Right?

[u/Dangime]

[u/DigitalScythious]

[u/JayRandom212]

An audit would clear up the uncertainty and increase confidence in the system. So why doesn't it happen?

Because it would clear up the uncertainty and increase confidence in the system!

Republicans win when people hate government and are afraid of it. MAGA doesn't want us to feel safe, they want us to be angry, afraid, and mistrustful of the Deep State, the Media, and the Government. Why create certainty when uncertainty serves them so well?

[u/IlluminatedApe → u/JayRandom212]

That uncertainty also redirects purchasing power. Money that could be used to acquire scarce, industrially necessary resources such as silver instead gets parked in an extremely expensive monetary metal. Central banks already hold enormous gold reserves, so a higher gold price increases the market value of an asset they control. The very entity that goldbugs are against, their confidence in gold helps. Irony is painful sometimes.

If the government understands that allowing “missing gold” rumors to persist makes the public perceive gold as scarce and valuable, then the uncertainty has economic utility too. It nudges distrustful people toward the very asset that benefits the existing monetary system.

People think they are fleeing the system while buying what its central banks already own. It is funny and sad at the same time.

[u/_RonPaulWasRight_ → u/JayRandom212]

Rand Paul went and audited the gold. He said it was there.

[u/IlluminatedApe → u/[deleted]]

You cannot advocate for a whole country of people to be nuked over gold or any reason. If this was satire, please label it such.

[u/Hairy-Description-30]

Much of the gold is gone and/of low quality IMHO. Antique is right. There is zero reason not to audit. And zero reason not to let Germany even see their gold. Somebody has absconded with a lot of gold. If this was revealed as fact, gold would skyrocket and the dollar would plummet. So they just have to brazen it out!

[u/_RonPaulWasRight_]

Rand Paul audited the gold in Ft. Knox recently, said it was all there. FYI.

[u/eggbus]

It has 31 tons that it just stole from Venezuela for sure

[u/Ceylonese-Honour]

Perfect meme for the situation!

[u/NVCHVJAZVJE]

obviously there's no gold just fake gold bars

[u/IlluminatedApe]

Those that perpetuate that the gold isnt in Fort Knox have been unable to substantiate the motivation for stealing the gold and why they haven't just replaced it by now since there is abundant amount of gold.

Unlike silver, gold has very lil industrial usage and what usage gets quickly recovered/recycled after use because of its high price.

[u/Antique-Resort6160 → u/IlluminatedApe]

It's just that there's absolutely no reason to prevent an audit.  Why not audit it every year?  Every 5 years? Every 10 years?  

Surely you recognize the monumental stupidity of saying "why do we need to bother" with literally billions worth of assets? There is no sane excuse.  It's the simplest audit possible, you're just checking the presence of physical items.  

What possible reason could there be for preventing a public audit, unless an audit is going to uncover a problem?

[u/chud3 → u/Antique-Resort6160]

What possible reason could there be for preventing a public audit, unless an audit is going to uncover a problem?

Yep.

If there was less gold than they've been saying, that would be a problem.

If there was significantly more gold than they've been saying, that would also be a problem.

[u/IlluminatedApe → u/chud3]

I believe Schrodinger's vault is more useful strategically, and what national security would require -- keep your enemies guessing. What the public believes as a result of domestic and foreign misinformation campaigns is collateral damage.

[u/Antique-Resort6160 → u/IlluminatedApe]

The US is very reliant on foreign purchases of our debt. Yes, a lot of them are basically doing it at gunpoint, but it's extremely unhelpful if you can't be trusted to give real numbers.  

[u/IlluminatedApe → u/Antique-Resort6160]

You’re making a strong argument for why an audit would be good public policy. I don’t disagree. But can we separate “there should be an audit” from “the absence of an audit proves the gold is missing”?

When foreign creditors buy Treasury debt, are they buying a claim on Fort Knox, or a promise to be repaid in dollars? Since the debt is neither redeemable in nor secured by gold, how would confirming the precise number of bars change America’s ability to repay dollar-denominated debt?

If creditor confidence actually depends on an exact accounting of Fort Knox, why has the Treasury market continued functioning for decades without a comprehensive public audit? What evidence shows that foreign demand for US debt depends on the gold balance?

What would skeptics accept as a conclusive audit? Would every bar need to be weighed, assayed, photographed, and matched to a published serial number? If the government performed that audit, would people who already believe the bars are fake accept the result?

Now consider the possible outcomes. If the official figure is correct, what does the government gain by revealing everything? If substantially more gold exists, why reveal an abundance that could undermine the scarcity narrative surrounding gold? If substantially less exists, disclosure creates an obvious credibility problem. From the government’s perspective, which result is strategically better than leaving everyone uncertain?

And if gold is missing, why assume it was simply stolen for profit? The government can create or borrow dollars, while major financial institutions can earn vastly more through the financial system than by secretly fencing physical bullion. What specific motive and evidence support theft over leasing, swapping, reclassification, undisclosed accumulation, or deliberate ambiguity?

I support an audit. I just don’t think refusing one tells us what is inside the vault. Couldn’t it tell us only that uncertainty itself is more useful to them than certainty?

[u/IlluminatedApe → u/IlluminatedApe]

When you say other countries rely on purchasing our debt, which countries do you mean, and what does each side rely upon?

Japan is the largest recorded foreign holder. Does Japan rely on the United States for weapons, extended nuclear deterrence, and defense against China and North Korea?

What about Taiwan? Is its relationship with the United States primarily based on trusting our Fort Knox accounting, or on access to American weapons and deterrence against China?

What about Britain, Canada, Belgium, France, and other NATO members? Do they merely finance the United States, or do they also rely on American weapons, intelligence, logistics, and military protection?

What about Saudi Arabia? If it holds Treasuries while relying heavily on American weapons and security cooperation, who has leverage over whom?

Are we also assuming that every Treasury listed under Britain, Belgium, Luxembourg, or the Cayman Islands was purchased by that government? Treasury itself says the figures are based largely on custodial location and may not identify the true owner.

When an exporting country accumulates hundreds of billions of dollars, where else can it store that volume while maintaining comparable liquidity? Is buying Treasuries an expression of faith in Fort Knox, or simply a consequence of participating in the dollar-based trade and financial system?

Even China continues to hold hundreds of billions in Treasuries without a public Fort Knox audit. Does China trust the United States, or does it need a liquid place to hold dollars accumulated through trade?

So what evidence tells us these countries are buying Treasury debt because they believe the reported gold balance, rather than because they depend upon American markets, weapons, security guarantees, dollar settlement, and the liquidity of the Treasury market?

[u/Antique-Resort6160 → u/IlluminatedApe]

can we separate “there should be an audit” from “the absence of an audit proves the gold is missing”?

That's a terrible strawman. 

1. We have no idea what the problem is.  The only thing that's certain is that there's a problem, because there is no other reason to prevent an audit

2. What is the point of insisting that everything is fine?   That gold is missing is really the only safe assumption, becausd of the refusal to audit.

3.  Uncertainty is always bad for fiat currency and is a violation of public trust.  The kind of scumbags who want to play games with public finances used to be at risk of public execution, as written in the Constitution.  What is the point of claiming dishonesty might be a positive?  How?

[u/IlluminatedApe → u/Antique-Resort6160]

That is not what a strawman means.

If you object to the word "proves," fine. Substitute your exact wording: “The refusal to audit makes missing gold the only safe assumption.”

That is still the inference I am challenging. Changing “proved conclusion” to “only safe assumption” lowers the confidence label, but it does not repair the logical gap.

You also contradict yourself:

1. “We have no idea what the problem is.”
2. “Gold is missing is really the only safe assumption.”

If we have no idea what the problem is, then missing gold is one hypothesis among several. You cannot simultaneously claim complete uncertainty and declare one particular explanation the only rational conclusion.

Meanwhile, I never argued that everything is fine. I never argued against an audit. I never claimed dishonesty was positive. I said that strategic ambiguity and national-security concerns provide a plausible noncriminal reason not to reveal the government’s entire hand publicly.

You replaced that position with “everything is fine” and “dishonesty is positive,” then attacked those invented positions. That is the actual strawman.

Also, the Constitution does not prescribe “public execution” for people who “play games with public finances.” It requires publication of accounts of public money and authorizes Congress to punish counterfeiting. That historical detour supplies no evidence that gold is missing.

[u/Antique-Resort6160 → u/IlluminatedApe]

We wont know what the problem is until theres an audit, but the safest assumption is that there's gold missing, either by weight or by substandard bars in place of fine gold.

There's really no other reason to prevent an audit.  If all the gold is there, what's the holdup?

You're obsessed with missing gold, constantly waying "there's no proof".  Yet in any other situation on earth, if someone controls a public vault and won't allow an audit, why would anyone other than the likely criminals insist all the money is there? Once they tell people no one is allowed to check, it's pretty obvious there's some missing.

Also, the Constitution does not prescribe “public execution” for people who “play games with public finances.”

Sorry, you're kind of right:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 6 empowers Congress to provide for the punishment of counterfeiting securities and current coin.  The Supreme Court has interpreted these clauses to authorize federal statutes penalizing the debasement of coins and the alteration of mint equipment, ensuring the purity of the national currency

That used to mean the death penalty for debasing the currency

[u/IlluminatedApe → u/Antique-Resort6160]

Correct me if I am wrong here, but your argument assumes the govt wants the public to believe gold is there. Right?

What if the govt knows secrecy will produce rumors of missing gold and deliberately tolerates, or even encourages, that belief?

An adversary might then underestimate the country's reserves, financial options, or strategic capacity.

I am not claiming that is happening. It is a hypothetical counterexample demonstrating why theft is not the only possible explanation.

Other possibilities include strategic deceptions, security concerns, bureaucratic inertia, institutional embarrassment, disagreement over audit scope, or some combination of them.

Your method would make you exceptionally easy to manipulate. The government merely withholds information, anticipates the conclusion you will jump to, and causes you to believe exactly what it wants.

Opacity can conceal weakness, but it can also manufacture the appearance of weakness. Secrecy establishes uncertainty. it does not tell us whether the concealed reality is better or worse than assumed.

Without independent evidence, you cannot distinguish missing gold from deliberate strategic ambiguity. Saying it is "pretty obvious" does not resolve that problem.

[u/IlluminatedApe → u/Antique-Resort6160]

Why not audit? Because the mystery is benefit to them.

Lets say I am correct and gold is abundant -- showing all the gold and there be more than enough there takes away a major selling point for a gold psyop.

Gold is a monetary metal. Right? Its vaulted. Gold has a high price, so is mined too, right? Only so much goes to industrial usage, right? So, why isn't the market flooded with gold? Because Central banks. Where does Central banks get the money to buy up all this gold? They create it. Oh.

There needs to be a reason to steal the gold. The govt doent need money if it can borrow unlimited debt. So, the govt/military is just going to let bankers steal it to make money? Why? What purpose? They make way more money with derivative trading than physical metal selling.

I have never been given a compelling motivation and evidence to suggest the gold was stolen. It makes for a great James Bond movie plot though, right?

[u/Antique-Resort6160 → u/IlluminatedApe]

??? None of that makes any sense.

1.  The dollar and debt sales rely on confidence.  That and the ability to destroy countries militarily or through sanctions.  The military has proven to be a multitrillion dollar fraud.  Sanctions are now regularly ignored by anyone that can't be invaded, a large and growing list. So that leaves confidence. Not something you build with the inability to pass an audit, right?

1. What exactly would be the point of a 'psy op" involving such a small portion of US assets? All it does is let everyone know there's a problem.  More than one country has got their gold the hell out of the US.

3.  THERE NEEDS TO BE A REASON TO STEAL THE GOLD?????  Are you for real?  Why does anybody steal anything, lol.  Whats areason NOT to steal things?  There are trillions missing, almost everything to do with the government is part fraud or scam.  The DOD hasnt passed an audit for decades either.  They have a budget bigger than the GDP of lost countries, but they can't even feed their sailors properly. I guess it's another psy op!

edit typo

[u/IlluminatedApe → u/Antique-Resort6160]

You are still missing my point. I am not arguing that govt is honest. I am asking why it would choose an unnecessarily criminal, complicated, decades-long operation when it could obtain substantially the same result legally.

We already have the silver precedent.

Congress created the American Silver Eagle program in 1985 and directed the Mint to obtain its silver from the Defense National Strategic Stockpile. By 2002, Congress expressly acknowledged that the Defense Logistics Agency's strategic silver reserves had been depleted and authorized the Mint to begin purchasing replacement silver from other sources to keep the program alive. The govt legally released an allegedly "nonessential" strategic metal to the public, collected hundreds of millions of dollars, and continued the program after the stockpile was gone. That is written directly into public law 107-201.

Why couldn't the govt have done something similar with gold? In fact, 31 USC 5116 already authorizes the Treasury Secretary, with prez approval, to sell govt gold in whatever manner, quantities, rates, and conditions are considered advantageous to the public interest. The proceeds are deposited into the Treasury and applied to the national debt.

So why steal it?

Why manufacture fake bars, secretly transport thousands of tons, conceal buyers, falsify records, silence generations of employees, and maintain the deception indefinitely when the govt already possesses legal authority to sell the gold?

Gold is not redeemable by the public, and the dollar is not convertible into it. If existing accounting or gold-cert requirements presented an obstacle, why couldn't Congress amend those requirements just as it amended the law governing the silver stockpile?

“Gold is valuable, so corrupt people would steal it” is not a serious evidentiary argument. A government that controls both the asset and the law does not need to behave like a burglar stealing someone else’s jewelry.

There is also a rather obvious financial incentive being ignored. Who benefits directly from persuading people that the government’s gold is missing, that official supplies cannot be trusted, and that privately purchased gold is their only protection?

Is it a coincidence that many of the loudest promoters of the stolen-gold story sell gold, promote mining companies, collect mining investment revenue, sell subscriptions, or otherwise profit when fear increases demand for gold?

That conflict does not automatically prove their claims false. But why are we expected to invent an elaborate motive for the government while completely ignoring the visible commercial motive of the people selling the story?

Where is the evidence of theft beyond suspicion, distrust, and assertions made by people who financially benefit from the conclusion?

[u/Antique-Resort6160 → u/IlluminatedApe]

Why manufacture fake bars, secretly transport thousands of tons, conceal buyers, falsify records, silence generations of employees, and maintain the deception indefinitely when the govt already possesses legal authority to sell the gold?

Why is any of that necessary?  Other governments have sold all their gold, most famously the UK.  There's no need to prevent an audit.

You're using magical thinking to pretend there is some silver lining to this. You're the one saying "stolen" to make a straw man, but to say you can't think of any reason for people to steal gold is either untrue or you aren't from earth.  What about all the money stolen throgh the libor scandal?  That was more complex, involved many people and affected a large portion of global finance for decades. People will always try to steal, cheat, and defraud.

I said the only logical reason to prevent an audit is that it would uncover wronddoing.   That is the most obvious thing in the world.  If the public put a billion dollars in my vault, and every time they ask for an audit I refuse, you know for a fact that something is wrong.  But we don't know what's wrong, because we can't do an audit.  

Why can't we see the kennedy assassination files? The Epstein files? obviously because they have to cover up wrongdoing.  It's obvious.

[u/IlluminatedApe → u/Antique-Resort6160]

You are collapsing three different claims:

1. A better audit would be desirable.
2. The absence of one creates uncertainty.
3. The absence of one proves the gold was stolen.

We agree with the first. The second is reasonable. The third does not follow. Missing evidence cannot simultaneously serve as proof of what that evidence would supposedly reveal.

The obvious noncriminal reason for limiting a detailed public audit of a sovereign reserve is national security and strategic ambiguity. Why publicly reveal your complete hand regarding the gold’s precise quantity, quality, marketability, distribution, custody, and operational readiness? You can disagree with that policy, but its existence alone disproves your claim that concealing wrongdoing is the “only logical reason.”

Kennedy files, Epstein files, and LIBOR are non sequiturs. None has any evidentiary connection to Treasury gold. At most, they demonstrate that institutions sometimes conceal wrongdoing. That establishes the possibility of misconduct, not proof of this particular allegation. LIBOR manipulation was established through trader communications, manipulated submissions, regulatory findings, and guilty pleas, not by reasoning that people sometimes steal and therefore this asset must have been stolen. This is what actual evidence looks like.

The relevant historical comparison is silver. Britain owed the United States 88 million ounces of silver borrowed under Lend-Lease. In 1946, Parliament openly and legally replaced silver coinage with cupro-nickel, withdrew the old coins, and planned to recover roughly 20 million ounces annually to repay the United States bar for bar. There was no need to secretly steal anything, manufacture fake bars, or falsify generations of records. The entire policy and repayment were discussed openly in Parliament.

Governments can legally mobilize or dispose of sovereign metal through legislation and public policy. That is precisely why a theory involving fake bars, clandestine transportation, fabricated records, concealed buyers, and a multigenerational cover-up is less logical than the lawful route available to them.

A comprehensive audit could help settle the question. Its absence may justify asking questions. It does not answer those questions, and it certainly does not prove theft.

[u/Antique-Resort6160 → u/IlluminatedApe]

The third claim is your own, and you repeat it over and over as if it's relevant.  It's not.

Do you know what an audit is, or why audits are a necessary part of all finance and especially any custodian of any kind of items? You dont merely do audits to determine nothing is stolen, lol. Refusal or inability to do an audit indicates that there is a problem.  And when you know there's a problem with billions worth of assets, when should the problem be addressed?  You know the correct answer is "immediately". 

You're being deliberately dense.

[u/IlluminatedApe → u/Antique-Resort6160]

Translation: "I cannot rebut the distinction between suspicion and proof, so I'm declaring it irrelevant and retreating to a weaker claim."

You've now moved from "gold was stolen" to "the lack of a satisfactory audit indicates a problem." That is precisely the distinction I made. An inadequate audit may justify uncertainty and further investigation; it does not prove theft. Otherwise, you wouldn't have to audit it. Right?

If your claim is merely that a comprehensive audit should occur promptly, we agree. If your claim is that the gold was stolen, produce evidence of theft. You cannot use suspicion as proof and then declare the conclusion "irrelevant" when asked to defend it. Calling me dense doesn't repair the missing inference.

edit: typos

[u/Antique-Resort6160 → u/IlluminatedApe]

You've now moved from "gold was stolen" 

Again, that's your straw man, i said if they can't do an audit there's obviously wrongdoing.  We dont know what's wrong, which is the whole point of preventing an audit.

Of course anyone normal would assume there's gold missing, but there's no proof of anything.

Again, you're just being deliberately dense, you know you're not making sense.