26 ms·

Texas is not the first to do this. Over the last year, The Netherlands, Austria and Germany have also started repatriating gold from the NY Fed. In a way this p

Texas is not the first to do this. Over the last year, The Netherlands, Austria and Germany have also started repatriating gold from the NY Fed. In a way this points at a lack of faith in central bank trustworthiness. I actually wonder about two things here: a) What if every other state follows Texas' example and repatriates their gold as well? b) Perhaps a ridiculous hypothetical, but could this be the first step down the road towards secession? They'd need that gold if they ever wanted to establish their own country. Also an interesting tidbit in the bill which may point at raising fears of confiscation among the more paranoid-minded: the bill includes a provision to prevent seizure, for private parties who want to avoid another 1933 style confiscation of their bullion by Federal authorities.

krapp 11y ago
Texas likes to maintain the appearance of being just a hair's breadth away from secession at all times.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- allendoerfer 11y ago
  It is a common political strategy. Once the focus of the people shifts from the alternatives inside to the enemies and dangers outside, your approval ratings rise. Another pro is that you can assign blame when something bad happens as the public is already convinced of the common enemy. Horst Seehofer does the same in Germany's Texas, Bavaria.
serf 11y ago
a) Perhaps a ridiculous hypothetical, but could this be the first step down the road towards secession? They'd need that gold if they ever wanted to establish their own country. Maybe if they get the rest of the states on-board..[0] I, for one, would be glad to sign whatever paperwork gets Texas out of the country. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White
- cthalupa 11y ago
  >I, for one, would be glad to sign whatever paperwork gets Texas out of the country. This is so stupid. Both on the part of people like you, and also on the part of my fellow Texans who also hope for it to happen. Neither party wins. The US loses a major domestic source of fuel and other material goods, as well as one of the few red states that historically has paid more in federal taxes than it has received in federal funding. It loses a large number of military installations, the state that provides 50% more military recruits than the 2nd highest, etc etc etc. And Texas, of course, loses it's membership in the Union, which has a huge list of benefits. It's dumb. The whole discussion is stupid. I know you're probably being facetious, but it's something that would weaken both parties and seeing people on either side support it is something that makes me want to tear my hair out as a native Texan who doesn't engage in any of the extreme far-right idiocy that makes up half the state, yet some people take as representative of the entire population of it.
  - peteretep 11y ago
    > The US loses a major domestic source of fuel and other > material goods You know they wouldn't actually move Texas, right? It'll still be in the same place, and still part of NAFTA? They're not going to suddenly tow the State to be next to the _other_ Georgia.
    - mod 11y ago
      You know it wouldn't be domestic any more, right? That qualification is in the text you quoted.
      - peteretep 11y ago
        Yes. So the hell what when the country is next door, has amazing transportation links, and is nominally friendly?
  - dyspepsia 11y ago
    Just because you disagree with something doesn't mean it's stupid. Your arguments don't really prove any points, but let me address them anyway: 1) oil is a global commodity, so it really doesn't matter where it's located. Exxon will still pump it from the ground and sell it to the highest bidder. No change. 2) Texas gets about $0.95 back for every $1.00 it pays to the federal government, so we'd lose a tiny surplus there. However losing Texas from the Union would mean that we're less likely to have Texans leading us into expensive wars, and pushing for expensive military projects that mostly benefit Texas. 3) Losing military installations isn't a bad thing. The military is primarily a welfare jobs program for red states, and one that enables all sorts of other overspending. Losing military installations is a benefit. 4) Losing military recruits is, similarly, a good thing. Not just because it starves the military, but because Texas' overrepresentation in the military is because Texas has a larger than average pool of unskilled labor. You can keep your unskilled labor, the world is changing in a way that makes those people an increasingly larger liability. 5) Texas losing the benefits of the Union is only bad if you're a Texan. As for the rest of us, it eliminates a source of religious and political extremism. This is not dumb. This is not stupid. The US would be a stronger, better country if Texas left the union. I get that you disagree, because you're from Texas and smart enough to realize that it's in your personal self-interest to stay in the USA. But Texas isn't good for America, and it's not dumb or stupid to want it gone.
kasey_junk 11y ago
An easier read of this is that it is political pandering of an obvious sort.
hollerith 11y ago
>What if every other state follows Texas' example and repatriates their gold as well? Do other US states even own any gold? (My guess is that the answer is no.)
- cnst 11y ago
  The gold they're talking about is supposedly the property of University of Texas endowment fund, thus, it's hard to imagine that other university systems in other states are so different as to be completely against having any gold holdings.

krapp 11y ago

Texas likes to maintain the appearance of being just a hair's breadth away from secession at all times.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
allendoerfer 11y ago
It is a common political strategy. Once the focus of the people shifts from the alternatives inside to the enemies and dangers outside, your approval ratings rise. Another pro is that you can assign blame when something bad happens as the public is already convinced of the common enemy. Horst Seehofer does the same in Germany's Texas, Bavaria.

serf 11y ago

a) Perhaps a ridiculous hypothetical, but could this be the first step down the road towards secession? They'd need that gold if they ever wanted to establish their own country. Maybe if they get the rest of the states on-board..[0] I, for one, would be glad to sign whatever paperwork gets Texas out of the country. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

cthalupa 11y ago
>I, for one, would be glad to sign whatever paperwork gets Texas out of the country. This is so stupid. Both on the part of people like you, and also on the part of my fellow Texans who also hope for it to happen. Neither party wins. The US loses a major domestic source of fuel and other material goods, as well as one of the few red states that historically has paid more in federal taxes than it has received in federal funding. It loses a large number of military installations, the state that provides 50% more military recruits than the 2nd highest, etc etc etc. And Texas, of course, loses it's membership in the Union, which has a huge list of benefits. It's dumb. The whole discussion is stupid. I know you're probably being facetious, but it's something that would weaken both parties and seeing people on either side support it is something that makes me want to tear my hair out as a native Texan who doesn't engage in any of the extreme far-right idiocy that makes up half the state, yet some people take as representative of the entire population of it.
- peteretep 11y ago
  > The US loses a major domestic source of fuel and other > material goods You know they wouldn't actually move Texas, right? It'll still be in the same place, and still part of NAFTA? They're not going to suddenly tow the State to be next to the _other_ Georgia.
  - mod 11y ago
    You know it wouldn't be domestic any more, right? That qualification is in the text you quoted.
    - peteretep 11y ago
      Yes. So the hell what when the country is next door, has amazing transportation links, and is nominally friendly?
- dyspepsia 11y ago
  Just because you disagree with something doesn't mean it's stupid. Your arguments don't really prove any points, but let me address them anyway: 1) oil is a global commodity, so it really doesn't matter where it's located. Exxon will still pump it from the ground and sell it to the highest bidder. No change. 2) Texas gets about $0.95 back for every $1.00 it pays to the federal government, so we'd lose a tiny surplus there. However losing Texas from the Union would mean that we're less likely to have Texans leading us into expensive wars, and pushing for expensive military projects that mostly benefit Texas. 3) Losing military installations isn't a bad thing. The military is primarily a welfare jobs program for red states, and one that enables all sorts of other overspending. Losing military installations is a benefit. 4) Losing military recruits is, similarly, a good thing. Not just because it starves the military, but because Texas' overrepresentation in the military is because Texas has a larger than average pool of unskilled labor. You can keep your unskilled labor, the world is changing in a way that makes those people an increasingly larger liability. 5) Texas losing the benefits of the Union is only bad if you're a Texan. As for the rest of us, it eliminates a source of religious and political extremism. This is not dumb. This is not stupid. The US would be a stronger, better country if Texas left the union. I get that you disagree, because you're from Texas and smart enough to realize that it's in your personal self-interest to stay in the USA. But Texas isn't good for America, and it's not dumb or stupid to want it gone.

kasey_junk 11y ago

An easier read of this is that it is political pandering of an obvious sort.

hollerith 11y ago

>What if every other state follows Texas' example and repatriates their gold as well? Do other US states even own any gold? (My guess is that the answer is no.)

cnst 11y ago
The gold they're talking about is supposedly the property of University of Texas endowment fund, thus, it's hard to imagine that other university systems in other states are so different as to be completely against having any gold holdings.