Emergency Banking Act of 33... will it return?

**Dredly** · February 15th, 2009, 04:13 PM

Some of the economists are beginning to point to the Emergency Banking act of 1933 and stating that it may happen again in the next 1 - 2 years. One of the biggest pieces of this act was the "Bank Holiday" where all banks were closed and then only the "worth while" (strong) banks were reopened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Banking_Act

The more "impacting" to most citizens will be the seizure of gold under the Trading with the Enemy act and paid for the gold in a paper currency. failure to turn in gold was a crime punishable by 10 years in prison.

Crazy

**n1fhpa** · February 15th, 2009, 05:36 PM

Wouldn't this have been better than the Bush/Paulson bank bailout plan with our tax dollars? It does make sense to close the insolvent banks instead of a bailout for them.

Since we are now on a fiat system, the gold confication would not be necessary?

**phillyd2** · February 15th, 2009, 09:23 PM

I think the FDIC would remove the need for any sort of bank "holiday" since all funds are federally insured.

**dtc6776** · February 15th, 2009, 09:29 PM

a bank holiday i heard might be used if there was a sharp devalue of the dollar. so that there wouldn't be a bank run and by the time they did get there money out could be worth half of what it was if not less. i heard ron paul and peter schiff talking bout it. look it up

**dc dalton** · February 15th, 2009, 09:43 PM

Originally Posted by n1fhpa

Wouldn't this have been better than the Bush/Paulson bank bailout plan with our tax dollars? It does make sense to close the insolvent banks instead of a bailout for them.

Since we are now on a fiat system, the gold confication would not be necessary?

You are probably right ... that money Bush, Bernanke and Paulson 'threw' at the banks is as good as gone. Don't know if you people have heard, the assets we * cough cough * bought have already lost 68 billion (e.g. we paid too damn much for them)

Originally Posted by phillyd2

I think the FDIC would remove the need for any sort of bank "holiday" since all funds are federally insured.

You are in fact correct BUT there is one little gotcha there. The FDIC only has x amount of money to cover the banks and it is possible one or two biggies could go down and they would literally run out of money. Of course at that point the FED would then just have to fire up the printing presses and we would have to borrow more money from them to fix the mess.

As far as gold confiscation? I'm not going to say it wouldn't happen but DAMN it would get ugly if thy tried.

What MAY in fact happen is the government revalues the price of their gold reserves. The gold they hold is valued at some stupid number like (can't find the exact number) $35 an ounce. There has been a lot of talk of them re-evaluating it (up of course). If that were to happen you would see all sorts of fun crap start.

**dc dalton** · February 15th, 2009, 10:08 PM

If any of you are looking for some great reading on gold here is the page to look:

http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/metals.html

you won't get any better info than there

**dc dalton** · February 15th, 2009, 11:32 PM

AH HAH!

I found the way the US Government values the gold they hold in reserve (with the help of a friend)

http://www.usmint.gov/about_the_mint...ule_00_ann_rpt

OUR government values their gold at $42.22 per ounce and silver at $1.2929 per ounce.

This is what I mean about them revaluing their gold and silver reserves and how that would have a MAJOR impact on the actual valuation of these metals. Currently the cost to mine gold is around $350 yet OUR government audits OUR reserves at these asinine low values ... Gee, wonder if they would sell me some at those prices?

**phillyd2** · February 16th, 2009, 10:21 AM

As a international commodity I do not think its possible for them to revaluing gold. How they value their own gold on their books is a different matter but Government Accounting is too much of a oxymoron to even discuss.