what if it aint there

DON'T KNOW

Poop slap or gtfo.

OldArmyCT said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Not sure it matters. We don't live in an era where the wealth of the nation is defined by gold. I'd be far more concerned if Exxon, et al came out tomorrow and said we were out of oil. That's the most valuable commodity on earth. There's not a nation on this planet that ties its currency to gold and all currencies trade against other currencies with the dollar being the tallest little person. Why should I care?

---

We care BC it might be a good idea to find out WTF happened to it all if it's gone.

---

That's fair but the fact is there's more money stolen each year from the Treasury than the total of the gold that's there. We're slowly finding out where all that money is and has been going which is fantastic but the theft of the gold at Ft Knox is going to be small potatoes compared to what's being stole annually from taxpayers.

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Not sure it matters. We don't live in an era where the wealth of the nation is defined by gold. I'd be far more concerned if Exxon, et al came out tomorrow and said we were out of oil. That's the most valuable commodity on earth. There's not a nation on this planet that ties its currency to gold and all currencies trade against other currencies with the dollar being the tallest little person. Why should I care?

---

Ya, what good is the longest running store of value in the history of the world. Our wealth is tied to derivative leverage of our faith and credit. What could go wrong.

---

C'mon, Ashi. You're better than that. You didn't really say anything to refute my post and I assume you know it. I fully get the historical value of gold as a store of wealth but your last statement proves my point. Our wealth isn't in anyway tied to the gold in Ft Knox or anywhere else on the country's balance sheet. In current times wealth is basically tied to a nation's natural resources, not to a roomful of precious metals.

Whether that's good or bad, we can debate and from a historical perspective I would agree with you. But answer me this. If it was discovered that China had all of the gold bullion and bars in the world would you rather be the U.S. or China? The yuan is printed at a much faster rate than is the dollar and the Chinese import well over 50% of their food and energy. they are resource poor and having a massive stockpile of gold with us having none changes nothing in the current economic system. We will still produce far more food and energy than we can consume and they will still be dependent on the US supported system for their very survival.

So I'll ask again, other than the "where the hell is it?" why do I care?

You care because our hard assets you mention are actively backing the national debt. But it's real hard to value all the federal owned land, minerals, etc. But it's great to know the nation owns x tons/ pounds/ ounces of gold, and x barrels of oil in the strategic reserve pools, and x other hard assets. We know about the 36 Trillion in national debt, so we need to know an approximate value and amount of Hard Assets to put on the other side of our Balance Statement. Good Will and Faith have gotten us to 36 Trilllion but with the rising interest rates, a wall is approaching.

Don't forget the early 80s and 15 percent interest rates then. That would sink our economy and your retirement account. That's why you care.

MAS and Ashi, thanks for the responses. Both make a ton of sense financially. Appreciate the perspective. I guess if we were truly compiling the nation's balance sheet of hard assets we would have to include known reserves in all hard assets which may not a pretty picture compared to the national debt.

We live in a cash flow world where balance sheets are less important than maintaining sufficient cash flow to keep the plates spinning so to speak. It's a clown show for sure but here we are. This is true for all nations and a significant majority of private entities as well. We're headed towards a massive debt crisis globally, I assume we all agree with that.

What we're all banking on is that untethering all currencies from hard assets means the game can go on forever which of course we know is absurd. Still that's their plan, to print their way through the boomer retirement and figure it out on the other side. If the treasury wasn't being looted to buy votes for Democrats we'd be in a much better position to cover boomer retirement but again here we are. The one thing I've learned is that they have all the cards and I have none so I'll just play the game as it's designed because I don't have much choice. Fun place to be.

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

Leverage can go poof as fast as it appeared. I'd much rather be a country that has the hard assets it claims to. Because if it doesn't, then we are even more levered than we think, which means when the phony money is sucked out of the system, the crash will be even harder.

---

While that may be true, the amount of gold in Fort Knox is a mere drop in the bucket (more like a drop in a barrel) compared to size of the United States economy, debts and real assets. At around $450b, it would barely knock 1% of our national debt if it could be monetized at current prices.

Our gold reserves wouldn't stop the poof scenario you mention.

Anyone with enough political clout to walk into Fort Knox and steal the gold has far easier ways to siphon money from taxpayers with less effort.

Why go through the trouble of stealing gold when you can just issue your government contracting company a $100 million purchase order for "security services" to guard it?

Kansas Kid said:

---

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

Leverage can go poof as fast as it appeared. I'd much rather be a country that has the hard assets it claims to. Because if it doesn't, then we are even more levered than we think, which means when the phony money is sucked out of the system, the crash will be even harder.

---

While that may be true, the amount of gold in Fort Knox is a mere drop in the bucket (more like a drop in a barrel) compared to size of the United States economy, debts and real assets. At around $450b, it would barely knock 1% of our national debt if it could be monetized at current prices.

Our gold reserves wouldn't stop the poof scenario you mention.

---

I don't think you quite understand just how highly levered our country is. We don't have the assets. If we were a home, the market value of the property would be well below the debt we owe on it. And that debt is growing. So when you have to potentially make a negative adjustment to something that is considered collateral on your loan, even if small, the ripple effect could be huge. We already can't ever pay off the house. And we have a floating rate loan on it.

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

Leverage can go poof as fast as it appeared. I'd much rather be a country that has the hard assets it claims to. Because if it doesn't, then we are even more levered than we think, which means when the phony money is sucked out of the system, the crash will be even harder.

---

While that may be true, the amount of gold in Fort Knox is a mere drop in the bucket (more like a drop in a barrel) compared to size of the United States economy, debts and real assets. At around $450b, it would barely knock 1% of our national debt if it could be monetized at current prices.

Our gold reserves wouldn't stop the poof scenario you mention.

---

I don't think you quite understand just how highly levered our country is. We don't have the assets. If we were a home, the market value of the property would be well below the debt we owe on it. And that debt is growing. So when you have to potentially make a negative adjustment to something that is considered collateral on your loan, even if small, the ripple effect could be huge. We already can't ever pay off the house. And we have a floating rate loan on it.

---

You both have some valid points, for different reasons. My opinions, for what they're worth:

• Our country's debt is not collateralized by hard assets, it's backed by trustworthiness of future cash flows and revenue generation capability.
• Treasury printing money and inflation have kicked the debt can down the road for future generations to deal with, while growth in GDP has masked most future cash flow concerns, as long as everything else remains constant. *See Trump note later...
• Given the above, I have never understood why it makes sense to hold any hard assets (such as gold or a silly "crypto reserve", as we might be better off to liquidate them to pay down debt, or dare I say, invest them in a growth and dividend fund of some sort).
• Trump actions: The market hates uncertainty, and that's about all Trump brings to the table. Along with the potentially good things such as reduced tax rates and cutting government spending, he has offered up economically unsound tariff uncertainty, stupid DOGE dividend schemes and other inflationary measures (new tax exemptions on tips, SS, etc.), a preliminary budget that actually increases the deficit, and lack of clarity on whether the government's guarantees are to be trusted.

Time to sell all the gold to Indian women. They will buy it at high prices.

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

Leverage can go poof as fast as it appeared. I'd much rather be a country that has the hard assets it claims to. Because if it doesn't, then we are even more levered than we think, which means when the phony money is sucked out of the system, the crash will be even harder.

---

While that may be true, the amount of gold in Fort Knox is a mere drop in the bucket (more like a drop in a barrel) compared to size of the United States economy, debts and real assets. At around $450b, it would barely knock 1% of our national debt if it could be monetized at current prices.

Our gold reserves wouldn't stop the poof scenario you mention.

---

I don't think you quite understand just how highly levered our country is. We don't have the assets. If we were a home, the market value of the property would be well below the debt we owe on it. And that debt is growing. So when you have to potentially make a negative adjustment to something that is considered collateral on your loan, even if small, the ripple effect could be huge. We already can't ever pay off the house. And we have a floating rate loan on it.

---

No, I fully understand how levered we are especially when pension, SSA and Medicare liabilities are added. That is my point exactly. The gold reserves wouldn't touch our liabilities and would be deminimus in the liability calculations. My estimate is total debt is around. $100-120T so the gold would be less than 0.5%. This would be like a person that owes $1,000,000 missing $5,000 in cash.

Now if it was missing, I would agree it would cause a sell off in bonds and stocks but almost entirely due to the scandal and loss of trust in government institutions and not the direct loss of assets.

PS. The biggest hard asset of the government is the US military since the reserve currency is always the country with the biggest stick. The second largest hard assets are the lands and minerals owned in the ground. The ability to tax the largest global economy, while not a hard asset, still matters. They all dwarf gold.

Here's a good article that parrots my thoughts. It's not about any legit accounting. It's about the lack of trust in the full faith and credit of the US and the dollar.

Fort Knox: Why verifying the US gold reserves matters - MINING.COM

Big yawn. The assets the U.S. govt could sell or confiscate far exceed the debt. Doesn't matter bc there is no current alternative and there won't be without a major war that topples the status quo

Quote:

---

The assets the U.S. govt could sell or confiscate far exceed the debt.

---

This is what Chavez tried to do in Venezuela. Once the government starts confiscating land, the value of that land falls off because the land is encumbered by the fact that it's subject to confiscation.So you had people with big farms, ranches, houses that were basically worthless and occupied by squatters. Couldn't live there and couldn't sell because no willing buyers.

For an individual and nation state, gold is only worth your ability to defend it.

Once a government starts dicking around with the rule of law as we've seen over the past few years it's the beginning of the end. Stability and predictability of the legal regime is the second US's greatest asset. First is its the unprecedented ability to project force on a global basis to defend its own assets and that of its allies.

This is why countries that refuse to participate in the central banking system have such a hard time. If you don't participate in the central banking cabal it's generally rip because without protection, someone will come in and steal your gold, or destabilize your nation using USAID funds.