Bank safe box storage diversification and other tips

[notsheigetz]

No. Last I'm aware of was world war 2. 1933 before that. There have of course been individual searches... I'm referring to mass searches.

I don't think governments could get away with the confiscation of gold nowadays, or ever again probably. I think they are stuck with doing all they can to prevent direct ownership and driving down the price as much as possible.

[smurff]

During wartime, with a widely credited threat of imminent invasion, things are going to happen. I am not defending all of the measures taken. But in the context of the time and events, we had just been attacked, some are understandable.

We are in wartime right now, in a variety of different wars (Afghanistan hot war currently; Iraq recently even though there was an alleged pullout; threats back and forth between the USA and North Korea, Iran, and Syria; interference in Libya; handwringing over Egypt--the list is long).  There is moreover a real drone war against al-QAeda and and their allies, with the list/definition of "allies" a matter of national security--meaning there could be enough flexibility to include anyone inconvenient.

But I agree that right now the federal gov is not planning on any mass confiscation of gold or opening of safe deposit boxes, and if they tried the outcry against it would be great enough to stop it.  Don't know about the future, however.

[Ad Orientem]

During wartime, with a widely credited threat of imminent invasion, things are going to happen. I am not defending all of the measures taken. But in the context of the time and events, we had just been attacked, some are understandable.

We are in wartime right now, in a variety of different wars (Afghanistan hot war currently; Iraq recently even though there was an alleged pullout; threats back and forth between the USA and North Korea, Iran, and Syria; interference in Libya; handwringing over Egypt--the list is long).  There is moreover a real drone war against al-QAeda and and their allies, with the list/definition of "allies" a matter of national security--meaning there could be enough flexibility to include anyone inconvenient.

But I agree that right now the federal gov is not planning on any mass confiscation of gold or opening of safe deposit boxes, and if they tried the outcry against it would be great enough to stop it.  Don't know about the future, however.

I think the situation is a bit different. In late 1941 and early '42 we had just been sucker-punched at Pearl Harbor. Most of the Pacific Fleet was destroyed. There were real fears of a Japanese invasion. Some enemy troops did actually invade and occupy some islands that were part of Alaska. On at least one occasion an enemy submarine bombarded a coastal town in Northern California. US Overseas Territory was invaded and occupied with dreadful atrocities committed against both POWs and civilians.

It was a different time.

[MediumTex]

But I agree that right now the federal gov is not planning on any mass confiscation of gold or opening of safe deposit boxes, and if they tried the outcry against it would be great enough to stop it.  Don't know about the future, however.

I always figured that before the federal government seriously considered confiscating anyone's gold, they would first stop minting and selling gold coins.

[smurff]

That makes perfect sense.

[Libertarian666]

But I agree that right now the federal gov is not planning on any mass confiscation of gold or opening of safe deposit boxes, and if they tried the outcry against it would be great enough to stop it.  Don't know about the future, however.

I always figured that before the federal government seriously considered confiscating anyone's gold, they would first stop minting and selling gold coins.

Why? The more they sell, the more they can confiscate!

[MediumTex]

But I agree that right now the federal gov is not planning on any mass confiscation of gold or opening of safe deposit boxes, and if they tried the outcry against it would be great enough to stop it.  Don't know about the future, however.

I always figured that before the federal government seriously considered confiscating anyone's gold, they would first stop minting and selling gold coins.

Why? The more they sell, the more they can confiscate!

Are you suggesting that the U.S. government would continue selling gold coins at the same time that it was confiscating the gold coins that people had bought?

That doesn't make any sense to me.

That would be like the government banning assault rifles after opening up a chain of "Uncle Sam Assault Rifle Shops."

[murphy_p_t]

That would be like the government banning assault rifles after opening up a chain of "Uncle Sam Assault Rifle Shops."

see Fast and Furious (gunrunning, not the movie)

[Libertarian666]

I always figured that before the federal government seriously considered confiscating anyone's gold, they would first stop minting and selling gold coins.

Why? The more they sell, the more they can confiscate!

Are you suggesting that the U.S. government would continue selling gold coins at the same time that it was confiscating the gold coins that people had bought?

That doesn't make any sense to me.

That would be like the government banning assault rifles after opening up a chain of "Uncle Sam Assault Rifle Shops."

Are you under the mistaken impression that government actions generally make sense?

[Pointedstick]

Libertarian666 brings up a good point. Plenty of government actions make no sense for the simple reason that different departments and agencies are responsible for different things. It's entirely possible for Agency A to be pursuing a policy entirely contravened by Agency B, or Law C, or court decision D, or point of common sense D.

Just about the only thing you can count on from any entity is self-preservation. Rarely rationality.

[MediumTex]

Another thing I don't understand about the gold confiscation scenarios is why the government would want anyone's gold. 

We're not on a gold standard, so it wouldn't improve the backing for the currency.

We will never go back onto a gold standard because politicians and central bankers hate it.

And the U.S. government is already the largest holder of gold in the world.  What would be the point of obtaining more through confiscation?

[Pointedstick]

I don't think they would want to have it, necessarily. That just wouldn't want YOU to have it. If capital controls become more strict and people start fleeing with gold, I could see restrictions on it as a crude, clumsy means of trying to inhibit the ability of people to use it to evade them.

[goodasgold]

Libertarian666 brings up a good point. Plenty of government actions make no sense for the simple reason that different departments and agencies are responsible for different things. It's entirely possible for Agency A to be pursuing a policy entirely contravened by Agency B, or Law C, or court decision D, or point of common sense D.

Yep, just look at tobacco. The Agricultural Dept. of the Federal government spends huge amounts of money subsidizing tobacco farmers, while the Dept. of Health spends lots of money to discourage smoking. 

[murphy_p_t]

We will never go back onto a gold standard because politicians and central bankers hate it.

This implies that just because politicians want something to happen...that it will....that politicians are all-powerful.

[MediumTex]

We will never go back onto a gold standard because politicians and central bankers hate it.

This implies that just because politicians want something to happen...that it will....that politicians are all-powerful.

Well, if the politicians don't want something to happen (e.g., going back onto a gold standard), and it would require a majority of those politicians to vote for it in order for it to happen, then I don't see how it would happen.

It's not that they are all-powerful, it's just that they are the ones who control this particular decision and it's not in their nature (either individually or collectively) to give away power, and going back onto a gold standard would unquestionably reduce the power of all members of Congress.

[Libertarian666]

We will never go back onto a gold standard because politicians and central bankers hate it.

This implies that just because politicians want something to happen...that it will....that politicians are all-powerful.

Well, if the politicians don't want something to happen (e.g., going back onto a gold standard), and it would require a majority of those politicians to vote for it in order for it to happen, then I don't see how it would happen.

It's not that they are all-powerful, it's just that they are the ones who control this particular decision and it's not in their nature (either individually or collectively) to give away power, and going back onto a gold standard would unquestionably reduce the power of all members of Congress.

Not if the alternative is having a currency that no one will accept. In that case, it would be in their interest to go back on gold, as that is the only known way to ensure that people will take your money after a catastrophic currency failure.

[MediumTex]

This implies that just because politicians want something to happen...that it will....that politicians are all-powerful.

Well, if the politicians don't want something to happen (e.g., going back onto a gold standard), and it would require a majority of those politicians to vote for it in order for it to happen, then I don't see how it would happen.

It's not that they are all-powerful, it's just that they are the ones who control this particular decision and it's not in their nature (either individually or collectively) to give away power, and going back onto a gold standard would unquestionably reduce the power of all members of Congress.

Not if the alternative is having a currency that no one will accept. In that case, it would be in their interest to go back on gold, as that is the only known way to ensure that people will take your money after a catastrophic currency failure.

In that situation, wouldn't all major world currencies have to do the same, which would get us back to a world monetary system in which all currencies are pegged to gold, which no politician would want.

Do you think that it would only be necessary for the U.S. to do this?  If so, why? 

Why is the DOLLAR going to be the one that collapses?  As we have already discussed, a simultaneous international currency collapse simply isn't possible because every dollar seller MUST be a buyer of some other currency.  If people are selling the dollar, what will they be buying?  Why?

If you were talking about basically ANY country in the world other than the U.S. I might be able to comprehend your argument, but the U.S. dollar is in so much better condition from a structural perspective than any other currency in the world that I can't fathom why the dollar would be the currency to collapse.

What would the mechanics be of such a currency collapse?  If China stopped taking dollars, that would mean that the U.S. would stop buying Chinese exports.  If the Middle East stopped taking dollars, that would mean that the U.S. would stop buying Middle East oil.

In other words, it would be in no one's interest to see a collapse of the U.S. dollar, in part because the rest of the world wouldn't want to see the value of their treasury holdings collapse.

Since the rest of the world knows that the U.S. has the largest gold holdings in the world, hasn't the market already priced in the fact that if the world WERE to go back to a gold standard, the U.S. dollar would still be the dominant currency?

I feel like you are talking about a beautiful woman who looks in the mirror and only sees her imperfections no matter how much others reassure her that she is beautiful.  Even if she says "I don't feel beautiful" others would still view her as beautiful.  That's the U.S. dollar.  That's why, as Harry Browne observed, the U.S. dollar is the #1 currency in the world.

Even if you are just the best looking horse at the glue factory, if someone is forced to select the best looking horse they will select you.  All assets trade in relation to one another.

Remember, too, that no country today wants a strong currency.  That's an important point to keep in mind.

What is ironic is that from a long term perspective, the U.S. probably faces a greater risk of a strengthening dollar, as opposed to a weakening dollar.  See Japan.

[Libertarian666]

If you were talking about basically ANY country in the world other than the U.S. I might be able to comprehend your argument, but the U.S. dollar is in so much better condition from a structural perspective than any other currency in the world that I can't fathom why the dollar would be the currency to collapse.

Obviously we live in different worlds, since in the world I live in, the dollar is the currency of the most overextended, bankrupt entity the world has ever seen.

What color is the Sun in your world?

[Pointedstick]

If you were talking about basically ANY country in the world other than the U.S. I might be able to comprehend your argument, but the U.S. dollar is in so much better condition from a structural perspective than any other currency in the world that I can't fathom why the dollar would be the currency to collapse.

Obviously we live in different worlds, since in the world I live in, the dollar is the currency of the most overextended, bankrupt entity the world has ever seen.

What color is the Sun in your world?

Would it be fair to say that mental model you're working from is that the dollar is worthless trash that everyone in the world is on the verge of ditching as soon as they realize that it's a bunch of unbacked confetti conjured out of thin air by the most violent, least trustworthy band of organized criminals in human history?

[Libertarian666]

If you were talking about basically ANY country in the world other than the U.S. I might be able to comprehend your argument, but the U.S. dollar is in so much better condition from a structural perspective than any other currency in the world that I can't fathom why the dollar would be the currency to collapse.

Obviously we live in different worlds, since in the world I live in, the dollar is the currency of the most overextended, bankrupt entity the world has ever seen.

What color is the Sun in your world?

Would it be fair to say that mental model you're working from is that the dollar is worthless trash that everyone in the world is on the verge of ditching as soon as they realize that it's a bunch of unbacked confetti conjured out of thin air by the most violent, least trustworthy band of organized criminals in human history?

Everyone in the world? No. I don't expect everyone in the world to do anything at the same time.

What I expect is that the marginal demand for the dollar will take a nosedive at some point after an event that is unknowable in advance but will be heralded as "the reason" for its demise, just as the 1929 crash is considered by the unknowledgeable as "the reason" for the 1930's depression.

[Pointedstick]

Interesting. And do you anticipate that some other currency will be more attractive to people shell-shocked by this event?

[Libertarian666]

Interesting. And do you anticipate that some other currency will be more attractive to people shell-shocked by this event?

Yes. A gold-standard one.

[Pointedstick]

So you think the world is going to lose faith in ALL fiat currencies?

[Bean]

So you think the world is going to lose faith in ALL fiat currencies?

I have lost faith in fiat currency, but that has zero influence on the fact I have to pay bills and taxes in US Federal Reserve Notes.  I believe this is the primary reason fiat currency hasn't had a clear decline, it's fall with be in lock step with what ever failing government utilizes it.

[Mark Leavy]

Any other issues and tips that one should think about and follow when storing in safe boxes?

Wine vault.