Ookay, one at time. The US was on the gold standard in 1933, so it had reason to hoard gold. Today it doesn’t. Also, the US didn’t confiscate gold: they paid people for it. In fact, they paid substantially more than the 1929 gold price (specifically FDR paid $35 vs the 1920s price of $20.67).
Your article: “Many investors believe gold won’t be confiscated today because it’s not part of the monetary system like it was during the U.S. nationalization in 1933, under Roosevelt. While it’s true we’re not on a gold standard today, if the crisis gets bad enough any and all viable solutions could be on the table.”
Me: Including - wait for it - confiscating your gold coins. But even in a bad crisis, buying back gold at market prices wouldn’t help the government in any conceivable way. Confiscating property -any property- could, but that would take the form of a tax increase. Or jackbooted irregulars with guns who rob your valuables at gunpoint if you want more colorful scenarios.
I suppose collectibles could conceivably help you evade wealth taxes (which don’t exist at the federal level) but… this might put us outside SDMB rules. Or not, since these are hypothetical laws we are considering. Regardless I can’t see how gold coins are superior to bullion if you’re trying to hide wealth from the mean old government.
Basically the argument is, “You don’t know what would happen when the nuclear bombs start to fall and things get real, so buy our Godzilla suits.” First they freak you out, but they don’t really walk you through the necessary risk assessment and risk management steps.
Of course the foundational error is taking investment advice from entertainers like Glenn Beck, or … salespeople charging exorbitant commissions, hidden or otherwise.
Today’s spot gold price is $2030 per ounce. I can buy gold one ounce coins at a local dealer for $2083. They are buying the same coin at $1975. This seems like a fair spread. They’ve been in business a long time, and are a dealer for the Royal Canadian Mint.
There are reputable businesses like this all over. There are plenty of others who rely on suckers to pay inflated prices for precious metal “collectable” coins.
But I want to add some qualifications. $2083 is 2.6% above $2030. $2083 is 5.4% above $1975. As an alternative, you could by an Exchange Traded Fund that holds gold bullion for you for 0.25% annually. The price fluctuates, but usually stays within 1% of the value of the underlying bullion. This seems like a better deal to me for those who want to invest in gold.
But you don’t get to hold the gold in your hand. That will cost you. But it won’t cost you 33%+ from a reputable dealer. Of course holding the gold yourself exposes you to the risk of loss or theft: ask any dragon.
Cybersleuth Brian Krebs: Link removed The scammers are getting more sophisticated, not relying wholly on stupidity or inattention.
There are a number of legitimate-looking software review websites, with decent quality reviews (often stolen from PC World or TechRadar) that offer downloads for popular software like Teamviewer, Corel Draw, and the like that are… totally fine. So google doesn’t flag those websites. Then for a day or so they turn evil for selected IP ranges, loading viruses and malware into the programs. Then they flip switch and go clean again. So if someone complains to google, who will they believe? Clever!
Malware advertising or Malverting remains a problem, even on google’s sponsored ads. Threat researcher Tom Hegel: “Last January, every Google search for ‘Autocad’ led to something bad. Now, it’s like they’re paying Google to get one out of every dozen of searches. My guess it’s still continuing because of the up-and-down [of the] domains hosting malware and then looking legitimate.”
My take: adopt a layered defense strategy. Go directly to the vendor’s website for downloads (checking for lookalike urls, maybe even clicking the lock next to the url). Download. Scan with windows defender. Scan with malwarebytes. Sacrifice a chicken to the malware gods. Then install the software.
Yep, just last week I had someone come to me because his computer had all kinds of warning messages, flashing, and talking saying he needed to contact Microsoft support to fix his computer, and helpfully gave a number to call.
I pressed ESC to take the browser out of full screen mode, and then closed it, and all of the warnings went away. This was using a current version of Firefox, and was almost definitely an ad from some work safe site he went to. No need to go someplace disreputable to get ad scams. I am surprised Firefox lets an ad put it in full screen mode.
This is one of the big reasons I recommend everyone install an ad blocker.
Yeah. If all these sites which nag you for having one would, JUST ONCE, acknowledge the possibility of their ads having malware, maybe then I’d spring for their no-ad subscriber package. [I realize the likely futility of them devising ways to ensure no malware comes along in the first place.] As long as they blithely ignore said possiblity and keep wagging their bullshit in my face each time I visit, they can just go get bent.
Ads support websites and I like to support them. But…
I don’t like malware.
I don’t like moving ads.
I don’t like clickbait ads.
For the first, it’s a game of cat and mouse. For the 2nd, I’ve used various addons such as Disable Autoplay which don’t always work. Why can’t I stop movement in my browser? ARG.
Admittedly Ad-aware let’s me ban taboullah and the like. And I have a tracking blocker which in practice blocks a lot of advertising. But jeez, I really believe the big boys are leaving money on the table. Curb the obnoxiousness, stop being so obsessed with clicks, and everyone will be happier.
I have a really good ad blocker on my PC which hides itself from sites (as long as I keep it updated). So it’s very rare that it’s a problem.
The other day YouTube started warning me that it wasn’t going to let me view videos anymore due to my ad blocker. I updated it and relaunched my browser, all good.
My mom’s roommate got a call from “her bank” (not) saying there was a problem with her account. To fix it, she needed to go to the bank and take out $10,000 in cash, but not say anything to the teller about the problem, because the tellers are the ones trying to steal her money, the nice man said on the phone. Then, she needed to go to Home Depot and buy $10,000 in gift cards, read off all the numbers to him, then destroy the cards.
She did all this.
The money’s gone, of course, but I feel like both the bank teller and the Home Depot clerk ought to be shamed or threatened with lawsuits or something. I’d lawyer up and call the local news, but she’s not going to because she’s embarrassed. (She’s been scammed in similar ways many times before, never for this much money.)
This will happen again next week, and again and again until all her money’s gone. It’s very sad – her mind is going, I guess, but even before she started to get a bit dotty, she was always the sort of person who thought everyone was her friend, a natural fraud victim if there ever was one.
But she’ll never be convinced she needs to be protected from herself, and so will be repeatedly robbed blind until there’s nothing left to rob.
eta: I hope this is not a controversial statement, but it seems to me that banks ought to require cosigners on big transactions when the customer is elderly and, especially, has been a repeat scam victim. They already offer this protection to underage people, who are correctly assumed to lack judgment to make financial decisions. Why do we assume that elderly people in obvious decline have perfectly sound judgment and must be free to ruin themselves?
My mom is getting old and I worry how many of her faculties are intact right now, so I sympathize.
The problem is the “obvious decline” part.
The way this is usually handled in the US is to have someone declared legally incompetent. Then you or someone else who cares can become the guardian in charge of the person’s finances. If someone is so obviously impaired that a random stranger working as a bank teller with no medical training can spot a person as unable to handle themselves (over the course of a very brief interaction at a teller window) then it should be extremely easy to do so in court.
I find that unlikely. Many, or even most, but there are some sophisticated crooks out there who can write as well as any of us. If someone emails me or contacts me by any other method to persuade me to do anything relating to money, I automatically assume it’s a scam.
Well, what do we do for young’uns? Go by date of birth, no judgement calls needed. As an old person myself, I wouldn’t mind bank safeguards put in place for anyone over 80.
And restrictions on driver’s licenses! My nonagenarian mother, who we’re trying to pry from behind the wheel, and whose doctor said should stop driving, drove herself to the DMV and renewed her license. “I knew if I asked you to come along, you’d tell them I’m too old.”
No testing, just a clerk saying “Oh, you can barely walk or see or hear? Well, I’ll yell at your good ear until you understand that you just need to give me a check, and then you’re good to go UNTIL YOU’RE A HUNDRED AND THREE YEARS OLD! ‘Safe’ driving!”
So how about a driving test, even a quick one in the parking lot, for anyone over, say, 85? Oh, wait, how about requiring a note from the doctor saying Grandpa’s reactions are adequate for driving?
In my jurisdiction, the driver’s license folks all drivers require a Driver’s Medical Examination Report completed by their doctor or nurse practitioner at age 80, 85, and every two years thereafter. My mom was PISSED by this, but she had to comply in order to retain her license.
Would it be possible for you to convince her to give you Power of Attorney over her finances? This would be to “make it easier for her to do banking” (In reality, it would make it harder for her to take out large sum without you)
