8 votes

How Two U.S. Presidents (not the Fed) Destroyed the U.S. Dollar

Two U.S. Presidents Did More to Destroy the Value of the Dollar Than The Fed Ever Did

It's often cited that the dollar has lost 95-98% of its value since the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913. While Fed policies have contributed to the devaluation of the dollar over the past 100 years, two U.S. Presidents did more in single actions to debase the dollar than the Fed ever did.

The Dollar Destroyers:


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Well, I'm of the opinion

that Presidents are owned/controlled by the owners of the FED, so they being only a minion of the FED do not change the fact that the FED has devalued our money.

agree 100%

but it took the actions of Roosevelt and Nixon to accomplish the massive short term dollar debasemnets by the stroke of a pen

Please subscribe to smaulgld.com

Before I read the article,

Before I read the article, I'm guessing FDR and Nixon as the 2 presidents. I will now read your article to see If I'm right.

I was right. I knew those

I was right. I knew those two bastards would be the two; however George W. Bush and Barack Obama are doing their best to make it a race, by letting the FED basically 'print' as much as they want.

I've read that the Global Financial Crisis, nearly all of it being the Credit Default Swap market, actually has a footprint of 1.53 Quadrillion Dollars. That is going to be horrendous, especially since it is all connected to the U.S. Credit Default Swap market and therefore our -the U.S.'s- 'responsibility' when it starts collapsing.

Bush and Obammer

are gooslers compared to Nixon. They didn't call that guy Tricky Dick for nothin'. He knew GD well he was about to hose the dollar and the American people good and hard when he closed the gold window. Candy a** politician, he got wtf he deserved, to be run out of office on rail and die a bitter, humiliated old man. When he threw those hands up with the peace signs as he climbed on the Presidential helicopter on his way out the door, he might as well have been flipping the bird to all of us; we knew it, and he GD well knew that we knew it, too. He was proud of it.

What an inglorious basterd.

Lose a few, win a few

I'm not defending Nixon's closing the gold window, but once he had done it, he DID remove Roosevelt's ban on private gold ownership. I bought my first gold coin in 1972, right after it was legalized.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...

Your memory must be off

Because gold was not legalized for US citizens until the end of december 1974 when Nixon was long gone and Gerald Ford was president

Please subscribe to smaulgld.com

No it was Wilson

If you want to blame a president. Without the Fed there would have not been any ability or reason to do what FDR or Nixon did.

Not that I hold them blameless.

Banks could issue notes but they were only as good as people believed them to be, and when they had runs they poofed. The problem could never get out of hand under free banking, ie without putting the taxpayer on the hook for losses.

Central banking is simply socialized banking.

Ok, you are correct the frame work was there and

Roosevelt and Nixon abused it.

My point was in the past forty and eighty years since the Fed was created, the most damage was caused by those two men. The most damage was caused by the creation of the Fed as you point out.

By the way if you look at the chart you see the cost of the money printing of the "greenback" to pay for the Civil war.

Please subscribe to smaulgld.com

No question

But once it was possible to do it at all, it was going to be done at some point by someone.

America had been fcuked and was going to give birth to the demon child sooner or later.

Well put

Elected official rarely take a stand for the people they represent

Please subscribe to smaulgld.com

Thank you, although

I think they always take a stand for the people they represent. It's just that they and the entire system has tricked the voters into believing they represent the voters.

If democracy were actually supposed to represent the desires of the people you wouldn't need a government. You just need a free market. The purpose of democracy is to concentrate power into the hands of the few. If you actually don't want concentrated power and wealth you would shut down the government tomorrow.

Even better put!

The system however and the mind sets are so deeply engraved it will take a major event/collapse for things to change

Please subscribe to smaulgld.com

Goldbug nonsense

Need to look at real purchasing power


actually, since increases in

actually, since increases in productivity allow us to do more with less and this lowers prices over time, we should naturally have deflation. so when we do have inflation of like "2%" you are not figuring the prices that would have gone down of, let's say 2%. so inflation wouldn't be 2%, it would be 4%.

But more people

increase demand. So there is a trade off between increased productivity, and increased demand, particularly for limited commodities, and for money in general - more people want loans. Given that, its not surprising at all that there is inflation. Of course why 2% ? Shouldn't it be market driven. And as my link says, Fiat Currencies always fail, because it is so much easier to generate credit.

But how much credit could you generate with Gold - given the population increase, and the greater demand for money, Gold could easily be horded by the already rich, to the detriment of the up and coming ideas that need capital to expand.

if the population is

if the population is increasing, but the money supply is not keeping up, then prices fall because the value of each currency unit goes up (due to more demand).

That assumes

That productivity of goods and resources keeps up with demand. With increase in population, and productivity, resources to produce with (oil iron, etc.) become scarce, since production of resources is limited by availability. Labor becomes plentiful, and so wages fall.

The ability to explore and produce new resources is limited because the tight money supply makes borrowing for investment ( in a new oil well for instance) very expensive, so the only investments made will be the extremely low risk investments.

Monetarist nonsense

Need to recognize the across the board effects of advancement in capital technology.

Was bread more or less expensive 50 years ago, was it easier or harder to make 50 years ago, do we make more or less of it today?


We would have had the gains in technology irrespective

of the debasement of the dollar by Roosevelt and Nixon
So I can recognize it and note that it would have been even more valuable but for the executive orders of Roosevelt and Nixon.

Please subscribe to smaulgld.com

Would we ?

Its really hard to prove one way or another.

And we can have sound money without linking currency to gold, too. A basket of commodities for instance.

response was to ironman comment, not your post



Understood, my comments could not have been interpreted

as "monetarist'!

Please subscribe to smaulgld.com

FDR and Nixon may have done

FDR and Nixon may have done the biggest "one day" events, but look at the increase in the prince of gold just since 1971. It's gone from around $50 dollars an ounce to current prices of $1300. That works out to about a mind boggling 2500% increase compared to Nixon's massive 51% change. Plus, it was the continual actions of the FED purchasing US Debt since 1913 that forced Nixon's hand in 71.

You can blame Lyndon Johnson for that

He was spending on:

the space race
the Vietnam war
the Great Society

His spending is what got the other countries nervous that the US did not have enough gold to back the dollar and redemptions increased during the 1960's

Please subscribe to smaulgld.com

I'm still not convinced that

I'm still not convinced that the framework of the FED is not the foundational issue for the loss of the dollar value. All of the presidents since Wilson have contributed to the spending / borrowing hole because the system is designed to put us in debt. It's like blaming a particular bus driver for bus accidents on a highway that's been constructed with pot holes, missing bridges, and sink holes. It's very true that some of the "bus drivers" are maniacs, but the system is flawed by design. The only ones that could have stopped the madness would have had to have "pulled over the bus on the side of the road" and do a Ron Paul speech from the White House Press Room everyday for the rest of their term.

During his administration

It was also during LBJ's administration that the precious metal (silver in particular) content was removed from minted coins. He took us off the "Silver Standard", as Nixon the Gold.

Thats true. They rushed the silver 1964 Kennedy half dollar out

And it had 90pct silver like all coins that year

After 1965 dimes and quarters had no silver but the kennedy half dollar was 40 pct silver from 1965-1970

Please subscribe to smaulgld.com

What about Woodrow Wilson?

At least we can say, with some degree of certainty, that FDR was trying to fund the war effort on two fronts. What Wilson's administration did was far more compromising to US national security. At the end of the WW2, Europe was also expected to pay us back, which, of course, they never did, but whatever...

Clearly Woodrow started the ball rolling

with getting the US in to a costly unnecessary war In Europe.
The impact on the dollar was not good, but what Roosevelt and Nixon did was a direct assault on the dollar with executive orders

Please subscribe to smaulgld.com