before. The country has essentially NO savings. We've hocked our futures for our brief 20 years of "increased" standard of living (1982-2002).
roadrunner
RR, you're falling into the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. Do you really purport that Rome fell because it debased its currency??? Of course if you do, there's room for you in the study of history, but the majority of researchers out there disagree with you, I believe.
<< <i>Let's not forget either that Greenspan was a leading proponent of the gold standard in the 1960's. Interesting how he has changed his tune as he has risen in political circles. >>
I like how in your world people aren't allowed to change their minds, or when they do, they only do so as part of a vast government conspiracy. William of Occham believed that the simplest answer is usually the most accurate, and I can't think of any truly GRAND CONSPIRACIES in history. Perhaps Greenspan is a member of the Illuminati or the Tri-lateral Commission.
<< <i>The commodity value of money has been proven over 5000 years of recorded civilization. In fact every empire in the history of the world that continued to devalue their currency lost their power (Rome, Spain, France, England, and now the U.S.). >>
Britain lost its primacy because of a little thing called WORLD WAR I which left only two major powers virtually unharmed: Japan and the US. The US is still the world's greatest power. That's what happens when a large percentage of the men in your country die and countless billions of dollars in ships, weaponry, and materiel are destroyed.
<< <i>The commodity theory of money has been disproved for what, 100 years or more. Yet it still has its adherents. >>
Hmmm, we are not quite up to 100 years since silver certificates were still redeemable in silver as late as the late 1960's. Also silver coins up to the mid 1960's were a lot more than 1% of our money supply in 1965. Furthermore, our silver and gold still backed our currency until the early 1970's and thereafter in a smaller and smaller degree. Most Americans still believe our currency is still partially backed by gold and silver.
Rome pulled the same nonsense on their citizens and had most Romans fooled for about 40 years they were increasingly caught in the act and the currency lost value and had to be restored then devalued when they could not maintain it. The Roman Empire as a result lost its economic power and later on, its existence.
The Germans tried to use paper currency on their people and after becoming a debtor nation had a terrible change of government after an awful depression. Disproved? I will have you wheel a barrelful of worthless money with tears in your eyes just to pay for just enough food to feed your hungry kids and you will never feel such theory is disproved. Ever.
So there you have it.
Once Americans realize that their currency is no longer backed by gold and silver and represents a mere promise to pay they will increasingly venture into hard assets and avoid holding currency and savings. But see the nest sentence.
Is it any wonder why Americans no longer save and are putting more and more of their savings into real estate? The process has begun already. Unless this process is reversed, we will see a depression like we have never seen before, Panic of 1837 included.
<< <i>Britain lost its primacy because of a little thing called WORLD WAR I which left only two major powers virtually unharmed: Japan and the US. The US is still the world's greatest power. That's what happens when a large percentage of the men in your country die and countless billions of dollars in ships, weaponry, and materiel are destroyed. >>
I believe that Great Britain did not lose its primacy because of WWI. It accelerated it but see below. It started losing its primacy by the late 1880's and by 1907, the US surpassed Britain as the world's largest economic power since it was such a strong producer nation. The London Exchange by then was surpassed by Wall Street as the World's #1 stock exchange. To add insult to injury, Britain was still the world's largest policeman bleeding financially having to police their Empire, from India to Hong Kong to Palestine, etc. WWI certainly did not help but Britain had so much more to lose.
Being a world's policeman causes more financial ruin to a country or Empire than war itself. The Soviet Empire found that out trying to be a policeman in Afganistan and accelerated their fall.
We are going to find out that our stay in Iraq and Afganistan will be very costly. We are not the same economic superpower we were in 1946.
Debasing of currency is not the "cause" of empires decline and fall. It is the observable symptom and clinical documentation that the finances of the country or empire is on the decline.
Certainly we have "eliminated" the runs on banks...so far (exluding the depression of course)..... but we have interfered in free markets such that there are no more free markets left. But the price to pay for this juggling act is going to be many times as severe. Our currency is ultimately headed to worthlessless with current policies.
Those empires that extended themselves had to debase their currency to keep their economic system functioning. While this may be a symptom it runs hand in hand with empire destruction.
roadrunner
<< <i>
<< <i>and also that killed him >>
Not according to a court of law.
Cheers,
Bob >>
Murphy and Tabish were both convicted once. The court of law was right the first time.
Certainly we have "eliminated" the runs on banks...so far (exluding the depression of course)..... but we have interfered in free markets such that there are no more free markets left. But the price to pay for this juggling act is going to be many times as severe. Our currency is ultimately headed to worthlessless with current policies.
Those empires that extended themselves had to debase their currency to keep their economic system functioning. While this may be a symptom it runs hand in hand with empire destruction.
roadrunner >>
Well put. And the worse is yet to come as other countries start shunning our dollar as it becomes worth less and less as the printing presses keep on rolling.
If I only had a dollar for every VAM I have...err...nevermind...I do!!
My "Fun With 21D" Die State Collection - QX5 Pics Attached
-----
Proud Owner of
2 –DAMMIT BOY!!! ® Awards
Putting your economy on a precious metals basis (gold, silver or a combination of the two) only puts the economy in a straight jacket that won’t result in economic prosperity. The idea situation is the regulate the money supply in ways that result in relatively stable prices and influence interest rates in such a way as to encourage productive investment in capital goods. It’s not an easy thing to do, but Alan Greenspan as done the best job of anyone so far.
You probably think that putting silver in our coinage again would be wonderful. Yet back in the latter part of the 19th century responsible Americans opposed that in any way they could. Why? Back then silver was a “junk metal” because there was huge glut of it on the market. Allowing the free coinage of silver at a ratio of 16 to 1, which was the political battler cry of the day, would have greatly damaged the American economy because it would have resulted in massive inflation. The discovery of gold in California caused similar imbalances in the U.S. economy in the 1850s. At other times shortages of gold caused Panics like the one in 1893.
No, I’ll take the system we have now over any system that artificially tied to the domestic supply of some metal. Dependence upon that can result in stability only when a series of “natural conditions” fall into place perfectly. Why do it, when the apparatus exists to bring consistent economic activity to the country?
As for the Federal Reserve it should be kept just as it is. It’s independent enough to be somewhat insulated from political pressures. Yet Congress and the President have enough control through the appointment of the Board of Governors and the Head of the Federal Reserve to make it responsive to the nation’s needs.
But lets face it. Printing money based only on a backing of promise to pay with more money will eventually fail. We need to back up the currency with something that can be stored and inventoried. Gold and silver filled that role quite well in the past. Perhaps the strategic oil stored underground could be added as a reserve. But all currency should be backed or else there will be no constraint on the printing presses.
I am in favor of the Federal government coming to their senses and build back a breadbasket of currency reserves including gold, silver, platinum, oil etc. The deficit spending has got to stop, once again our greenback has to regain respectibility as a currency of value.
<< <i>Roadrunner:
Putting your economy on a precious metals basis (gold, silver or a combination of the two) only puts the economy in a straight jacket that won’t result in economic prosperity. The idea situation is the regulate the money supply in ways that result in relatively stable prices and influence interest rates in such a way as to encourage productive investment in capital goods. It’s not an easy thing to do, but Alan Greenspan as done the best job of anyone so far.
You probably think that putting silver in our coinage again would be wonderful. Yet back in the latter part of the 19th century responsible Americans opposed that in any that they could. Why? Back then silver was a “junk metal” because there was huge glut of it on the market. Allowing the free coinage of silver at a ratio of 16 to 1, which was the political battler cry of the day, would have greatly damaged the American economy because it would have resulted in massive inflation. The discovery of gold in California caused similar imbalances in the U.S. economy in the 1850s. At other times shortages of gold caused Panics like the one in 1893.
No, I’ll take the system we have now over any system that artificially tied to the domestic supply of some metal. Dependence upon that can result in stability only when a series of “natural conditions” fall into place perfectly. Why do it, when the apparatus exists to bring consistent economic activity to the country?
As for the Federal Reserve it should be kept just as it is. It’s independent enough to be somewhat insulated from political pressures. Yet Congress and the President have enough control through the appointment of the Board of Governors and the Head of the Federal Reserve to make it responsive to the nation’s needs. >>
Bill, I agree with you 100%. To me, this is Economics 101, but you will only get frustrated trying to convince gold bugs and hard money advocates that tying the money supply to the inventory of gold and silver is archaic. Hell, you could back money with any metal, but it is just not practical.
The gold and silver standards of the 19th and early 20th centuries resulted in economic "panics" every 20 years or so which culminated with the Great Depression. Money supply could not grow when it needed to becuase of the shackles of precious metal supply, and at other times, too much metal (such as silver) resulted in too much money supply, and inflation.
The Fed certainly is not perfect, but they certainly are better able to "fine tune" the money supply. And it would appear they are getting better at it --- since 1980, we have not had a severe recession (i.e. unemployment over 8%) or runaway inflation. And the Fed was able to react to economic shocks (wars, Asian meltdown, Russia, Long Term Cap Mgt) to minimize damage.
Again, I agree with Bill --- I'll take the modern Fed over the gold standard any day.
<< <i>But lets face it. Printing money based only on a backing of promise to pay with more money will eventually fail. >>
Then I'm afraid all the world's economies are doomed.
<< <i>
But lets face it. Printing money based only on a backing of promise to pay with more money will eventually fail. We need to back up the currency with something that can be stored and inventoried. Gold and silver filled that role quite well in the past. Perhaps the strategic oil stored underground could be added as a reserve. But all currency should be backed or else there will be no constraint on the printing presses.
I am in favor of the Federal government coming to their senses and build back a breadbasket of currency reserves including gold, silver, platinum, oil etc. The deficit spending has got to stop, once again our greenback has to regain respectibility as a currency of value. >>
First and foremost we need a brake on government spending and the growth in
the size of government. It is this growth which will undermine currency no matter
what it represents or is based on. All currencies can be debased and the blame
always goes back to the politicians and those who put them in office.
This being said, it has long been my opinion that money would ideally be based
on the productive capacity of the nation. It would essentially represent a share
of stock in the country. (without voting rights except for the right to "vote" for a
new car or the week's groceries) It should even pay a small dividend, primarily to
help people value it but also to encourage savings. This isn't too dissimilar to the
current situation but with the continued growth in government and spending it
would appear that inflationary pressures are continuing to build. It's not so much
the growth of government which directly causes inflation as this growth that even-
tually causes the printing presses to speed and this is the source of inflation.