A common U.S. business opinion about Double Eagles 1 1

[GoldFinger1969]

12 hours ago, VKurtB said:

Not to the Austrian Fools. They LOVE smacking people around with falling wages. It's what they live for.

Today the IMF is the enforcer of austerity. 

[GoldFinger1969]

9 hours ago, jtryka said:

how is it we've had the largest jump in income inequality since you enlightened the world with the magic of your printing press?  How is it that we've had nearly FIVE DECADES of zero or negative real wage growth?  The simple answer is that during the time of unfettered printing, we have seen wealth concentrate in the hands of the 1% of the 1% since they've rigged the game in their favor, but you are either too stupid or too much of a useful insufficiently_thoughtful_person to support these destructive actions.  

Jtryka, that's a bit simplistic, IMO:

(1)  Real wages IN THE AGGREGATE started to level off (and fall) about 1967.  That's about the time that global trade started to take off and also about the time that Western Europe and Japan were rebuilt after WW II.  A paper was written on this in the early-2000's by Robert Gordon.  Trade may have helped in the aggregate GDP-wise, but it hurt wide swaths of the middle class.

(2)  While those wages IN THE AGGREGATE may have stagnated or rose at a much slower pace, individual mobility in the United States is still far greater than in other countries, including those with lower Gin ratios of inequality.

(3)  Returns on invested capital (stocks, bonds) account for most of the rising inequality.  Sadly, the political ruling class has demonized stock investing and thus cost many Americans a chance to increase wealth. 

(4)  Wealth inequality would drop if the stock market cratered but we wouldn't be better off.  If you cut Jeff Bezos' and Warren Buffet's wealth by 75%, the same drop for individuals (stocks, mutual funds, 401K's, and pensions) would make them worse off, not better.

These trends are visible in many OECD countries, not just the United States.  A rigid currency or gold standard would NOT have saved 1 million auto jobs since 1973.  It just would have depressed GDP growth elsewhere.  The re-emergence of Western Europe and Japan after WW II was inevitable, as was the collapse of communism and the emergence of labor supply and production from China, Asia, etc.

Edited September 15, 2020 by GoldFinger1969

[Conder101]

On 9/13/2020 at 9:54 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Is that talk available on YouTube somewhere ?

It was probably taped by David Lisot and it so may be available on the Newman Numismatic Portal.

[VKurtB]

11 hours ago, Conder101 said:

It was probably taped by David Lisot and it so may be available on the Newman Numismatic Portal.

It was "taped" by David. I can confirm that.

[Conder101]

I think this is the talk that Kurt was referring to. (I can only find two talks by Kurt in 2011 and the other is on Jefferson nickels)  This is a direct link to the the video on the NNP.

https://nnp.wustl.edu/library/book/578823

[Henri Charriere]

20 minutes ago, Conder101 said:

I think this is the talk that Kurt was referring to. (I can only find two talks by Kurt in 2011 and the other is on Jefferson nickels)  This is a direct link to the the video on the NNP.

https://nnp.wustl.edu/library/book/578823

[Well, I kept my promise. I took one look at your photo and today being my birthday ( I am not 70 but I prefer round numbers) I promptly cut off my four year-old beard and handle-bar moustache -- the first time I have been clean-shaven since I got married. Constitution Day has nothing to do with it.] Thank you for the inspiration!

[VKurtB]

2 hours ago, Conder101 said:

I think this is the talk that Kurt was referring to. (I can only find two talks by Kurt in 2011 and the other is on Jefferson nickels)  This is a direct link to the the video on the NNP.

https://nnp.wustl.edu/library/book/578823

Thassit! Keep a coupla things in mind. This was August of 2011, just days before the bubble burst on gold. I called the top. Also, the last nine years have beaten the bejabbers out of me. I no longer look like that. I look like my avatar.

Edited September 17, 2020 by VKurtB

[GoldFinger1969]

On 9/17/2020 at 11:12 AM, Conder101 said:

I think this is the talk that Kurt was referring to. (I can only find two talks by Kurt in 2011 and the other is on Jefferson nickels)  This is a direct link to the the video on the NNP.

https://nnp.wustl.edu/library/book/578823

Looks real interesting, thanks, I'll get to it ASAP. 

[Zebo]

7 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Looks real interesting, thanks, I'll get to it ASAP. 

I figured you'd jump right on this one. It was a good presentation Kurt. I'll be interested in hearing Goldfingers views as well. 

[GoldFinger1969]

4 hours ago, Zebo said:

I figured you'd jump right on this one. It was a good presentation Kurt. I'll be interested in hearing Goldfingers views as well. 

I'm just back from a few days of star gazing, so I have some catch-up.  Might take me a few days (longer ?) to see all the videos so anybody/everybody feel free to chime in before me.  I will get to them, though.  They both look great.

[VKurtB]

On 9/20/2020 at 7:31 AM, Zebo said:

I figured you'd jump right on this one. It was a good presentation Kurt. I'll be interested in hearing Goldfingers views as well. 

I forgot how badly I've aged these past 9 years.

[Zebo]

3 hours ago, VKurtB said:

I forgot how badly I've aged these past 9 years.

You and me both. Just keep moving forward - that's all we can do.

[VKurtB]

1 hour ago, Zebo said:

You and me both. Just keep moving forward - that's all we can do.

Hopefully all that Northern Alabama humidity will slow down my "drying up". 

[Conder101]

Yeah, you'll start molding.

[GoldFinger1969]

Comments on Kurt's talk:

(1)  Hard to believe saying that PM's are risky is the CONTRARIAN viewpoint.  Should be the starting point.  Saying that PM's aren't risky is as dumb as saying that stocks don't fluctuate. 

(2)  You simply can't even distort the data to prove that PM's are a conservative, "non-risky" investment.  Hard to believe someone would.  But the PM crowd is not as financially sophisticated as the larger financial markets/stock market crowd who understand things like rolling returns (they key to non-biased performance reviews).

(3)  I disagree that Bretton Woods was a failure.  It worked for a while coming after the wreckage of WW II.  No, fixing exchange rates is not a good thing.  But at the time, given the speed that information flowed in the 1950's and 1960's, it was good enough.  That's not to say that the duration of recessions/recoveries isn't better under free-floating exhcange rates -- it is.  But the cost (pain) of an INTERNAL adjustment to economic disloations, recessions, or exogenous events is much higher under fixed exchange rates and/or a gold standard.

(4)  I think information can be trusted from various sources, even the sell-side and salesmen.....just verify it and cross-check for accuracy.

(5)  "Insider trading" is very complex.  Be careful about distinguishing LEGAL and ILLEGAL material non-public information.

(6)   I think anybody not smart enough to realize that PM's are risky is going to be lost talking about M2 money supply, NOW accounts, and the other stuff that Kurt and I and other Economics degree folks have studied in-depth.  But maybe his crowd was alot smarter ? 

(7) I wouldn't have focused as much on some of the hucksters and frauds promoting PM's.  But that's just me. 

(8)  Great point that Keynesianism works -- but for China and India, where "stuff" is made.  VERY prescient point then, more relevant today.  

(9)  Glad you made a great recovery from something as serious as a cerebral hemmorage. 

Overall, I think the talk was very good, substance-wise .  Kurt's speaking style is good, also.  For someone like me, it's second nature the topics Kurt talked about:  money supply, rates of return, etc.  However, I wonder how much of this went over heads of the senior citizen who bought some PMs in the last 10 years and didn't know what he was doing.  I would have included more charts and return tables showing how poor coins and/or PM's do over sustained periods.  These are SPECULATIONS -- NOT investments !!

I would have included some charts that showed how volatile PM's are since the early-1970's....how many people keep chasing the returns of the 1970's and 1980's in PM's and coins/numismatics....rolling returns for PMs, Stocks, Bonds, Cash (pre-1971 and post-1971)....and the general tendency of PM's to overshoot to extremes on both the upside and downside.

But overall, a good presentation, Kurt.  Have you ever spoke at or considered something for FUN ?

Edited September 23, 2020 by GoldFinger1969

[VKurtB]

22 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Comments on Kurt's talk:

(1)  Hard to believe saying that PM's are risky is the CONTRARIAN viewpoint.  Should be the starting point.  Saying that PM's aren't risky is as dumb as saying that stocks don't fluctuate. 

(2)  You simply can't even distort the data to prove that PM's are a conservative, "non-risky" investment.  Hard to believe someone would.  But the PM crowd is not as financially sophisticated as the larger financial markets/stock market crowd who understand things like rolling returns (they key to non-biased performance reviews).

(3)  I disagree that Bretton Woods was a failure.  It worked for a while coming after the wreckage of WW II.  No, fixing exchange rates is not a good thing.  But at the time, given the speed that information flowed in the 1950's and 1960's, it was good enough.  That's not to say that the duration of recessions/recoveries isn't better under free-floating exhcange rates -- it is.  But the cost (pain) of an INTERNAL adjustment to economic disloations, recessions, or exogenous events is much higher under fixed exchange rates and/or a gold standard.

(4)  I think information can be trusted from various sources, even the sell-side and salesmen.....just verify it and cross-check for accuracy.

(5)  "Insider trading" is very complex.  Be careful about distinguishing LEGAL and ILLEGAL material non-public information.

(6)   I think anybody not smart enough to realize that PM's are risky is going to be lost talking about M2 money supply, NOW accounts, and the other stuff that Kurt and I and other Economics degree folks have studied in-depth.  But maybe his crowd was alot smarter ? 

(7) I wouldn't have focused as much on some of the hucksters and frauds promoting PM's.  But that's just me. 

(8)  Great point that Keynesianism works -- but for China and India, where "stuff" is made.  VERY prescient point then, more relevant today.  

(9)  Glad you made a great recovery from something as serious as a cerebral hemmorage. 

Overall, I think the talk was very good, substance-wise .  Kurt's speaking style is good, also.  For someone like me, it's second nature the topics Kurt talked about:  money supply, rates of return, etc.  However, I wonder how much of this went over heads of the senior citizen who bought some PMs in the last 10 years and didn't know what he was doing.  I would have included more charts and return tables showing how poor coins and/or PM's do over sustained periods.  These are SPECULATIONS -- NOT investments !!

I would have included some charts that showed how volatile PM's are since the early-1970's....how many people keep chasing the returns of the 1970's and 1980's in PM's and coins/numismatics....rolling returns for PMs, Stocks, Bonds, Cash (pre-1971 and post-1971)....and the general tendency of PM's to overshoot to extremes on both the upside and downside.

But overall, a good presentation, Kurt.  Have you ever spoke at or considered something for FUN ?

I have only made it to two FUN shows, and I did not present there. I am the ONLY person to have presented at ALL four of the Chicago/Rosemont ANA shows between 2011 and 2015; not even Q. David did that. I was the Volunteer Chairman for the 2012 ANA show in Philly, so I was busy. I also spoke at a (rare) October ANA show.

 

By the end of January 2022 I hope to have doubled my times at January FUN. I have two competitive exhibits set for this coming January. 

[GoldFinger1969]

Back to the OP..... I would have thought that DE's and other gold coins were used more often as a form of "safe savings" and store of value during the pre-Fed (1913) years....when nobody trusted or wanted greenbacks or paper money (even if it was easier to use).....for folks living remotely away from major cities and/or the East Coast (from 1850 onward).....and when Panics and bank runs/failures were more common place.

Imagine putting your life savings into a bank and not knowing if it was strongly capitalized or not.....maybe a fraud....or even a legit bank susceptible to a bank run.....Knickerbocker Trust in 1907...etc.  It was one thing to live in Manhattan or Brooklyn in the 1870's or 1890's with a bank's headquarters a few blocks away....imagine being on a farm in Kentucky or Ohio and it was 80 miles to the satellite or corporate office.

I have to go back and check Roger's works on Saints and check data sources for Liberty DE's.... have to believe usage/holdings for Liberty DE's and early-years of Saints was a big multiple of the demand for Saints in the 1920's and 1930's. 

Edited October 7, 2020 by GoldFinger1969

[VKurtB]

13 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Back to the OP..... I would have thought that DE's and other gold coins were used more often as a form of "safe savings" and store of value during the pre-Fed (1913) years....when nobody trusted or wanted greenbacks or paper money (even if it was easier to use).....for folks living remotely away from major cities and/or the East Coast (from 1850 onward).....and when Panics and bank runs/failures were more common place.

Imagine putting your life savings into a bank and not knowing if it was strongly capitalized or not.....maybe a fraud....or even a legit bank susceptible to a bank run.....Knickerbocker Trust in 1907...etc.  It was one thing to live in Manhattan or Brooklyn in the 1870's or 1890's with a bank's headquarters a few blocks away....imagine being on a farm in Kentucky or Ohio and it was 80 miles to the satellite or corporate office.

I have to go back and check Roger's works on Saints and check data sources for Liberty DE's.... have to believe usage/holdings for Liberty DE's and early-years of Saints was a big multiple of the demand for Saints in the 1920's and 1930's. 

This is ultimately why the Federal Reserve system was founded - to eliminate the endemic economic “evils” of hard money. 

[GoldFinger1969]

2 hours ago, VKurtB said:

This is ultimately why the Federal Reserve system was founded - to eliminate the endemic economic “evils” of hard money. 

Does anybody recall if the early years of the Liberty DE's (1850-1900 or so) saw the coins be fairly widely held compared to Saints in their final years when you could measure houshold U.S. demand in dozens or hundreds ?

Might have gotten a post or two on that from Roger or others pages back in this thread, can't recall.

[VKurtB]

Gold was never really “widely held”, except perhaps in the middle of the of Carolina, Georgia, and California gold rushes.

”We dig it out of the ground, melt it down, turn it into bars, and bury it again, and have to hire somebody to guard it. Bizarre behavior.”

Edited October 8, 2020 by VKurtB

[RWB]

I've notice a lot of drivel drizzling into this thread -- so here goes with the hot air drying machine.

1. Pre-1850 the overall approach of Congress and Treasury was to encourage gold coin circulation. This was intended to thwart state banks that issued low denomination paper. The goal was to stabilize the value of money throughout the country, and prevent the charter-fail-and-charter approach to speculative banking. National control of state banks was felt to be an infringement on the rights of states to regulate their commerce.

2. California gold discoveries provided a huge surplus of gold and merchants demanded large denomination coins (DE) and certified bars for export. This had the effect of reducing the production of small gold coin and further exacerbating the small paper issues of state banks.

3. The Civil War suspended all previous doctrine in both Union and rebelling states. Congress took control of paper currency from all sources by taxing state bank issues, thus driving out the defective paper currency. Gold moved from being a circulating medium to a backing medium; i.e., rather than gold circulating, a paper substitute circulated.

4. Return of specie payment focused on silver, and this affected the output of gold coin by limiting much of it to double eagles and bars. Silver became the normal circulating coinage and gold circulated in the form of paper "warehouse certificates."

5. Small gold coin circulated to a limited extent nationwide, but was concentrated on the west coast and Canada. Large gold was seen in the west, but almost never elsewhere. Coin change making machines that handled gold were sold largely west of the Mississippi river. Archival letters from small banks and individual document the difficulty many had in getting small gold coins from large banks.

6. WW-I further pushed nationwide use of paper notes. In 1917 Treasury had an active program of gold coin redemption along the west coast. US coins were accepted at face value even if badly worn, mutilated, damaged, etc. Replacement was made in gold notes and FR notes - both back by gold.

 

[GoldFinger1969]

14 hours ago, VKurtB said:

Gold was never really “widely held”, except perhaps in the middle of the of Carolina, Georgia, and California gold rushes.

Not sure what you mean by "widely" but IMO if mintages were hundreds of thousands -- or millions -- and you had a few thousand (tens of thousands ?) held by the public (and maybe some banks), that's "widely held" relative to a few hundred with the Saints' final years.

[GoldFinger1969]

Excellent bullet-points, Roger.....my understanding from my economic treatises from 40 years ago was that farmers, small businessmen, frontiersmen -- they all held gold in various forms as a form of savings.  Distrust of banks was very high away from the East Coast and big cities.

Survival rates of Liberty DE's would imply greater circulation among the masses, no ?

 

[RWB]

5 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Excellent bullet-points, Roger.....my understanding from my economic treatises from 40 years ago was that farmers, small businessmen, frontiersmen -- they all held gold in various forms as a form of savings.  Distrust of banks was very high away from the East Coast and big cities.

Survival rates of Liberty DE's would imply greater circulation among the masses, no ?

 

Few were able to hold cash in any form very long. Gold, silver coin and US currency were common holdings. Deeper into the frontier lands barter goods were better currency than coin - just a matter of necessity.

I've never seen any even remotely reliable "survival rates" for Liberty DE. 19th century gold transfer journals might be one source, but the amount of work would be vast and the reward minimal.

Edited October 9, 2020 by RWB

[GoldFinger1969]

1 minute ago, RWB said:

I've never seen any even remotely reliable "survival rates" for Liberty DE.

Guestimates, I would call them.   Gonna check the numbers later in Bowers' book.

[RWB]

None of the "standard sources" have any data backing up the estimates - they are guesses based on dealer observation and assumption. About all that can be said is they present a very rough order of availability.

That's not a "ding" on the authors. They certainly did their best with what they had.

This also reinforces previous comments about improving the quality of published information by better and more expansive research. For example, if we correlate coin production, shipping, NYAO inventory/receipts, payout, commercial and bank shipping reports, ExIm data with foreign central bank records, it might be possible to trace specific production years/mints to recipients. Of course, the question becomes:

"What do we do with the results, and are they of any real economic or numismatic value?"

Edited October 9, 2020 by RWB

[GoldFinger1969]

Here's one reason why I'm surprised the holding rates for gold coin ownership from 1870-1930 aren't higher:  If you assume that today we have a few million serious coin collectors and folks who like to hold (some) gold....out of a nation of 330 million....that's about 1% of the population, conservatively.  Could be a higher number but let's work with 1% which I think you will all agree isn't an aggressive estimate.

If you assume average populations of 55 million in the late 1800's and 100 million in and around WW I....that would imply at least several hundred thousand people collecting or holding gold during those times.  Fewer, for sure, given reduced standards of living and other variables of the day.  But you could certainly make a case that gold coin collecting (in various denominations) should not have been all blue-bloods in NYC, Boston, and Philly.

Edited October 19, 2020 by GoldFinger1969

[RWB]

8 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Here's one reason why I'm surprised the holding rates for gold coin ownership from 1870-1930 aren't higher:  If you assume that today we have a few million serious coin collectors and folks who like to hold (some) gold....out of a nation of 330 million....that's about 1% of the population, conservatively.  Could be a higher number but let's work with 1% which I think you will all agree isn't an aggressive estimate.

If you assume average populations of 55 million in the late 1800's and 100 million in and around WW I....that would imply at least several hundred thousand people collecting or holding gold during those times.  Fewer, for sure, given reduced standards of living and other variables of the day.  But you could certainly make a case that gold coin collecting (in various denominations) should not have been all blue-bloods in NYC, Boston, and Philly.

However, the reality is that very few collected gold coins - even when they had the means. The relative proportions of collector income/enthusiasm groupings might be derived from average proof coin sales in the 1880s or 1890s. We have to also remember that there were no mintage listings or other aids for gold coins. There were a few scattered things for silver but not much, and almost nothing for minor coins.

Letters to the Mint from collectors demonstrate that certain coins were known to be difficult to find - subsidiary silver of the 1880s for example. But there was not a peep about similar tiny mintages of gold.

[GoldFinger1969]

14 minutes ago, RWB said:

However, the reality is that very few collected gold coins - even when they had the means. The relative proportions of collector income/enthusiasm groupings might be derived from average proof coin sales in the 1880s or 1890s. We have to also remember that there were no mintage listings or other aids for gold coins. There were a few scattered things for silver but not much, and almost nothing for minor coins.

Letters to the Mint from collectors demonstrate that certain coins were known to be difficult to find - subsidiary silver of the 1880s for example. But there was not a peep about similar tiny mintages of gold.

If I ever get reincarnated and can go back in time....I want to live in the late-1800's and early-1900's.  I'll clean up !! 

[RWB]

12 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

If I ever get reincarnated and can go back in time....I want to live in the late-1800's and early-1900's.  I'll clean up !! 

That would be nice! However prices for rare gold and proof gold coins were stagnate until the late 1960s. To "clean up" you'd want to buy around 1925 or maybe 1938, then hold until the early/mid-1990s. The numismatic adventures of Rep. William Ashbrook (summarized in Renaissance of American Coinage 1905-1908) will give you an idea of prices and availability of what are now $500k coins.