Reddit Posts
Bitcoin Creator Satoshi Nakamoto Turns 48 Today, Coinciding With the Anniversary of FDR’s US Gold Ban – Featured Bitcoin News
Why Satoshi chose April 5 as his birthday? The day government became robber. The Gold Reserve Act was signed by FDR on January 30, 1934 giving the President the authority to devalue the dollar, which he did the very next day.
In a Bitcoin:Gold analogy, is there a cryptocurrency:Reserve Note equivalent?
Satoshi Nakamoto listed his birthday as April 5, 1975 >>> If you are wondering what animated them to create Bitcoin: April 5 = FDR signed order 6102 making it illegal for Americans to own gold >>> 1975 = Americans could legally own gold again. >>> It’s all about about financial freedom!
Satoshi Nakamoto listed their birthday as April 5, 1975 >>> If you are wondering what animated them to create Bitcoin: April 5 = FDR signed order 6102 making it illegal for Americans to own gold >>> 1975 = Americans could legally own gold again. >>> It’s all about about financial freedom!
How crypto is like getting off the gold standard
Mentions
Because there was only 21 million forever. I think early on, that was the main reason for me. Once I realized things such as money printing, FDR confiscating gold, Nixon suspending redemption of bills for gold, hyperinflation in the Roman empire, etc., it became clear that being a majority bitcoin was the correct play, and a very bold one. Decentralization is also a huge one. It's not Chase where they can freeze your account for speaking out against the media. It's not the government where they can seize your assets for not following their orders. And a huge one is It's a global currency, and you can transport unlimited wealth in your head by memorizing your seed phrase. TSA might confiscate your gold if trying to flee a country. You don't have to deal with wires or conversion banks or any of that nonsense. You don't have to wait for ACH clear, just a block confirmation. And you can digitally verify that the asset is yours. It's not paper gold. It's not paper stock within an account controlled by a central entity. The biggest reason is there's only 21 million forever and ever and ever, and if you lose your keys, the amount of liquid bitcoin shrinks, which makes bitcoin rarer and rarer. Bitcoin is all worlds current value AND future value divided by 21 million units. Future generations that are not even born yet will be sharing 21 million units with us for their wealth storage. We can buy up unfair amounts now while they still are not born. They will be born into a world where they will have to work for money and use that money to pump our bitcoin bags.
FDR took the U.S. off the gold standard in 1933. Redeemability of dollars for gold was continued only for foreign central banks, but the U.S. no longer had enough gold to redeem all dollars in circulation. Nixon ended the redeemability in 1971 since the U.S.'s gold reserves were quickly being depleted. Point is, from 1933 onward, dollars were not backed by gold, but rather the U.S. effectively would sell gold to foreign central banks for dollars at a fixed price. That was unsustainable because the U.S. was no longer on a gold standard.
That same FDR was human excrement who stole the life savings people had in gold saved up in the banks.
Well yes. FDR never said that minimum wage was so that teenagers could gain work experience. He referred to it being a livable wage. Not too sure when the whole rhetoric about minimum wage not being a livable wage started, but I like to point my finger at the Trickle-Up economic policies of the 80's.
FDR was a Wall Street puppet who's family profited off the German War Machine that he sent American men to die against after he pulled a Dubya (or reverse that I suppose) with Pearl Harbor, and only did what he did because the US was reaching a French Revolution moment during his tenure. He just took the credit the same way LBJ takes the credit for civil rights despite being completely against civil rights until a race or revolutionary war was on the horizon after MLK and Malcom X (and because it was less politicaly convenient). And better not to talk about the Japanese Americans. "When these citizens needed their rights the most, their government took em away", as George Carlin put it. Dude was a fascist in every classical sense of the word, who did great work funneling money to M.I.C.. He's only remembered fondly because of the post-war boom (America and the Soviet Union were superpowers because they still had industry) FDR's image as a man of the people needs to die.
FDR. Only time that a president was so popular by the people, making all the people’s lives equally wealthy and livable that he was re-elected 4 times in a row.
I don’t think you know who the Kennedy family is. They are against the establishment. JFK was on record saying that the only person who can defend the common people is the President. Everyone else is corrupted by monied interest. JFK was assassinated by the CIA. There is ample evidence of this. Do some research. The Kennedy’s are nothing like the Bush’s. They are likely the only real family that ever fought for America since FDR. I highly recommend you start to look into the Kennedy’s some more if you truly don’t think that family has the best interest of the American people at heart. They faced multiple assassinations for going against the establishment.
If FDR hadn’t died when he did, the US would’ve been way more equitable when helping rebuild post WWII. Truman straight fucked shit up, started the Cold War, and let the lords of capitalism run wild.
Everyone wants their opponents to be demons, so they can be angels of the light. Historically, FDR was widely considered to be a fascist by both his supporters and his opponents. In the late 20s and early 30s, before the body bags started piling up, everyone thought communism and fascism were good things, and the next step towards the future. So FDR's fascism, and his love for all things Mussolini, were seen as positive goods. Christianity is the only philosophical system that sees the victim as having a moral advantage over everyone else. So, everyone wants to be a victim in order to gain moral advantage. And what better victim can one be than the victim of a fascist? Today, the actual fascists, like Biden and Trump, are given passes by their supporters while those same people label Biden and Trump's opponents as fascists. It's hilarious that Biden's drones and Trumpkins both agree that DeSantis is a nightmare fascist, even though there is zero evidence for it, while both groups of supporters ignore the naked displays of fascism that was/is on display during Bush, Obama, Biden and Trump administrations.
You forgot FDR, he started all this bullshit.
I think you owe it to yourself to question why members of a political ideology would CHANGE the definition of the man who literally invented and named the political movement. How many of the experts, historians and academics, have a vested interest in making sure their support of fascism is obscured by their ability to change the definition when they "explain" fascism or Nazism to the general public? For instance, consider how many of those experts love, Love, LOVE FDR. He is, according to them, the greatest President EVAH. But, what did FDR's contemporaries say? Well, the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) first charged Roosevelt with being fascist less than two months after he took office. On May Day, 1933, the CPUSA ran a series of newspaper advertisements denouncing "the whole Roosevelt program of preparation for fascism and war" and calling Roosevelt a "fascist dictator". On May 7, 1933, just two months after the inauguration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the New York Times reporter Anne O’Hare McCormick wrote that the atmosphere in Washington was “strangely reminiscent of Rome in the first weeks after the march of the Blackshirts, of Moscow at the beginning of the Five‐Year Plan.… America today literally asks for orders.” The Roosevelt administration, she added, “envisages a federation of industry, labor and government after the fashion of the corporative State as it exists in Italy.” Lorena Hickok, a close confidante of Eleanor Roosevelt who lived in the White House for a spell, wrote approvingly of a local official who had said, “If \[President\] Roosevelt were actually a dictator, we might get somewhere.” She added that if she were younger, she’d like to lead “the Fascist Movement in the United States.” At the National Recovery Administration (NRA), the cartel‐creating agency at the heart of the early New Deal, one report declared forthrightly, “The Fascist Principles are very similar to those we have been evolving here in America.” Roosevelt himself called Mussolini “admirable” and professed that he was “deeply impressed by what he has accomplished.” The admiration was mutual. In a laudatory review of Roosevelt’s 1933 book Looking Forward, Mussolini wrote, “Reminiscent of Fascism is the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices.… Without question, the mood accompanying this sea change resembles that of Fascism.” The chief Nazi newspaper, Volkischer Beobachter, repeatedly praised “Roosevelt’s adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies” and “the development toward an authoritarian state” based on the “demand that collective good be put before individual self‐interest.” Now, why haven't you ever heard any of this from the experts? They certainly know about it. Yet they claim FDR is (1) greatest president ever and (2) NOT fascist even though (3) EVERY ONE of FDR's contemporaries considered him a fascist, and praised him for it.
Yeah, that's a very old trick: "oh, but experts redefined the term, so now we know it means something completely different than what the word originally meant." No, it doesn't mean anything different than what it originally meant. The "scholars" were just trying to get published so they could keep their phoney-baloney jobs. You refuse to believe what the fascists said about themselves. Not a very good look. It's the liberal version of "man-splaining" - you can't trust blacks or fascists or homosexuals to understand who they are, we need white scholarly patriarchal figures to explain to all those groups what they really are. Not a good look. You defend Nikki Fried's illegal attempt to impose corporatist power structures on Florida's government (Nikki Fried's actions are the very definition of fascism). Not a good look. Nazi Germany actually was the first German government to LEGALIZE abortion. In fact, that was one of the charges against the Nazis at the Nuremberg trials - it was considered a crime against humanity to impose legal abortion on a country, and we hung Nazis by the neck until they were dead in part because they legalized abortion. So, was FDR's government fascist? FDR opposed abortion and homosexuality. Woodrow Wilson jailed political opponents. Was he a fascist? Almost no country in the world considered homosexuality anything other than a crime until the 1900s. So, were all countries fascist up until they legalized homosexuality? Lenin arrested all members of opposing political parties. Lenin was a fascist? Joe Biden erased Dr. Suess books, removing ALL his work from a proclamation celebrating Read Across America Day. So, Joe Biden is a fascist?
Indigenisation in public schools is quite effective. Just look at how many people believe FDR solved the Great Depression through government programmes. You choose religious schools. That’s the point. Home schooling is one of the few options to save children from the insane school teachers and school boards.
If so, how do we even have a middle class at all? I'm sure your answer is that socialism and FDR saved America and ate the rich once and all wealth since has stemmed from that.... But then, if there was wealth (in the hands of the wealthy) to be distributed to the poor to create a middle class and raise overall wealth in society; and the wealthy only get wealthy by exploiting the poor or slaves, etc...then what you're necessarily saying is that exploitation is what generates wealth in society and that means that in order for any of us (including the poor) to ever get wealthier, there's going to have to be more exploitation (and then the spoils of that redistributed to the poor. A rather bleak and problematic worldview, wouldn't you say?
> Not sure if this has happened in the US though Yep, the US dollar a gold-based currency ($20.67 = 1 oz) until FDR wanted massive inflation. So he confiscated the gold of private Americans. Then he reduced the backing of the dollar to $35 = 1 oz, but Americans couldn't redeem at that value either.
Great question. Gary is smart. RFS— My guess. He read a history book on the investment company act of 1940. After the crash, President FDR wanted to shut down the mutual fund industry, and most of the broker dealers. This tug-of-war went on from 1929 until 1940. Once these rules and regulations were created the broker dealer industry, and the mutual fund industry flourished. IMO, the government will take at least 10 years to formulate a set of policies and rules to govern, crypto until then it’s all Shakespearean.
Good points OP, but I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the SEC and other government institutions are going after CEXs during times or banking crises. For example Coinbase is considering relocating outside the US due to SEC scrutiny. If that continues it will make crypto much more difficult to acquire and would likely inhibit gains from continued inflation and banking troubles. I liken this to when FDR administration made it illegal for US citizens to hold a certain amount of gold. Seems likely they will try the same with BTC/crypto. Who knows how this all will play out.
Yes but most people can’t afford to put any money into an index fund. Social security is the sole reason our elder population isn’t literally starving. Any time I talk ab this I feel as though no one learned anything from 1929 and then the entire FDR administration since we continue to dismantle every safeguard that was set up. Big part of the reason banks have failed recently.
FDR didnt wanna get rugged while fighting nazis.
Buy yourself an FDR doll - not for playing though, of course...
for some sensible reasons like your coins never to be seized, fined or taxed on unrealized gains (which Yellen was already talking about the idea back in 2021). If you are familiar with FDR's E.O. 6102, you are aware that we live in a fractional banking system and you can imagine a future where the USD collapses, the US Govt. gets desperate, you may see this as an option to hide your tracks and keep them for further cashout in a different jurisdiction or preferably never change back into fiat again.
Yeah FDR took everyone’s gold in 1933. I’m sure they’d do it again
This is essentially what SEC securities registration is, and why the SEC is cracking down on various coin projects that have performed ICOs without registering (and there was A LOT of them). The SEC has classified cryptocurrencies as "securities" by applying the Howey test (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEC\_v.\_W.\_J.\_Howey\_Co.). A similar situation during the 1920s stock boom led to quite a lot of scammers selling fake stock, which resulted in the 1933 securities act signed by FDR to crackdown on the fraud. Securities registration is what every new company that wants to be listed on a stock registration has to go through to launch an IPO. After successfully registering, a company's stock can legally be listed on exchanges like the NYSE and NASDAQ. The process takes approximately 18 months worth of filings and audits, and costs approximately 1 million after paying the SEC fees and the accounting firms. While the Securities Act has helped combat fraud, which is arguably a great thing, it has also created a scenario where average people are locked out of early stage investments. If you wanted to invest in the AirBnB's, Uber's, SpaceX's, etc., but you weren't an "accredited investor" (defined as having $250k/year income single, or $350k/year income married, or $1 million net worth), you are out of luck. The government has, *for your protection*, barred you from participating (unless you are a founder or early stage key employee with stock options). Entrepreneur's are likewise barred from true "crowdfunding" -- which is why sites like kickstarter and indiegogo use the vernacular "donations" instead of "investments" and why you'll never see stock shares, or cryptocurrency, being offered in exchange for giving them money on those platforms, just t-shirts and coffee mugs as "perks". The 1933 Securities Act could be argued that it has helped entrench, and continues to help entrench the whole "rich get richer and poor stay poor" thing. The Obama administration did attempt to lighten these regulations to enable the public to have more opportunities to invest in early stage companies in a limited scope via the Crowdfund act. The SEC crackdown in ICOs has definitely cooled off the rugpull environment we've witnessed prior to the pandemic, but from another perspective it's also made it very difficult for crypto entrepreneurs to raise funds without going through traditional routes of VC funding, which in turn has created a situation where the SEC has effectively squashed the innovation wave that was surging with the rise of Ethereum and ERC20 coins, and chased a lot of entrepreneurs out of the US. So it's a mixed bag of nuts imo.
"normies", you mean: peasants. It has been this way since the feudal era. "Muh Democracy" hasn't changed any of that. You think Americans voted to fight WW1? FDR's trickery led to WW2. Americans voted to restore French colonial rule in Viet Nam? And so on: Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama,Grenada, Ukraine.
I am probably one of the very, very few people in the country who have been part of two denovo banks in the last 15 years. This seems like a legit reason for denial. I doubt she will have grounds for suit. The FDR has wide latitude to deny acceptance and not having FDIC insurance would be enough in itself, but add in crypto, no way. As it mentions, state chartered banks have a community obligation meaning they must be formed to serve the local community in someway, sounds like 99% of their customers will be outside Wyoming.
> Do you believe a centralized exchange like Coinbase would ever just hand over everyone’s coins to the US govt if requested? Never happen. This is not the world of 90 years ago when FDR signed off on confiscation of our gold. People don't put up with that action today. Take my money along with the money of thousands of other people, and there's going to be a problem. They'll try to regulate everything to death to indirectly ruin us, though.
Telly Savalas played Daddy Warbucks in FDR's administration. Glad that's settled.
Yeah executive order 6102 signed by FDR, what a nazi he was. Oh wait he beat the nazis in a wheelchair, what a chad.
Lets not shit on FDR though, he pulled us out of a depression and turned this country into an absolute beast of a war machine to combat nazi Germany. When most Americans wanted nothing to do with another war in europe, Roosevelt understood the threat and slowly ratcheted support for the war and worked closely with Churchill. He mobilized the US’s industrial might and supported the Soviet Union through lend lease. The world might look a little bit different and not in a good way without FDR.
It's like banning ownership of gold, which happened 90 years ago by FDR's XO. After this the USG started debasing the dollar to the point that it's lost 90% of its value since then (20% of all USD that existed has been printed since 2020). So Bitcoin represents something that can't be debased by the government (so this issue is very important if you care about trying to build wealth for your long-term security). Empirical evidence confirms this; since 2008 Bitcoin has appreciated in value while the dollar has depreciated (that alone should tell you all you need to know). Warren and others in her "anti-crypto army" are not only Luddite dinosaurs, but they also don't want to lose control over the plebs and the money "owned" by the plebs.
>This is exactly what our elected officials are discussing. Can you link a specific policy proposal, or a public statement by some elected official to this effect? Not saying that you're definitely wrong, but I haven't seen very much political will for the things we're talking about, with the possible exception of negative interest rates. The paper you linked certainly does not recommend getting rid of cash, and in any case it's a working paper, which does not define the state of political will in any given system. Just because some nerds at the IMF wrote about the possibility of negative interest rates does not mean our Congresspeople are bound to vote for it. >Your deposit, not the bank's reserves, can be directly tampered with. The deposits that we hold at banks are liabilities of those Banks. One of the assets Banks hold as capital against those liabilities is reserves. The current proposals for the US that I have read would simply replace these reserves with a CBDC. Your deposits would become liabilities for the CBDC, but practically speaking that wouldn't change the fact that you have $100 in your account. >This would allow the central government, with no intervening parties, to directly seize all of your cash deposits. Again, they can already do this. There is already a legal process for the government to freeze you accounts and take your money. No CBDC proposal would change that. We are not talking about suspending due process here; we are not going to have Janet Yellen or J Powell suddenly able to freeze your account because you made some snarky remarks about them or whatever. >This is all highly illegal. Really, anything other than Gold is illegal Well yes, it would not be legal for the Fed to do many of the drastic things you are suggesting. That's why I'm telling you that these extreme changes would require Congressional approval. And I don't see Congress voting to let the Fed freeze or take your money on a whim, without the normal due process. As for your other point, honestly it's a little baffling to me. FDR confiscated all the gold going on 100 years ago now, and it's been 50 years since we had even a gold exchange standard. You may not think those were good policies, but they clearly are legal. You and I as individuals don't get to decide what's legal lol. Congress writes the rules and the judges interpret them, and in this case the judges have clearly decided that it is perfectly legal to have a fiat currency. But perhaps the silliest part of your post is about this 15 minute city policy. This is literally just a policy to prevent non-residents from driving their cars in certain areas during certain times. It does not even approach what you describe - making it illegal to go anywhere or spend money however and wherever you like. This policy is literally not about money at all but about cars. Like did you even read the article you posted? It tries so hard to fear monger about a policy that basically amounts to "no one not from this neighborhood should be able to park here during certain hours", a policy which is backed up with traffic cams that automatically levy fines. In the US we have resident permit parking rules in many urban neighborhoods, and we also have traffic cams which will fine people automatically for speeding, blowing red lights, traveling on toll roads without an EZ pass, etc. These don't strike me as dystopian policies leading us into a police state. And in any case they don't involve cbdcs at all: the program discussed in this article places no restrictions on how or where people can spend money afaik. We live in a country where our State security agencies hoover up all of our data as a matter of course and maintain back doors into every bit of crucial infrastructure in our country, from the fiber optic cables that connect the internet to other countries to the servers Google uses to power Gmail to the electronic systems and records of all major banking entities. We've known all this since Snowden's revelations a decade ago, and yet we as a society seem to be more or less okay with this. Given that this is the case, it seems to me a little misplaced to worry about a policy that really wouldn't be more intrusive than the surveillance state that we already live in. Truth be told, I don't expect cbdcs to go anywhere soon in the United States - NOT because of fierce opposition, but because it really is a solution in search of a problem. Or perhaps you could say it is a marketing gimmick that exists only to ride the hype train around crypto. We already have fed now rolling out, which is a far superior payment system to the one that is replacing, so we don't need it to facilitate payments. All the other radical things you are suggesting about cbdcs are a) not generally proposed, and b) would not get Congressional support anyways.
It’s the truth brother. Really, you shouldn’t be surprised to see bitcoin going up at a time when banks are failing. Money itself only has value because other people accept that it does. Paper money didn’t even really become a thing until the US government issued demand notes in 1861, which expanded into legal tender issues in 1862. For a very long time, paper money was fully backed by gold or silver. And then FDR destroyed gold backing with XO 6102, and Nixon finished it off by eliminating the silver backing. Google “Nixon shock”. Bitcoin has value because there is a large community of people that believe it has value, just like gold and silver. However, almost everyone believes gold and silver have value, while a wide swath of people like yourself believe it does not. As long as there are more people that don’t hold bitcoin versus those that do, I’m a buyer of bitcoin; it’s a simple market penetration fact. I’ve given you an extra detailed response; please don’t be surprised if others here don’t do that. It’s not our job to convince you to invest; you need to come to that realization on your own, if you do.
It isn't the end of the world. It's just the US trying to ban crypto, the same way that China has tried. Only difference is, China as tried it about three dozen times. This is our first go around. US banning crypto doesn't hurt crypto. Lots of Americans will just run it the same way Americans ran gold in the 1930s, when FDR outlawed private ownership. They hid the gold in their rafters and waited forty years for it to be legalized again. Same here. Americans just store their private wallets and wait it out.
Yeah we're not going to gel dude - haha - at all. You can talk philosophy all you want but it's not that deep of a discussion and the United States is far from embodying what say Adam Smith, (yeah, sure lol) per your example, has to say. And using the US as your flagship for "failed capitalism" in today's society is a false flag for your viewpoints. The United States has been deviating further and further from capitalism since the mid 1800s and had massive decouplings under both FDR and Nixon and before was Lincoln (whom I love as a former president - was tough and stood for what was right when no one else would. But he made bad economic choices) and has since been completely bastardized by more and more greed and messages that embody either socialism or communism. Take care, and I mean that. This world has too much hate and it's embodied on reddit more times than not. I see so much hate from both sides, so I hope you understand my opposing views from you do not take away sentiment toward your well-being. Hope you do well in all things. But yeah, we're not going to yield fruit, here.
It's very clear to anyone in crypto now that the SEC doesn't make rules so they can break the "rules". If they did have actual clear laws and regulations they wouldn't be allowed to get away with all these enforcement actions. These securities laws they follow for crypto are so old, selling sliced bread just became a thing (1928). Bonnie and Clyde got shot (1934), FDR was president.
The local state and federal governments trying to stop ride-sharing apps like Uber and Lyft from operating their business in a vain attempt to protect the taxi industry. Gold ownership was banned by FDR when the government wanted more taxes and to prevent bank runs. Emporer Augustus of Rome banned a type of unbreakable glass called“vitrum flexile”, as he feared it would devalue his silver and gold Nixon ended gold convertibility with the USD over fears trust in the dollar would have lost and lose its value to gold. Just a few examples. Well they always try to ban the new disruptive technology and eventually always fail, they just delay the inevitable.
Banking system been broken since FDR decoupled dollars from the real economy (gold). It's not even a point of contention.
I think it most definitely can be a protection against failing banks. In a way, that's part of what worries me about it. Lots of people thought owning gold was a great way to protect their money in the early days of the Great Depression... when banks were failing left and right. However, FDR quickly put a stop to that, and basically banned ownership of gold by private citizens. Just saying that if Bitcoin was banned, it wouldn't be the first time ownership of an asset was banned to keep the Federal Reserve banking system running.
Well, it happened post 1929, until FDR made holding gold illegal gold. It took a while before people noticed it was real and not just noise.
During the great depression, the contractions continued until FDR left the gold standard During financial crises, hard money makes things worse. And the people who get punished are not just the risk takers
Well, there's the law, and then there's expedience. Expedience wins everytime because only the slimiest become politicians. Including and especially FDR.
It's hard to get people to be smart when their paycheck depends on them being dumb. I mean, if the SEC officially declares ICOs and NFTs are securities a lot of people in the crypto world are going to lose a lot of money. So those people are going to the court of public opinion and misrepresenting the issue to make the SEC looks stupid and corrupt, in the hope that enough citizens will complain that the SEC will back off. And the "how to complain to the SEC" link is now stickied to the top of this thread, of course. Because let's be honest, "rich dudes manipulate US citizens into supporting their interests with blatantly false propaganda campaigns" is basically how democracy in the US has worked since FDR, and it's got a good chance of working for this too.
It has nothing to do with that, versus personal liberties. If you look at the Civil Rights act of 1967 you’ll find that the south was primarly controlled by Democrats in large numbers, and they voted against equality, just like the slave owners their ancestors were. Dig a little deeper. Go back, look into FDR. AFDC and man in the house laws, aka welfare. Families essentially paid to split up. Increase in fatherless homes. Its all there.
Yea sure, FDR said the same thing about gold in 1933, then almost doubled the price overnight. HODL.
A lot of things were done by FDR that would not be acceptable to anyone in either party now. Like, sending Japanese Americans to camps, trying to run for unlimited terms, and yes… banning people’s gold.
1933 - executive order 6102 is signed by FDR. American citizens have their gold confiscated and exchanged for certificates in the amount of $20 per ounce. That $20 equates to about $500 today, but an ounce of gold is currently $1,865.
It’s not and the whole thing is confusingly worded. I’m no historian, but I think FDR signed the thing on Jan 30th then everyone was like ZOMG MY MONEY and went and bought gold in an attempt to preserve wealth. Then on April 5th after currency had been devalued and people were hiding in gold FDR signed this letting them confiscate the gold.
The abandonment of the gold standard began in 1933 under FDR and wasn’t completely severed until 1971 under Nixon. Neither president had much sway in the decision process and more powerful forces are the ones making these decisions. I agree though it was a terrible, but most certainly purposeful decision to enrich those at the top (elites).
Just like when FDR sent American troops into a meat grinder during World War 2. It was worth it, and I'm glad he did.
Dollar collapsed starting with FDR cause of gold
The FDR did not make gold illegal.
They can do that with gold too. You ever heard of FDR.
In 1933, FDR issued a gold confiscation executive order to prop up the US dollar. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-6102-requiring-gold-coin-gold-bullion-and-gold-certificates-be-delivered Oddly enough, it took until 1974 to reverse this. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-11825-revocation-executive-orders-pertaining-the-regulation-the
Yeah, way to go FDR, p.o.s...
They are businesses and must track revenues and expenses anyway. There might be additional requirements on them for the reasons you noted. But in common language they are not like banks or PayPal or paycheck loan places, or Western Union, and such. Easy to miss. FDR didn't take. It was purchased from the public (and later gold was repriced higher) who had to bring it in and sell it. Compliance was likely quite low. It got buried in backyards instead.
They are institutions what have and carry items of extreme financial values. Paem shops and jewelers in particular due to selling of precious valuable resources like gold, silver. Etc. Most nations track the hell out of those metals and even in US history, has siezed people's precious metals for various reasons. FDR took it straight from civilians to aid the US treasury. In India if you try to leave with it, the government will flat out take it from you and you might get it back when you return.
There is a lot of context as to why FDR eliminated the gold standard that is overlooked. Bank stability, the accumulation of wealth by industrialists, the ability to dig out from the depression. Don’t forget that the measures taken by the FDR administration was enough to overcome the Great Depression. [Dave Troy has a 2 part podcast that draws a straight line from FDR/gold to the rise of crypto currency in current times. The antisemitism, political violence and hoarding of wealth parallels were enough for me to abandon cryptocurrency. Maybe you’ll feel the same after listening and doing a bit of historical research.](https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/dave-troy-presents/id1610914569?i=1000568005072)
Fun fact: the US was not a constitutional republic under FDR. It was a dictatorship.
>For decades, the Fed was required to hold 40% of its issued currency as gold, and redeem gold held by US citizens for $20.67 per ounce. But the 1933 Emergency Banking Act gave the President greater control over banking, international transfers, and gold, and it paved the way for Executive Order 6102 — which was enacted by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) during WWII, and required Americans to immediately exchange their gold with the government or face penalties. FDR’s gold confiscation meant that private owners were obliged to take their coins, bars, or gold certificates to a bank and exchange them for dollars at the prevailing rate of $20.67 per ounce. Over the next year, the President then raised his official gold price to $35 per ounce, effectively cutting 40% off the dollar in a bid to stoke inflation and spur the economy. It was part of FDR’s larger effort to move the US away from the gold standard. The prohibition on personal gold stayed in effect until December 1974, when President Ford legalised private ownership. https://entrepreneurshandbook.co/for-the-war-fd5509d525d
Oh that is just the 1st part of the scam, they seized the gold and proceeded to reprice it from $20.67/oz to $32.32/oz. Later in the 60s it came to light that FDR had to reprice it but they made sure to seize it 1st.
The series of questions immediately preceding this was about how immature and reckless the Congress is with regard to the national debt ceiling, with him offering fixes that either all spending bills are accompanied with raising the debt ceiling the corresponding amount, or to do away with the debt ceiling altogether. You have to understand the problem before even trying to understand a solution. He doesn't even seem to understand the problem. Separately, he said his go-to explanation for being a Democrat is that one of FDR's programs yielded his family a farm for which he is grateful. I think it's quite reasonable that many solutions ought to come from the government. For the past 100 years, fiat was the only option. But now there is an alternative and people ought to be able to choose if they use financial solutions provided by the government - or if the government proves to be incapable, any alternative they like. Everyone is anti-crypto until they're pro-crypto. I hope this guy gets a clue.
FDR seized private [gold](https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-6102-requiring-gold-coin-gold-bullion-and-gold-certificates-be-delivered) in 1933 with an executive order, don't even need the approval of congress.
except in the 30s FDR made it a felony to hold bullion, and you had to trade in all your gold for toilet paper
Bad money drives out good. If fiat survives it will be what circulates, but whenever someone is offered to settle up in real bitcoin they will say yes. People absolutely did keep any gold that came their way, that's why FDR had to steal it.
FDR brought full blown socialism to the Democrat party & U.S. in the 30's, and they've only been pushing harder on the accelerator ever since...
>I think you are missing the Forrest through the trees on my original post. I am arguing against using too much intervention vs your framing of using none at all. >How about we don’t let companies get too big to fail? How about digging our selves out with monopoly busting, and government programs like we did with FDR? You're changing the subject from monetary supply to antitrust regulation. You're also responding to a strawman with another strawman- you can pursue antitrust lawsuits independent of whatever central banking policies. >WW2 The USA was in a **war command economy** during WW2. You don't really need to bother adjusting the money supply when you can tell every single person what job they're doing, how much they're going to get paid for it, and what they can buy at which prices. >Additionally we did see unemployment around 10% even with the insane amount of backstopping and money printing. The great recession could have been much worse. The entire banking system was paralyzed. The risk is that it could have led to stable, boring companies failing as they were suddenly unable to find any liquidity. JPM dying isn't so funny if it takes out GM on the way down. There was a lot of different policy levers pulled at once to stop that, made harder by election and transfer of power. Like covid we can look back and say many of them were stupid, but also that many had a very good impact. No doubt there was corruption and malfeasance, and the general moral cost of rescuing bad actors. A recession that lasted twice as long doesn't sound fun though. >Lastly, the people never decided that we should devalue our currency at record rates. System put in place by the people's elected representatives. Organize and change it if you don't like it. This isn't Athens, for better or worse. >Even though that’s my stance, it could be argue that any type of intervention is can kicking at that chart is a perfect example of tail risk of doing so. This is basically just milton friedman style monetarianism. Its a cute philosophy that went well with conservative European politics in the 80's, but it's been a disaster in recent times. Attempts to manage solely through monetary policy are never successful. You need to have a passing grasp of Keynesian economics, or at least honestly grapple with it, to be taken seriously.
Seems you missed the rest of the post where I said regulation is not a bad thing. Bad regulation is. How about we don’t let companies get too big to fail? How about digging our selves out with monopoly busting, and government programs like we did with FDR? The fed during Vietnam and WW2 was actually sensible. Not until around 2000 did the FED actually start getting risky itself. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CURRCIR The chart above is the money supply (printing money). World war 2 is a literal rounding error while GFC added more money in 1 year than the previous 100. > That is good and dandy to let shit fail until you realize it could also mean making 10%+ of your population homeless at once and make an economic recovery 4x longer and 10x more painful. Gonna need sources for this claim here. Seeing how we have equity “bubbles” happening every 15 years or so, with the 2nd largest happening between 1978-1982 where home sales fell over 50%. Fact is, we have watched the free market play out until about 20 years ago with intervention being tangible jobs programs and disbanding sections of our economy that caused the problem. Additionally we did see unemployment around 10% even with the insane amount of backstopping and money printing. Again, as my original post implies, some type of federal intervention is needed. But is printing money and making already failing companies and industries bigger the answer? Additionally, why do we always talk about the risk of doing nothing (which has been done plenty of times and doesn’t match your scenario) but we never talk about the tail risk of kicking the can down the road? What if I told you, not fixing the problem just kicks the can down the road and doesn’t actually fix anything? Lastly, the people never decided that we should devalue our currency at record rates. 7 people that respond directly to congress and appointed by the government and 5 regional bankers do. Again, a version of this *could* work and has for the last 90 years. It wasn’t until the FED got overly involved did we start seeing these issues. My argument is not that we don’t need intervention. It’s that the intervention has gotten more severe to the tune of 100x more has been done over the last 20 years than the previous 90. Even though that’s my stance, it could be argue that any type of intervention is can kicking at that chart is a perfect example of tail risk of doing so.
No, there's no gold standard any more. Before 1930 or so you could theoretically exchange paper for gold. Very old federal reserve notes actually say this. FDR removed the U.S. from the gold standard and for 40 years it was illegal for private citizens to own gold. Today paper is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States, FWIW, but that credit enforces its status as legal tender, meaning it must be accepted in transactions. This is the origin of USD being fiat.
He's not wrong. I can see big pressure coming as the dollar begins to crash in a debt spiral. The US government already spies on its citizens more than any other country. You can try to buy bitcoin using non-KYC means, but the ugly truth is you can't buy anywhere near enough that way to make up a significant part of your net worth. It's hard to buy more than a single BTC on Bisq but you'll need to buy many BTC to convert all of your savings and retirement accounts to bitcoin. Exchanges are really the only way. But that leaves the paper trail. Sure, you can lament about that sad boating accident. But they're already on to you. They've heard it all and sent 'em all to jail. Just ask Wesley Snipes or Willie Nelson. The reason US tax laws are so draconian is so they can escape normal Constitutional limits when prosecuting people. Did you know that tax court is the only court where you must PROVE your innocence, rather than the state prove you guilty? Yes, that goes against the Constitution. Oh well. So does civil forfeiture. So what? The Constitution only protects you if all three branches of government agree to abide by it. Spoiler alert: they don't. And lets not forget that the original order to seize gold was never a law. Never voted on by Congress or signed as a law by the President. Nope, it was an Executive Order. Signed into existence only by the President at the time, FDR. Even though it was NOT a law, it had the force of one. You gave up your gold or went to jail. So much for the Constitution. So much for the **Land Of The Free™**. So yes, they COULD come after you and demand your bitcoin. Yes, they COULD jail you if you refuse to turn over your keys. Unless you can PROVE that boat accident occurred with no possible doubt, you will go down for it. Blub blub. This dystopian future leaves you only two options: Comply or run like hell. If you choose the latter, luck favors the prepared so figure out where you're running beforehand. Visit the place. Maybe establish status and an account. Just be sure they don't have any extradition to the US for tax crimes.
As he put in place a Government blue print for deficit spending that was readily adopted and modified to fit FDR’s agenda. Where are we today? 31 trillion in debt with politicians patting themselves on the back for having only a budget shortfall of $1.375 trillion. Down from $2.776 trillion. Trillions of dollars. Not millions of dollars. But trillions of dollars.
Actually FDR, started the removal of the gold process. It’s suspected JFK was going to reverse it 🔫 Lyndon b dicked around for a bit then Nixon finalized the place from a prior administration
Usually the money given to the poor gets spent so it's way better for the economy than giving it to the rich Although the best is investing in new jobs like FDR did with all the highway jobs. Because than vs a one time payment it creates stability and distributes the money better
FDR busted the shit out of unions and people striking for the sake of "the economy." in many ways FDR can fuck himself.
Times were so much better under the capitalist FDR. That damn communist uh... Ronald Reagan, changed everything for the worse.
1938 is FDR, pretty far left social Democrat who "saved" capitalism. He purposed a second bill of rights full of worker and human rights. And Keynesian economics is not communist. And it that's not what caused the massive inequality we've seen from the return of classic liberalism, trickle up economics, supply side economics, laise Faire capitalism.
This is normal conservative-time jitters. Note that we have fewer wars (all major wars in the last century were started by conservative POTUSs), fewer economic upheavals, and more general stability when liberals are in power. [FDR was a Democrat but also a conservative] This November, pollsters are seeing a huge swing in voters towards the blue, which should stabilize us a bit. It will take some time to undo the economic damage done by Trump/GOP, but it will happen. Next 4 years: - Russia will fall this winter - renewables will resume their constant incremental worldwide cost-cutting - the supply chain will recover to 90% (Ukraine and China might be under-represented). - the housing bubble will burst (again), normalizing prices and restoring starter homes to the market, which brings workers back to the economy. - Medicare-for-all will pass and abortion will be codified; these will lower costs and improve healthcare universally. Is that good for crypto? *No.* Crypto is an emergency fund, not a currency. It does better when the world is troubled. The main issue is that there are so many different types of crypto, so it’s hard to standardize a business on that shifting ground. And think about this: if 100% of transactions happened in untaxed crypto, how would countries fund their operations? Not gonna happen, folks. There’s no long-term protection from governments… Crypto will be taxed, tracked, and potentially outlawed in many places, if it grows too large.
I haven’t followed the situation and I don’t want to defend bank but closing the banks to avoid a bank run has been a good move in the past hasn’t it? Wasn’t it one of FDR’s first moves after his inauguration?
I would think we're all kinda debating small nuances on that, I mean I would generally agree it can also be placed with Nixon and FDR, but it depends on whether you call the "second it started" or "when they greased the wheels".
You keep mentioning Reagon as if he is more than a small name in the long line of presidents that have led us here. To me it starts with FDR and then Nixon.
>The central banks print money and put it into 24 regular banks called primary dealers. Those primary dealers get trillions of liquidity in those accounts. Those banks are chosen winners, they can't lose in the zirp and qe era. I highly recommend The Lords of Easy Money: How the Federal Reserve Broke the American Economy. It goes over this in depth. Yeah, I'm not arguing for central banks. The complete opposite, in fact. >As for the service they provide, I agree for commercial banking to hold banking deposits of normal citizens. But since that isn't profitable No, commercial banking is profitable. That's the point. The money you deposit can and should be loaned to others (these are not super risky investments), and both you (for having risked the money) and the bank (for having found the best borrowers) should be able to reap the rewards. Yes, I'm well aware of how central banking deeply disturbs that process, but you need to make a case that this function is best executed by a government monopoly. >The investment banking piece was limited by FDR and the capitalists slowly deregulated it until we have the shit show we have today. The resources today are allocated so poorly u can't even make the argument u made. The whole point is that the bad investments and crashes we see today are largely because of central banking's effects on the market... You're not reading what I'm saying.
The central banks print money and put it into 24 regular banks called primary dealers. Those primary dealers get trillions of liquidity in those accounts. Those banks are chosen winners, they can't lose in the zirp and qe era. I highly recommend The Lords of Easy Money: How the Federal Reserve Broke the American Economy. It goes over this in depth. As for the service they provide, I agree for commercial banking to hold banking deposits of normal citizens. But since that isn't profitable and since investment banking is these things contradict each other causing the too big to fail scenario over and over that we are stuck now. In a public banking system the banks would still determine who to lend to it just would be normal people instead of just repackaging debt and selling it or making risky mbs, rbs, cmbs, etc we could go on. The investment banking piece was limited by FDR and the capitalists slowly deregulated it until we have the shit show we have today. The resources today are allocated so poorly u can't even make the argument u made. So much so the Feds Hoenig explicitly talks about and his main point is the misallocation of resources in the current system. (From the book I recommended above)
If you bought gold in 1905 it would have been confiscated in 1933 due to FDR's executive order 6102. Then the dollars they compensated you with were immediately devalued by about 30% and have been trending towards zero ever since.
Correlation doesn’t equal causation. The fed was not even able to participate in resolving the Great Depression until certain laws were passed like Glass Stegal. The great depression was caused by average people taking out loans to buy stocks cause “prices would only go up” but eventually reality has to kick in. When austerity measures came about, all that debt was called on. The solution was FDR and the fed injecting money into the economy. Liquidity is the only thing that can resolve big debt crises that we know of. And before you say it, no WW2 did not stop the Great Depression. That is a myth. The great depression ended at least 7 years before but the world was still recovering. If the fed was able to use quantitative easing earlier, then you would not have had the bank runs, margin calls, defaults etc. The market just needs liquidity when a big debt crises happens.
1. FDR decided it was ok to steal your gold because of a "crisis". Why would I rely on the kindness of my rulers? They will obviously steal from me as soon as the opportunity presents itself. CBDCs facilitate this. 2. Yes, but that's a blunt instrument. Fiat is not programmable money. CBDCs can be programmed for additional taxation when you go over your assigned quota. 3. If your account is frozen, you might still have some cash laying around. If the government freezes your wallet, you will have 0 cash and nobody will even be able to sell other assets.
OK, so let me answer what I think you're saying one by one. ^("Well let me ask "does fiat benefit some people over some period of time?" I think the obvious answer is "Yes, but it doesn't benefit me in my immediate past or future, and in general I see a lot of people harmed by it, and I would say society as a whole is harmed."") I would say that there are immediate benefits if you're the one getting newly created money through loans & debt instruments. Meaning that you are the first one that money touches before it's circulated throughout the system, so you're not seeing the byproducts of more money chasing the same amount of goods and services, inflation. You're seeing immediate benefits, so yes, in the very short term, you win, in the long term, you've helped increase inflation. But also, your loan you've taken out becomes cheaper to pay off, meaning $10,000 from 5 years ago is worth less today. ^("But I would take a close look at who it benefits and for what periods of time. There are many categories of people, and periods of time, that all come out with different beneficiaries. It's not just "it benefits the top 1000 people in the world for as much time as they can maintain the fiat system"") This was kinda answered in the above w/ taking out a loan. Short term, you win, long term, everyone's purchasing power declines. I will say that those who are closest to the money printer will always benefit first. Most rich people actually have a negative balance in their bank account, meaning that account balance while positive, is actually just a loan that they've taken w/ their hard assets as collateral. As Warren Buffet says, "when I find a stock I like, I keep it forever." (something along those lines). They buy assets where their actual wealth appreciates, and they use those as collateral for loans, Warren Buffet ins't selling his stocks to buy that Lamborghini, he's taking a loan for it, usually at a very low interest rate. Why do they do this? Because they know that they have a melting ice cube if their whole wealth was just sitting a bank. There's a good argument to made that inflation rates over the past 10 years have gone up 10-15% a year, that's a decrease in purchasing power. ^("I'd ask "Let's look at the dollar, the worlds "top" fiat currency. Does the dollar benefit at least 20% of Americans? It's an evil fiat currency, but evil towards who?"") This is an interesting argument, and if you take morals out like you'd like on this one, it doesn't matter. But this question you can't evaluate w/out putting morals into the equation. As far as the dollar being the worlds top Fiat currency, then that's simple, it's the feds maneuvering w/ the Bretton Woods agreement, which really cemented the dollar as the reserve currency, not to mention the creation at that time w/ the IMF & World Bank. As for the other question, evil towards whom? Since WW1 when the world went off of the gold standard and onto the Fiat standard (America technically was on a gold standard, but w/ the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913, monetary policy was basically just Fiat with the illusion of gold redemption. FDR ceased specie payments in 1933 officially making it illegal to own gold. The Bretton Woods agreement was a disaster which fell apart in 1971.), we have had a century of absolute total war. Wars that wouldn't have been possible on a sound money system, you'd run out of money very quickly. If you can just print money on the other hand, then you can do a lot of evil onto the world. 3rd world countries are hurt possibly the worst by Fiat money thanks to the efforts of the IMF & World Bank. Vietnam wouldn't have been able to fought like it was for so long on a sound money system. US intervention in countries we have no right to be in. Run-away Pentagon war budgets that go nowhere, such as the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, 17 years & 14 billion dollars to make a troop transport that can't carry troops and looks like a tank, oh and by the way, aluminum armor that will kill the people inside if struck with something as small as an RPG round. The dangers that Fiat have brought onto the world are staggering. In summary, the whole world suffers from Fiat money. It destroys your ability to save for the future, it raises your time preference, it incentives debt, and you're constantly trying to just get a raise to stay up to date w/ cost of living increases (not realizing that your boss can't even really afford to give that nice raise because everything they have to buy for their business is also increasing. Insurance rates go up yearly, sometimes the rent goes up, cost of materials are always rising, and they don't always increase their rates to their customers to compensate fearing the loss of business. Running a business is always a risk, most businesses are one sale from going under). Fiat has completely destroyed just about every aspect of our lives from health, energy, and our education system. Why are eggs bad for you? Because LBJ told his health official to say that so they can help fight the inflation happening in that industry. Little things like that add up. Now we have an industrial sludge diet made up of vegetable oils, which is something you shouldn't feed your dog, to high frutcose corn syrup. Cheers!
It's a cycle. A country needs a build up of reserves in order to establish a standard, do Government reserves stay full for the rest of time? Of course not, when the Gold standard was revoked, it was obviously because the U.S was running out of Gold. This didn't just happen once, by the way, FDR suspended it, and then Nixon ended it. You can go back in history and see the most countries on Gold standards had to take them away when Gold ran out. So the reserves are low, they revoke it, the currency begins to weaken increasingly over the next few decades, in the meantime the reserve \*should\* be getting replenished so that a standard can return to re-strengthen the currency.
Government thug showing me my public keys they tracked through kyc with an executive order to confiscate bitcoin like FDR did to gold in 1933
Waiting for racist commie garbage FDR 2.0 to show up.
Fun Fact: FDR and the Democrats passed all the housing segregation laws, and the Democrat Woodrow Wilson segregated the government. Today, the Democrats support Antifa and BLM, which both burn down black neighborhoods and loot black businesses while shooting black cops. And the Democrats keep pushing abortion, which disproportionately kill black babies. Even the NAACP and the Guttmacher Institute acknowledges abortion kills 5x more black infants than white infants. Top it all off, Democrat Party is the party of billionaires, as both UnHerd and the Nation acknowledge. Just look at the donor lists. Musk is an exception in being a billionaire who does NOT support Democrat policies.
And that’s why FDR created the FDIC. So it literally can’t happen with banks now.
Ok, but that was not the case. The fed by law was limited in how much cash it could issue based on how much gold it held. Dollars were also convertible to gold at a fixed price (which is why there was a massive depletion of gold reserves when everyone began to assume (correctly) that FDR would take the dollar off the gold standard. This resulted in money being taken out of circulation and a massive deflation in prices of goods and commodities, which drove us further into recession. I have no idea what OP is talking about, frankly. He hasn't provided any sources. The US was one of the largest holders of gold in the world and had every incentive in the world to maintain the gold standard (as it was a significant beneficiary of a global gold standard, given that it was a net creditor nation), but had to let it go to save itself.
Yeah man FDR caused the Great Depression
The fact that it's legally a loan is what has allowed banks to legally default for many years. Until the creation of the FDIC in the 1930's a failed bank would simply lock it's doors and tell it's depositors to go fuck themselves. That's why FDR created the FDIC, because without it people no longer trusted banks and refused to use them.
Obama was the first two term president in US History to fail to increase the minimum wage during his tenure. (Only counting presidents since FDR, who passed the first minimum wage law) The minimum wage has only increased an average of 1.37% per year since 1997, while from 1938-1997 saw an average annual increase of 5.13%.
Gold Standard lovers are definitely in the minority. FDR was forced to abolish the Gold Standard just to lift the USA out of the Great Depression. The Gold Standard turned an otherwise typical recession into one of the worst economic crises in American History. Printing of money also doesn’t cause inflation, it causes devaluation against other currencies which effects imports and exports. The problem in American society is that wages haven’t risen with the printing of money. This has very little to do with monetary policy tho, and is more because of USA business culture. Adopting the gold standard today would be a disaster. It shouldn’t need to be explained how a deflationary currency would be inferior to the current system. Lack of control over monetary supply also prevents adapting to societal changes such as supply chain disruptions and too much money in circulation. There’s a reason not a single advanced economy uses the Gold Standard. Support for the Gold Standard is very uncommon, except in crypto it seems to be a majority.
And to your first point, no a bank run does not literally mean people are hoarding gold. But it’s a fact that people did hoard gold. People did not spend. FDR abolished the gold standard for a reason. Deflationary assets do not function as currencies. Crypto has absolutely no shot at mass adoption if basic economic principles cannot be understood. I’m not against BTC at all, I’m against the fact that it is a currency. I think El Salvador would be far better off creating a Salvadorian Dollar tied to a BTC Standard than using Bitcoin itself. Would be a great pathway towards eventually having to convert to a fiat system after progress is made. That is BTC’s use case imo. And that holds so much value for all developing nations out there. Holding BTC in the reserves and developing a national currency derived from that. That is the future of Bitcoin imo
Mate, the USA was on the Gold Standard. People made bank runs, withdrawing their money largely in the form of gold. These bank runs and the subsequent hoarding of gold cause “Monetary Contraction.” Less money -> higher interest rates -> reduced spending -> less production -> less workers -> less money and so on. Bank runs started in 1929, and continued until Roosevelt literally prevented people from withdrawing money for gold. On 5. April 1933 FDR ordered all gold worth more than $100 be traded in for other money. [Banking Panics of 1930-31](https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/banking-panics-1930-31) - “The USA appeared to be poised for an economic recovery following the stock market crash until a series of bank runs tuned the recovery into the start of the Great Depression”