All we hear is the same claims that the dollar is dead and it will be totally worthless any day now. Over the last few weeks, all we hear from the majority now is that the dollar is finished. Virtually every page you turn or site you visit claims the death of the dollar. They are calling this the de-dollarization of the world economy and that the future of the US dollar as well as the American empire itself is now collapsing. The general claim is that the group of economically-aligned nations known collectively as BRICS is a major threat to the greenback. That was the same story we heard about the Euro back in 1997.
As their scenario goes, the BRICS [Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa] have moved to form an anti-dollar colation and Saudi Arabia is considering jumping on board. They insist that once that happens, the “petrodollar” will die and cease to be a reserve currency.
This is then followed by the forecast that the economy will suffer and that any bounce in exports will be short-lived simply because the dollar will be dead for the long term. Of course, this has been the favorite forecast that they keep putting out since Bretton Woods collapsed. They were wrong back then for the dollar rose between 1972 and 1976 against the British pound, with the collapse of Bretton Woods. To try to explain why the dollar did not collapse, that is when they claimed that the dollar was backed now by oil rather than gold. That was just an excuse as always to cover up their wrong forecast.
They sold that story to Newsweek and now the dollar rally was because of oil which replace gold. Suddenly the dollar became de facto backed by oil. They needed an explanation to explain why all the old theories were wrong. They sold this theory and it made the front cover of Newsweek. Everyone said YES! That must be the reason. OPEC priced oil in dollars! Naturally, everything was priced in dollars because, under the fixed exchange rate of Bretton Woods, everything from wheat and corn to copper and gold was all priced in dollars.
Now they are saying the American empire is threatened by the potential commercial real estate collapse and the BRICS anti-dollar venture. So they are forecasting a great depression-style crash is possible in the not-too-distant future. They spin this to forecast the end of the America Empire. The London FT, always anti-American/Pro WEF, reports that the dollar as a reserve currency has declined from 73% in 2001 to around 55% by 2021. Yet the FT did state an obvious fact:
“But if you are a reserve-rich central bank elsewhere that isn’t going to be a lot of comfort. Moreover, would you really feel more comfortable in, say, the renminbi? Even if it was fully convertible and liquid, would you honestly feel more sure that Beijing will behave lawfully than DC? The dollar still looks like the proverbial least dirty shirt in the closet.”
COVID actually has played a major role in shifting the world economy. In 2020, the US economy was 24.75% of the world’s GDP. By the start of 2022, it had fallen marginally to 24.15%. What these dollar-forecasting jockeys do not understand, is that if they were correct and the dollar collapsed, then the very BRICS would collapse even further. Economically speaking, when the United States gets a head cold, the rest of the world catches ammonia. You can’t have it both ways. The strength of the dollar is not gold or oil, it is the American consumer.
The risk to the entire world is runaway inflation thanks to Biden pouring untold amounts of money into the black hole known as Ukraine. The Neocons, who control Biden, are planning to launch a war against Russia and China before 2024. This will only continue to accelerate inflation. That reduces the spending power of the American consumer and in the process, the US economic growth declines in real terms and with it, the rest of the world plunges into recession.
While Macron has figured it out that the Neocons are in charge of US foreign policy and he is telling Europe to stop being the puppet of the USA, that all sounds nice but Europe is marching into war with Russia. NATO is firmly in control of the American Neocons and they need war or face losing power. With Trump in the lead, they must stop him at all costs for he is anti-war, would haul the Neocons out by the necks, and defund NATO, as well as stop the climate change agenda.
The US dollar in the global economy has been supported by the size and strength of the US consumer-based economy. Its stability and openness to trade and capital flows without restrictions and it has never been canceled, are the major foundation of the dollar in addition to strong property rights and the rule of law. That is why Russians and Chinese buy US property for they are secure in their ownership of US property which cannot always be guaranteed outside the US.
Consequently, the depth and liquidity of US financial markets remain unmatched. For institutions parking billions, the United States represents a large supply of extremely safe dollar-denominated assets. Are they really going to switch to China or buy debt from Brazil? Not a single institutional client will take that bait.
China has been divesting of dollar reserves because it KNOWS that the American Neocons want war. You do not fund your adversary who intends to wage war against you. China cannot shift reserve assets to Europe or Japan. They have been buying gold because it is geopolitically neutral territory. They are NOT buying gold as an investor thinking it will rally. That is irrelevant. If gold drops 25%, that does not translate into them becoming a seller.
The dollar in international reserves stood at 60+% at the start of 2022 against the US share of GDP at 24.25%. This comparison belittles the argument that the dollar is finished. Eventually, the US will lose the wars it is starting and the dollar will be replaced perhaps as soon as 2028. The IMF is already licking its lips and rubbing its hands together eager to get control of the reserve currency. But they too will collapse. We have a Directional Change next year and a Panic Cycle in 2025. So buckle up.!
Remember one thing, even with the debasement and collapse of the Roman Denarius between 260AD and 268AD, it still took 224 years for Rome to completely collapse. When war breaks out, capital flight will still be to the dollar. It will not be to public assets, but private. The United States is still supporting the entire world economy. The BRICS need the US consumer to keep their economies functioning. All this talk of the dollar being finished is really nonsense. That day will come, but when the US consumer no longer buys.
Remember 1997? The Euro was going to dethrone the dollar. They claimed the new EU will be a bigger economy than the US. The problem was, they lacked a consumer economy, and low taxes, and they routinely canceled their currency to force people to pay taxes. It is always the same story over and over again.
QUESTION: Marty, You are the only worthwhile analyst. You were alerting us a year ago that the IMF was creating its own digital currency. We have all these people claiming this will kill the dollar just as they proclaimed the euro when that was created. It is also well known that you were called in about revising the world monetary system numerous times. I heard that you were called in on this one and refused to assist them. You warned back in May of 2021 that the IMF was creating a new reserve digital currency.
Is this all part of the rise of the United Nations, World Bank, and IMF all becoming this one world government? I that why you declined to get involved?
LW
ANSWER: I am not at liberty to speak to issues where I am solicited. Suffice it to say, I took no part in creating this currency. This is part of what I have been warning about digital currency. They can restrict its use and anyone who thinks that somehow Bitcoin will be some independent white knight rushing in to save the day, they have drank too much of the cool aid.
Look, try depositing $10,000 in cash. Watch what happens. I have a friend who owns a bar in a college town. He takes in a lot of cash because the customers often do not have credit cards. Some banks did not even want to accept an account from him. Others required inspection and monitoring because cash CAN BE a way to launder money. Europe has been restricting cash to transactions capped at €1,000.
There is serious talk of restricting purchases for cash or CRYPTOCURRENCY and the way they enforce it is precisely restrictions on businesses and noncompliance means you are out of business when no bank will accept your account. That eliminates business in credit cards as well. This is why I say, they will create a black market through their sheer authoritarianism. Human rights will no longer be respected. This is point 8 of Schwab’s Agenda.
Back in 1980, the press was all over my firm. NPR came in with cameras rolling and could not believe we had just paid a woman $6,000 for a heavy silver serving plate. We had lines all day long at all my locations in addition to the fact I was making markets for all the stores nationwide. Whatever they bought that day they sold immediately;y to us and shipments were coming in from everywhere. I had a team just handling that and we would bundle it all up and send it out in Armored trucks to be refined at Engelhard which was 30 minutes away.
Because of all the publicity, the IRS came in and declared me to be a bank under the theory that Nixon only closed the gold window and gold was never demonetized. Sure, it was a novel theory that just because I was one of the 3 largest gold dealers in the country, that made me a bank without applying for a banking license. They claimed I had to report every transaction of $10,000 or more buying for selling. They sent in their stormtroopers and began going through every transaction. They then went out and audited over 3,000 clients. I decided to retire. That was it. I was not about to become a rat on everyone that walked in the door.
The point is this. They can declare everyone mining cryptocurrency to be a bank. Already, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 (IIJA) requires any transaction of $10,000 or more to be independently reported to the IRS. The government can declare you to be anything. You can fight them in court and you will lose and it will take years. In the meantime, you will have to comply. They can do ANYTHING they want. It is then your burden to argue that what they are doing is illegal. Good luck. We are no more living in a free country than Russia or China. The government can do anything it desires. It will always be your burden to say they are acting unconstitutionally.
You will NOT be able to travel internationally with even gold coins. You may not even be able to hop on a plane domestically with gold or cash. Over the past several years, a common question for U.S. taxpayers across the globe is whether or not a foreign-based virtual currency such as Bitcoin that is held overseas is reportable for FBAR (Foreign Bank and Financial Account Reporting) or FATCA (Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act) purposes. The Treasury was already pushing since 2021 for any transaction of $10,000 or more in cryptocurrency must be reported to the IRS.
Whether you are a visitor to the United States or a U.S. citizen arriving in the United States, you must complete one or more entry forms.
At the end of the day, they want their pound of flesh and they want absolutely everything to be restricted and monitored. Welcome to the new law of totalitarianism.
QUESTION: Hi. I do not understand why you keep advocating over and over how the depositors should be bailed out over 250k. It makes no sense from a moral hazard perspective. It is fact that should they do that, in spite of depositors signing agreements acknowledging that deposits over 250k would not be guaranteed, the Fed will also need to cancel all outstanding debt instruments, whose borrowers also signed an agreement that if they don’t pay they lose the asset. The moral hazard is so severe as to bloody the eyes. Why do you keep endorsing the bailout which will have to be at least initially funded by taxpayers even if they get the money back? The money to shore up bank reserves in exchange for collateral has to come from somewhere. What is the real fear, that people will move deposits direct to T-bills and in so doing, set up funding for a US CBDC? Please address the moral hazard aspect of your position. So far, I’ve heard nothing to defend the immorality of it.
FO ANSWER: Do not confuse a bank depositor with (1) an investor in a fund, or (2) bank shareholders & Management. A bank depositor is NOT an investor. The $250k is by NO MEANS sufficient for small businesses. They need to keep large amounts on hand for payroll etc. You do business and accept credit cards and they deposit that into your bank account.
Bank depositors are unsophisticated average people. The sophisticated investor moves their, money to a hedge fund or money market fund and fully understands that there is a risk associated with that investment. The bank depositor accepts no risk on any investment the bank makes. It does not give them, a piece of their profits. That goes to shareholders. It is a bailout of the entity and thus the shareholders which presents the moral hazard perspective.
If deposits in excess of $250 are NOT covered, you wipe out small businesses, they cannot pay employees and the ripple effect will be the total destruction of the entire economy. Your house will become worthless for its value will drop to only what someone can pay in cash.
There is a HUGE difference between investing and losing and simply depositing your money in a bank because we are moving to an electronic monetary system that there will be no way for a depositor to even demand money from a bank. Some are restricting wires to $3,000 and limiting the amount of cash one can withdraw. There is also not enough paper currency to facilitate bank withdrawal on a grand scale. Bank robbery will come to an end without cash.
None of that will unfold if a hedge fund fails. We must look deeper into this entire question.
In 2010, Barron’s wrote a piece on me effectively laughing at my forecast that the share market would rally to new highs. What seems to inevitably unfold is this notion that whatever the event might be in motion, the mere thought of a reversal in trend appears impossible. When the press disagrees with Socrates, I know it will be the press who is wrong. And because they end up being wrong, of course, they cannot print a retraction so they will just pretend you do not exist rather than admit – Sorry, we were wrong. The Dow made that new high above 2007 by February 2013. That was 64 months from the October 2007 high.
I have been in the game for many years. With each event, it appears to be like Groundhog Day. They pop their heads out and declare they do not see their shadow, so the entire world will disintegrate and that is always based upon opinion. It is never backed by real analysis. Just the standard human trait of assuming whatever trend is in motion, will remain in motion.
Being an institutional adviser, I have never had that luxury. We have had to deal with some of the biggest portfolios in the world. They want accurate forecasting, and it has to be long-term – not day trading. They are not interested in the typical headlines of doom and gloom that the press love to print with every financial event simply to get readership. That is all they care about. It has been the financial version of the fake news.
When we step back and look at this favorite fundamental that people beat to death to predict the end of the world, the national debt, and the collapse of the dollar. Little did they know that the increase in National Debt during the 2007-2009 Financial Crisis was supposed to bring down the sky and end the existence of the dollar. We can see the sharp rise in debt simply made a double top with the Financial Crisis of 1985.
It was that previous 1985 Financial Crisis that set in motion the Plaza Accord which brought together the central banks creating what was then the G5 – now G20. Of course, like every government intervention, the side effect was the 1987 Crash and their attempt to reverse their directive at the Plaza Accord became the Louve Accord. When the traders saw that failed, the collapse in confidence led to the 1987 Crash.
It has always been a CONFIDENCE game as I pointed out with the 1933 Banking Holiday previously. In this case, the failure of the Louvre Accord which came out and said the dollar had fallen enough, once new lows in the dollar unfolded and the central banks could not stop the decline, led to financial panic by 1987 which manifested in the 1987 Crash.
This chart shows the quarterly change in the National Debt since 1966, Here you can see the 1985 and 2008 Financial Crises were on par. Neither one ended the dollar no less the world economy. So when I warned the share market would rally and make new highs and Barron’s laughed in 2010, I said the same thing after the 1987 Crash and people laughed.
In fact, on the very day of the low, I said this was it and that we would rally back to new highs by 1989. That was perfect and the market responded to the Economic Confidence Model (ECM) which has been published back in 1979. This was more than simply forecasting the 1987 Crash and the very day of the low. It clearly established that the ECM had revealed that there was a secret cycle behind the appearance of chaos even in economics.
Larry Edelson was actually a competitor at the time. But Larry respected that the forecast from the model was far beyond what people would ever expect. If we are ever going to advance as a society, we have to stop the bullshit and understand HOW markets trade and WHY. Larry did that. He understood that the model was something larger than just personal opinion.
Even those claiming to be using the K-Wave cannot make real forecasts. The basis of Kondratieff’s argument came from his empirical study of the economic performance of the USA, England, France, and Germany between 1790 and 1920. Kondratieff took the wholesale price levels, interest rates, and production and consumption of coal, pig iron, and lead for each economy. He then sought to smooth the data using an averaging mathematical approach of nine years to eliminate the trend as well as shorter waves. Kondratieff thus arrived at his long-wave theory suggesting that the economic process was a process of continuous waves of boom and bust.
Kondratieff’s work was compelling and contributed greatly to the Austrian School of Economics that first began to develop the concept of a Business Cycle. The general central principle of the Austrian Business Cycle Theory is concerned with a period of sustained low-interest rates and excessive credit creation resulting in a volatile and unstable imbalance between saving and investment. Within this context, the theory supposes that the Business Cycle unfolds whereby low rates of interest tend to stimulate borrowing from the banking sector and thus then result in the expansion of the money supply that causes an unsustainable credit source boom which leads to a diminished opportunity for investment by competition.
Here is a chart of the business cycle that was created by a farmer named Samuel Benner. Benner based his work on Sunspots, which actually incorporated solar maximum and minimum that today’s Climate Change zealots refuse to consider. Nevertheless, someone manipulated Brenner’s work and created a chart to try to influence society handing it in with a wild story to the Wall Street Journal published this cycle on February 2nd, 1932, when the market bottomed in July 1932. Still, nobody knew who had investigated this phenomenon in 1932.
When I was doing my own research reading all the newspapers to understand how events unfolded, I came across this chart. I found it interesting that during the Great Depression people were reaching out and some began to embrace cyclical ideas. The problem with both Kondratiff and Brenner was that the period they used to develop their cycles was the 19th century because the real Industrial Revolution was unfolding and in the 1850s, 70% of the civil workforce were all in agriculture. Consequently, if you constructed a model based entirely upon one sector, it would work only as long as that sector was the top dog.
Being a historian buff, it quickly hit me that NOTHING remains constant and that the economy will ALWAYS evolve, mature, and then crash and burn. Where agriculture was 70% of the workforce in 18590, it fell to 40% by 1900, and then down to 3% by 1980.
Just look at energy. The earliest lamps, dating to the Upper Paleolithic, were stones with depressions in which animal fats were burned as a source of light. In cultures closer to the sea, they began to use shells as lamps which they would burn at first animal fat. Clay lamps began to appear during the Bronze Age around the 16th century BC and the invention quickly spread throughout the Roman Empire. Initially, they took the form of a saucer with a floating wick.
We even find Roman oil lamps as luxury items crafted out of bronze. There are collectors of terracotta oil lamps for there is a vast variety of motifs. There is everything from dolphins, and various entities, to erotic oil lamps, which may have been used in brothels. The point is, if you constructed a model on oil, you would have surely accomplished similar results to Kondratief and Brenner.
Then of course, just as the energy moved from animal fats to vegetable oils, by the 19th century it returned to whale oil which was extracted from the blubber. Emerging industrial societies used whale oil in oil lamps and to make soap. However, during the 20th century, whale oil was even made into margarine.
Then the discovery of petroleum and the use of whale oils declined considerably from their peak in the 19th century into the 20th century. Ironically, it was fossil fuels that probably saved whales from extinction. Hence, now we are entering a period where they deliberately want to end fossil fuels and move to solar and wind power. Obviously, just a cursory review of energy reveals the problem of basing a model on the current energy source or major economic industry. Things change with time.
Honest journalism has become a crime. I have appeared numerous times on Maria Zaric’s program, Zeee Media. Maria is a professional journalist who asks thought-provoking questions to the experts that appear on her show. Her content goes against the grain and traditional narrative. The Australian-based journalist has been questioning COVID, the Great Reset, governments, globalists, the war in Ukraine, and many other topics that are completely taboo in the mainstream media. They attempted to shut down her channel in the past. Now, she has been de-banked with no explanation.
“Do you shut down peoples accounts due to their political views by any chance?” Maria asked the bank representative, only to be met with silence. Maria had been banking with ING Bank for numerous years without issues. Her account was suddenly shut down shortly after releasing a story on domestic terrorism in Australia. ING Bank has been unable to explain why her account was canceled.
Interestingly, ING is a partner of the World Economic Forum. Maria has extensively covered the WEF’s agenda to “enslave humanity.” Is Australia secretly keeping track of journalists’ “social credit scores” to silence skepticism?
The idea of eliminating someone’s ability to bank is essentially eliminating them from society. We saw Canadado the same thing to those protesting the Trucker Convoy. Trudeau took things a step further by also de-banking people who simply donated to the cause. The Canadian government used the premise of money laundering as a way to coerce the banks into reporting any activity that could have been intended to help the protestors. I know of numerous people who were frantically attempting to remove their funds from the bank during this time.
As if the public needed more reasons to lose trust in the banking system. This is not limited to one bank or country. I discussed how banks have the ability to “cancel” someone after JPMorgan Chase de-banked the rapper Kanye West for antisemitic remarks. The bank acts as the jury and judge. Epstein was permitted to hold funds at JPMorgan Chase despite an ongoing pedophile ring trial. Bernie Madoff banked with JPMorgan Chase. The bank has secret ties to the Third Reich and helped the group funnel money through South America during World War II. Again, the bank acts as the jury and judge; anyone can be de-banked anytime for any reason.
Most countries may not openly have social credit scores, but they’re keeping tabs on us. They are keenly aware that resistance to this New World Order is building. So they are now using professional journalists as examples hoping that people will stop asking questions to learn the truth. That is one of the reasons why this blog is free of charge – you deserve to know the truth.
QUESTION: Marty there are a lot of people who seem to be trying to create a panic. Some are claiming the stock market will plunge by 50%. Others are saying nothing will survive other than gold. It seems like none of these people have any sense of what is really unfolding. They were saying the same thing for different reasons before the banking crisis. Can you offer any historical perspective?
Thank you. You seem to be the only real source these days.
Pete
ANSWER: The Bank Holiday took place the first week of March 1933. It began with governors closing down the banks in their states. Once one began, like COVID rules, they quickly jumped on the bandwagon. As reported by March 4th, 1933, some 41 states had already declared a banking holiday. Back then, the president took office in March – not January. Thus, Roosevelt was sworn in on March 4th, 1933. As the new president, FDR delivered what is arguably his best-known speech.
“So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is…fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and of vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. And I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.”
The following day, Roosevelt declared a national banking holiday on March 5th, 1933. Then Congress responded by passing the Emergency Banking Actof 1933 on March 9th, 1933. This action was combined with the Federal Reserve’s commitment to supply unlimited amounts of currency to reopened banks. Back then, they effectively created a de facto 100% deposit insurance and this was before the FDIC was created.
However, what the history books have omitted because it revealed the real reason for the major banking crisis, was the confiscation of gold precisely as Germany did in December 1922 seizing 10% of all assets which unleashed hyperinflation in 1923.
In Herbert Hoover’s memoirs (1951), he documents the fact that Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) played a very dirty game of politics. There were rumors that FDR would confiscate gold in 1932 BEFORE the election. These rumors spread and people ran to banks to withdraw their funds. The night before the election in 1932, FDR denied that he would do such a thing. After FDR won the election, the real bank panic began. FDR would not take office until March 1933.
The run on banks began as the Great Depression started. In 1929 alone, 659 banks closed their doors due to mismanagement and speculation. Ironically, to save money on paper, it was also in 1929 when the currency was reduced in size to save money. This time, they want to move to digital and save 100% on printing money. Here in 2023, the failures are due to the WOKE agenda which has deprived the banks of risk management rather than speculation.
However, as the 1931 Sovereign Debt Crisis hit, the number of bank failures skyrocketed. Goldman Sacks and others were selling foreign bonds to Americans in small denominations., As Europe began to default, US banks holding foreign debt and individuals in need of cash led to a banking panic for external reasons. Here is a chart showing the listing of bonds on the NYSE. We can easily see the collapse in the bond market thanks to the 1931 Sovereign Debt Crisis.
By 1932, an additional 5,102 banks went out of business. Families lost their life savings overnight. Thirty-eight states had adopted restrictions on withdrawals in an effort to forestall the panic. By March 4th, 41 states had declared a bank holiday shutting down banks. Bank failures increased in 1933, and Franklin Roosevelt deemed remedying these failing financial institutions his first priority after being inaugurated.
However, it was actually the election of FDR that started the banking crisis post-1931. Hoover pleaded with FDR to please come out and address the gold confiscation rumors. People had been hoarding their gold coins fearing the rumored confiscation. Despite Hoover’s plea for FDR to come out and deny the rumors after the election, he remained silent. Given FDR’s manipulation of Japan and the attack on Pearl Harbor which he appeared to instigate with sanctions confiscating Japanese assets in the USA, denying the sale of any energy to Japan, and then threatening to use the fleet to block them from buying fuel from anywhere else, They Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. There were Senate investigations afterward about FDR’s role because the US had already broken the Japanese code and knew in advance about the attack on Pearl Harbor. He did that to force the US into World War II.
It was in his character to remain silent and create the worst banking crisis in history before he was sworn in as president. FDR was a radical socialist and many viewed that he admired Lenin. If it were not for Mr. Jones exposing the truth behind Stalin, even the corrupt New York Times journalist promoting Stalinism was meeting with FDR. The run on the banks became massive when FDR won the election on November 8th, 1932. FDR allowed the banking system to implode with people rushing to withdraw the money in gold coins.
At 1:00 a.m. on Monday, March 6th, 1933, President Roosevelt issued Proclamation 2039 ordering the suspension of all banking transactions, effective immediately. Roosevelt had taken the oath of office only thirty-six hours earlier.
The terms of the presidential proclamation specified:
[N]o such banking institution or branch shall pay out, export, earmark, or permit the withdrawal or transfer in any manner or by any device whatsoever, of any gold or silver coin or bullion or currency or take any other action which might facilitate the hoarding thereof; nor shall any such banking institution or branch pay out deposits, make loans or discounts, deal in foreign exchange, transfer credits from the United States to any place abroad, or transact any other banking business whatsoever.
For an entire week, Americans would not have access to banks or banking services. They could not withdraw or transfer their money, nor could they make deposits. The entire economy ran simply on cash in your pocket.
While the first phase of the banking crisis unfolded after 1929 due to speculation losses (hence Glass–Steagall Act), then the second phase was the 1931 Sovereign Debt Crisis, it was the third phase with the election of FDR that led to thousands of banks failing as there was a mad rush to withdraw your gold coin. But a new round of problems that began in early 1933 placed a severe strain on New York banks, many of which held balances for banks in other parts of the country. About 4,000 banks failed during this period alone bringing the total to over 9,000.
Much to everyone’s relief, when the institutions that could reopen for business on March 13th, 1933 saw depositors standing in line to return their stashed cash to neighborhood banks. Within two weeks, Americans had redeposited more than half of the currency that they had withdrawn post-FDR’s election on November 8th, 1932. This would prove to be a sneaky trick of FDR to get people to redeposit all the gold coins they had withdrawn – as we are about to explore.
The stock market was also ordered closed when FDR came to power. With the cleverness of a real con artist operating a Ponzi Scheme to gain the confidence of the people, FDR needed the gold coin to be deposited for Phase 4 of the banking crisis. On March 15th, 1933, (The Ides of March), the stock market was allowed to reopen. On the first day of trading, the New York Stock Exchange recorded the largest one-day percentage price increase ever.
The week before the closure, the Dow Jones Industrials fell to 49.68. The week following the closure, the Dow rallied to 64.56 – a percentage gain of virtually 30% over the banking holiday. The shorts who were better on the collapse of the market once it reopened were devastated. It was a major short-covering rally.
With the benefit of hindsight, the nationwide Bank Holiday and the Emergency Banking Act of March 1933, ended the bank runs that had plagued the Great Depression, but it also set the stage for the confiscation of gold. What you have to understand is that Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s (FDR) actions in 1933 were not directed simply at gold. He was embarking on what he called the New Deal, which was a Marxist Agenda that was very popular at the time. His New Deal would end austerity, whereby they were maintaining a balanced budget in the belief that they needed to inspire confidence in the currency.
It was this balanced budget philosophy that also inspired John Maynard Keynes who argued that in times of economic distress when the demand has collapsed, that is when the state needs to run a deficit and increase the money supply. There was a simultaneous international flight of capital from Europe to the United States in the face of European sovereign debt defaults. That capital flight lasted for nearly two years until FDR won the election in 1932. There was much concern that Roosevelt would do what Germany did in 1922 in confiscating assets. That was the rumor about the possible confiscation of gold.
Milton Friedman criticized the Fed because the capital flows poured into the US but they refused to monetize it. We can see that as Europe defaulted on its debts in 1931, the capital rushed head-first into the dollar. Then we see that the dollar peaked in November 1932 with the election of FDR fearing that would weaken the dollar and exploit the economy. All this gold came to the USA pushing the dollar higher, but the Fed refused to monetize it, was Milton’s criticism. The backing of gold behind the dollar doubled in supply between 1929 and 1931.
So, you must separate gold and the devaluation of the dollar to comprehend what the issue was all about. FDR could have simply abandoned the gold standard, as did Britain, and not confiscated gold. However, that would have also been sufficient to end austerity. But the bankers would have profited and sold the gold overseas at higher prices. Roosevelt in his confiscation of gold was intended to deprive the private sector of profiting from his devaluation of the dollar which was rising the price of gold from $20 to $35. You must keep in mind that he even degraded Pierre du Pont (1870-1954) and called him the “Merchant of Death” because he produced arms for World War I and made a profit off of that war demand. Many saw Roosevelt as a traitor to his own class.
The confiscation of the gold was for two reasons. First, FDR was changing the monetary system from one where there was no distinction domestically from internationally to a two-tier system. Gold would freely circulate without restriction only internationally. Therefore, the confiscation of gold was altering the monetary system moving to a two-tier monetary system with gold only used in international transactions.
Consequently, FDR confiscated gold to move to a two-tier system and to deprive Americans of any profit from his devaluation. What FDR then did was confiscate gold from all institutions ordering them to turn over whatever they had. Ironically, this move was intended to target bankers rather than the public. FDR did not have people knocking on every door demanding all their gold. That is why there are plenty of US gold coins that have survived. If individuals possessed them rather than an institution, then they kept what they owned
Therefore, Roosevelt was able to seize whatever gold existed in banks. He declared all contracts void that had gold provisions for payment. It was in Perry v. United States – 294 U.S. 330 (1935) that the US Supreme Court ruled that Congress, by virtue of its power to deal with gold coin as a medium of exchange, was authorized to prohibit its export and limit its use in foreign exchange. Hence, the restraint thus imposed upon holders of gold coins was incidental to their ownership of it, and gave them no cause of action. id/P. 294 U. S. 356.
The Supreme Court held that it could not say that the exercise of this power by Congress was arbitrary or capricious. id/P. 294 U. S. 356. They held that even if the Government’s repudiation of the gold clause in the government bonds was unconstitutional, it did not entitle the plaintiff to recover more than the loss he has actually suffered, and of which he may rightfully complain. id/P. 294 U. S. 354. Therefore, the Joint Resolution of June 5, 1933, held:
“insofar as it undertakes to nullify such gold clauses in obligations of the United States and provides that such obligations shall be discharged by payment, dollar for dollar, in any coin or currency which at the time of payment is legal tender for public and private debts, is unconstitutional.” id/P. 294 U. S. 349.
Yet, swapping gold for dollars created no loss that was cognizable even though the taking of gold was unconstitutional. Clearly, the Supreme Court did not consider the loss in terms of foreign exchange. The Court reasoned:
“Plaintiff has not attempted to show that, in relation to buying power, he has sustained any loss; on the contrary, in view of the adjustment of the internal economy to the single measure of value as established by the legislation of the Congress, and the universal availability and use throughout the country of the legal tender currency in meeting all engagements, the payment to the plaintiff of the amount which he demands would appear to constitute not a recoupment of loss in any proper sense, but an unjustified enrichment.”
In my understanding of the law, those who argued before the Court made purely a domestic argument. A dollar was still a dollar in domestic terms so there was no cognizable loss and the Court did not reach the constitutional question. Had they argued that their loss was with respect to some debt owed in British pounds, they there was a loss. Purely domestically, the only loss would have been to inflation and the Court would never rule against the government on such an issue.
All of that said, there does not appear to be any historical precedent for the stock market to collapse by 50%, all tangible assets to turn to dust, and only gold will survive given a banking crisis where Biden and Yellen sit on each other’s hands and do nothing. Trust me. Every major Democratic donor will be screaming. And as for those claiming the Fed will reverse its position, say inflation is suddenly no longer a problem, and monetize everything in sight, this is even too big for the Fed. have to create QE and absorb all the debt, there to things have changed. If the Fed does that, it will also lose all credibility. It squarely understands that inflation comes from handing Ukraine a black check to the most corrupt government in the world. The Fed raised rates yesterday for it cannot back down. It is choreographing the best it can but the bankers do not listen.
If they simply stand behind all the deposits, then there will be no panic. That is what they did in 1933 and the market rallied in confidence thereafter.
COMMENT: Marty, it’s refreshing to have Socrates that is totally unbiased. It projected continued rising rates into next year and the Fed just proved its point. It is not backing down.
Thank you. Socrates is very enlightening.
GS
ANSWER: I know there were a lot of talks that surely the Fed had to lower rates and start QE all over again. Most of those sorts of comments have no real experience in markets. They just mouth a lot of hot air. Perhaps instead of putting masks on cows, we should do that on the shills. The Federal Reserve had no choice but to raise interest rates although it was just by a quarter point. Not to do so and the Fed would lose all credibility and the market would then not take them seriously.
You MUST understand that this crisis has unfolded because too many banks were wrapped up in WOKE culture and hired people who were UNQUALIFIED to run risk management. Some were more excited about cross-dressing as a woman and winning the Rainbow award in banking than actually protecting the bank from the risk of rising interest rates.
In a statement released at the conclusion of the meeting, Fed officials acknowledged that recent financial market turmoil is weighing on inflation and the economy, though they expressed confidence in the overall system. “The US banking system is sound and resilient.” They had no choice but to make this statement.
“Recent developments are likely to result in tighter credit conditions for households and businesses and to weigh on economic activity, hiring and inflation. The extent of these effects is uncertain.”
The Fed is saying that their rise in rates will in fact reduce inflation and economic activity. The banks have this yield curve risk and that is different from the 2007-2009 crisis where the debt was based on fraud. Here, the debt is US Treasuries so they are not going bankrupt from that aspect, but it is a liquidity crisis.
If these people who scream loudly but know nothing really about finance keep up the nonsense, they will only add to the uncertainly. This inflation is accelerating thanks to the war.
QUESTION: If the metals are not trading at a fair value relative to everything else, then does that not prove they are manipulated?
SN
ANSWER: Your problem is the assumption that everything must be trading at some fair value. That is up there with the theory of random walks. ALL markets trade for periods where they remain well below fair value. That was the entire takeover boom of the 1980s which they also blamed on me because I was advising many of the takeover players. I simply showed these charts back then which show in terms of book value, the Dow Jones bottomed in 1977. The market was grossly undervalued because you could buy a company, sell all its tangible assets, and double or triple your money. Michael Douglas’ famous speech in that movie about “greed” would not even be possible if everything always trade like some mythical robot at fair value. Everything overshoots and undershoots.
The metals are NO DIFFERENT. Every market swings between grossly UNDERVALUED and then grossly OVERVALUED. This is part of the business cycle. If there were no periods of gross undervaluations, there would not be a sudden boom either.
This is what you have to come to grips with. There is such a thing and the business cycle. Our cyclical analysis would not be possible if everything was trading at a flat line of fair value. This nonsense in metals is made up of people who have been wrong, and need to blame someone else. It is like blaming climate cycles on CO2. This notion of fair value is rooted, I hate to tell you, in Marxism, because he too did not understand the business cycle.
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 