4 ms·

I'm curious the reason why it was ever held in the US and Canada

blooalien 28d ago
> I'm curious the reason why it was ever held in the US and Canada Random Educated Guess; Probably part of some show of mutual trust to cement a treaty or other agreement, made way back when allied governments could mostly trust one another to hold to such agreements somewhat reliably?
- ericmay 28d ago
  Eh I don’t think that’s a good guess. More likely is that there are just mechanical reasons to have moved some (they didn’t move all of it by the way) gold to London. Plus it’s not that much money in the grand scheme of things. Your implication here is something akin to the Netherlands thinks the US will invade Canada - remember the Dutch moved gold from there too, or that the US will decide to seize the Netherland’s gold (again, not that much money, huge irreparable harm to the US financial system, even Europe hasn’t confiscated Russian assets) but if the US felt compelled to seize Dutch assets what makes you think such a dramatic scenario wouldn’t result in the US compelling the UK to also seize those assets?
  - tialaramex 28d ago
    > dramatic scenario wouldn’t result in the US compelling the UK to also seize those assets? The US can demand that we seize other people's gold, but if we acceded then it's game over for our financial industry - London is an important financial centre today but if it's actually just New York but on the far side of the Atlantic who cares? My guess is that the UK would say "No" and since that's presumably a demand from the Orange Buffoon not somebody sane the next thing would be an order to attack us militarily, which is strikingly dumb in this circumstance. Of course the US can destroy Britain though it might not be as easy in practice as it looks on paper - but the bloodshed would be horrific and all the victims speak English and have Internet access. Bombing a girl's school in Iran looks like a PR master stroke by comparison.
    - ericmay 28d ago
      > Bombing a girl's school in Iran looks like a PR master stroke by comparison. Iran killed more than 30,000 of its own people for peacefully protesting and continues to hang its own citizens to this day. They (along with Hamas, Hezbollah, and more) intentionally set up military assets next to civilian facilities because they know we don’t intentionally strike civilian facilities and they tell you that themselves. Iran intentionally attacks civilians and civilian infrastructure and provides military support to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. They should be attacked for providing support for Russia alone, let alone anything else they’ve been doing. Anyway back on topic > The US can demand that we seize other people's gold, but if we acceded then it's game over for our financial industry - London is an important financial centre today but if it's actually just New York but on the far side of the Atlantic who cares? The kind of scenarios envisioned in which the US seizes gold from the Netherlands are so catastrophic and crazy that requiring the UK to also seize said gold would seem to be not that big of a deal. You guys are driving yourself into psychosis about how the world works and creating nonsense scenarios like the US is somehow going to just seize a pathetic $80 billion in gold and completely ruin the credibility of its financial system when Europe won’t even seize Russian assets and it’s practically at war. This shows the kind of bar needed to seize sovereign wealth. And no, Trump can’t and isn’t dumb enough to start seizing assets of another country. If you think he can and he is, you’re wrong and it is further evidence that you’re just whipping yourself up into crazy land.
      - KaiserPro 28d ago
        Yes iran is a murderous regime, but thats not a get out of jail free for either failing to do logistics, plan for the enemy you face, or failing to properly vet your targets in a war of choice. > And no, Trump can’t and isn’t dumb enough to start seizing assets of another country. I mean Maduro would like a word. He literally kidnapped a world leader to gain access to a country's oil system. Then there is the agitation, visits and posturing to invade an ally's fucking land. Its not that difficult to imagine trump confiscating "foreign gold" to even up the "trade deficit". There are no effective controls on trump's actions. > completely ruin the credibility of its financial system Besent is doing a good job ruining that trying to shout at the bond market, and pissing about with the Yen. Then there is the attempts to yeet parts of the Fed it's self.
antonymoose 28d ago
I would assume WWII and the Cold War?
- Eddy_Viscosity2 28d ago
  This is the answer, they moved it out during WWII so the nazi's wouldn't steal it. A number of countries did this, including England.
  - ButlerianJihad 28d ago
    [flagged]
greggsy 28d ago
Makes trade easier than shifting currency. It’s also more stable and liquid if you need to make things happen in an emergency.
sajithdilshan 28d ago
Could be due to the fact that before 1970s the currency was backed by Gold and they had it in US to easily convert it to USD if needed
clbrmbr 28d ago
(another guess) to convert to dollars, the gold would need to be delivered to the custody of the US Fed, which is easiest when the bars are physically in the Fed's vault. in a low-trust situation, you have all the gold in your own country, but then its so much leas liquid bc you need to physically deliver it to trading partners, or they must trust your accounting of their share in your vault.
artisinal 28d ago
Makes it harder to steal. Don't forget that the European continent has had wars almost non-stop for centuries. It is a good strategy to place your gold in a location that has not seen much action in the past 250 years.
drewstiff 28d ago
It was originally payments owed to Dutch interests in America being converted to gold and stored locally on their behalf, as opposed to having to be transported across the Atlantic back to the Netherlands. Then later the Dutch moved a lot more of their gold over there before/during WWII in order to keep it out of reach of the Nazis.
exceptione 28d ago
Besides the reasons listed by the others, this also a matter of relationships as there a deep ties between these nations and the Netherlands. Without the Dutch financing the Americans, America would not have been able to become independent from the English. The Dutch were also the first country on earth to acknowledge America's independence [1][2], costing them a war with the pissed England [3]. There are a lot of Dutch people living in Canada.[4] _____ 1. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_de_Graaff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_de_Graaff> 2. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_First_Salute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_First_Salute> 3. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Anglo-Dutch_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Anglo-Dutch_War> 4. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Canadians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Canadians>
hylaride 28d ago
It's mostly historical and a combination of security from the WW2 and Cold War eras as well as how the gold standard worked before Bretton Woods. Most countries held gold reserves as their currencies were backed by it. When money needed to move because of trade, the ratios of currencies backed by gold would shift as money got converted to other currencies. However, constantly moving physical gold back and forth with the ebs and flows of trade was impractical, so ownership of gold in central bank vaults usually just had its legal ownership marked on ledgers. Physical gold moving was more part of reconciliation. This description is an oversimplification as in practice, countries didn't always play by the rules of the gold standard (revaluations, going on and off the standard, etc), but you get the general idea. This mostly ended as Bretton woods came into effect and the new system was basing the US dollars on gold, then other countries held direct US dollars and traded that instead. Countries could then convert those US dollars into gold. This ended when Nixon closed the gold window when he refused to raise interest rates as there started to be a run on gold as countries rushed to convert. The backdrop was that high spending on the Vietnam was and new social programs was driving inflation, but Nixon knew that would cause an economic slowdown he wasn't willing to do. Jimmy Carter then took a lot of the political flack for allowing the central bank to raise rates to kill it. This is why central bank independence is so important. During times of geopolitical risk, countries would physically move their gold to be held in trust in friendly and/or rule of law countries. The USA was seen as this between ~1914-now.
ulfw 28d ago
Mate look up New Amsterdam
- ktallett 25d ago
  That was centuries ago bruv.
inglor_cz 28d ago
Um, the actual violent history of Europe? Plenty of governments ended up in exile during the last 250 years, and it is better if your gold isn't suddenly in hands of someone like Goering or Stalin.

> I'm curious the reason why it was ever held in the US and Canada Random Educated Guess; Probably part of some show of mutual trust to cement a treaty or other agreement, made way back when allied governments could mostly trust one another to hold to such agreements somewhat reliably?

ericmay 28d ago
Eh I don’t think that’s a good guess. More likely is that there are just mechanical reasons to have moved some (they didn’t move all of it by the way) gold to London. Plus it’s not that much money in the grand scheme of things. Your implication here is something akin to the Netherlands thinks the US will invade Canada - remember the Dutch moved gold from there too, or that the US will decide to seize the Netherland’s gold (again, not that much money, huge irreparable harm to the US financial system, even Europe hasn’t confiscated Russian assets) but if the US felt compelled to seize Dutch assets what makes you think such a dramatic scenario wouldn’t result in the US compelling the UK to also seize those assets?
- tialaramex 28d ago
  > dramatic scenario wouldn’t result in the US compelling the UK to also seize those assets? The US can demand that we seize other people's gold, but if we acceded then it's game over for our financial industry - London is an important financial centre today but if it's actually just New York but on the far side of the Atlantic who cares? My guess is that the UK would say "No" and since that's presumably a demand from the Orange Buffoon not somebody sane the next thing would be an order to attack us militarily, which is strikingly dumb in this circumstance. Of course the US can destroy Britain though it might not be as easy in practice as it looks on paper - but the bloodshed would be horrific and all the victims speak English and have Internet access. Bombing a girl's school in Iran looks like a PR master stroke by comparison.
  - ericmay 28d ago
    > Bombing a girl's school in Iran looks like a PR master stroke by comparison. Iran killed more than 30,000 of its own people for peacefully protesting and continues to hang its own citizens to this day. They (along with Hamas, Hezbollah, and more) intentionally set up military assets next to civilian facilities because they know we don’t intentionally strike civilian facilities and they tell you that themselves. Iran intentionally attacks civilians and civilian infrastructure and provides military support to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. They should be attacked for providing support for Russia alone, let alone anything else they’ve been doing. Anyway back on topic > The US can demand that we seize other people's gold, but if we acceded then it's game over for our financial industry - London is an important financial centre today but if it's actually just New York but on the far side of the Atlantic who cares? The kind of scenarios envisioned in which the US seizes gold from the Netherlands are so catastrophic and crazy that requiring the UK to also seize said gold would seem to be not that big of a deal. You guys are driving yourself into psychosis about how the world works and creating nonsense scenarios like the US is somehow going to just seize a pathetic $80 billion in gold and completely ruin the credibility of its financial system when Europe won’t even seize Russian assets and it’s practically at war. This shows the kind of bar needed to seize sovereign wealth. And no, Trump can’t and isn’t dumb enough to start seizing assets of another country. If you think he can and he is, you’re wrong and it is further evidence that you’re just whipping yourself up into crazy land.
    - KaiserPro 28d ago
      Yes iran is a murderous regime, but thats not a get out of jail free for either failing to do logistics, plan for the enemy you face, or failing to properly vet your targets in a war of choice. > And no, Trump can’t and isn’t dumb enough to start seizing assets of another country. I mean Maduro would like a word. He literally kidnapped a world leader to gain access to a country's oil system. Then there is the agitation, visits and posturing to invade an ally's fucking land. Its not that difficult to imagine trump confiscating "foreign gold" to even up the "trade deficit". There are no effective controls on trump's actions. > completely ruin the credibility of its financial system Besent is doing a good job ruining that trying to shout at the bond market, and pissing about with the Yen. Then there is the attempts to yeet parts of the Fed it's self.

antonymoose 28d ago

I would assume WWII and the Cold War?

Eddy_Viscosity2 28d ago
This is the answer, they moved it out during WWII so the nazi's wouldn't steal it. A number of countries did this, including England.
- ButlerianJihad 28d ago
  [flagged]

greggsy 28d ago

Makes trade easier than shifting currency. It’s also more stable and liquid if you need to make things happen in an emergency.

sajithdilshan 28d ago

Could be due to the fact that before 1970s the currency was backed by Gold and they had it in US to easily convert it to USD if needed

clbrmbr 28d ago

(another guess) to convert to dollars, the gold would need to be delivered to the custody of the US Fed, which is easiest when the bars are physically in the Fed's vault. in a low-trust situation, you have all the gold in your own country, but then its so much leas liquid bc you need to physically deliver it to trading partners, or they must trust your accounting of their share in your vault.

artisinal 28d ago

Makes it harder to steal. Don't forget that the European continent has had wars almost non-stop for centuries. It is a good strategy to place your gold in a location that has not seen much action in the past 250 years.

drewstiff 28d ago

It was originally payments owed to Dutch interests in America being converted to gold and stored locally on their behalf, as opposed to having to be transported across the Atlantic back to the Netherlands. Then later the Dutch moved a lot more of their gold over there before/during WWII in order to keep it out of reach of the Nazis.

exceptione 28d ago

Besides the reasons listed by the others, this also a matter of relationships as there a deep ties between these nations and the Netherlands. Without the Dutch financing the Americans, America would not have been able to become independent from the English. The Dutch were also the first country on earth to acknowledge America's independence [1][2], costing them a war with the pissed England [3]. There are a lot of Dutch people living in Canada.[4] _____ 1. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_de_Graaff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_de_Graaff> 2. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_First_Salute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_First_Salute> 3. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Anglo-Dutch_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Anglo-Dutch_War> 4. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Canadians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Canadians>

hylaride 28d ago

It's mostly historical and a combination of security from the WW2 and Cold War eras as well as how the gold standard worked before Bretton Woods. Most countries held gold reserves as their currencies were backed by it. When money needed to move because of trade, the ratios of currencies backed by gold would shift as money got converted to other currencies. However, constantly moving physical gold back and forth with the ebs and flows of trade was impractical, so ownership of gold in central bank vaults usually just had its legal ownership marked on ledgers. Physical gold moving was more part of reconciliation. This description is an oversimplification as in practice, countries didn't always play by the rules of the gold standard (revaluations, going on and off the standard, etc), but you get the general idea. This mostly ended as Bretton woods came into effect and the new system was basing the US dollars on gold, then other countries held direct US dollars and traded that instead. Countries could then convert those US dollars into gold. This ended when Nixon closed the gold window when he refused to raise interest rates as there started to be a run on gold as countries rushed to convert. The backdrop was that high spending on the Vietnam was and new social programs was driving inflation, but Nixon knew that would cause an economic slowdown he wasn't willing to do. Jimmy Carter then took a lot of the political flack for allowing the central bank to raise rates to kill it. This is why central bank independence is so important. During times of geopolitical risk, countries would physically move their gold to be held in trust in friendly and/or rule of law countries. The USA was seen as this between ~1914-now.

ulfw 28d ago

Mate look up New Amsterdam

ktallett 25d ago
That was centuries ago bruv.

inglor_cz 28d ago

Um, the actual violent history of Europe? Plenty of governments ended up in exile during the last 250 years, and it is better if your gold isn't suddenly in hands of someone like Goering or Stalin.