Geskiedenis Podcasts

FDR neem die Verenigde State van goud af

FDR neem die Verenigde State van goud af

Op 5 Junie 1933 het die Verenigde State van die goudstandaard, 'n geldstelsel waarin goud gesteun word, verval, toe die Kongres 'n gesamentlike resolusie aangeneem het wat die reg van skuldeisers tot nietigheid van goud eis. Die Verenigde State was sedert 1879 op 'n goue standaard, behalwe 'n embargo op gouduitvoer tydens die Eerste Wêreldoorlog, maar bankmislukkings tydens die Groot Depressie van die 1930's het die publiek bang gemaak om goud op te skaar, wat die beleid onhoudbaar maak.

Kort nadat president Maros in 1933 sy amp aangeneem het, verklaar president Roosevelt 'n landwye bankmoratorium om te voorkom dat verbruikers wat nie vertroue in die ekonomie het nie, op die banke val. Hy het banke ook verbied om goud uit te betaal of uit te voer. Volgens die Keynesiaanse ekonomiese teorie is een van die beste maniere om 'n ekonomiese afswaai te beveg, die geldvoorraad te hoog. En die verhoging van die hoeveelheid goud wat deur die Federale Reserweraad gehou word, sal op sy beurt sy vermoë verhoog om die geldvoorraad op te blaas. Onder soortgelyke druk het Brittanje die goudstandaard in 1931 laat val, en Roosevelt het kennis geneem.

LEES MEER: Hoe het die goudstandaard bygedra tot die groot depressie?

Op 5 April 1933 bestel Roosevelt alle goue munte en goue sertifikate in benamings van meer as $ 100 wat vir ander geld ingehandig is. Dit het van alle persone vereis om teen 1 Mei alle goue muntstukke, goue goud en goue sertifikate wat hulle besit, by die Federale Reserweraad af te lewer teen die vasgestelde prys van $ 20,67 per ons. Teen 10 Mei het die regering $ 300 miljoen goue muntstukke en $ 470 miljoen goue sertifikate ingeneem. Twee maande later het 'n gesamentlike resolusie van die kongres die goudklousules in baie openbare en private verpligtinge opgehef, wat die skuldenaar vereis het om die skuldeiser terug te betaal in dollars van dieselfde gewig en fynheid as dié wat geleen is. In 1934 is die regering se goudprys verhoog tot $ 35 per ons, wat die goud op die Federale Reserweraad se balansstate met 69 persent verhoog het. Hierdie toename in bates het die Federale Reserweraad in staat gestel om die geldvoorraad verder op te blaas.

Die regering het die prys van $ 35 per ons gehou tot 15 Augustus 1971, toe president Richard Nixon aangekondig het dat die Verenigde State nie meer dollars teen 'n vaste waarde in goud sou omskep nie, en sodoende die goudstandaard heeltemal sou laat vaar. In 1974 het president Gerald Ford wetgewing onderteken wat Amerikaners weer in staat stel om goud te besit.


Franklin D. Roosevelt Dag vir dag – Junie

Op 6 Junie 1944 het die Verenigde State en sy bondgenote die grootste amfibiese inval in die geskiedenis aan die oewer van Frankryk geloods. Meer as 150 000 soldate, matrose en vlieëniers het die strande van Normandië bestorm met 'n veldtog wat sou eindig met die onvoorwaardelike oorgawe van Duitsland in Mei 1945.

Franklin D. Roosevelt het as opperbevelhebber van die Amerikaanse weermag tydens die Tweede Wêreldoorlog 'n aktiewe en beslissende rol gespeel in die bepaling van strategie. In sy voortgesette gesprekke met die Britse premier Winston Churchill en met die Amerikaanse gesamentlike stafhoofde, het hy die inval van die Europese vasteland geleidelik bevorder om dit te bevry van Hitler se Duitsland wat uiteindelik op D-dag begin het.

In die nag van 6 Junie 1944 het president Roosevelt op nasionale radio gegaan om die Amerikaanse volk vir die eerste keer toe te spreek oor die inval in Normandië. Sy toespraak het die vorm van 'n gebed aanneem.

Die datum en tyd van die inval in Normandië was hoogs geheim. Tydens 'n nasionale radiouitsending op 5 Junie oor die geallieerde bevryding van Rome, het president Roosevelt geen melding gemaak van die operasie in Normandië wat toe reeds aan die gang was nie. Toe hy op 6 Junie met die land praat, voel die president dat hy sy vroeëre stilte moet verduidelik. Kort voor hy in die lug was, het hy verskeie handgeskrewe reëls by die opening van sy toespraak gevoeg wat die punt aangespreek het. Hulle lees: “ Gisteraand, toe ek met u praat oor die val van Rome, het ek op daardie oomblik geweet dat troepe van die Verenigde State en ons bondgenote die kanaal oorsteek in 'n ander en groter operasie. Dit het tot dusver met sukses gebeur. ”

Vind meer dokumente en foto's uit die FDR -biblioteekversamelings: (http://docs.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/04DDHOME.HTML)

Deel dit:

Verwante

Kategorieë

Blogrol

Argiewe

Teken in op ons blog


Bekendstelling van die Gold Standard

Toe goud in 1848 by Sutter's Mill gevind word, het dit die volgende jaar die California Gold Rush geïnspireer, wat gehelp het om Wes -Amerika te verenig. Dit het destyds inflasie tot gevolg gehad omdat die Verenigde State sedert 1834 reeds op 'n de facto goudstandaard was, sodat die vloed van nuwe goud tot stygende pryse gelei het.

In 1861 het die tesourie -sekretaris, Salmon Chase, die eerste Amerikaanse geldeenheid op papier gedruk. Die Gold Standard Act van 1900 het goud bepaal as die enigste metaal vir die aflossing van papiergeld. Dit stel die waarde van goud op $ 20,67 per ons.

Europese lande wou transaksies op die bloeiende wêreldhandelsmark standaardiseer, en daarom het hulle die goudstandaard teen die 1870's aanvaar. Dit het gewaarborg dat die regering enige hoeveelheid papiergeld sou aflos vir die waarde daarvan in goud, en dit beteken dat transaksies nie meer met swaar goud of muntstukke hoef te gebeur nie, aangesien die geldeenheid van papier nou gewaarborg is aan iets werklik.

Hierdie groot verandering het ook die vertroue wat nodig is vir 'n suksesvolle wêreldwye handel verhoog, en dit het sy eie risiko's meegebring: goudpryse en valutawaardes het gedaal elke keer as mynwerkers groot nuwe gouddeposito's kry.

In 1913 het die Kongres die Federale Reserweraad gestig om goud- en geldeenheidwaardes in die Verenigde State te stabiliseer. Toe die Eerste Wêreldoorlog uitbreek, het die Verenigde State en Europese lande die goudstandaard opgeskort sodat hulle genoeg geld kon druk om vir hul militêre betrokkenheid te betaal.

Die Groot Oorlog was die eerste spyker in die kis vir die internasionale goudstandaard.

Na die oorlog het lande besef dat hulle nie hul geldeenheid aan goud hoef te bind nie, en dat dit in werklikheid die wêreldekonomie kan benadeel. Lande keer vinnig terug na 'n aangepaste goudstandaard na die oorlog, insluitend die Verenigde State in 1919. Maar die goudruilstandaard het veroorsaak dat deflasie en werkloosheid in die wêreldekonomie hoogty vier, en so het lande teen die dertigerjare massaal die goudstandaard begin verlaat. toe die Groot Depressie sy hoogtepunt bereik het. Die Verenigde State het uiteindelik die goudstandaard in 1933 heeltemal laat vaar.


Beslaglegging van goud op goud: dit het voorheen gebeur - kan dit weer gebeur?

Ons volk is gestig met die heilige woorde: 'Ons beskou hierdie waarhede as vanselfsprekend, dat alle mense gelyk geskape is, sodat hulle deur hul Skepper sekere onvervreembare regte toegerus is, waaronder lewens, vryheid en die strewe na geluk. ” Maar in 1933 was alles wat verpletter is as u deur 'jaag na geluk' gekies het om goud na te jaag.

Die grondslae van die groot konfiskering
Konfiskasie dateer alles uit die Wet op handel met die vyand van 1917. Daardie jaar het president Woodrow Wilson die 'TWEA' onderteken, wat Amerikaanse individue en besighede verbied het om handel te dryf met 'vyandelike nasies'. Die wêreld se funksionele goudstandaard, wat in die beginjare van die twintigste eeu toesig gehou het oor geweldige wêreldwye ekonomiese groei, is effektief gestaak deur die uitbreek van die Eerste Wêreldoorlog, en die stadium was dus gereed vir die Groot Depressie en die Tweede Wêreldoorlog.

Kort nadat hy sestien jaar later sy amp aangeneem het, onderteken Franklin Delano Roosevelt die uitvoerende bevel 6102 in die wet, wat die "ophoping" van goud verbied. Ingevolge hierdie uitvoerende bevel is die Amerikaners verbied om meer as $ 100 miljoen goue muntstukke te besit, en alle "hoarders" (dit wil sê mense wat meer as $ 100 000 goud besit het) is wetlik verplig om hul "oortollige" goud aan die regering teen die heersende prys van $ 20,67 per ons.

Toe die regering al die goud gehad het, herwaardeer FDR die dollar in vergelyking met goud, sodat goud nou $ 35 per ons werd was. Deur 'n eenvoudige besluit het die regering miljoene Amerikaanse burgers beroof teen 'n koers van $ 14,33 per ons gekonfiskeerde goud, en daarom is die meeste historici dit eens dat die goudkonfiskasie van 1933 die mees drakoniese ekonomiese daad in die geskiedenis van die Verenigde State is. .

Die utilitêre rede agter konfiskering

Die redenasie agter die Groot Goudkonfiskasie was natuurlik die Groot Depressie, wat 'n paar jaar tevore begin het. Na 'n inflasionêre aanloop in pryse en batewaardes, val die aandelemark in 1929 neer, en die ekonomie gaan spoedig met die ongeluk mee.

President Herbert Hoover, eerder as om te reageer op die situasie met eerlike wysheid, word dikwels beskuldig dat hy 'n voorstander is van laissez fair deur diegene vir wie die term as 'n bynaam beskou word-eerder belasting verhoog en nuwe handelshindernisse opgerig, wat die ellende verskerp. Toe die FDR verkies is, was die mense bereid om byna alles saam te stel om die deflasie wat die land aangegryp het, te verlig en die ekonomiese aktiwiteit te verstik.

Die opbloei van die twintigerjare was grootliks 'n illusie van die groot onbekwaamheid van die nog nuwe Federale Reserweraad, en teen die dertigerjare toe die werklikheid die losgeldstandaarde van die vorige dekade gehaal het, het die geldvoorraad vinnig gekrimp en deflasie veroorsaak.

Net soos inflasie, ontstaan ​​deflasie ook meer uit homself, en namate pryse daal, word dit wyser vir die geldbesitters om dit te hou eerder as om dit te bestee, aangesien pryse die volgende dag - en selfs die dag daarna - laer sal wees - ad infinitum .

Aangesien niemand geld bestee het nie, het besighede ondergegaan en was mense sonder werk, wat die situasie vererger het. In reaksie hierop het FDR geweet wat gedoen moes word - pryse moes gestabiliseer word. Hieroor sal min mense saamstem. Die uitsondering wat ekonome neem, is die implementering wat die president verkies het.

Eerstens, soos bespreek, is private besit van goud effektief belet. Die enigste uitsonderings was muntstukke ter waarde van $ 100 of minder, of versamelbare munte, industriële gebruike en juweliersware. Goud kon nie as 'n beduidende belegging 'opgegaar' word nie, en alle 'hamsters' is gemaak om hul goud aan die regering te verkoop.

Die Federale Reserweraad self - 'n privaat bankkartel meer as 'n regeringsarm - was ook nie uitgesluit van hierdie vereiste nie, soos duidelik blyk uit die Gold Reserve Act van 1934. Volgens die wet moes die Fed alle goud- en goue sertifikate wat in besit is, afgee. aan die Amerikaanse tesourie.

Uiteindelik is die dollar herwaardeer, en Amerikaanse dollars kan dan terugbetaal word teen 'n koers van $ 35 per ons, in teenstelling met die ou goudstandaard van $ 20,67. Dit is egter belangrik om daarop te let dat slegs buitelandse bankiers en internasionale regerings hul dollars vir goud kan aflos - private goudbesit was tot einde 1974 steeds onwettig in die VSA.

Die effek wat herwaardasie op die Amerikaanse dollar gehad het, was 'n onmiddellike waardevermindering van 41%. Pryse is dus ten minste in nominale terme weer opgestoot. Wat die langtermyn-gevolge van hierdie aksie sou gewees het in die afwesigheid van die Tweede Wêreldoorlog, sal nooit bekend wees nie, maar binne 'n paar jaar was die Amerikaanse oorlogsekonomie besig om te neurie.

Na die einde van die tweede groot oorlog het die VSA alleen gestaan ​​as 'n ekonomiese supermoondheid, feitlik onaangeraak deur die as of bondgenote, terwyl die grootste deel van Europa in puin gelê het. Dit het alles daartoe gelei dat Roosevelt se dwang- en ongrondwetlike dade vernuftig lyk, maar geleerdes van links en regs gaan voort om te debatteer of dit werklik wys is of dat die New Deal deur wêreldwye eksterniteite gered is.

Op wetlik twyfelagtige wyse het FDR en die Kongres dus 'n wet aanvaar wat die private besit van goud van meer as $ 100 verbied. Miljoene Amerikaners is gemaak om hul goue muntstukke in te ruil vir papiergeld - effektief met vuurwapen. Toe al die muntstukke in die staatskas was, herwaardeer FDR die dollar van $ 20,67 per ons goud tot $ 35 per ons-'n diefstal van byna een-en-veertig sent op die dollar.

Goudbesit bly onwettig in die Verenigde State tot 1954. Daardie jaar het die tesourie -afdeling die eienaarskap van skaars munte gewettig. Wat was 'n seldsame muntstuk? Aangesien die regering alle munte voor 1934 in beslag geneem het, word alle muntstukke per definisie as "skaars" geag. Hierdie muntstukke was immers so ongewoon dat die min mense in omloop baie meer werd was as hul nominale waarde of die waarde van die goud waarvan hulle gemaak is - die muntstukke het 'n numismatiese waarde. Hulle was eintlik nie meer 'geld' nie, en dit was dus nie 'n mededingende bedreiging vir die regering se fiat -geldeenheid nie.

Goud, die regering en die wet

In 1969 het die federale regering die uitspraak van 1954 verder verduidelik en "seldsame muntstukke" amptelik vrygestel van enige toekomstige konfiskasie van die regering - maar het die regering steeds die "reg" voorbehou om in die toekoms die goud van sy burgers te gryp. 'Die basiese beginsels vir die administrasie van die goue wette en bevele', het die departement van tesourie in 1969 gesê, 'is dat goud slegs 'n waardevolle voorraad kan wees deur die regering en dat private burgers en entiteite in die Verenigde State kan slegs goud verkry vir wettige en gebruiklike industriële, professionele en artistieke doeleindes. ”

Twee jaar later, in 1971, het president Nixon 'die goue venster gesluit' en die Amerikaanse dollar van die goudstandaard afgehaal - wat dit 'n ware fiat -geldeenheid maak sonder bate -steun of intrinsieke waarde. Vier jaar daarna het president Ford die private besit van alle goud-nie net seldsame muntstukke-gewettig nie, en goud was die afgelope twee en dertig jaar steeds wettig. Of het dit?

Alhoewel wette wat goudbesit verbied, herroep is, het die wette wat die regering toelaat om goud te konfiskeer, dit nie gedoen nie. Skaars munte is egter die uitsondering. Al wat die regering hoef te doen, is om die regering se beslag op beslag te lê, op grond van langdurige wette. Maar vir die regering om seldsame muntstukke in beslag te neem, moet dit meer as vyftig jaar presedent omverwerp en die oorhoofse regsideal van die regstelsel verbreek. Dit is moontlik nie heeltemal onmoontlik nie, maar dit bied beslis die houers van goue munte voor 1934 meer beskerming as die eienaars van goud.

Herstel die Gold Standard?

Maar waarom sou die regering beslag lê op goud? Sommige beweer dat hy dit in die verlede gedoen het om die dollar in verhouding tot goud te herwaardeer, en aangesien die dollar nie meer op die goudstandaard is nie, sou die regering geen rede hê om goud te konfiskeer nie. Dit is 'n goeie punt, maar dit roep ook die teenargument op: Noudat die Amerikaanse dollar nie deur goud gesteun word nie, is dit net 'n kwessie van tyd voordat die huis van fiat-geldkaarte verbrokkel. As dit gebeur - as die drukperse van die regering nie in staat is om geld met 'n werklike waarde te druk nie, sal die regering beslis probeer om iets te doen, en dit is gerieflik dat wette op die boeke hom in staat stel om goud in beslag te neem. Dit is waarskynlik dat die regering dit skynbaar sou doen om die goue standaard te herstel!

Sou seldsame muntstukke in sulke desperate tye veilig wees? Dit is onmoontlik om seker te weet, maar dit is beslis waar dat die munte veiliger sou wees as munte of nie-skaars munte. U hoef immers nie verder te kyk as na die eerste groot konfiskering waarin baie "patriotiese" Amerikaners hul goud gewilliglik vir papiergeld omgedraai het nie. Sommige Amerikaners sou dit beslis weer doen, veral as dit was om die goue standaard te herstel. Die regering sou waarskynlik belowe dat goud aflossings sou wees
“binne 'n kwessie van tyd” herstel.

Alhoewel beslis nie alle goue goggas hul goud gewillig sou oorgee nie, sou daar baie minder weerstand teen die konfiskering van goud op grond van goedere wees as teen beslaglegging op seldsame, numismatiese munte. Die regering wil nie muntstukke doen nie, ten minste nie eers nie, en dit sal ongetwyfeld die vrugte wat laag hang, volg-veral as wette op die boeke dit toelaat om wettiglik te kies.

Konfiskasie van goud: kan dit weer gebeur?
Alhoewel die Amerikaanse dollar voortdurend onder druk is, bly die Amerikaanse regering steeds besig om skuld op te slaan, en onwettige nakomingsverpligtinge wag op die horison, maar die idee dat die Amerikaanse regering sou probeer om vandag die goud van die burgers in beslag te neem of te eniger tyd in die afsienbare toekoms lyk beslis op sy beste valse. Die regering het dit immers in die verlede gedoen om die goue standaard te herkalibreer, waarop ons sedert 1972 nie gewerk het nie.

Ons regering het egter toenemend gewaagd geraak in die weiering om deur die Grondwet in toom gehou te word, en na die terugkeer na beperkte regering (ten minste in retoriek) deur die Reagan -administrasie in die tagtigerjare, is die Grondwet byna deur die administrasies geïgnoreer en kongresse.

Die regering wil goudkonfiskasie moontlik weer in werking stel, en die meeste kongreslede het geen morele gevoel om dit te doen nie, maar logisties lyk dit feitlik onmoontlik in die huidige wêreldwyd onderling afhanklike en goed gekoppelde ekonomie.

Beleggers moet egter oppas as sekere belangegroepe links en regs hul sin kry en letterlik en figuurlik mure rondom die land begin bou in 'n poging om die wêreldwye onderlinge afhanklikheid te blokkeer. Proteksionisme en hoër belasting het gelei tot die grootste depressie in die Amerikaanse geskiedenis, en daarmee saam het goud beslag gelê. Dit sal waarskynlik 'n soortgelyke stukrag verg om so 'n reeks gebeurtenisse weer te gebeur.

Wen met of sonder 'Financial Armageddon'

Silwer beleggers moet bewus wees van die potensiaal van 'n ander groot konfiskering. Maar 'n uiteenlopende portefeulje van aandele, effekte, kontant en edelmetale het die afgelope dertig jaar die beste gewerk en sal waarskynlik die beste werk vir die volgende dertig jaar. En as deel van 'n verskansingstrategie, is dit ongetwyfeld 'n wyse besluit om 'n paar seldsame goue muntstukke, behalwe goud, te hou. Net vir ingeval.


FDR 's Goue konfiskering, 80 jaar gelede

UITVOERENDE BESTEL 6102, uitgereik deur die Amerikaanse president Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 80 jaar gelede, op 5 April 1933, verbied privaat goudbesit in die Verenigde State, wat goud eienaars genoodsaak het om hul goud na 'n bank te neem en dit teen die geldende koers in te ruil.

Hierdie bevel het berug geraak onder goudbeleggers. Sommiges is bang dat 'n soortgelyke konfiskering van goud weer kan plaasvind, en dat hul regering probeer om hul goud weg te neem en 'goudstorting' te verbied as deel van 'n oplossing vir 'n 'nasionale ekonomiese noodgeval'.

Gebeurtenisse in Ciprus, waar dit op 'n stadium gelyk het of die staat 'n 6,75% hef op deposito's onder € 100 000, ondanks die feit dat dit onder die depositobeskermingskema val, en#8212 het net die vrees verhoog dat private welvaart kan, onder sekere omstandighede, eenvoudig toegewys word. Regerings verander van tyd tot tyd wette, en ja, dit is moontlik dat sommige regerings onder die regte omstandighede kan probeer om hul burgers se goud in beslag te neem. Maar dit is belangrik om te besef dat die motivering vir die konfiskering van goud wat in 1933 vir FDR bestaan ​​het, grootliks verdwyn het.

Destyds was die VSA nog steeds op die Gold Standard (die Verenigde Koninkryk was 18 maande tevore afgedwing. Die res van die wêreld sou aan die vooraand van die Tweede Wêreldoorlog volg, om nooit weer terug te keer nie). Goud was die grondslag van die Amerikaanse geldeenheid en ekonomie ten tyde van die bestelling van die FDR, die waarde van die dollar was vasgemaak aan goud teen 'n koers van $ 20,67 per ons — teen die prys waarteen die regering aangebied het om fisiese goud te koop en te verkoop. Omdat privaat "goudopslag" onwettig was, het FDR in werklikheid genasionaliseer wat privaat eiendom was, met behulp van die goud wat by die banke ingedien is om Washington se finansies 'n hupstoot te gee en 10 jaar tronkstraf en $ 10.000 boetes op te lê (byna 'n halfmiljoen dollar teenoor vandag) goudprys) vir ongehoorsaamheid. Slegs een saak met betrekking tot die konfiskering het ooit die hof bereik (en slegs dan omdat die goue eienaar, die prokureur van Manhattan, Frederick Barber Campbell, aangekla het vir die teruggee van sy eiendom), maar die dreigement alleen het binne ses maande 60% van die goud in beslag geneem wat in die sirkulasie was.

Na 6102 kon Roosevelt die dollar teen goud devalueer deur die goudprys te verhoog, iets wat die regering nou kon doen terwyl hy die hele binnelandse aanbod beheer, plus 'n groot deel van die internasionale mark, wat nou metaal in die VSA gegooi het ruil vir steeds meer dollars per ons. FDR het op advies van die landbou -ekonoom van Cornell, George Warren, opgetree, wie se agtergrond met die waarneming van kommoditeitspryse hom die oortuiging gelaat het dat die beste manier om 'n deflasionêre depressie op te los, was om inflasie in te sit en die pryse te verhoog. Dit was die rede waarom die dollar in die weke na 6102 gedevalueer sou word, sou FDR en sy adviseurs aan die ontbyttafel sit en besluit wat die goudprys moes wees, en dit 'n bietjie hoër op 'n slag stoot totdat hulle op die $ 35 per ons kom. het geseëvier totdat Nixon die goue venster in Augustus 1971 gesluit het.

Op 'n manier was die konfiskering van FDR-goud en sy verhoging van die goudprys 'n weergawe van kwantitatiewe verligting in die Gold Standard-era, 'n beleid wat daarop gemik is om deflasie te bekamp deur batepryse te verhoog ten koste van die monetêre eenheid. Terwyl sentrale banke vandag eenvoudig die nodige dollars of pond kan skep, was dit onder die Gold Standard nie moontlik nie. Dus het Roosevelt in plaas daarvan op goud beslag gelê en die prys daarvan verander, met die doel om pryse in die ekonomie te verhoog, alhoewel daar geen ekstra goud was om die hoeveelheid geldeenheid te ondersteun nie.

Die situasie wat ons vandag het, verskil baie van die situasie waarmee Roosevelt in 1933 te staan ​​gekom het. Goud is nie die fondament van die wêreld se geldstelsel nie. Min mense besit goud — in vergelyking met (byvoorbeeld) vaste eiendom en gewone finansiële bates. Hulle is ook geneig om dit te besit op maniere wat dit relatief ontoeganklik vir regerings maak. Die winste vir 'n regering deur beslaglegging op mense se goud sou baie, baie kleiner wees as dié wat FDR toekom.


Soek en beslaglegging op goud

'N Mite het oor die jare geloof gekry dat die IRS 'n landwye soektog na kluise uitgevoer het as deel van die regering se “ konfiskasiebeleid ”. Die mite word ondersteun deur verwysing na gedeeltes van E.O. 6102. Ek het 6102 hersien, en die taal wat deur die skrywers genoem word, is nie in die oorspronklike nie. Boonop bestaan ​​daar geen kontemporêre weergawes van sulke soektogte en beslagleggings nie. Dit is moeilik om te dink dat hulle aan pers aandag sou ontsnap het.

Daar is egter 'n paar gevalle waarin goud in werklikheid gekonfiskeer is (sonder vergoeding). Sover ek kon vasstel, het al hierdie konfiskerings gekom as gevolg van strafregtelike vervolging van mense wat die federale wet oortree het. Daar was geen wydverspreide vervolging van individue wat bloot goud besit het nie. Die sake wat die regering aanhangig gemaak het, was tipies teen goudhandelaars, handelaars en maatskappye wat nie groot hoeveelhede goud oorgegee het nie.

Die eerste saak wat ek gevind het, is byvoorbeeld teen 'n individu wat probeer het om 5 000 gram goud uit sy bank te onttrek, ter waarde van $ 6,5 miljoen teen die huidige prys. In die dieptes van die Groot Depressie was dit 'n enorme bedrag, selfs teen pryse van 1933. Aangesien die onttrekkingsversoek deur sy bank verwerk moes word en die bank deur die wet verplig was om sulke transaksies aan te meld, is hy deur die federale agente by die bank begroet. Dit is duidelik dat hy nie heeltemal daaraan gedink het nie.

'N Ander voorbeeld: die regering het beslag gelê op dubbele arende ter waarde van $ 12,5 miljoen ($ 812 miljoen teen vandag se prys) wat 'n Switserse onderneming in die hande van 'n Amerikaanse onderneming gelê het vir bewaring. Ek neem aan hulle het hul prokureur afgedank.

Daar is ander voorbeelde, maar die punt is dat individuele goud -eienaars nie onderhewig was aan ondersoek of ongekende beslaglegging op hul goud of die kragtige handhawing van die federale wet nie. As u goud gekonfiskeer is, was u oortreding van die federale wet waarskynlik redelik flagrant en swak uitgevoer, en u het waarskynlik baie daarvan gehou.


Een gedagte oor & ldquo Franklin D. Roosevelt Dag vir dag – Junie & rdquo

Op 16 Junie word die 79ste herdenking van die 100ste dag van FDR ’s “ Eerste 100 dae en#8221 as president gevier.

Die 100 dae was 'n tydperk waartydens FDR gevorder en ten minste 15 GROOT wetgewing goedgekeur het om die lyding van die Amerikaanse volk te verlig, die banke te stabiliseer, die land te stabiliseer en Amerikaners te verseker dat daar 'n president in die Withuis was kreatief, aggressief, omgee en moedig.

Ons moet FDR se wysheid, kreatiwiteit, aggressiwiteit, omgee en moed vier, sonder wat ons vandag in 'n heel ander (en erger) wêreld kan lewe.

Hier is 'n paar datums en programme van daardie “ Eerste 100 dae en#8221 van die presidentskap van FDR ’:

4 Maart 1933
FDR het die 32ste president van die VSA ingehuldig Die enigste ding wat ons hoef te vrees is die vrees self. ”

5 Maart 1933
FDR reik 'n proklamasie uit waarin 'n vierdaagse vakansie gedurende die hele land met ingang van 6 Maart verklaar word. Alle banktransaksies stop en begin met die uitvoer van goud, silwer en geldeenheid. Roep die kongres op na 'n spesiale sitting vir 9 Maart.

9 Maart-16 Junie 1933
“Hundred Days ” sessie FDR kry 'n gewillige kongres om baie van die New Deal -programme in te stel. Die eerste dag neem die Kongres die Wet op Noodbankdienste goed, wat FDR breë magte gee oor banke en buitelandse valuta. Bankvakansie eindig op 10 Maart en#8211 banke kan heropen as hulle bewys dat hulle solvent is. Binne drie dae sal 1000 banke heropen en die nasionale vertroue neem toe.

12 Maart 1933
FDR gee eerste “ fireside chat ”.

31 Maart 1933
Die kongres aanvaar die Wet op herbossing, wat die Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) tot stand bring, en bied onmiddellik werk aan 250 000 jongmanne (18-25) in herbossing, padbou en die ontwikkeling van nasionale parke. Werkkampe begin opduik. Teen die tyd dat dit in 1941 verslap het, het twee miljoen mense aan die projekte gewerk.

19 April 1933
FDR haal die land van die goudstandaard af.

12 Mei 1933
Die Kongres aanvaar die Federal Emergency Relief Act, wat onmiddellike toelaes aan state vir hulpverleningsprojekte magtig. Werkloosheid het meer as 14 miljoen bereik, meer as 'n kwart van die land se arbeidsmag.

Roosevelt onderteken die Landbouaanpassingswet om boere onmiddellik verligting te gee deur pryse vir landbouprodukte vas te stel en subsidies aan boere te betaal vir die beperking van die produksie van sekere gewasse wat in oorskot was.

18 Mei 1933
Die kongres stig die Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) om damme en kragsentrales langs die Tennessee -vallei te bou, elektrisiteit gaan aan inwoners, van wie baie dit voorheen ontbreek het, en kunsmis sal verkoop word.

27 Mei 1933
Die Kongres aanvaar die Federal Securities Act om aandele en effekte te monitor en te reguleer.

6 Junie 1933
Die Kongres aanvaar die National Employment System Act.

13 Junie 1933
Die kongres aanvaar die herfinansieringswet op huiseienaars om verbandgeld en ander hulp aan huiseienaars te verskaf. Dit gaan in Junie 1936 uit die sak tree nadat lenings vir ongeveer 'n miljoen verbande verstrek is.

16 Junie 1933
Die laaste dag van die “Hundred Days ” sessie. Die kongres aanvaar die National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) wat die Public Works Administration (PWA) en die National Recovery Administration (NRA) tot stand bring.

Die PWA is gemagtig om toesig te hou oor die bou van paaie, openbare geboue en ander projekte terwyl werk verskaf word. Die minister van binnelandse sake, Harold Ickes, word aangewys om aan die hoof van die PWA te staan.

Die doel van die NRA is om mededinging te stimuleer en produsente en verbruikers te bevoordeel deur verskillende kodes te implementeer om billike handel te vestig. Die nakoming sou vrywillig wees. Diegene wat saamwerk, het die blou arend en die seël van goedkeuring ontvang. ” NRA word gelei deur generaal Hugh Johnson. Dit word in Mei 1935 deur die Hooggeregshof ongrondwetlik verklaar.

Die kongres aanvaar ook die Farm Credit Act en die Bankwet van 1933 (wat FDIC tot stand bring).
——-


Die goue standaard in die Amerikaanse geskiedenis

WAT IS DIE GOUDSTANDAARD?
In die loop van die geskiedenis het goud langer 'n ruilmiddel gebly as byna enige ander vorm van valuta. Maar in die hedendaagse moderne wêreld is dit baie meer geneig om papiergeld wat deur die regering uitgereik is, teëkom. Om die verband tussen die twee te verstaan, moet ons die goue standaard definieer.

Miskien is die eenvoudigste Gold -standaarddefinisie 'n stelsel waarin die waarde van 'n geldeenheid gedefinieer kan word in terme van goud en geldeenheid vir goud verruil kan word. Baie definieer ook die goudstandaard as 'n stelsel waarin 'n land sy geldvoorraad aktief beheer om 'n vasgestelde goudprys te handhaaf.

WAT IS DIE GOLD STANDAARD SE ROL IN DIE AMERIKAANSE GESKIEDENIS?

Die ingewikkelde geskiedenis van die Verenigde State met die goudstandaard kan in vyf periodes verdeel word:

  1. Van 1792 tot 1862 is die dollar gesteun deur 'n bimetaalstelsel van goud en silwer.
  2. Hierdie periode is gevolg deur 'n fiat monetêre stelsel tot 1879.
  3. Die land het 'n volledige goue standaard van 1879 tot 1933 gehad,
  4. 'N Gedeeltelike goudstandaard het tussen 1934 en 1971 gevolg.
  5. Uiteindelik, van 1971 tot vandag, het die Verenigde State weer 'n fiat -monetêre standaard.

DIE BEVESTIGING VAN DIE BIMETALLIESE MONETARYRE STELSEL (1792-1862)
Met die bekragtiging van die Amerikaanse grondwet in 1788 het die Kongres die gesag gekry om 'n nasionale geldeenheid te ontwikkel. Die Coinage Act van 1792 het nie net die Amerikaanse munt gestig nie, maar ook die dollar op 24,75 korrels fyn goud en 371,25 korrels fyn silwer vasgestel. Die kongres het opdrag gegee dat die eerste munte voorstellings van beide vryheid en 'n arend moet bevat. Die eerste goue munte is dus gemunt in benamings van $ 10 Eagles, $ 5 Half Eagles en $ 2,50 Quarter Eagles. Silwer munte het gevolg in benamings van silwer dollar, half dollar en kwart dollar. Elke munt bevat sy werklike aangewese gewig en waarde in goud en silwer.

Wêreldwye skommelinge in die aanbod van goud en silwer het hierdie stelsel aansienlike druk uitgeoefen. Aangesien 'n oorvloed silwer wat uit Sentraal- en Suid-Amerika ontgin is, die mark oorstroom het, het munthandelaars begin om goue munte te koop met silwer met 'n laer waarde. Namate goudvoorrade wêreldwyd toegeneem het met mynboubedrywighede van Kalifornië tot Australië, het munthandelaars silwer munte met goedkoper goud gekoop. Die kongres het die amptelike goud- en silwerwaarde van die dollar verskeie kere gedurende hierdie tydperk aangepas. Aanpassings kom egter dikwels te laat, nadat handelaars reeds munt gehad het uit die verwydering van muntstukke.

VERLAT DIE GOUDSTANDAARD OM DIE BORGELOORLOG TE FINANSIERE (1862-1879)
In 'n dringende behoefte aan finansiering vir die burgeroorlog, het die kongres die wet op tender in 1862 aangeneem. Papiergeldeenheid is slegs gewaarborg deur die volle geloof en krediet van die Verenigde State en kon nie vir goud ingeruil word nie. Gedurende hierdie tyd het die Unie $ 450 miljoen in papiergeld gedruk en inflasie het met 80 persent gestyg. Teen die einde van die burgeroorlog het die staatskuld $ 2,7 miljard bereik.

In reaksie op hiperinflasie het die kongres besluit om die geldvoorraad te verminder deur die produksie van silwer dollars te staak. Bank defaults and an economic depression ensued but the move successfully reined in inflation. With the hope of bringing renewed economic prosperity, public opinion swayed toward a return to the Gold standard. In 1875, Congress passed the Specie Payment Resumption Act, which ensured that by 1879, all paper currency could be redeemed for Gold.

RETURN OF THE GOLD STANDARD AND CREATION OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE (1879-1933)
Deflation continued with distinct winners and losers across the United States. Bankers and those with significant savings, many of whom lived in the northeastern United States, benefited from increased economic stability. Gold redemption for paper currency meant their money and holdings grew in buying power. But for farmers and laborers, namely those in the southern and western United States, lower inflation meant lower wages. They were forced to lower the prices they charged for goods and services, and their debts became increasingly difficult to pay off. Farmers struggled to afford the mortgages on their land.

Those struggling under deflation and members of the Democratic Party grew in political power and called for an expansion of Silver currency, which would have increased inflation and provided immediate financial relief to many lower-income Americans. Meanwhile, Republicans promised strict adherence to a Gold standard as a mode of ensuring long-term economic growth and stability. Republican President William McKinley prevailed and further cemented the Gold standard by completely discontinuing the use of Silver as part of the dollar&rsquos valuation.

The Gold standard further evolved with the creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1913. This allowed the Federal Reserve to print paper currency while maintaining that 40% of the currency&rsquos value to be reserved in Gold. While this temporarily strengthened the nation&rsquos financial system, it could not protect against the Stock Market Crash of 1929 and the Great Depression that followed.

FDR&rsquoS MOVE AWAY FROM THE GOLD STANDARD AND THE BRETTON WOODS SYSTEM (1933-1971)
In 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt used executive authority to make it illegal for citizens to privately hold Gold outside of jewelry. All Gold coins and bullion were ordered to be turned into the government for compensation at $20.67 per ounce. By 1934, a new Gold price of $35 per ounce was set and guaranteed indefinitely. Private citizens could no longer redeem paper currency for Gold. Buying Gold for investment purposes was forbidden. It could only be used in transactions with foreign governments. A national stockpile of Gold would eventually be stored at Fort Knox in Kentucky.

The Federal Reserve was mandated to maintain stability according to the set Gold price. During this time, American paper currency provided a reliable standard for international trade and investment. In 1944, President Roosevelt worked with leaders across the globe to create the Bretton Woods system in which nations agreed to restrict inflation to no more than 1%. The Gold price remained set at $35 per ounce in the United States until 1971.

ADOPTION OF A FIAT MONETARY SYSTEM (1971-PRESENT DAY)
In 1971, as the Gold stockpile at Fort Knox dwindled due to international transactions, President Richard Nixon announced that foreign countries could no longer redeem dollars for Gold. Moving forward, paper currency was ensured only by the full faith and credit of the United States and a fully fiat monetary system was adopted.

Demand for federal funds led to double-digit inflation into the 1980s. Some recommended a return to the Gold standard to rein in inflation. The Federal Reserve, however, gained support from President Ronald Reagan in its efforts to reduce the money supply and thereby reduce inflation without being restrained by the Gold price. In 1985, the U.S. Treasury began selling Gold coins to the public for the first time in more than 50 years.

CALLS FOR A RETURN TO THE GOLD STANDARD, HOW TO DEFINE GOLD STANDARD IN THE MODERN WORLD
As of 2019, no countries in the world are known to hold to a Gold standard. Returning to a Gold standard in the United States, however, is a frequent topic of political debate, even as experts struggle to define Gold standard in the modern world.

The main argument in support of returning to a Gold standard is its potential to tamp down inflation. This is because the money supply would be restricted by a largely static global Gold supply. Adopting the Gold standard would likely reduce government spending and debt because the government would not have the ability to simply print more money to fund its actions. Some experts believe this would drastically reduce needless spending in all areas of the government, ranging from the military to social programs. They also believe this would ensure balanced budgets, promote saving and set the stage for long-term economic growth and prosperity.

Despite its potential benefits, advocates have struggled to agree on a feasible plan for returning to the Gold standard nor have they determined a consistent Gold standard definition. Some define the Gold standard as a system where Gold prices can fluctuate according to the open market. Others believe Gold prices would need to be set artificially low or artificially high by the Federal Reserve in order for the Gold standard to be re-adopted nationally. In today&rsquos global economy, the adoption of the Gold standard would require cooperation not only from all sectors of government but also both political parties and a number of international governments.

Many criticize the Gold standard because it does not empower the Federal Reserve to easily increase the money supply during recessions, times of war or other emergency situations. For this reason, the Gold standard is often deemed outdated and inflexible when compared to a sophisticated technologically advanced and research-based Federal Reserve.

The Federal Reserve, for example, is largely credited with leading recovery efforts and restoring the country to low unemployment following the Great Recession beginning in 2007. Some experts also believe the Gold supply and Gold price are not as stable and reliable as some profess them to be. For example, the current Gold price fluctuates daily and has increased dramatically in recent years, notably during the Great Recession. Opponents also point to historical examples of how the Gold standard did not guard against the Great Depression or several bank failures.


Horns of a trilemma

Why do governments risk the bad publicity of restricting gold? This is linked to a cornerstone of macroeconomics known as the monetary policy trilemma. This states that countries must choose between two of the following and can’t generally do all three at the same time: (1) setting fixed exchange rates (2) allowing capital to move freely over international borders and (3) being able to independently set interest rates and print money (in other words, control monetary policy).

In the 1930s system, countries generally chose fixed exchange rates linked to gold, plus free capital movement and sacrificed control of monetary policy. The system came under more and more pressure because too many investors were trading in their money for gold. One way for the US to take enough control of monetary policy to print more money was to impose various capital controls, including seizing gold.

Today, the situation is different because western economies have free-floating exchange rates so they have control over monetary policy and can allow capital to move freely. This means that during a crisis, they can print money and cut interest rates without having to impose controls on the likes of gold.

In fact, any direct meddling by governments in the gold markets today would likely be counterproductive. It would increase investor anxiety and encourage them to rush to other assets with similar properties such as silver or other precious metals. Those who hold gold are therefore probably safer than they might have been in the past.

There are alternatives open to governments besides outright gold nationalisation. For example, when the UK left the international gold standard in 1931, the devaluation of the pound put pressure on other currencies such as the Dutch guilder. In response, the Netherlands imposed a variety of restrictions on gold that stopped short of confiscation.

Again, this kind of move is unnecessary in today’s era when countries control their own monetary policy. Gold will probably remain a safe haven on the sidelines – unless countries felt they had to sell their reserves aggressively for some reason, say to reduce debts. Even in the current crisis, that’s not on the horizon. But the one lesson from history that all investors need to bear in mind is that in times of crisis, anything goes.

If you liked this article, find more expertise in our gold series:

Why gold prices go up and down – five charts
Since the demise of the gold standard in the early 1970s, the precious metal has gone through four distinct phases.

Countries went on a gold-buying spree before coronavirus took hold – here’s why
Long before COVID-19, countries have been buying new reserves and bringing it home from overseas storage to an extent never seen in modern times.

I’m a bit of a modern-day alchemist, recovering gold from old mobile phones
There’s 33 times more gold in the average handset than in the equivalent amount of ore. Yet the vast majority is never recovered.

Meet the struggling gold miners who are missing out on the boom in precious metals
You would think that anyone in the gold industry would be getting rich right now, but informal miners in many countries are missing out.

Subscribe to our newsletter
Get more news and information you can trust, direct from the experts.


Going Off The Gold Standard Halted The Great Depression -- Or Caused World War II?

The prospect of a Federal Reserve Board nominee in Judy Shelton has led to all sorts of commentary about how kooky the gold standard is. Judy Shelton has said favorable things about gold and the monetary system, and on have come the charges that no serious economist advocates gold, gold limits flexibility in a crisis, gold is not modern, gold-standard people are "goldbugs," gold played a major role in causing the Great Depression, etc.

We just had to fight WWII. Washington DC, USA.

About that last point. Is it ever a verity in contemporary economics. Yet as Nathan Lewis has shown, prior to the mid-1980s, the view that there were gold-standard causes of the Great Depression had no adherents, including across the mass of progressive academia. Things changed with work of once-of-Harvard economics professor Barry Eichengreen that charted how adherence to the gold standard in the 1920s and 1930s correlated to the degree a country fell into the Great Depression. Today at places like the National Bureau of Economic Research, it is au courant to point out that on Franklin D. Roosevelt's suspension of the gold standard in 1933, the nation grew like never before.

Bash, bash, bash. Economists surveyed by the University of Chicago—such a top place, and how rigorous it is!—found zero support for a gold standard. As John Tamny beautifully pointed out, even John Cochrane of the Hoover Institution had to show to progressive academia that he's no kook by broadcasting his opposition to gold. Here comes tenure.

Big happy professional consensuses have one nasty collateral intellectual effect. They lead to stunning complacency about important issues. Take history, in fact the central events of the 20 th century, the Great Depression and World War II. The consensus on gold has done major harm to our understanding of these events.

The first point in the consensus is that the major nations' going off gold through 1933 curtailed the Great Depression, which was at its most severe from 1930-33. The United Kingdom, for its part, went off gold in September 1931, at the very moment the Japanese, with the invasion of Manchuria, began what would develop into World War II. Mere correlation? The former president of the American Historical Association, Akira Iriye, has written the following concerning the early 1920s Washington conference of the powers relevant in East Asia:

"All the Washington signatories were linked to one another through their acceptance of the gold standard….[T]he mechanism called upon nations to accept gold as the medium of international economic transactions, to link their currencies to gold, and to maintain the principle of currency convertibility. Through such devices, it was believed that commercial activities across national boundaries would be carried out smoothly for the benefit of all."

A trade-dependent nation witnessed the elimination of the agreed-upon basis of international currency convertibility and right away took untoward steps. Preliminarily, it appears that going off gold touched off the first stages of World War II.

As for FDR, to Iriye he "showed a willingness to give up the principle of international co-operation to preserve the gold standard in favor of a more flexible policy that would enable the nation to act unilaterally to regulate the price of gold and the rates of exchange between America and other currencies. Roosevelt was determined to focus on domestic recovery and showed little inclination for becoming bogged down in international issues."

The largest foreign war the United States ever fought was against the Empire of Japan, 1941-45. What was it that led to such an antagonism? The United States under FDR maintained indifference when not hostility toward consistent currency convertibility, whose main hallmark had long been the gold standard. Japan responded by strengthening its geopolitical hand in the progressive invasion of China, yet found no willingness to compromise on the part of the United States.

Could a grand bargain in favor of re-instituting gold in the 1930s have forestalled World War II? The case is intriguing. What is clear is that currency convertibility symbolized by gold underlay the Japanese attitude of cooperation prior to the Great Depression, FDR was adamant in limiting his embrace of gold, and the Japanese did not like it and took extreme, fruitless steps to get the U.S. to soften its position. And the war came.

The other academic chestnut is that World War II ended the Great Depression. We have to appreciate the obvious implications here. Then the New Deal did not? Surely a major reason FDR violated Washington's precedent and made a bid for a third presidential term in 1940 is that he knew history would remember him, if a two-term president, as the one who was supposed to solve the Great Depression but failed to. If we believe the war solved the Great Depression, did not FDR suppose as much as he contemplated war and reelection in 1940?

Yet FDR also went off gold. The war proved necessary to clean up the mess of 1933-40, of a country thoroughly convinced as of December 1941 that hard times had not really gone away. The correlation is simple. FDR went off gold, and two terms later he found himself needing a war to save the economy and his reputation very badly.

The professors and intellectuals opposed to the gold standard are academic gym rats, like the people who can pump iron and buff their muscles and look in the mirror but can’t play a sport outside to save their life. The anti-gold cognoscenti make a point of broadcasting their degrees, affiliations, top-journal publications, and paper-of-record quotations while distorting history (let alone economics) as a consequence to such a degree that immense questions of the first importance to this nation's and the world’s development are left poorly treated and thus wide open and functionally unaddressed.

It is telling that Brad Delong, one of the biggest wannabe academic bullies against gold, once said that after reading Iriye, he was still befuddled about how war came in East Asia. If the pseudo-intellectuals could get over their gold prejudice, they might get a clue.


Gold confiscation may sound preposterous to investors used to securities or real estate. But it’s happened in the past enough times to make it a reasonable concern for those uneasy about unsolvable debt levels, runaway government spending, and continual central bank money creation.

When a grab is made for people’s savings, governments don’t bother to confiscate instruments like stocks and bonds and savings accounts—those can be wiped out by simply devaluing the currency. But when times are really tough, governments have “requested” citizens turn over their gold—the one asset they’ve historically been unable to control, since it’s not someone else’s liability.

When a gold confiscation happens, there unfortunately aren’t a lot of viable solutions. If your government declares it illegal to own a meaningful amount of bullion, you’d have little choice but to comply. Either that or play the role of a fugitive—with the prospects of financial penalties, forcible confiscation of your metal, and even jail time waiting for you.

Many investors believe gold won’t be confiscated today because it’s not part of the monetary system like it was during the U.S. nationalization in 1933, under Roosevelt. While it’s true we’re not on a gold standard today, if the crisis gets bad enough any and all viable solutions could be on the table. Debt in all developed countries is unpayable, for example, especially when you add in unfunded liabilities… where could the government get funds to service it all? One source could definitely be gold.

The sober reality is, while lower than in the past, the risk of a gold confiscation is not zero. The world today can be an uncertain place, and what were once “local” issues can rapidly escalate and have global consequences. This does not mean, however, that we are suggesting a gold confiscation is imminent or even probable simply that it could happen if one or a series of events having significant worldwide implications occurs. Without official gold-backing on most major currencies today, the specific motivation to “confiscate” gold that existed during many previous confiscations barely exists today. But as you’ll see, even that hasn’t stopped modern government’s without a gold standard from doing the same, ostensibly as a form of currency controls to slow down market-driven devaluation.

The “Solutions” to Confiscation Risk

There’s lots of speculation floating around the Web about what one might do if gold was confiscated again. Unfortunately, the majority of the most common solutions don’t hold up to much scrutiny.

Some investors assume silver would be exempt. That’s usually because past confiscations mainly focused on gold, since silver wasn’t part of the monetary system. However, what many investors don’t know is that a year after the 1933 confiscation order, President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 6814 that “required the delivery of all silver to the United States for coinage.”

Many dealers claim numismatic coins would be excluded, since there was an exception made for rare coin collectors in 1933. But as history will show, during past confiscations the onus was on the investor to prove they were a coin collector and not a bullion buyer. Unless you owned a substantial amount of rare coins, you were automatically deemed a bullion owner, not a collector.

The uncomfortable truth is, no one knows exactly what form a confiscation could take, or how new laws might be enforced. And that’s part of the problem. As Mike Maloney said well in his best-selling book, Guide to Investing in Gold and Silver:

“Confiscation all comes down to this: the government makes the rules, changes the rules, and enforces the rules. Though it lacks the moral right, it can create legal authority. Though it lacks the constitutional empowerment, it can turn a blind eye to the Constitution… The Constitution did not stop the government from taking people’s gold in 1933.”

Political leaders can and will do whatever they deem necessary at the time. In any way they see fit. For as long as they think it’s needed.

When the gold investor considers the number of ways a confiscation could take place, how long it could last, how easily the government could change the rules and how deeply it could reach—all against the backdrop of an economic or monetary crisis—it underscores the need to put a viable strategy in place.

What’s really viable is a lesson best learned by the mistakes and successes of the past…

Why Gold Confiscation Could Happen – It's Happened Before

Since 1933, there have been a few notable gold confiscations around the world.

The specific circumstances varied, but there was one common thread to all of them: they all arose out of a financial crisis. As government coffers dwindled and reached emergency levels, politicians didn’t hesitate to grab the net worth of private citizens. And in many cases it was portrayed as patriotic your country is threatened—help save your nation!

Here are some gold confiscations that have occurred within the past 80 years…

United States Gold Confiscation—1933

Labeled Executive Order 6102, President Franklin Roosevelt signed on a law on April 5, 1933 “forbidding the hoarding of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates within the continental United States.”

It basically meant that private owners were required to take their coins, bars or gold certificates to a bank, and exchange them for US dollars at the prevailing rate of $20.67 per ounce.

Why did he do this? The US was on a gold standard at the time, so hoarding gold (i.e., money) was seen as a threat to the stability of the country’s financial system. Remember how bad things got… banks were shut, unemployment soared, bread lines formed, civil unrest grew, and the government couldn’t make its debt payments. Roosevelt desperately needed to remove the constraint on the Federal Reserve that prevented it from increasing the money supply the Great Depression was already four years old and wasn’t showing any sign of abating.

Within nine months after making gold illegal to own, the president raised the official price to $35 per ounce. The dollars those ex-gold owners received in exchange had just been devalued by 40%, overnight.


And the US government was serious about you not hoarding gold. As Wikipedia reports…

“Under the Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917, as later amended by the Emergency Banking Act of March 9, 1933, violation of the order was punishable by fine up to $10,000, up to ten years in prison, or both. Numerous individuals and companies were prosecuted.”

Worse, the ban on private ownership of gold in America—the home of the free—lasted over four decades. Not until January 1, 1975 could US citizens own more than $100 in gold again.

Australia Gold Confiscation—1959

The Australian government similarly nationalized gold.

The law, part of the Banking Act in 1959, allowed gold seizures of private citizens if the Governor determined it was “expedient so to do, for the protection of the currency or of the public credit of the Commonwealth.” In other words, they made it legal to seize gold from private citizens and exchange it for paper currency.

The country’s Treasurer stated in a press release that followed, “All gold (other than wrought gold and coins to a limited extent) had to be delivered to the Reserve Bank of Australia within one month of its coming into a person's possession.”

The law also said you weren’t allowed to sell gold, except to the Reserve Bank of Australia (their central bank). Nor could you export any gold (send it outside the country) without the bank’s permission.

While it is unclear whether or not the country moved ahead with active seizures, or just how many citizens complied, the law still destroyed the local private gold market overnight.

Like the US ban, this rule wasn’t short lived either. Reports indicate it stayed on the books until 1976, a full 17 years, before being “suspended.”

Great Britain’s Gold Ban—1966

Ever since Great Britain went off the gold standard in 1931, their currency had been falling. As the decline stretched from years into decades, many investors began to store gold overseas, worried their country might never recover. Who could blame them? Their standard of living was threatened.

To stem the decline in the Pound Sterling, in 1966 the government banned private citizens from owning more than four precious metals coins. It also blocked imports of gold coins (a common move to keep currency from being exported, similar to modern day tariffs on gold imports in places like India).

The only exemption to owning more than four coins was to prove you were a collector. You were required to apply for a license, and then an officer from the Bank of England would determine if you were a true collector or not. If not, we’ll take your bullion, thank you very much.

The important distinction about this gold ban is that it occurred when Great Britain was nie on a gold standard. In other words, we have historical precedence that gold was confiscated without it being part of the monetary system. Gold is not part of the monetary system today, either.

Like most confiscations, this law lasted a long time—until 1979, a full 13 years.

See Any Patterns Here?

These three gold confiscations have some things in common. They all…

1. Were imposed by Western governments. These were advanced societies, among the richest countries on the planet. And yet they all confiscated gold.

2. Arose out of economic crisis. Each government had abused its finances so badly that it eventually nationalized privately held gold from citizens.

3. Lasted for a LONG time. Of these confiscations from advanced economies, the shortest was 13 years.

4. Completely forbid any type of hoarding of bullion. Only true collectors were exempt, and only those pieces that were truly classified as rare. And you had to prove it. Interestingly, gold juweliersware was not part of any of these confiscations.

Unfortunately, there are some nastier gold confiscations from history. These involve…

History of Gold Confiscation: It's Surprisingly Common

It won’t surprise you that in nations ruled by an oppressive regime, gold was a natural target to grab funds for the government…

Italy’s Gold “Donation”

Benito Mussolini—Italy’s prime minister turned dictator—tried to fight a nasty recession by introducing the “Gold for the Fatherland” initiative in 1935. He “encouraged” the public to “voluntarily donate” their gold rings, necklaces, and other forms of gold to the government. In exchange, citizens received a steel wristband that bore the proud words, translated, “Gold for the Fatherland.” It’s said that even his wife Rachele donated her own wedding ring in a show of solidarity.

The gold was melted down and made into bars, then distributed to the country’s banks. The government netted 35 tonnes (1.23 million ounces) from citizen “donations.”

Germany’s Confiscation of Czech Gold

Hitler’s Nazi party pulled a tricky scheme in 1939… after the invasion of Czechoslovakia the year before, the Bank of International Settlements, chaired by Bank of England director Otto Niemeyer—a German no less—instructed the Bank of England to transfer £5.6 million of gold from the Czech national bank to the Reichsbank.

Even though the gold belonged to Czechoslovakian government, and even though English authorities had been warned of the possible transfer, it went through without a hitch. To mask the theft, Germany’s central bank understated its official reserves later that year.

Saddam and Fidel

The madman of Iraq and the communist oppressor of Cuba both confiscated gold, art, jewelry, etc. These brutal dictators took whatever they wanted, at the point of a sword or gun.

As you might surmise, citizens were not compensated when their holdings were seized—unless you count remaining alive as compensation.

Based on interviews I’ve conducted with two large gold bullion dealers in Russia, the old Soviet Union has historically viewed gold and silver as a matter of national security. Therefore, private ownership in any form—except jewelry and numismatic coins—was strictly forbidden. People went to jail for owning a gold bar.

And in spite of the Russian central bank being one of the biggest buyers of gold since 2008, those old laws are still on the books. It is illegal to buy or sell bullion bars except at a bank that has a precious metals license (and very few have them)… it is a criminal offense to buy or sell a gold bar from a friend or relative… transporting bars has strict rules and can send you to prison if you break them… it is illegal to take bullion bars out of the country… buying and selling foreign-made bars is also illegal.

These laws are not as strictly enforced today, but they remain on the books and thus could be easily activated again. You can buy gold coins, but they’re not abundant and are in poor quality.

“India announced it was resuming its ban on the export of silver. India is believed to have the largest silver hoard and the government there freed exports earlier this year as a means of earning taxes levied on overseas sales. However, most silver dealers minimized the significance of India's move yesterday. As one dealer explained, 'Smuggling silver out of India is so ingrained there that the ban will have no effect on the flow. It never has. Indian silver will continue to ebb and flow into the world market according to price.’”

• The difference in gold confiscations between the plunderers vs. those from advanced economies is that the plunderers were more oppressive about the confiscation, typically took more than just gold, and of course were more brutal in carrying it out.

There’s another crucial distinction. Except during times of active persecution, there is no historical precedence of gold juweliersware being confiscated. If a nation operated under the rule of law, seizing jewelry wasn’t part of the government’s strategy.

The reality is that in a crisis, we could potentially face a lethal combination: a desperate government, with your assets ready for the taking.

The point to all this isn’t to predict that there will be a gold confiscation. The idea is be aware of the risks and to have a viable plan in place to combat one if it occurs.

But is there really such a strategy?

On the surface it would seem that short of renouncing your citizenship and moving out of the country, there are precious few options to protect against such a draconian act.

But there are a couple strategies that have historically been effective in combating a gold confiscation…

Proven Solutions

Out of Jurisdiction

Storing gold and silver where a government is less likely to be able to reach it quickly and easily is smart buffer to put in place.

First, as many have noted before, keeping it outside the banking system is a good step. Many references cite how banks have been known to hypothecate gold, i.e. lend it out to someone other than its rightful owner, putting it at systemic risk. Just as importantly, during the modern “bail-ins” we’ve seen in debt-stricken countries, banks were often working hand in hand with governments to seize assets long before citizens found out what was happening. The threat of being cut-off from central bank liquidity is an existential threat to banks, and thus they are not known for going to bat for consumers in court to block overreach like an independent vault provider hopefully would.

Another step further removed is storing overseas—also in a vault outside the banking system. It puts your assets one step further out of reach. Less low hanging fruit, as they say. Without the ability to take quick possession, you have more time and distance to fight such an order.

But even this is not bulletproof. A desperate government could just as well declare all personal gold holdings be repatriated, regardless of where they’re stored. It’d be a spinoff of the old tax joke, “How much gold do you own. Give it to us.”

If the company holding your metal is a domestic entity, they might be forced to comply anyway, at least in reporting your holdings so they can be taxed in lieu of surrender.

Some suggest you should instead do business with a foreign company. But that adds a different risk, and one that comes with a dubious level of added protection. First, you give up access to the local rule of law. If a vault in Singapore swears your gold is there, what will you do if it ends up not being the case? When dealing with a domestic company, at least you can turn to the court system.

Second, a foreign company can be compelled to cooperate with a big enough foreign government, like the US. As investors using private banking services in Switzerland discovered in recent years, the threat of being cut off from banking with the US will quickly convince a company, or its host government, to comply with a confiscation order at least by reporting holdings.

Even if it does not relent to pressure from abroad, the foreign entity would almost certainly refuse to deliver, buy, or sell precious metals in a jurisdiction where authorities have issued a confiscation order, leaving you only with the option to relocate elsewhere—hardly better, and often much worse than using a domestic provider you have real recourse against.

Bottom line, while not risk free, private foreign vault holdings, whose affordability surprises many precious metals investors, stewarded by a company based in a nation with a historically strong rule of law, can be one of your best lines of defense if confiscation is a concern.

The Elizabeth Taylor Solution

You probably know that the queen of the silver screen loved jewelry. Her collection fetched over $156 million after her death. She even wrote a book about her jewelry. Indeed, it’s hard to find a picture of her without gold, diamonds, or pearls draped over her neck or wrists.

You may also know that Elizabeth Taylor traveled a lot. At various points in her life she had homes in Beverly Hills, London, and Switzerland, among other places. She even traveled to Iran a few years before the Iran Hostage Crisis.

And here’s an interesting fact about her travels: she always took some jewelry with her—and walked right through customs with it. No messing with customs forms, no requirement to declare a financial asset.

This circumstance remains true today. You likely know that when crossing borders, travelers are often required to complete customs paperwork and declare large amounts money they are carrying, anything over $10,000 for travel to/from the US for example. The new rules specifically mention gold, and also that the price of the gold determines if you are at the reporting limit (not the face value on a coin). That means 7 ounces of gold would be the maximum you could carry at $1,300 gold. You’d be at risk with 5 coins when gold reaches $2,000/ounce.

Since gold juweliersware is not considered a financial asset under US law, it does not require reporting. Nor have we discovered any country where it’s handled differently, though always be sure to check the laws along your itinerary.

You and your loved ones can employ your very own Elizabeth Taylor solution.

Consider the advantages you’d possess if you wanted to transport some gold outside the country… it would be a lot easier to hop on a plane wearing a few necklaces or bracelets than carrying a stack of gold coins or bars. Consider the hassle you could avoid passing through customs, as well as the threat of your bullion coins being questioned or seized.

But what about confiscation? As history has shown, in the developed world, gold confiscations have targeted monetary metals, like coins and bars. Jewelry was spared. Only in oppressive nations, ruled by dictators, was it a target. In other words, the resident of a developed nation that owns gold jewelry has an asset that is far off the radar of appealing assets to grab.

Which is why we believe that bullion-grade jewelry is one of the most unique and important asset classes to own if confiscation is a concern…

Gold Without Borders: GoldSilver’s Investment Grade Gold Bullion Jewelry

The problem with most “gold” jewelry sold in the West is dilution. It’s often made with cheaper alloys that contain only a fraction of gold, and is very expensive relative to the actual precious metals content. Mark-ups are easily two and three times the gold value, and it’s not hard to find it four or even five times higher.

That takes gold jewelry far from its roots, when it was a form a wearable wealth, meant to keep assets close at hand. Traditionally in Europe and Asia, gold jewelry was a more portable alternative to art, heirloom furniture, and land as outside-the-bank assets that held their value and were easily passed between generations. Today in India, China, Thailand and elsewhere the tradition remains—the Thai currency, Baht, for example, is even named for a common jewelry style that pre-dates it.

And that’s exactly what we’ve recreated with our exclusive Gold Without Borders jewelry line.

These investment grade 22-carat (91.6% gold, same as an American Eagle coin) and 24-carat (99.99% pure gold) pieces are an affordable alternative to the mostly costume jewelry you find in today’s stores. Classic designs that provide much more bullion for your money.

And of course, they’re beautiful.


Bullion jewelry is a real asset that is both portable and practical—you can wear it, transport it, and a confiscation order is likely to bypass it. Discreet, wearable wealth.


Kyk die video: kato in zuidwest amerika (November 2021).