Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Almighty Buck News

The Biggest Financial Fraud of All Time 470

Posted by Soulskill
from the go-big-or-go-home dept.
An anonymous reader sends this excerpt from an article at Bloomberg giving an inside look at how the Libor scandal happened: "Every morning, from his desk by the bathroom at the far end of Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc’s trading floor overlooking London’s Liverpool Street station, Paul White punched a series of numbers into his computer. White, who had joined RBS in 1984, was one of the employees responsible for the firm’s submissions for the London interbank offered rate, or Libor, the global benchmark for more than $300 trillion of contracts from mortgages and student loans to interest-rate swaps. Behind him sat Neil Danziger, a derivatives trader who had worked at the bank since 2002. On the morning of March 27, 2008, Tan Chi Min, Danziger’s boss in Tokyo, told him to make sure the next day’s submission in yen would increase, Bloomberg Markets magazine will report in its March issue. 'We need to bump it way up high, highest among all if possible,' [Tan wrote]. ... Events like those that took place on RBS’s trading floor ... are at the heart of what is emerging as the biggest and longest-running scandal in banking history. ... For years, traders at Deutsche Bank AG, UBS AG, Barclays, RBS and other banks colluded with colleagues responsible for setting the benchmark and their counterparts at other firms to rig the price of money, according to documents obtained by Bloomberg and interviews with two dozen current and former traders, lawyers and regulators. UBS traders went as far as offering bribes to brokers to persuade others to make favorable submissions on their behalf, regulatory filings show."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Biggest Financial Fraud of All Time

Comments Filter:
  • Fundamentally... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by hawks5999 (588198)
    ... this is no different than what Central Banks like the Federal Reserve, do every day.
    • Re:Fundamentally... (Score:5, Informative)

      by swampfriend (2629073) on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @09:37PM (#42733673)
      Except even the Federal Reserve has a little bit of a mandate to do what's in the best interest of America and long-term financial stability, whereas these people have no guiding principle but profit. I'm not saying the Federal Reserve is doing a great job with that, but there's a real difference between state-aligned central banks protecting their currencies and this kind of collusion.
      • Re:Fundamentally... (Score:4, Informative)

        by khallow (566160) on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @09:56PM (#42733801)
        So the "mandate" is a bit different? And what is the Federal Reserve doing that is actually in the best interest of "America" and long-term financial stability? Last I checked, their big thing was buying up trillions of dollars in bonds from banks that should be going through bankruptcy court. Deed doesn't seem to be matching mandate.
        • by hairyfish (1653411) on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @10:06PM (#42733889)
          Whenever I see comments about "What is the govt doing?" my immediate response is, try living in a country with no govt and see how it compares (Somalia, Afghanistan etc). Sure the govt is far from perfect, but if you live in a western country then it is probably providing a net gain for you as a citizen. What is your bank providing you?
          • by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @11:40PM (#42734463)

            "Whenever I see comments about "What is the govt doing?" my immediate response is, try living in a country with no govt and see how it compares (Somalia, Afghanistan etc)."

            That's really not very relevant. You might as well tell someone who has a broken arm that they should be grateful, because you know a guy with no legs.

            However, that isn't a logical argument at all. The fact that somebody else has it worse does not negate the fact that this person is in severe pain. And the fact that a few people (and comparatively, it is only a few) do not have a government, has little or no bearing on whether our government is doing the right thing. We have some serious problems here at home and comparing our government to no government does not even remotely add anything to the knowledge pool.

            Just a suggestion, but next time maybe try arguing about the actual topic at hand, rather than just calling everyone crybabies?

            • Re:Fundamentally... (Score:4, Interesting)

              by frank_adrian314159 (469671) on Wednesday January 30, 2013 @10:37AM (#42737263) Homepage

              The fact that somebody else has it worse does not negate the fact that this person is in severe pain.

              Well, governmentally speaking, are you really in severe pain, or do you just have a muscle ache that you're bitching about to anyone who you can persuade to (reluctantly) listen to your whining? All-in-all, I don't think that the government is doing such a bad job, given all that it's been tasked with. Can it be run more efficiently? Probably - we can all improve. And there are some pockets of corruption that need to be snipped out. But to suggest that it's some awful out-of-control rabid beast that needs to be put down or that it does absolutely no good goes beyond the pale, to me at least. Try toning down the hyperbole if you actually want a discussion.

        • by lgw (121541) on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @10:08PM (#42733913) Journal

          The Fed buying up US bonds (for the past couple of years) has nothing to do with bailing out banks, and everything to do with printing money. And about half the nation thinks that printing money is a great idea - I don't, but hey, democracy, not dictatorship of lgw. For a while they were buying up securities, mortgage-backed stuff that it would be a real stretch to call bonds, but again that was not bailing out individual banks (other parts of the government did that, but not the Fed - the Fed shuts down individual banks, and was shutting down many each week during the downturn), but rather keeping financial infrastructure intact. Again, I don't think that was the right plan, but most experts disagree with me.

          It's amazing how fast geeks will go off on a rant about imaginary banking scandals - c'mon slashdotters, don't be that crank with a firm opinion about a deeply technical subject that's he can't be bothered to actually study.

          This libor scandal is the real deal. It's as dirty as it gets. The more you know, the more pissed off you will be about it. Instead of saying "oh yeah, well, this other imaginary stuff is worse" try a little research. This is the kind of cheating that makes even a libertarian like me say "maybe we should have some more government oversight of these fundamentally dishonest weasels."

          • by khallow (566160)

            This libor scandal is the real deal. It's as dirty as it gets. The more you know, the more pissed off you will be about it. Instead of saying "oh yeah, well, this other imaginary stuff is worse" try a little research. This is the kind of cheating that makes even a libertarian like me say "maybe we should have some more government oversight of these fundamentally dishonest weasels."

            I think the real question is who decided on using LIBOR in the first place? I'm sure there are other similar self-reported indices out there where the reporting entities can profit from tweaking their numbers (for example, governments' reporting of inflation, GDP, and employment). And I'm sure that the majority of such self-reported indices are indeed tweaked in a way that profits those reporting the numbers. It's just a pretty standard conflict of interest, resolved as these things usually are.

            A true li

            • Re:Fundamentally... (Score:5, Interesting)

              by alexander_686 (957440) on Wednesday January 30, 2013 @01:16AM (#42734915)

              So, let's pick apart LIBOR – and I would love to hear your suggestion.

              One of the reasons why people favor LIBOR is that it is the freest of the indexes. T-Bills can have technical issues of how and when the government issues the bonds. The Prime Rate (another self reporting index) can be influenced by Fed and Government policy.

              LIBOR, or the London Interbank Offer Rate – and I will emphasis London here – is the rate that international banks – outside of US government regulation – will offer to borrow the US dollar. In terms of liberation terms this is about as close as one can get in the modern banking work to a bond index free of government regulation.

              So, we have a contract between two parties - British Bankers' Association and the RBoS. RboS promised to provide accurate information and then intentionally lied – they broke that contract.

              Why do you think should happen? What structural changes would you suggest? And have the noticed the lawyers lining up clients as they are going to sue the banks? (which nobody is sure how that is going to work – for every client that was shaved a dollar another picked up a dollar – the RGoS shaved points in both directions on short term contracts – it just a logical bloody mess)

          • by bmo (77928)

            >imaginary banking scandals

            And this is where you go off into lunacy.

            --
            BMO

          • c'mon slashdotters, don't be that crank with a firm opinion about a deeply technical subject that's he can't be bothered to actually study.

            You must be new here... outside of nerd culture and computers, the average slashdotter is *precisely* that crank on pretty much every topic.

            This libor scandal is the real deal. It's as dirty as it gets. The more you know, the more pissed off you will be about it. Instead of saying "oh yeah, well, this other imaginary stuff is worse" try a little research. This

        • Yes it is.

          The Fed has been given a tough job and they have been doing an honest job in an open fashion. We may debate their wisdom or their goals but I have not hear a case where they are trying to line their own pockets.

          The Libor situation - that just greedy basters manipulating the market for their own pocket book. I am sadden so few people went to jail in the last crisis. I hope that is rectified here.

          • by khallow (566160)

            The Fed has been given a tough job and they have been doing an honest job in an open fashion.

            "Open". Then who was on the other side of these Fed bond purchases? There's no report out there that describes what the Fed buys and who they bought it from.

            The Libor situation - that just greedy basters manipulating the market for their own pocket book. I am sadden so few people went to jail in the last crisis. I hope that is rectified here.

            Given how LIBOR is set up with banks self-reporting their activities, only a fool would be surprised at what happened. I think the real crime was to rely on these indices so much.

            • by Fuzion (261632)

              "Open". Then who was on the other side of these Fed bond purchases? There's no report out there that describes what the Fed buys and who they bought it from.

              Here you go:
              http://www.ny.frb.org/markets/openmarket.html [frb.org]

            • The Fed Reserve bank is complicate in the on-going money laundering schemes, along with the major private institutions, that have been going on for the last 20 or so years, washing clean the money from drug cartels and terrorists networks, they're not all sweetness and light at all. Stop fooling yourself.
    • Re:Fundamentally... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by MatthiasF (1853064) on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @09:38PM (#42733675)
      Central Banks make their targets public, are the sole source provider for their currency, sell the money at public auction and manage the currency for the public's interest.

      The LIBOR scandal was a conspiracy among numerous banks to mitigate currency fluctuations and reduce loses (or produce profits) based off holdings in a variety of investments across several country's markets.

      And you see a likeness, where?
      • by abies (607076)

        Poland had strange way of computing national debt expressed in foreign currencies - it was taking a snapshot of exchange rates from single day during a year. If debt breaches magic threshold, bad things happen (like having to make budget without deficit for next year, which would end up with civil war probably). So what government+central bank did? They have manipulated exchange rate on that particular date to make debt look smaller and avoid the problems. And while you can believe it was for 'people', I'm

    • How do you figure that?

      In a practical sense, it results in the same outcome for sure ...

      But fundamentally? Central banks move rates to drive national macro-economic outcomes whilst LIBOR contributors were contributing to a surveys for individual gain (either as a person or corporation) ... those fundamentals are quite different.

    • by jhol13 (1087781)

      Take bribes? Collude with others for personal gain?
      Yea, sure.

    • And furthermore, the regulators knew about it at the time. It's not like they were being secret about this.
  • by JoeyRox (2711699) on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @09:27PM (#42733603)
    From the article: âoeWhen a bank can benefit financially from doing the wrong thing, it generally will,â
    • From the article: "When a company can benefit financially from doing the wrong thing, it generally will,"

      FTFY. Hell, I'd even go as far to say, when a person can benefit financially from doing the wrong thing, they generally will. Especially when it comes to legislation and regulation - you need to take a worst-case perspective, same as security for a computer system. A legislative approach that relies on the entities it regulates "doing the right thing" is useless - it regulates the honest, who don't need it, and ignores the dishonest, who do.

      • So blowing a random man on the corner for $10 (benefiting financially from doing the wrong thing) is a thing people will generally do?
        • You're not properly accounting for all externalities there - chance of disease, loss of reputation, actual distaste for the act itself, etc. Besides, it's not like banks would expose themselves to million-dollar potential fines for $10 either.

          The quote, like most quotes, is an over-simplification. Banks, like companies, like people, make decisions based on the potential payout versus the potential risk by the chance of the risk being actualized, whether those risk/rewards are monetary, reputational, emotion

    • by jhol13 (1087781) on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @10:31PM (#42734097)

      The most worrying thing is that now the banks make deals and pay fines so that the executives can walk away with their bonuses. Instead of going into jail as they should. This means this will happen again.

      • by pitchpipe (708843)

        The most worrying thing is that now the banks make deals and pay fines so that the executives can walk away with their bonuses. Instead of going into jail as they should. This means this will happen again.

        They view it as the cost of doing business. If this shit doesn't change I really fear that we are headed toward a revolution. Not the 'interesting times' that I would prefer to live in.

      • by quarterbuck (1268694) on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @11:50PM (#42734517)
        In this particular case, that has not been possible for the banks
        Two divisions of UBS plead guilty (Japan, which was where the largest schemes were hatched and one other) and were shut down. RBS stock is down today after news leaked that they will have to plead guilty too. A handful of people from the banks have been criminally charged and Barclays CEO has quit. US investigation is only halfway there, so expect a couple more banks to get into trouble.
        What will literally kill the banks is the civil suits, though. Any state fund or pension fund that lost money on a bond sale or interest rate hedge will (and can) sue the banks for fraud, wiping out any profit banks may have had. On the other hand anyone who made money due to the libor shenanigan by accident (like average joes, who have loans/mortgage linked to Libor which was lowered artificially) will keep the profit. That has the potential to destroy the banks.
        Once a bank falls, so does its lobbying power and hence it will get worse for them.
      • by ssclift (97988)
        Corporations are legal entities comparable in law to people and these fines are little worse than traffic tickets. I like the approach of Japan's regulator to these frauds: ban the companies involved from any activity related to LIBOR based instruments. That cuts off the source of the motivation to fraud. It would kill the investment banking arm of these institutions and leave them the quiet, boring banks that we thought they were. Write your MP/Congressperson....
    • by poity (465672)

      FTA:

      “Through all of my experience, what I never contemplated was that there were bankers who would purposely misrepresent facts to banking authorities,” says Alan Greenspan

      ...oh boy

  • by Nutria (679911) on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @09:40PM (#42733697)

    how is it nerdy in the /. realm?

    • by anagama (611277) <obamaisaneocon@nothingchanged.org> on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @10:07PM (#42733901) Homepage

      Put it in the category of stuff that matters, even to Americans --- we just don't know it:

      A sizable chunk of the world's adjustable-rate investment vehicles are pegged to Libor, and here we have evidence that banks were tweaking the rate downward to massage their own derivatives positions. The consequences for this boggle the mind. For instance, almost every city and town in America has investment holdings tied to Libor. If banks were artificially lowering the rates to beef up their trading profiles, that means communities all over the world were cheated out of ungodly amounts of money.

      http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/a-huge-break-in-the-libor-banking-investigation-20120628#ixzz2JQ77kD9d [rollingstone.com]

      Matt Taibbi is doing some of the most in depth reporting on the recent financial crimes of any reporter anywhere. Don't be put off by the Rolling Stone source. Plus he's funny.

      • by anagama (611277)

        Here's another Taibbi explanation of why you should care:

        Taibbi said in the "Democracy Now!" interview that ordinary Americans are victims of the Libor scandal because lower interest rates probably contributed to forcing state and local governments to slash spending.

        "If you live in a town that had a budget crisis, that had to lay off firemen or teachers or policemen, or couldn't provide services or textbooks in their schools, you know, that might be due to this," Taibbi said. "Basically, every city and town

      • by Zeio (325157)

        Matt Taibbi produces rather excellent stuff. Too bad the average moron reading Rolling Stone reads his stuff, huffs and puffs for about 10 seconds, then goes back to the matrix.

        The level to which people are brain washed is astonishing and I have no trouble understanding how relatively smart sensible germany became what it became during WW2.

        People need to believe the junk they do every day, like reporting to work/wage slavery, being in mountains of debt and receiving federal reserve notes for their hard work

  • For years we have been fed the myth of limited government, a notion that the Government is the biggest threat to our liberty. The shills were blatant, they openly longed for the government small enough to be drowned in a bathtub. But the moment the government becomes weaker than a strong person, he will promptly drown the government. Don't forget, companies are people my friend. At that point the greatest threat to our liberty would be those ungovernable companies. They are too big to jail. They can do anything they want and you can't do anything about it.

    Free markets moderated by Democracy. B 4th July 1776. D Oct 2008. RIP.

    • by khallow (566160)
      The advocates of limited government can point out many historical examples of governments that went out of control (classic examples such as the Wiemar Republic under the Nazis). You on the other hand haven't pointed to one case of corporate overstep due to limited government, though I guess you do imply that somehow the LIBOR scandal is supposed to be such a case.

      My view is that I'd love to live in a world where the greatest threat comes from business rather than government.

      Don't forget, companies are people my friend.

      They aren't. Not even in the

      • by sir-gold (949031)

        haven't pointed to one case of corporate overstep due to limited government

        I think the Cuyahoga River fire and the Union Carbide disaster are perfect examples of corporate overstep due to weak government. (later fixed by the government in the form of the EPA and OSHA)

        My view is that I'd love to live in a world where the greatest threat comes from business rather than government.

        You already do, you just don't realize it yet

        • My view is that I'd love to live in a world where the greatest threat comes from business rather than government.

          You already do, you just don't realize it yet

          In the 20th Century governments killed some 100 million (at least) people, usually their own. However much damage even the largest corporations have done isn't even on the same planet with that scale. Also, let me know when corporations can declare war and draft people.

    • Private company's power rests on pleasing their customers by providing real products that the customers voluntarily choose to buy.. If Starbucks makes a loss this quarter because not enough people want to buy their coffee it doesn't have the power to send armed people to my house and demand that I pay them more money. The government does. I can't believe you don't see the difference.

  • by TubeSteak (669689) on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @09:43PM (#42733715) Journal

    I just want to post in this thread before all the free marketeers try to talk up the joys of unregulated capitalism.

    The USA has a 140 year history of regular banking panics and collapses, inspite of the institution of regulations.
    And there are those who would still insist that the industry is over regulated, in the face of flagrant and widespread fraud during the last 6 years.

    "Free" markets do not lead to competition.
    They consistently and repeatedly lead to fraud and monopolies.

    • I'm not against regulation, since it is the swiftest method to correct problems, but there are ways that the markets could be fixing these problems themselves but many financial products used today have not matured enough to be "market monitored".

      For instance, most publicly traded stocks and commodities require certain amounts of public information sharing in standard formats and regular intervals, but newer instruments like mortgage backed securities and credit default swaps do not have such standards or
      • but there are ways that the markets could be fixing these problems themselves but many financial products used today have not matured enough to be "market monitored".

        Mature markets mean little profit, so there will always be the incentive to create new products and profit off them before the market matures. The more complex the products, the better -- this way, it is more likely you can fleece your victims due to their own ignorance.

        but newer instruments like mortgage backed securities and credit default s

    • by metlin (258108)

      "Free" markets do not lead to competition.
      They consistently and repeatedly lead to fraud and monopolies.

      I'm at best Keynsian, but the result that you speak of is often the result of collusion with politicians and a consequence of political influence, and not an economic one. It is important to distinguish between the two.

      There have been several case studies conduct on both corrupt corporations and monopolies -- corrupt corporations almost always fail in the long run, either due to mismanagement or because t

    • Closed markets don't work very well either. The trick is finding that happy middle ground of just enough 'free' to thrive, but not too much to be corrupt.
    • by abies (607076)

      Centralized, controlled market (think eastern block before 1989) leads to even worse fraud and monopolies. And somewhere in the middle you have European Union, which tries to do both at same time and has biggest bureaucracy machine ever. And there are as many frauds as in any other system (way the EU funds for development of regions are being manipulated is just mind boggling), maybe just bit less monopolies. And carrots are now fruits, instead of vegetables, due to a lobbing from one carrot-jam producing c

      • Actually, the economic state of the US has been very stable since the regulations that were passed as a result of the "Great Depression" (like Glass-Steagall). Yes, we had some recessions but they were very minor by comparison to what came before it. The US used to be a hot-bed of panics, depressions, and recessions prior to these new regulations. We were all doing quite well until the late 90's when a lot of deregulation took place like the introduction of CDSs and passing the GLBA (which basically kill

    • But in this case it was not the US markets at play ... but I do tend to agree with the general point

      However, I think the bigger problem is asymmetric risk/reward these markets provide to the individuals vs the corporations. For the most part, these guys are playing with other people's money and a win results in big bonuses, while a loss really has limited consequences to the individual - it really is set up to encourage individuals to push the boundaries.

      It's really the same lesson as Lance Armstrong ... do

    • How about we stop talking about 'too much' or 'too little' regulation, and start saying, 'X regulation is good' and 'Y regulation is bad'.

      It's entirely possible for an industry to be both over-regulated and under-regulated at the same time.
    • Go back to JFK.

      The fascists have been attacking for longer than that.

      Money is just a tool for the fascists.

      It is *ALL* about control of society.

      There be cylons there. They don't care about *you*.

    • The USA has a 140 year history of regular banking panics and collapses, inspite of the institution of regulations.

      You say in spite, I say because of.

      The industry is over-regulated - it's regulated in favour of the industry. If you want to see a free-market solution, then stop propping them up with tax dollars, stop letting them use LLCs to avoid personal responsibility for their actions, and hang a bunch of them out to dry.

      The problem is, the graft has been going on so long now that letting that happen will be extremely painful.

  • by Grumpinuts (1272216) on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @09:55PM (#42733797)
    I'm Scottish, and while I was growing up RBOS had a branch in every Main Street in Scotland. They had a history hundreds of years old of being a solid reputable institution with a high degree of social responsibility and integrity that ensured that in the global finance world, my small country of 5 million people could punch above its weight. The word Scotland was synonymous with prudence and fiscal excellence and businesses such as RBOS were large profitable concerns employing many thousands of my fellow countrymen. The actions of individuals such as these have dragged the good name of my country into the dirt. Part of the collateral damage is that many blameless employees of the bank have lost their livelihoods, and the damage done to reputations will take generations to expunge. But what really pisses me off is that RBOS have the gall to hijack Flower of Scotland, the semi official Scottish National Anthem on one of their radio adverts. After all the damage that's been done they try to appeal to our patriotism (apparently they sponsor the 6 nations rugby competition ). Sorry but in RBOS' s case I feel anything but proud and patriotic.
  • 35 years in jail? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by khchung (462899) on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @10:00PM (#42733835) Journal

    So, which one of them is going to be threatened with charges up to 35 years in jail in order to squeeze out a plea bargain?

    • THIS. Because prosecution, the hammer of the law, is so politically motivated. If you're on a shit list of powerful people, you get the book thrown at you. And it's a really fucking heavy book. But if you're a horrible guy screwing over millions of powerless people? Naw. The pansy gloves come out. Or they find a sacrificial goat. Or they settle. That's right, they settle away FELONIES. Remember BP? And they had popular opinion against them.

      And with the legal system how it is, only the rich can afford to
  • by Jetra (2622687)
    does this make me think of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
  • There's no reason to suppose the economy will somehow keep growing, if the current trend continues of automation throwing everyone out of work. The whole scam of "investing in your future" only works if other people keep buying into it.

  • by the eric conspiracy (20178) on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @10:27PM (#42734061)

    This article is missing a very important point. A lot of the LIBOR manipulation was done to artificially LOWER the rate for trading purposes or to make a bank look stronger than it actually was.

    This lower rate benefited borrowers, just as much as the higher rate hurt them. It depends in detail what kind of loan was involved.

    Some municipalities are actually suing based on the idea that they received artificially low interest rates on their bonds because of LIBOR manipulation.

    • by Just Brew It! (636086) on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @10:57PM (#42734265)

      That's true, to some extent. However...

      The money to pay everyone who reaped enormous profits from this scheme -- those with inside information and/or influence, and to a lesser degree the derivatives traders who didn't have inside information, but profited from the resulting market volatility -- had to come from somewhere. It's essentially a hidden tax on everybody else, with the dishonest traders being the taxing authority!

  • No one in the financial sector will get any jail time. We can't have any of that. Sure, if you steal a car you can get 10 years but if you rip of billions, it's no big whup.

  • Not even close. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jcr (53032) <jcr@nOSpam.mac.com> on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @10:40PM (#42734163) Journal

    When it comes to fraud on a massive scale, this doesn't even come close to the theft of the people's gold by the government and the banks when FDR decided to renege on the promise to redeem US dollars for specie.

    -jcr

    • Ahh, I see we have a Ron Paul fan.
      • by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @11:29PM (#42734415)

        There is a substantial gold-worshiping cult online that thinks that it is something magical that solves any and all currency and banking woes. I guess none of them have studied enough history to know about the great depression or what backed the currency at the time.

      • Ron Paul fan or not, he's right.

        You may not be aware, but in 1933, the president signed an order requiring every citizen to bring their gold to the US federal reserve, in exchange for $20 per ounce. If you wanted to keep it, you couldn't, that was the law. After that, the money was immediately devalued to $35 an ounce for gold. Everyone who turned in their gold immediately lost $15 to inflation.

        Bad ideas like this, and like the Smoot-Tawley act, are why economists say government action extended the grea
    • And that "fraud" doesn't come close to the Coinage act of 1873 when US got back on metallic currency but refused to redeem currency for Silver.
      If you are going for a crime, go for one which was contemporaneously labeled so - this one was called "crime of 73" .
  • People with money, power, and lax oversight behaving badly. Who could've seen that coming?
  • Furthermore, nobody will be prosecuted.

    We live in a time where justice is by the rule of men, arbitrary and opportunistic.

    As long as this continues:

    There will be no peace.

    There will be no peace of mind.

    There will only be, can only be a human race left in pieces.

    People need to break up this monstrosity in the west of globalization and realize what it is doing to your communities, children and culture.

    If people do not wake up and take back control of their own futures, these psychopaths we have as leaders wil

Save energy: Drive a smaller shell.

Working...