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

[acptulsa]

u

It does not say that gold has no value- only that gold is highly unlikely to be used as money. 90% of money today is already digital.

Martin Armstrong (who is often cited by some here) has said that gold can be fiat.

Fiat is declaring something has a certain value. A gold standard is a fiat standard since the government declares the value of gold. Actually our money today is less fiat than gold because the value of the dollar is allowed to float.

No. For the third time, for the thousandth time, just no.

A gold standard is using gold as one's official currency. One does not declare gold to have value, one takes advantage of the fact that gold has intrinsic value.

There is still a difference, no matter how often you repeat your lie that there is not.

Taking something as worthless as paper and attempting to give it value by legislative fiat is how fiat money is created--by definition. Taking something of value and using that value to provide a population with a stable currency may require a legal fiat--such as declaring x amount of gold to be a unit of currency and giving it a name. But that is not the same thing as declaring something worthless to have value by legislative fiat.

Is it?

Well? Is it?

Keep repeating this lie over and over in multiple threads, Z2.0. There are rules against spamming here...

 

[TheCount]

A gold standard is using gold as one's official currency. One does not declare gold to have value, one takes advantage of the fact that gold has intrinsic value.

If a government declares that it will accept only X type of money, whatever that is, in payment for public debts, then it is contributing to the use and value of that type of money. It has nothing to do with intrinsic value or lack thereof.

 

[acptulsa]

If a government declares that it will accept only X type of money, whatever that is, in payment for public debts, then it is contributing to the use and value of that type of money. It has nothing to do with intrinsic value or lack thereof.

If the government declares that gold is legal tender, the gold still has intrinsic value.

And just as the mint had to start cladding pennies to keep people from melting them and selling the copper, the intrinsic value of a solid currency remains regardless.

On the other hand, the value of paper is the only limit on how far the value of the Federal Reserve Note can slide.

 

[Stratovarious]

If a government declares that it will accept only X type of money, whatever that is, in payment for public debts, then it is contributing to the use and value of that type of money. It has nothing to do with intrinsic value or lack thereof.

The Dollar could be declared worthless tonight, you would not be able to buy anything with it tomorrow.
You could take a million in 100's anywhere and get nothing of value in exchange.
You could take the copper from 'real' pennies and exchange it for bread, and of course buy a lot more bread with Gold.

The US Dollar is legal tender for all debts today, but when you continue to dilute it through quantitative easing and staggering
debt, it becomes of no value.
Being able to buy bread today at 8 times what it cost 20 or 25 years ago does not mean bread is more valuable, it means
the Dollar is less valuable.

We are screwed if we don't make drastic changes, and that doesn't mean watching our pennies , it means a gutting of the
system we are using.

Where have the grown ups gone that used to run our Country ?

, ,

 

[Jamesiv1]

So who actually OWNS all that gold?

Seems we talk in terms of nations having this much gold, this country has that much gold, etc... But how does a nation come into ownership of it?

 

[Stratovarious]

So who actually OWNS all that gold?

Seems we talk in terms of nations having this much gold, this country has that much gold, etc... But how does a nation come into ownership of it?

I'll take the third shelf in, the one that's not as full as all those others.....:hehe:

We bought our gold with worthless paper....doh doh doh, I don't know, but back in the day they actually used
physical gold as 'legal tender' , then we went to stamped Gold Coins...it would be interesting dig up the history
from British control to our independence and continue from there.

, ,

 

[Jamesiv1]

I'll take the third shelf in, the one that's not as full as all those others.....:hehe:

We bought our gold with worthless paper....doh doh doh, I don't know, but back in the day they actually used
physical gold as 'legal tender' , then we went to stamped Gold Coins...it would be interesting dig up the history
from British control to our independence and continue from there.

I think what bugs me is this:

1. the Fed is privately owned
2. we don't know who the owners are
3. possession is 9/10ths of the law

 

[oyarde]

I think what bugs me is this:

1. the Fed is privately owned
2. we don't know who the owners are
3. possession is 9/10ths of the law

This is why you should have your own " commodities" and lots of them .

 

[acptulsa]

I think what bugs me is this:

1. the Fed is privately owned
2. we don't know who the owners are
3. possession is 9/10ths of the law

As if you don't have enough to be bugged about...

4. The gold has been moved from Ft. Knox to the Fed Banks
5. possession is still nine points of the law

 

[Krugminator2]

The Dollar could be declared worthless tonight, you would not be able to buy anything with it tomorrow.
You could take a million in 100's anywhere and get nothing of value in exchange.
You could take the copper from 'real' pennies and exchange it for bread, and of course buy a lot more bread with Gold.

The US Dollar is legal tender for all debts today, but when you continue to dilute it through quantitative easing and staggering
debt, it becomes of no value.
Being able to buy bread today at 8 times what it cost 20 or 25 years ago does not mean bread is more valuable, it means
the Dollar is less valuable.

We are screwed if we don't make drastic changes, and that doesn't mean watching our pennies , it means a gutting of the
system we are using.

Where have the grown ups gone that used to run our Country ?

, ,

Instead of me, a random person on the internet, convincing you that you wrong with logic that you will likely discount because I am nobody, ask yourself a simple question:

Why have markets not confirmed your views and concerns? Is it because markets don't work? Is it because markets are offering up free money that only you and the wise folks at Zerohedge can see? Or is it possible that a number of your premises are wrong?

Your net worth and past success or failure at macro bets is probably a useful guide in answering those questions for yourself.

 

[acptulsa]

Instead of me, a random person on the internet, convincing you that you wrong with logic that you will likely discount because I am nobody, ask yourself a simple question:

Why have markets not confirmed your views and concerns? Is it because markets don't work? Is it because markets are offering up free money that only you and the wise folks at Zerohedge can see? Or is it possible that a number of your premises are wrong?

Your net worth and past success or failure at macro bets is probably a useful guide in answering those questions for yourself.

None of his premises are wrong, and the markets confirm his every hypothesis--for example, people who used to consider themselves too old for something as risky as the stock market now refuse to risk not being in the stock market.

Answer some questions your own self. This might raise a few--like where did the blue collar middle class go...?

I think what the newcomer to this discussion has the most trouble understanding is the dollar is not a dollar--it's a nickel.

What do I mean? Well, my old man got out of the Army Air Corps after WWII and got himself a good job paying a dollar an hour. How is that a good job? Easy--it was 1946 and the dollar was still a dollar. As in, when he wanted a Pepsi he paid a nickel for it--now it costs a dollar. When he wanted to ride a bus, he put seven cents in the meter, or a nickel and a half--now it costs a buck and a half. When he wanted to sit down and have a cup of regular old coffee, he paid a dime, or two nickels--now it costs two bucks. When he put gas in the car (it was always cheap in Oklahoma), he paid 14.9 cents per gallon, or three nickles--now it costs three bucks. When he was hungry for lunch, he bought a deluxe double hamburger with all the trimmings for a silver quarter, or five nickles--now it costs five bucks. When he wanted to go to a movie, he paid thirty-five cents or seven nickles--now it costs seven bucks. And when he shopped for a new top of the line Dodge Custom with heater and radio and other options, it would set him back two grand, or forty thousand nickles--now it costs forty thousand dollars.

The Pepsi isn't any wetter, the gas doesn't burn any brighter, the double burger isn't any more filling, and the movie doesn't last any longer today (with no newsreel, serial and cartoon, it actually doesn't last as long). So, there's only one explanation. The dollar is no longer worth a dollar. The dollar is worth a nickel. Period.

Why do you think all the five and ten cent stores have been replaced with dollar stores?

 

[muh_roads]

They did audit the gold at the New York Fed just a couple years ago.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/18/business/la-fi-mo-gold-new-york-fed-audit-pure-20130218

Yes that gives me such confidence that the snakes are watching the snakes. Always trust the Treasury...lol How about an independent 3rd-party audit unexpectedly?

Me thinks this was a planned audit so they could fill the vaults back up. Otherwise why reject audits for years beforehand?

 

[Stratovarious]

I think what bugs me is this:

1. the Fed is privately owned
2. we don't know who the owners are
3. possession is 9/10ths of the law

A secret society in a 'transparent' Government, another thing Obama was going to take care of...

, ,

 

[Stratovarious]

Yes that gives me such confidence that the snakes are watching the snakes. Always trust the Treasury...lol How about an independent 3rd-party audit unexpectedly?

Me thinks this was a planned audit so they could fill the vaults back up. Otherwise why reject audits for years beforehand?

'A' Plan:
We send in;
*
Cynthia Mckinney (D GA)
Trey Gowdy (R So SC)
William Binney (NSA WB)
*

2 Precious metals (metallurgical assayers) of the delegations choosing.
2 or 3 interns to do physical count.
1 Fort Knox Security Guard
Hand Trey Gowdy the keys to any and all room/s that house the
gold, and a complete inventory sheet.
They'll go in and take inventory, and randomly select bars for inspection.
There should be no objections from the gov, the 'crew' would be searched incoming
and outgoing, worst case they lose an ounce , that would be worth
knowing what we really have, even losing a bar would not be legitimate
reason of objection.

*(if you guys have time I'd appreciate you checking these three at the top out, not for their politics, but tenacity and integrity, let me know )
what you think of them , some of you probably already know of them...)

, ,

 

[Bossobass]

The Fed does not own the gold at Fort Knox- (or any other gold) it merely stores it for the US Treasury and some foreign governments- they cannot sell it even if they want to. There is no gold on their balance sheet so the price of gold has zero impact on it. http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/current/

The FED exchanged it's gold with Treasury for gold certificates, which they do indeed include on their balance sheet.

It is the US Treasury who can't sell the gold because it is encumbered by those certificates and it is the FED who acts as "custodian" of the gold.

The IMF reports that Treasury gold is owned by the Federal Reserve System.

 

[TheCount]

If the government declares that gold is legal tender, the gold still has intrinsic value.

A declaration by the government that gold would be accepted as legal tender would add a new value to the value that the gold already possessed.

The Dollar could be declared worthless tonight, you would not be able to buy anything with it tomorrow.

By whom and how?

You could take the copper from 'real' pennies and exchange it for bread

Sounds like I'd starve to death before extracting the value and then finding someone who both has bread and wants copper in exchange.

The US Dollar is legal tender for all debts today, but when you continue to dilute it through quantitative easing

Good thing that's over then.

and staggering debt, it becomes of no value.

Of no value, or of less?

Being able to buy bread today at 8 times what it cost 20 or 25 years ago does not mean bread is more valuable, it means the Dollar is less valuable.

K. So, people are less able to buy bread now than they were able to buy it 20-25 years ago?

 

[acptulsa]

A declaration by the government that gold would be accepted as legal tender would add a new value to the value that the gold already possessed.

Maybe, if government declared it was the only legal tender.

Suppose your boss would let you explain to us why tender has to be legal? We could use what we wanted to use if it weren't for laws like that.

Sounds like I'd starve to death before extracting the value and then finding someone who both has bread and wants copper in exchange.

So, if people don't use the Federal Reserve Note specifically as their medium of exchange, then we have to give up on this whole division of labor thing and everyone has to become a farmer? How does that work?

Good thing that's over then.

The part where we load the old building up with explosives is over. The part where we blow it and see if it falls into its own basement, or falls over and wipes out half the city center, has yet to come.

K. So, people are less able to buy bread now than they were able to buy it 20-25 years ago?

Correct. EBT doesn't hold a candle to making a living wage and buying your groceries with money.

And don't even talk to me about buying beef today vs. the 1990-1995 period. There is absolutely no comparison.

This is interesting that this 'the gold standard was just a little price fixing' meme is getting pushed so hard and in such an organized, concerted way. Nice to know what their tactics are as we go into a campaign on which everything hinges.

The Fed is the card on which the whole house of cards rests. If we get Rand Paul in office and pull out that card, well--it isn't hard to see why the minions have already started fighting.

 

[TheCount]

Maybe, if government declared it was the only legal tender.

No. Look at the various shitcoins, for example: their relative ability (or inability) to be used determines a component of value.

Suppose your boss would let you explain to us why tender has to be legal? We could use what we wanted to use if it weren't for laws like that.

Legal tender does not mean what you think it means:

Legal tender has a very narrow and technical meaning in the settlement of debts. It means that a debtor cannot successfully be sued for non-payment if he pays into court in legal tender. It does not mean that any ordinary transaction has to take place in legal tender or only within the amount denominated by the legislation. Both parties are free to agree to accept any form of payment whether legal tender or otherwise according to their wishes. In order to comply with the very strict rules governing an actual legal tender it is necessary, for example, actually to offer the exact amount due because no change can be demanded.

http://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/policies-and-guidelines/legal-tender-guidelines

There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise.

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/legal-tender.aspx

So, if people don't use the Federal Reserve Note specifically as their medium of exchange, then we have to give up on this whole division of labor thing and everyone has to become a farmer? How does that work?

First you build a rough approximation of a man made of straw. Clothe it, and then argue against it. You will surely win.

The part where we load the old building up with explosives is over. The part where we blow it and see if it falls into its own basement, or falls over and wipes out half the city center, has yet to come.

Any day now, amirite? To da moon?

And don't even talk to me about buying beef today vs. the 1990-1995 period. There is absolutely no comparison.

Why beef? Why not computers and cellular phones? There is absolutely no comparison.

This is interesting that this 'the gold standard was just a little price fixing' meme is getting pushed so hard and in such an organized, concerted way. Nice to know what their tactics are as we go into a campaign on which everything hinges.

So, the more people that tell you that you're wrong, then... the more right you actually are? Seems convenient.

The Fed is the card on which the whole house of cards rests. If we get Rand Paul in office and pull out that card, well--it isn't hard to see why the minions have already started fighting.

You have built up quite the intricate fantasy world for yourself. I bet it's extremely rewarding to play the hero in a conflict of your own imagining. Are you winning?

 

[Zippyjuan]

The FED exchanged it's gold with Treasury for gold certificates, which they do indeed include on their balance sheet.

It is the US Treasury who can't sell the gold because it is encumbered by those certificates and it is the FED who acts as "custodian" of the gold.

The IMF reports that Treasury gold is owned by the Federal Reserve System.

Sort of. http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/does-the-federal-reserve-own-or-hold-gold.htm

Does the Federal Reserve own or hold gold?

The Federal Reserve does not own gold.

The Gold Reserve Act of 1934 required the Federal Reserve System to transfer ownership of all of its gold to the Department of the Treasury. In exchange, the Secretary of the Treasury issued gold certificates to the Federal Reserve for the amount of gold transferred at the then-applicable statutory price for gold held by the Treasury.

Gold certificates are denominated in U.S. dollars. Their value is based on the statutory price for gold at the time the certificates are issued. Gold certificates do not give the Federal Reserve any right to redeem the certificates for gold.

The statutory price of gold is set by law. It does not fluctuate with the market price of gold and has been constant at $42 2/9, or $42.2222, per fine troy ounce since 1973. The book value of the gold held by the Treasury is determined using the statutory price.

Although the Federal Reserve does not own any gold, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York acts as the custodian of gold owned by account holders such as the U.S. government, foreign governments, other central banks, and official international organizations. No individuals or private sector entities are permitted to store gold in the vault of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York or at any Federal Reserve Bank.

A small portion of the gold held by the U.S. Treasury (roughly $600 million in book value)--about five percent--is held in custody for the Treasury by the Federal Reserve Banks, as fiscal agents of the United States. The vast majority of this gold is located in the vault at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and a very small portion is on display in several Federal Reserve Banks. The remaining 95 percent of U.S. Treasury gold ($10.4 billion in book value) is held in custody for the Treasury by the U.S. Mint.

You are right that the gold certificates are listed on their balance sheet but the value of those was fixed in 1973 at $11 billion and they cannot sell or redeem the gold certificates so they are really worthless. It is bookkeeping only. The amount of gold the US owns has changed over time since 1934 so it would be untrue to say that the Treasury cannot sell the gold. The Fed can't since they don't own any of it.

Link to IMF report saying Fed owns US gold?

 

[acptulsa]

Legal tender does not mean what you think it means:

http://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/policies-and-guidelines/legal-tender-guidelines

Why are you quoting British Law? What does the Fed have to do with Great Britain? Who is stuffing a straw man again...?

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/legal-tender.aspx

That doesn't say you can pay your taxes in anything other than FRNs. That just says you must get your FRNs converted into a check or money order before mailing them. It still has to be redeemable in FRNs, also known as "dollars".

I thought that United States currency was legal tender for all debts. Some businesses or governmental agencies say that they will only accept checks, money orders or credit cards as payment, and others will only accept currency notes in denominations of $20 or smaller. Isn't this illegal?

The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."

This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.

Why beef? Why not computers and cellular phones? There is absolutely no comparison.

Um, pardon me for being redundant, but since you keep asking this question, then running away when you get a reasonable answer and asking it again in a different thread, I guess I'll be redundant. Once upon a time, computers were made by laboriously wiring together a bunch of intricate, expensive vacuum tubes and cell phones weren't made at all. This makes it hard to judge the plummeting value of the "dollar" because this computer you're looking at is an apple and those old vacuum tube collections are oranges. Beef, meanwhile, is still beef, and you still have to breed and raise cattle to produce the stuff. This makes it a rather handier gauge of "dollar"" devaluation. And beef can still keep you alive. You can't eat a computer. You can live without them. So, you can whine about me comparing apples to apples when you want me to compare apples to oranges all you want. I just don't care.

You have built up quite the intricate fantasy world for yourself. I bet it's extremely rewarding to play the hero in a conflict of your own imagining. Are you winning?

We have somebody scared enough to hire you. And if we keep this up, we might even scare them into hiring someone competent enough to ignore what they're wrong about, instead of someone posting private, short summaries of British law and pretending that checks and money orders denominated in FRNs are somehow not even related to FRNs.

Keep insulting the intelligence of the public, guys. When they figure out that your organization has been actively working to keep them ignorant, then assuming they're stupid (and you are assuming we're stupid right here and now), things will get interesting.

You people are getting awfully redundant. There is no inflation because in 1913 it would have required about a billion dollars worth of research to buy yourself a cell phone and the gold standard didn't mean gold was dollars, and solid dollars too, but it was just a little price fixing. When in truth...

Just because there's a sucker born every minute does not mean only suckers are ever born.