People still think gold is important? In the case of some massive catastrophe (eg. famine, nuclear war), it seems as if the skills of people to recreate society and technology would be much more important than some metal. I'm really, genuinely interested to hear about why physical possession of gold is that important.
People still think money is important? In the case of some massive catastrophe it seems as if the skills of people to recreate society and technology would be much more important than some treasure.
In tbe event of a massive catastrophe, gold is worth MORE than money. Think of it this way, name a civlization in history. Would you rather have $100 of their currency now, or $100 worth of gold from that era now?
I was using inflation-adjusted prices. I took the phrase "$100 of their currency now" to mean one hundred 1980 dollars now, which would be worth about $250. Otherwise the argument is a straw man. Any non-perishable commodity is going to outperform an inflating currency in the long run. There's nothing particularly special about gold in that regard.
The gold bull run of the 70s peaked at $850. So, even if you bought an ounce of gold at its peak, you'd be getting about $1300 for it today.
Cash, on the other hand, would have inflated away quite a lot, so your 100 bucks would buy you about 40 1980-dollars' worth of goods and services today.
Every time I got interested in buying gold, I would look at those 30-40 year graphs and decide differently, but maybe history will not be a barometer in this free money economy? I now look at my CD rate and it's .10 %. I look at the stock market and wouldn't risk putting in money now. I hear the economy is getting better, but just on my block there's so many unemployed men digging into that savings account.(The account that was meant for retirement?) Yes, tech is hot. VC's have money to burn--now. The average guy is locked out of the current party though. While I'm on the box, why do I feel the big boy investors are just waiting until the retail stock investors get over any 2008 residual fear, and start putting serious money into the market; then the big boys(who have had access to this free money) will pull out of the market--leaving The Retail investor holding an empty bag? I am not asking lister. I'm just babbling out loud. I guess what's really scaring me is these low interest rates, and maybe gold might be a good call?
I'd like to revise my earlier answer. I was using inflation-adjusted gold prices, but not inflation-adjusted currency values. In other words, I was trying to buy 1980 gold with 2015 dollars.
But this still highlights the problem with this scenario: currencies lose value over time. They do this by design to encourage people not to hoard currency, but instead to exchange it for goods and services, which encourages people to produce goods and services. Because of this, any non-perishable commodity is going to gain value over time relative to a fiat currency. There is nothing special about gold in this regard.
Vikings picked silver. China picked silver. Sparta picked iron. (Granted, that was kind of a special circumstance. But at times China used iron too. On the other hand, China never used monetary gold.)
As described, there can't be a good article on "why every civilization picks gold as its currency" because the premise is false.
The article acknowledges this as to silver, though not as to iron. On the other hand, the somewhat bizarre premise that currency has to be one or another chemical element goes unquestioned. Historically it was common to use grain as a currency. Even among metals, we know electrum coins have been used to great success.
Ask the people who were displaced during WW1 and WW2. The ones who were able to migrate to safer places with gold, restarted their life much more easily compared to the ones who had nothing more than clothes they were wearing.
Gold is still important and will remain important as long as people consider it to be value of last resort for bartering or exchanging product and services. What good is the skill if you can't exchange it for more important things you need for survival? Generally in economics, capital (gold) is always considered more valuable than labor (skill).
And, how were wealthy able to carry their wealth with them? Primarily it was gold (compact and valuable), easier to carry. Look into history of Gold and you will learn much more about why and how Gold became the medium of exchange. Do you think anyone going to care about USD or Euro as medium of exchange during bad times?
> No surprise there. So it was their wealth, not gold per se, that made their move safer and restarting easier.
If you're wealthy but cannot easily carry said wealth with you across borders or conflict lines or hide it from a kleptocratic Government then there's not that much that you can do.
Case in point, the high middle classes from my Eastern-European country, who after WW2 were wiped clean by the Government in just a couple of years, the result of industry and real estate nationalizations, combined with a forced revaluation of paper money. Holding gold could have protected one against all this, at least partially.
Hey now. Gold is useful as an electrical connector, as a dye, as an EM reflector, in dentistry and electron microscopy... gold has lots of uses!
Out of all the naturally occurring elements, proactinium probably takes the "most useless" prize - it's used by scientists doing radiometric dating. And it's both toxic and radioactive.
What kind of a giant straw man is this? The necessity of technology and society during a nuclear war making gold not important? Gold is a currency. Not a commodity, not material, a currency. It was the original shared ledger. It isn't the most important thing, but who's saying it is?
Texas just wants to make sure what they have claims to is actually in their possession. What is wrong with that?
Survival/elementary civilizing skills on the whole are objectively more important than gold. If we could not draw water, produce food, bear/raise children, make clothing, build shelter, we would be much worse off than if we didn't have any gold.
Disagreement over different skills worth relative to one another, disagreement over what plans to execute as a team etc. dissembles the individual skills' value compared with gold.
People who can't agree where to put a bridge, what crops to plant, or whether or not to go to war will all want gold. The consensus about gold's value is a stronger component of gold's worth than its actual intrinsic value is.
Imagine there's a person with a drill for wells and a person with a material amount of gold. If each walks into a town where people are dehydrated, the people of the town will hopefully be more excited to see the drill person than the gold person.
If they each walk into 5 random towns, however, one would imagine the gold guy would have a more positive reception on average, because gold's beauty is independent of people's circumstances or culture, whereas the value of a well is very contingent on whether or not people want a new source of water. Historical royalty who did not want for anything were always happy to see more gold. Precious metals are one solution of the age old conundrum: "What gift do you get for the man who has everything?"
This relatively inelastic desirability makes gold valuable for trade. As a proxy for human energy and people's resources, gold can solve many different problems that a drill cannot.
Perhaps my cynicism, but wouldn't material goods with more utility be worth even more? I'm sure in a some End-of-Government scenario in which people would be in a barter economy, I would value things like food and water, tools, firearms, and ammunition a bit more than I would a shiny metal.
Stephen Colbert made segment about gold, along with a mocking commercial asking folks to diversify their portfolio (with Women and Sheep...) but the idea that shiny metal holds value better than a magazine full of 5.56 and a rifle seems a little off. One can hunt or defend oneself with a rifle and ammunition, trade the ammunition to others, and even become a bandit. All gold does is allow one to trade. Hell, in the Metro book/video game series which takes place in a post-apocalyptic Moscow, the units of currency are military grade, pre apocalypse, ammo and, at a lesser value, post-apocalyptic ammo.
Is there more to the notion that gold is valuable than "history" and "shiny"?
My questions is why wouldn't something lime ammo be considered more valuable? In the US at least, you have fairly standard calibers, most rifles are going to be .308 or .223, and a couple others. A 30-round magazine of .223 carries much more value than a gold bar, so why would anyone value that brick more than that magazine of ammunition? Once you get into a scenario where you're having to barter for goods, you're not having an organized system of governance. I see some comments about fleeing wartorn for stable ones, but I'm asking in the context of an end-of-government type scenario.
The detail being left out here is that the gold in question really belongs to the state university system and is part of the investment of their endowment. It's not some rainy day fund just in case the world goes to hell in a hand basket.
It's pretty normal for any large investment fund like that to own some gold. What is weird is that Texas as a state is getting into the precious metals storage business which would normally be the domain of private business.
Not saying I think gold is a good investment or that the system is in any danger, but it's obvious why gold is still important. Just as with bitcoin and unlike fiat currency or IOUs, it's quite hard to forge metal (or proof-of-work) into existence. Having something unforgable is a hedge against inflation, not against catastrophe.
It's worth noting that lately there has been talk[0] of using the cashless society in order to implement negative real rates. Negative real rates are a way to fight inflation (by removing money directly from bank accounts), but typically such rates are not possible because people will just hold gold and physical cash against negative rates. In the past such behaviour is what prevents rates from going negative.
> keeping taxpayer funds from leaving Texas to pay for fees to store gold in facilities outside our state
Will they not still be paying for them through Federal taxes? If not, how do the upfront costs compare to the marginal costs of using a National depository shared by 49 other states?
And Austria repatriated 110 tonnes from the Bank of England this year. Venezuela 160 tonnes in 2011. Many other countries are moving in this direction.
Texas is not the first to do this. Over the last year, The Netherlands, Austria and Germany have also started repatriating gold from the NY Fed. In a way this points at a lack of faith in central bank trustworthiness.
I actually wonder about two things here:
a) What if every other state follows Texas' example and repatriates their gold as well?
b) Perhaps a ridiculous hypothetical, but could this be the first step down the road towards secession? They'd need that gold if they ever wanted to establish their own country.
Also an interesting tidbit in the bill which may point at raising fears of confiscation among the more paranoid-minded: the bill includes a provision to prevent seizure, for private parties who want to avoid another 1933 style confiscation of their bullion by Federal authorities.
It is a common political strategy. Once the focus of the people shifts from the alternatives inside to the enemies and dangers outside, your approval ratings rise. Another pro is that you can assign blame when something bad happens as the public is already convinced of the common enemy.
Horst Seehofer does the same in Germany's Texas, Bavaria.
a) Perhaps a ridiculous hypothetical, but could this be the first step down the road towards secession? They'd need that gold if they ever wanted to establish their own country.
Maybe if they get the rest of the states on-board..[0]
I, for one, would be glad to sign whatever paperwork gets Texas out of the country.
>I, for one, would be glad to sign whatever paperwork gets Texas out of the country.
This is so stupid. Both on the part of people like you, and also on the part of my fellow Texans who also hope for it to happen.
Neither party wins. The US loses a major domestic source of fuel and other material goods, as well as one of the few red states that historically has paid more in federal taxes than it has received in federal funding. It loses a large number of military installations, the state that provides 50% more military recruits than the 2nd highest, etc etc etc.
And Texas, of course, loses it's membership in the Union, which has a huge list of benefits.
It's dumb. The whole discussion is stupid. I know you're probably being facetious, but it's something that would weaken both parties and seeing people on either side support it is something that makes me want to tear my hair out as a native Texan who doesn't engage in any of the extreme far-right idiocy that makes up half the state, yet some people take as representative of the entire population of it.
> The US loses a major domestic source of fuel and other
> material goods
You know they wouldn't actually move Texas, right? It'll still be in the same place, and still part of NAFTA? They're not going to suddenly tow the State to be next to the _other_ Georgia.
Just because you disagree with something doesn't mean it's stupid.
Your arguments don't really prove any points, but let me address them anyway:
1) oil is a global commodity, so it really doesn't matter where it's located. Exxon will still pump it from the ground and sell it to the highest bidder. No change.
2) Texas gets about $0.95 back for every $1.00 it pays to the federal government, so we'd lose a tiny surplus there. However losing Texas from the Union would mean that we're less likely to have Texans leading us into expensive wars, and pushing for expensive military projects that mostly benefit Texas.
3) Losing military installations isn't a bad thing. The military is primarily a welfare jobs program for red states, and one that enables all sorts of other overspending. Losing military installations is a benefit.
4) Losing military recruits is, similarly, a good thing. Not just because it starves the military, but because Texas' overrepresentation in the military is because Texas has a larger than average pool of unskilled labor. You can keep your unskilled labor, the world is changing in a way that makes those people an increasingly larger liability.
5) Texas losing the benefits of the Union is only bad if you're a Texan. As for the rest of us, it eliminates a source of religious and political extremism.
This is not dumb. This is not stupid. The US would be a stronger, better country if Texas left the union.
I get that you disagree, because you're from Texas and smart enough to realize that it's in your personal self-interest to stay in the USA. But Texas isn't good for America, and it's not dumb or stupid to want it gone.
1) And now the money for that oil is going to Texas instead of the US
2a) It varies from year to year, and that number is one of the higher ones, but even using it, it's not just about the difference in what gets paid vs. what gets spent. Texas is the 2nd highest state in gross collections. If you remove the tax revenue from Texas, it is nearly one tenth of the entire tax collection for the US.
2b) George Bush is not from Texas. He's from Connecticut. What war have Texans gotten the US into outside of the one with Mexico in the 1800s?
3) The US - and I'm sure you'll blame Texas for this, somehow - has put itself in a position of needing the military. Removing Texas won't remove the Republican party or the neo-con hawks running it. Unless you can get rid of all of them too, you'll be doing the same things the US has always done, but now with a reduced ability to do it.
4) See above. Also, larger than average pool of unskilled labor? Texas sits quite near the middle on per capita income, while having a severely reduced cost of living compared to most of the states that sit above it. Adjusted for that, it's in the top half.
5) Well, yes. Of course Texas losing the benefits of the Union is bad for Texas. I'm not sure what you're trying to argue with this particular point.
You've made up Texas to be a bogeyman for everything you feel is wrong with the US, and are acting as if it is responsible for every poor policy the US government has made. If you want to pin all that ails the Union on one state, well, be my guest. It's no different than the far right idiots who say the same thing about California.
There are still a lot of gold bugs out there who really dislike the idea of fiat currencies and believe gold is an investment. Rick Perry, the former Governor of Texas, for instance thought it was treason that the Fed printed more money during QE. Fears of hyperinflation still seem to exist out there even though we went through a brief deflationary period.
The gold in question actually isn't in the Federal Reserve in New York. It is at HSBC in a private vault [1]. Texas bought the gold back in 2011 near the height of the gold bubble [2]. It has actually lost quite a bit of its value since then since gold prices are about 25% lower since it was purchased.
Sadly, the Governor seems to still say they are moving $1 billion in gold (as opposed to $750 million). You'd think losing $250 million would be a big deal for a state.
They haven't lost $250 million as they haven't sold their holdings.
For what it's worth, UT has the second largest US educational endowment now, only second to Harvard. On the whole, they've done very, very well. It doesn't surprise me that some of their investments are currently underperforming, as that's a hallmark of a diverse portfolio.
Paper losses are still losses.. If your holdings decrease in value by 25%, they need to increase by 33% to recover their previous price.
Another way to think of it; You can borrow against assets using the gold as collateral. Texas's borrowing ability is much smaller today than it was when the gold was worth $1B. It's clear that they've lost some tangible value.
I'm a little confused here -- if the money is actually stored at HSBC in New York, not at Federal Reserve, why http://gov.texas.gov/news/signature/21038 explicitly mentions "The law will repatriate $1 billion of gold bullion from the Federal Reserve in New York to Texas."?
Is it done simply with the intent of playing on the anti-federal-gov sentiment?
One hidden cost of this: If Texas wants to sell gold to someone else, and it's held at the NY Fed, it often just has to be rolled down the hall, which is pretty easy from both a security and transportation point of view.
If they house it locally, they have to ship it to and from NYC or elsewhere to exchange it with others.
While your statement is meant to be ironic, yes that is pretty accurate. The same way a vehicle has a title and there are records indicating all of the owners, a bar of gold has some documents and a record of its owners.
It's meant to be one of those ironic comments that still contain deep insight—prompting you to think of me as a flippant genius, like Tony Stark. fingers crossed that it worked
64 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 111 ms ] threadIn tbe event of a massive catastrophe, gold is worth MORE than money. Think of it this way, name a civlization in history. Would you rather have $100 of their currency now, or $100 worth of gold from that era now?
$100 worth of gold bought at $850/ounce buys 0.117 ounces of gold. Today that gold (at $1181/ounce) is worth $138.90.
Your cash is worth $100.
The gold bull run of the 70s peaked at $850. So, even if you bought an ounce of gold at its peak, you'd be getting about $1300 for it today.
Cash, on the other hand, would have inflated away quite a lot, so your 100 bucks would buy you about 40 1980-dollars' worth of goods and services today.
But this still highlights the problem with this scenario: currencies lose value over time. They do this by design to encourage people not to hoard currency, but instead to exchange it for goods and services, which encourages people to produce goods and services. Because of this, any non-perishable commodity is going to gain value over time relative to a fiat currency. There is nothing special about gold in this regard.
“Gold is a currency. It is still, by all evidence, a premier currency. No fiat currency, including the dollar, can match it.”
http://www.cfr.org/financial-crises/alan-greenspan-central-b...
As described, there can't be a good article on "why every civilization picks gold as its currency" because the premise is false.
The article acknowledges this as to silver, though not as to iron. On the other hand, the somewhat bizarre premise that currency has to be one or another chemical element goes unquestioned. Historically it was common to use grain as a currency. Even among metals, we know electrum coins have been used to great success.
Gold is still important and will remain important as long as people consider it to be value of last resort for bartering or exchanging product and services. What good is the skill if you can't exchange it for more important things you need for survival? Generally in economics, capital (gold) is always considered more valuable than labor (skill).
IOW "The wealthy were able to migrate to safer places and restart their lives more easily."
No surprise there. So it was their wealth, not gold per se, that made their move safer and restarting easier.
Gold is the most useless element in the world. But greed has no bounds and the love of men for gold seems endless.
If you're wealthy but cannot easily carry said wealth with you across borders or conflict lines or hide it from a kleptocratic Government then there's not that much that you can do.
Case in point, the high middle classes from my Eastern-European country, who after WW2 were wiped clean by the Government in just a couple of years, the result of industry and real estate nationalizations, combined with a forced revaluation of paper money. Holding gold could have protected one against all this, at least partially.
Out of all the naturally occurring elements, proactinium probably takes the "most useless" prize - it's used by scientists doing radiometric dating. And it's both toxic and radioactive.
Some economists such as Willem Buiter like to claim gold is in a "6000-year bubble", but others figures like Kyle Bass counter:
"Buying gold is just buying a put against the idiocy of the political cycle. It's that simple"
Texas just wants to make sure what they have claims to is actually in their possession. What is wrong with that?
Disagreement over different skills worth relative to one another, disagreement over what plans to execute as a team etc. dissembles the individual skills' value compared with gold.
People who can't agree where to put a bridge, what crops to plant, or whether or not to go to war will all want gold. The consensus about gold's value is a stronger component of gold's worth than its actual intrinsic value is.
Imagine there's a person with a drill for wells and a person with a material amount of gold. If each walks into a town where people are dehydrated, the people of the town will hopefully be more excited to see the drill person than the gold person.
If they each walk into 5 random towns, however, one would imagine the gold guy would have a more positive reception on average, because gold's beauty is independent of people's circumstances or culture, whereas the value of a well is very contingent on whether or not people want a new source of water. Historical royalty who did not want for anything were always happy to see more gold. Precious metals are one solution of the age old conundrum: "What gift do you get for the man who has everything?"
This relatively inelastic desirability makes gold valuable for trade. As a proxy for human energy and people's resources, gold can solve many different problems that a drill cannot.
Stephen Colbert made segment about gold, along with a mocking commercial asking folks to diversify their portfolio (with Women and Sheep...) but the idea that shiny metal holds value better than a magazine full of 5.56 and a rifle seems a little off. One can hunt or defend oneself with a rifle and ammunition, trade the ammunition to others, and even become a bandit. All gold does is allow one to trade. Hell, in the Metro book/video game series which takes place in a post-apocalyptic Moscow, the units of currency are military grade, pre apocalypse, ammo and, at a lesser value, post-apocalyptic ammo.
Is there more to the notion that gold is valuable than "history" and "shiny"?
[0] - http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/ufq6qh/prescott-financ...
It's pretty normal for any large investment fund like that to own some gold. What is weird is that Texas as a state is getting into the precious metals storage business which would normally be the domain of private business.
I don't know anyone willing to work for a worthless piece of paper.
It's worth noting that lately there has been talk[0] of using the cashless society in order to implement negative real rates. Negative real rates are a way to fight inflation (by removing money directly from bank accounts), but typically such rates are not possible because people will just hold gold and physical cash against negative rates. In the past such behaviour is what prevents rates from going negative.
[0]: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-10/citi-econo...
Will they not still be paying for them through Federal taxes? If not, how do the upfront costs compare to the marginal costs of using a National depository shared by 49 other states?
Good interview from the "father" of the German repatriation movement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=136&v=nmuNeQr276U
I actually wonder about two things here:
a) What if every other state follows Texas' example and repatriates their gold as well?
b) Perhaps a ridiculous hypothetical, but could this be the first step down the road towards secession? They'd need that gold if they ever wanted to establish their own country.
Also an interesting tidbit in the bill which may point at raising fears of confiscation among the more paranoid-minded: the bill includes a provision to prevent seizure, for private parties who want to avoid another 1933 style confiscation of their bullion by Federal authorities.
Horst Seehofer does the same in Germany's Texas, Bavaria.
Maybe if they get the rest of the states on-board..[0]
I, for one, would be glad to sign whatever paperwork gets Texas out of the country.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White
This is so stupid. Both on the part of people like you, and also on the part of my fellow Texans who also hope for it to happen.
Neither party wins. The US loses a major domestic source of fuel and other material goods, as well as one of the few red states that historically has paid more in federal taxes than it has received in federal funding. It loses a large number of military installations, the state that provides 50% more military recruits than the 2nd highest, etc etc etc.
And Texas, of course, loses it's membership in the Union, which has a huge list of benefits.
It's dumb. The whole discussion is stupid. I know you're probably being facetious, but it's something that would weaken both parties and seeing people on either side support it is something that makes me want to tear my hair out as a native Texan who doesn't engage in any of the extreme far-right idiocy that makes up half the state, yet some people take as representative of the entire population of it.
That qualification is in the text you quoted.
Your arguments don't really prove any points, but let me address them anyway:
1) oil is a global commodity, so it really doesn't matter where it's located. Exxon will still pump it from the ground and sell it to the highest bidder. No change.
2) Texas gets about $0.95 back for every $1.00 it pays to the federal government, so we'd lose a tiny surplus there. However losing Texas from the Union would mean that we're less likely to have Texans leading us into expensive wars, and pushing for expensive military projects that mostly benefit Texas.
3) Losing military installations isn't a bad thing. The military is primarily a welfare jobs program for red states, and one that enables all sorts of other overspending. Losing military installations is a benefit.
4) Losing military recruits is, similarly, a good thing. Not just because it starves the military, but because Texas' overrepresentation in the military is because Texas has a larger than average pool of unskilled labor. You can keep your unskilled labor, the world is changing in a way that makes those people an increasingly larger liability.
5) Texas losing the benefits of the Union is only bad if you're a Texan. As for the rest of us, it eliminates a source of religious and political extremism.
This is not dumb. This is not stupid. The US would be a stronger, better country if Texas left the union.
I get that you disagree, because you're from Texas and smart enough to realize that it's in your personal self-interest to stay in the USA. But Texas isn't good for America, and it's not dumb or stupid to want it gone.
2a) It varies from year to year, and that number is one of the higher ones, but even using it, it's not just about the difference in what gets paid vs. what gets spent. Texas is the 2nd highest state in gross collections. If you remove the tax revenue from Texas, it is nearly one tenth of the entire tax collection for the US.
2b) George Bush is not from Texas. He's from Connecticut. What war have Texans gotten the US into outside of the one with Mexico in the 1800s?
3) The US - and I'm sure you'll blame Texas for this, somehow - has put itself in a position of needing the military. Removing Texas won't remove the Republican party or the neo-con hawks running it. Unless you can get rid of all of them too, you'll be doing the same things the US has always done, but now with a reduced ability to do it.
4) See above. Also, larger than average pool of unskilled labor? Texas sits quite near the middle on per capita income, while having a severely reduced cost of living compared to most of the states that sit above it. Adjusted for that, it's in the top half.
5) Well, yes. Of course Texas losing the benefits of the Union is bad for Texas. I'm not sure what you're trying to argue with this particular point.
You've made up Texas to be a bogeyman for everything you feel is wrong with the US, and are acting as if it is responsible for every poor policy the US government has made. If you want to pin all that ails the Union on one state, well, be my guest. It's no different than the far right idiots who say the same thing about California.
We settled this one about 150 years ago. It's unreasonable to even contemplate, except for entertainment purposes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States
Do other US states even own any gold? (My guess is that the answer is no.)
The gold in question actually isn't in the Federal Reserve in New York. It is at HSBC in a private vault [1]. Texas bought the gold back in 2011 near the height of the gold bubble [2]. It has actually lost quite a bit of its value since then since gold prices are about 25% lower since it was purchased.
Sadly, the Governor seems to still say they are moving $1 billion in gold (as opposed to $750 million). You'd think losing $250 million would be a big deal for a state.
1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/26/t...
2. http://www.ai-cio.com/channel/ASSET_ALLOCATION/UTIMCO_Bullio...
For what it's worth, UT has the second largest US educational endowment now, only second to Harvard. On the whole, they've done very, very well. It doesn't surprise me that some of their investments are currently underperforming, as that's a hallmark of a diverse portfolio.
Another way to think of it; You can borrow against assets using the gold as collateral. Texas's borrowing ability is much smaller today than it was when the gold was worth $1B. It's clear that they've lost some tangible value.
Is it done simply with the intent of playing on the anti-federal-gov sentiment?
If they house it locally, they have to ship it to and from NYC or elsewhere to exchange it with others.
Would they even bother moving it at all?