The U.S. Government is sitting on 445 billion in unrealized gains

The link explains why the fed should not mark its gold to market, it doesn't explain why in particular it should mark it at 42 an oz, as opposed to 35, or 64, or 123 an oz. Neither have you. Clearly there are infinity - 2 options available other than mark-to-market or $42.22. Why $42 for ever? 100 years from now when $42 is worth 42 cents today and the Fed's gold is valued at 4000 times less than its market value - it should still mark it at 42? That's a bit retarded don't you think?

Yes, post #34 does explain it, dumb ass.
For starters, marking the Treasury's gold to market would create a huge headache of an ever-fluctuating balance sheet as the price of gold rises and falls, pointed out Dimitri Papadimitriou, president of the Levy Economics Institute at Bard College. Plus, if gold tumbled, we'd lose our hypothetical wealth as quickly as we'd accrued it.

Raising the value of the Treasury's gold stockpile would have an inflationary effect, too, which is the last thing the Federal Reserve wants right now.
 
[B]The link explains why the fed should not mark its gold to market, it doesn't explain why in particular it should mark it at 42 an oz, as opposed to 35, or 64, or 123 an oz. [/B]Neither have you. Clearly there are infinity - 2 options available other than mark-to-market or $42.22. Why $42 for ever? 100 years from now when $42 is worth 42 cents today and the Fed's gold is valued at 4000 times less than its market value - it should still mark it at 42? That's a bit retarded don't you think?

Yes, post #34 does explain it, dumb ass.
For starters, marking the Treasury's gold to market would create a huge headache of an ever-fluctuating balance sheet as the price of gold rises and falls, pointed out Dimitri Papadimitriou, president of the Levy Economics Institute at Bard College. Plus, if gold tumbled, we'd lose our hypothetical wealth as quickly as we'd accrued it.

Raising the value of the Treasury's gold stockpile would have an inflationary effect, too, which is the last thing the Federal Reserve wants right now.


I'm sorry, are you having difficulty reading?
 
Sorry, that is post #34. I'm slow, yet you keep dancing around the same thing after it being explained in several ways on several points.

Good luck out there, fella.

The link explains why the fed should not mark its gold to market, it doesn't explain why in particular it should mark it at 42 an oz, as opposed to 35, or 64, or 123 an oz. Neither have you. Clearly there are infinity - 2 options available other than mark-to-market or $42.22. Why $42 for ever? 100 years from now when $42 is worth 42 cents today and the Fed's gold is valued at 4000 times less than its market value - it should still mark it at 42? That's a bit retarded don't you think?

Lets mark it worth $10,000,000,000 a bar and really get ahead of the curve!!



Why $42.22?


Hey why not $0.01? Since you think its bad for it to go a cent above 42.22 - must be good for it to be marked less than 42.22? Or is 42.22 some sort of optimal magic number?
 
Since you aren't so bright, I'll let you in on a little secret. the $42.22 price was instilled following Nixons removal of the last anchors of gold standard on the dollar in 1971. it's federal law to be marked at that price.
 
People seemed to have missed this, so I'm going to point it out

$16,000,000,000,000.00 had been secretly given out to US banks and corporations and foreign banks everywhere from France to Scotland. From the period between December 2007 and June 2010, the Federal Reserve had secretly bailed out many of the world’s banks, corporations, and governments. (per my previous post)

We are $16,000,000,000,000.00 in debt. Think about it people.
 
Those were all short term loans, as in over night loans. They were all paid back. The problem is that if they weren't paid back, the Fed would take it out on us. We've been building 16 trillion in debt for years,. It didn't happen over these loans.
 
Those were all short term loans, as in over night loans. They were all paid back. The problem is that if they weren't paid back, the Fed would take it out on us. We've been building 16 trillion in debt for years,. It didn't happen over these loans.

I didn't see anything in that article about the limited audit that said the money was or would be paid back. In fact, it pointed out that there was no time table for paying it back and 0% interest. Do you have anything to show it was paid back?

I'm not saying our $16 trillion in debt is because of the $16 trillion loaned out by the fed, I'm pointing out that had they given that money to OUR country, which they probably would have done if they were actually owned by the government as some here claim, we wouldn't be $16 trillion in debt, would we?
 
Those were all short term loans, as in over night loans. They were all paid back. The problem is that if they weren't paid back, the Fed would take it out on us. We've been building 16 trillion in debt for years,. It didn't happen over these loans.

I didn't see anything in that article about the limited audit that said the money was or would be paid back. In fact, it pointed out that there was no time table for paying it back and 0% interest. Do you have anything to show it was paid back?

I'm not saying our $16 trillion in debt is because of the $16 trillion loaned out by the fed, I'm pointing out that had they given that money to OUR country, which they probably would have done if they were actually owned by the government as some here claim, we wouldn't be $16 trillion in debt, would we?

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11696.pdf

page 131

Table 8 aggregates total dollar
transaction amounts by adding the total dollar amount of all loans but
does not adjust these amounts to reflect differences across programs in
the term over which loans were outstanding. For example, an overnight
PDCF loan of $10 billion that was renewed daily at the same level for 30
business days would result in an aggregate amount borrowed of $300
billion although the institution, in effect, borrowed only $10 billion over 30 days. In contrast, a TAF loan of $10 billion extended over a 1-month
period would appear as $10 billion. As a result, the total transaction
amounts shown in table 8 for PDCF are not directly comparable to the
total transaction amounts shown for TAF and other programs that made
loans for periods longer than overnight.

The chart on page 137 shows the opposite of "virtually noene of the loans were paid back".
 
Those were all short term loans, as in over night loans. They were all paid back. The problem is that if they weren't paid back, the Fed would take it out on us. We've been building 16 trillion in debt for years,. It didn't happen over these loans.

I didn't see anything in that article about the limited audit that said the money was or would be paid back. In fact, it pointed out that there was no time table for paying it back and 0% interest. Do you have anything to show it was paid back?

I'm not saying our $16 trillion in debt is because of the $16 trillion loaned out by the fed, I'm pointing out that had they given that money to OUR country, which they probably would have done if they were actually owned by the government as some here claim, we wouldn't be $16 trillion in debt, would we?

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11696.pdf

page 131

Table 8 aggregates total dollar
transaction amounts by adding the total dollar amount of all loans but
does not adjust these amounts to reflect differences across programs in
the term over which loans were outstanding. For example, an overnight
PDCF loan of $10 billion that was renewed daily at the same level for 30
business days would result in an aggregate amount borrowed of $300
billion although the institution, in effect, borrowed only $10 billion over 30 days. In contrast, a TAF loan of $10 billion extended over a 1-month
period would appear as $10 billion. As a result, the total transaction
amounts shown in table 8 for PDCF are not directly comparable to the
total transaction amounts shown for TAF and other programs that made
loans for periods longer than overnight.

The chart on page 137 shows the opposite of "virtually noene of the loans were paid back".


So, you were wrong.
 
Um, actually, look at the chart on page 137 of the GAO again. It shows the total loans outstanding on all but a fraction of TALF paid back by March/April of 2010. And overnight lending between banks, and the federal reserve is common practice. I don't like it and im no Fed proponent by a long shot. But there is no conspiracy here, there is no hidden morsel to find.
 
There is no correlation between 16 trillion in loans and our national debt. Except in the practice of landing something you never had in the first place.
 
Um, actually, look at the chart on page 137 of the GAO again. It shows the total loans outstanding on all but a fraction of TALF paid back by March/April of 2010. And overnight lending between banks, and the federal reserve is common practice. I don't like it and im no Fed proponent by a long shot. But there is no conspiracy here, there is no hidden morsel to find.

First you said all the loans were paid back, then you said virtually none were paid back, then you said most are paid back.

So you were either wrong, or you lied, which is it?
 
Your reading comprehension is lack luster, fella. I said they WERE paid back. I said the opposite of "virtually none were paid back" (which came from your article from the kook site) was true based on teh chart on page 137. I never said they were not, that is your articles assertion and "before it is news" has a common theme of such false claims.

Jeebus....
 
The U.S. Government is sitting on 445 billion in unrealized gains.

The Federal Reserve current holds just over 8,000 metric tonnes of gold on its balance sheet. However, for accounting purposes, it only values the gold at $42.22 per troy oz! The actual market value of gold is at $1748 right now!

The balance sheet value of the gold is 11 billion. But its market value is 456 billion. So the fed has 445 in unrealized gains. All the Fed has to do is re-value its gold to market value and/or sell it off. The profits then get remitted to the treasury along with the rest of the fed profits. BOOM! Nearly half a trillion dollars, instantly!

Sorry, doesn't excite me when you compare that to the 80+ trillion in unfunded liabilities.

But maybe thats just me.
 
Your reading comprehension is lack luster, fella. I said they WERE paid back. I said the opposite of "virtually none were paid back" (which came from your article from the kook site) was true based on teh chart on page 137. I never said they were not, that is your articles assertion and "before it is news" has a common theme of such false claims.

Jeebus....

You're right, my reading comprehension needs improvement. Sorry.
 
If we sold the gold everyone in government would give themselves a big raise, everyone on welfare would get s better phone with more minuets, they would forgive all loans to green company's and student loans to illegals, etc. Nothing would get paid off, Social Security would not get funded and we would still run a trillion $$ deficit each year. We're better off with the gold where it is until we get some politicians with a little common sense, and I don't see any in Washington any time soon.
 

Forum List

Back
Top