Is Fort Knox Empty?

You need to read up more on our American History, on April 25, 1933 the United States and Canada dropped the gold standard to back their money. It's all faith based now which don't get me wrong, is a bad way of doing it but they don't back money by gold or silver any longer. The Fed Reserve might still have gold and precious metals but our current paper currency is no longer dependent on precious metals backing them.

Also the Nixon Shock ended the direct convertibility of dollar to gold.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_Shock

The bottom line is, our paper currency is no longer backed by gold reserves. Banks or the federal reserve are no longer necessary to reserve gold to back money. They still have gold, they still include it in their checks and balance sheets but even if they did use our gold to back our currency, they wouldn't have enough to do so at current prices. So if the government was lying about the gold at Ft. Knox, it wouldn't matter in our current setup. Although the backlash of those thinking our money is still backed by gold might create a panic with consequences but probably not as wide scaled as one might imagine.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Here's something to look at
http://law.rightpundits.com/?p=3215

What these guys are saying and based on the interviews, etc. It does make a lot of sense.

A few points are. Guards aren't issued ammo.
The location is very well known
No one has seen it for 37 years. Just because it was there then, doesn't mean it's there NOW.
The accounting never changes in value. Yet we all are aware the US mint changes it's prices reflecting the value of PM's.

If the gold was there, WHY hasn't the government shown the public to boost confidence in our economy ?

Of course, I don't KNOW. But I strongly suspect that people used this gold to finance secret agendas both here and abroad. The ilk of people we had in high positions during the 70's tends to support that theory.

Just sayin

 

Ronald Reagan was the last president to actually see the gold

 

Yeah, and look what happened to him​!

 

I recommend that you re-read my post as you obviously didn't get it. I clearly said that Federal Reserve Notes are not redeemable for gold and it's irrelevant to the point that I made. I did say that central banks, when doing business with each other, (and they must do this) do not use the confetti, the $, they print up for the populations. They use hard assets and gold is one of those assets. This is the only trust between central bankers and their currency. It's a difficult concept to understand because of decades of obfuscation that surrounds it.

You base this on your observation that you can't take a $ to the bank and get gold for it. This doesn't mean the faith in the currency doesn't depend upon backing by hard assets.

This is proved out by the fact that the Federal Reserve and other major central banks all hold gold as an asset. The Federal Reserve has over 7000 tons of it listed as an asset and further more holds another 8000 tons of it for other central banks. This is an expensive, difficult and high risk thing to do for an asset that doesn't create confidence in the monetary system. The central banks of China, Russia, Mexico and a host of smaller countries are doing everything they can to increase their reserves.

Finally the Federal Reserve Act requires the Federal Reserve to hold hard assets for all the "base money". Gold is one of the few approved legal methods for this. If this gold was not there, then it would wreck havoc to our financial system. Maybe you don't understand the concept of base money vs circulating money. I recommend you do some reading as you are missing some important elements of the "history" behind the Federal Reserve and the USD.

 

Fair enough. Then what you are saying is that you have faith in the Federal Reserve notes because are able to buy things with it. Or rather, your faith in it depends solely upon others having faith in it. This being the case, then you really don't know what gold's role might be in establishing this "faith".

 

I doubt that 1 in 100 people ever think about gold backing FRNs. In fact, there is probably a significant number of people who don't even know they are FRNs and couldn't tell you what is printed across the top of a bill. To them, it is just money. A lot of gold money theory is hypothetical. You are overestimating how educated people are these days about money. I was in a bank a few years ago and inquired about getting some half dollars to search. The teller said, "You mean dollars?" I said, no, half dollars. She gave me a look like I just came from Mars and told the manager "This man asked if we have any HALF dollars." Clearly expecting him to tell me there was no such thing. We had a little laugh about it and I said to him that it was a good thing I didn't ask if you had any old $500 bills. He then said, "There was never any such thing, but there used to be $1000 bills." These people are bankers! Go figure.

 

Can you point out where in the act that this 1913 law required these hard assets (gold) to back "base money"? But then again, you dodged the question of the Nixon Shock in 1971 that likely trumps the Federal Reserve Act basically making our current currency a fiat currency, or "let it be done" in Latin. Fiat money is money that derives its value from government regulation or law. Yeah, the Federal Reserve and it's Act in 1913 might require hard assets but what happened in 1971 basically muted this, basically making our money faith based. That's what I'm pointing out. Gold or no gold, our government says a dollar is a dollar and can be used for the transfer/trading of goods, etc. I back the gold standard myself as putting "faith" that paper money is worth what is printed on it is asinine when you really think about it.

 

Could you quote your references? The only references I can find is from World Gold Council or other proponent sources that seem to have a financial interest in trading gold. Also , it would seem that such trading of gold is too large for retail , so must be exchanges through a primary broker such as between countries' central banks themselves. Thanks

 

Exactly, gold or no gold backing up our currency in today's world would be irrelevant. Most people today can go without ever carrying actual cash or coins, it's all wrapped up in direct deposit and they use their magic plastic card to purchase things. So if we were told there is no longer any gold backing our currency, some people who are knowledgeable would panic and freak out, others would continue on using their "points" that their bank account tells them they have.

 

Actually, I agree with you 100% on the education of people about money. They have "faith" in the dollar because they believe that somehow the government backs the currency against loss. They incorrectly believe the gold in Ft. Knox somehow makes this possible. The government and the Federal Reserve are happy to let them live with this ignorance because it detracts from the real truth about the fiat currency they hold. So for the population the gold holds helps to maintain the faith. With the other central banks, who know the truth, gold keeps them honest.

If an audit were performed and that gold was found to be gone, then what follows, won't be pretty. This is why they go to such expense to maintain these reserves (whether they are there or not).

 

It doesn't have to be gold for the Bank Reserves. If you search the actual Act in particular Section 19. Bank Reserves, gold is not mentioned once.

According to the Federal Reserve Act:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_12770.htm

So gold can be one of them, it's not required since there is no longer a "Gold Standard" to back money. So again, gold or no gold, as long as the Federal Banks hold collateral in equal value of the money released, all is good.

 

This is just too funny! She probably thought you were wanting her to cut some in half. Wow. I wouldn't call these people bankers though. They are bank tellers. Big diff It doesn't take an education in money to be able to run a till.

 

You are correct, but Cloud's point is if the average Joe in a bank, seeing money all day, have no clue as to the legal nature of the obligations, just what chance does the average Joe on the street NOT working at a bank have? The answer is none.

Its not bragging, but everyone here has to face it that you are a tiny little elite in this nation who has a clue as to what money really is, the nature of it, and forms of it and how they are different. Cloud is right, most all Americans simply see money as paper given them, and if its a US note or silver certificate, its just "funny looking" money, but will still buy a pair of jeans or gas for the truck. We are the 1% who has a clue, and I think that 1% number is very high.

Edit: Btw, this is why arguments here can be pretty dang funny if you think about it. Its like 4 Ph.D's in astrophysics arguing as to the subterranean nature of Europa and its propensity to hold life when our sun goes to red giant. They agree on 99.8% of every theory in existence as to this far off event, yet by gosh sure get po'ed at each other when the EXACT same conclusion is not reached by all.

 

No worries though, bank teller jobs are in jeopardy anyways, soon they'll all be replaced with smarter ATM machines.

 

Of course it doesn't. The Federal Reserve act that you are citing was written in 1914 and FT. Knox and the gold in it didn't exist then. You have to jump forward to the Gold Reserve Act of 1934. This law required the Federal Reserve to turn over all it's gold and gold certificates to the US Treasury and in return the Federal Reserve was given special gold certificates that established the Treasury was holding this gold. (presumably in Ft. Knox) This was the legal establishment of these certificates as one of the hard assets to back the base money supply.

The "gold standard" that you keep referring to has no bearing on this and what I posted above. We have already established that federal reserve notes are not redeemable in gold.

 

I just so happen to track this very closely. =)

Mexican central bank buys 100 tonnes of gold (May 4, 2011):
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cbc02e10-7637-11e0-b4f7-00144feabdc0.html

China's September gold purchases leap sixfold:
http://www.mineweb.com/mineweb/view/mineweb/en/page34?oid=140824&sn=Detail&pid=102055

Bank of Korea Boosts Gold Holdings, Buys 15 Tonnes in November:
http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/259924/20111202/bank-korea-boosts-gold-holdings-buys-15.htm

Russian Central Bank Aims To Buy 100 Tons Of Gold In 2011:
http://www.morningstar.com/advisor/...bank-aims-to-buy-100-tons-of-gold-in-2011.htm

 

Reference won't allow me to read unless I sign up.

If you read it carefully, it doesn't say that the central bank bought/kept it for reserve, it indicates that it was moved into retail business such as jewelry.

As indicated by the articles, it is government reporters hearsay, not government documents as there was no price indicated , nor who they bought it from. Most likely another central bank of some country, and no price , so could even been under spot at the time. If a central bank bought or sold at retail, it would affect the POG, but buying within themselves does not, IMO.

Jim
​

 

Central Banks don't buy and sell on the retail market UNLESS they want to affect the POG and they always do it by proxy. Otherwise, gold swaps, exchanges and purchases between central banks, their bullion banks, government treasuries and other entities occur outside the retail market and without public disclosure. Almost always, these never result in the physical movement of gold, but instead are handled by a records change at a central bank depository. One notable exception to this, is the current physical transfer of Venezuela's gold from the Bank of England to the the actual central bank in Venezuela. The vast majority of these transactions fall under the privileged "monetary operations" and are not subject to direct review.


If you want official documents this link has plenty of them in their analysis.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/central-banks-quietly-accumulating-gold-declared-purchases-206-tons-through-september-2011

 

Is that an admission finally? Because you kept preaching that the gold has to be there and the Federal Reserve must keep enough gold to equal the amount of currency in circulation. I can go back and quote if I need to.

Actually 1913.

Which again, is pretty much trumped by the Nixon Shock I've pointed out that pretty much bases our currency on the fiat system, not particularly backed by gold or precious metals. I don't think you read any of it or understand the principles behind it because that's why it was nicknamed with the word "Shock" in it because it's pretty much saying our money is worthless, just trust the government, we don't need to tell you gold or anything valuable is backing our money, a dollar is worth a dollar, "so let it be".

Okay, I shouldn't have kept referring to the gold standard, I've been arguing the point that our current federal reserve does not rely on their stash of gold to back up our money in circulation, for all we know they've invested in valuable Lego's that are in high demand. According to most recent reports, we still have the largest gold stash out of all nations, but it would only make up a small percentage of the money in circulation today, so like I said, gold or no gold, it really wouldn't make that much of a difference, especially when we have people who don't even know what the Federal Reserve is. ****, we have a large percentage of adults who can't even tell you where the United States is located on a map. So I doubt if the government were to say they no longer have any gold, there would be mass chaos.