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

I was licking wounds?

I had wounds to lick?

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

Please, do keep pretending to be a gold bug, and trying to make all gold bugs look as crazy as yourself, and just generally passing out insults like candy. Just so long as this thread gets bumped, so Z3.0 can't start another thread to blur the definition of sound money to seem to the children to be price fixing, and PB&J can't derail any discussions of the devalued dollar with talk about how being homeless with a smart phone today is better than being middle class was in 1900.
 
Last edited:
There is no scenario of any standard that ends in success as long as the criminals own the authority and subvert the rule of law with impunity. Anyone who argues against that is certifiably deficient and should be in Iraq looking for WMD.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You say it's all there… PROVE IT.
 
Interesting blog on the topic: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...6/04/calls-for-a-us-gold-audit-miss-the-point

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Gold remains the 8,000 ton gorilla in the room; the thing that is too big to ignore but that no one wants to discuss. The international monetary system and the role of the dollar are in dire straits even if all of the gold is where it is supposed to be. It is not necessary to fantasize about phantom gold in order to see that a monetary crisis is imminent. The Fed and Treasury refusal to audit gold is part of their painstaking effort to deny that gold is still at the heart of the system. No more elaborate explanation is required.
 
Last edited:
There are two powerful reasons not to do the audit even if the gold is in the vaults. The first has to do with the credibility of gold as a component of international reserves and monetary systems in general. Gold was officially demonetized by the International Monetary Fund in 1973 not long after President Nixon ended the convertibility of dollars into gold in 1971. Since then gold has been continually disparaged as a monetary asset, most recently in the remarks of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke that the possession of gold by the United States was a mere "tradition." If that were so, why would the United States audit something so unimportant? An audit suggests that gold is somehow meaningful and deserving of respect. The official position is that gold is a legacy asset of no particular importance. In this context, refusing an audit makes sense. An audit would give gold too much credit and start to erode the official propaganda that gold is not a monetary asset. After all, no one audits the number of acorns in the national parks—they are too unimportant.

The acorns grow on trees.

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

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

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

Gee, this blogger is a big believer in transparency in government. Don't answer questions because there might be other questions. So? Does the fact that we, some of the citizens of this republic, might like to know if it's leased mean that we, the citizens of this republic, have no right to know if our gold is still around?
 
Gee, this blogger is a big believer in transparency in government. Don't answer questions because there might be other questions.
I think he's just attempting to explain their rationale. Jim Rickards is not "anti-gold." In fact, he's in the doomsday camp, predicting 5-digit gold prices. His most recent book is titled, "The Death of Money: The Coming Collapse of the International Monetary System."
 
What's interesting about that article Zippy? It's 3 years old.
 
Last edited:
How about an independent 3rd-party audit unexpectedly?

"Do you expect an independent 3rd-party audit?"
"No, Mr. muh_roads! ..."

03-goldfinger-laser.jpeg


;)
 
Last edited:
I think he's just attempting to explain their rationale. Jim Rickards is not "anti-gold." In fact, he's in the doomsday camp, predicting 5-digit gold prices. His most recent book is titled, "The Death of Money: The Coming Collapse of the International Monetary System."

He is saying that even a 100% total audit would not end questions by those who think there is no gold. It would still not satisfy them.
 
He is saying that even a 100% total audit would not end questions by those who think there is no gold. It would still not satisfy them.

Never thought the Treasury would set policy based on the opinions of people that would never be satisfied regardless. That makes no sense. I guess us fringey types have more power than we realized.
 
It would still not satisfy them.
Yes, that's true I assume, because they have a lot of questions, and a Fort Knox audit would only answer one of them. The larger objective should be the Fed itself, although it's not clear to me that an audit would uncover every secret.
 
Back
Top