Showing posts with label Central Banking. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Central Banking. Show all posts

Sunday, August 10, 2025

Money Creation—Banking’s Best-Kept Secret | Richard A. Werner

In an era when gold was money, people believed it was essential for transactions. But carrying gold was perilous—dangerous even today in cities like London, let alone in the 15th-17th centuries amid bandits on lawless roads. So, people sought safe storage. Professions handling gold, like goldsmiths crafting jewelry for kings, aristocrats, and the wealthy, had secure vaults and private guards. Naturally, individuals deposited their gold with these goldsmiths for safekeeping.
 
» We don't need to lend actual gold. «
"The Moneychanger and His Wife", painted by Quinten Matsijs, 1514.
 
To prove ownership, depositors received receipts—crucial evidence in case the goldsmith died and his son denied the claim. Goldsmiths charged a fee for this service, which seemed fair. Now, imagine we’re neighbors in Hampshire. I’m buying a plot of land from you, and we agree on a price in gold. My gold’s stored with a goldsmith in London. “I’ll go fetch it,” I say. You reply, “What’ll you do with it? You’ll risk your life fetching it, and then I’ll have to risk mine carrying it back.” We pause, then realize, “We might as well leave it there, and I’ll give you my deposit receipt.” Thus, these receipts for deposited gold evolved into Europe's first paper money—gold certificates, transferable and convenient.
 
Goldsmiths soon noticed that depositors rarely withdrew their gold; it stayed put, which was handy. This led to secrecy-shrouded practices. People knew goldsmiths held gold reserves, so they approached them for loans when in need. But until about 350 years ago, lending at interest was illegal in most European countries, forbidden by Christian doctrine and Biblical prohibitions against usury. A goldsmith might whisper, "Maybe I can lend, but keep it secret because I'll charge interest." The borrower agrees: "I'll pay, and we'll keep it secret." Goldsmiths began lending out portions of the deposited gold—especially standardized bullion—while swearing everyone to secrecy to evade arrest for illegal interest.
Shylock in The Merchant of Venice, Act IV, Scene I, by William Shakespeare, 1596.
 
As guilds do, goldsmiths convened to discuss trade secrets: “How do we handle lending too much gold? We need to work together—if one runs short, the others help, or else the whole scheme unravels, and we all get arrested for interest altogether.” One innovative goldsmith proposed, "I've got an idea—we don't need to lend actual gold. The next guy who comes begging every Monday—I've turned him down before. But now I'll lend to him to show you."
 
»
 All banks have always created money out of nothing. 
That's the secret of banking. «
 
The borrower arrives, pleading. The goldsmith says, “Today I’ll lend. Standard contract: small print, interest, your daughters sold into slavery if not repaid.” “Fine,” the borrower consents. “One more thing: 300 grams of gold. Sign here, I sign, and I lend it—but you must deposit it with me immediately.” The borrower protests, “I need the gold.” “You get the deposit receipt,” replies the goldsmith. “Yes, that’s all I need.” With the loan contract signed, the goldsmith records it as an asset on his balance sheet. He hands over the 300 grams of gold momentarily—now you see it, now you don’t—and it’s redeposited. The borrower leaves with a receipt for a new deposit.
 
» 
Banking has not been very well understood: legally, a "deposit"
is a loan to the bank, now owned by the bank, not the depositor. «
 
Double-entry accounting, invented for banking to obscure such maneuvers, made it appear legitimate: “All correct; the borrower deposited.” But it is fraudulent—the borrower enters with no gold and leaves with a document claiming a deposit, without increasing the goldsmith’s actual reserves. This is the essence of modern banking: fractional reserve lending and money creation out of thin air, born from these historical practices.
 
Reference:
 
» Today, due to the institutionalisation of interest and the advent of digital money, roughly 97 percent of modern money comes into existence as interest-bearing debt—i.e., it “comes into being only when someone promises to pay back even more of it.” «
Yusuf Jha, 2013.
 
See also: 

Saturday, August 9, 2025

"Satoshi Nakamoto" and the Origin of Bitcoin | Richard A. Werner

The chain of events that led central banks and major financial institutions to get involved with blockchain-based digital currencies really started with the introduction of Bitcoin on January 3, 2009. Even before Bitcoin’s white paper appeared on October 31, 2008, the NSA—a sister organization to the CIA—had already published various white papers on related topics.
 
»
 
They like to drop hints. «

When Bitcoin emerged, some mainstream organizations surprisingly promoted it early on. Outlets like the Financial Times, Reuters, and Bloomberg—sources that provide financial quotes—were already including Bitcoin prices and running major articles about it, even when Bitcoin was still tiny, fringe, and virtually unknown. Over time, the coverage increased. Large banks such as JP Morgan began announcing partnerships with people involved in Bitcoin or similar electronic, distributed-ledger, blockchain-related currencies. Then central banks joined in, saying, “We have to get in on this.” Bitcoin ended up serving as an excuse for central banks to claim there was market demand for such technology. Christine Lagarde even said this is why we need to consider introducing central bank digital currencies (CBDCs)—because “we have to offer something.”

»
 
We have to get in on this. «
 
The origins of Bitcoin remain a black box—nobody really knows. They do give hints, though. Having lived in Japan for 12 years, I was curious about Bitcoin’s supposed founder—this legendary, possibly fictional figure—named Satoshi Nakamoto. People speculated about who it might be, but no one could confirm an actual person by that name. Still, it’s clearly a Japanese name. Let’s look at it as a Japanese name, where the family name comes first: Nakamoto Satoshi. 
 
 Written in Japanese, Nakamoto is 中本. The first character, (Naka), means “middle,” “center,” or “inside,” and is also part of the name for China, the “Central Kingdom.” The second character, (Moto), means “origin,” “source,” or “root,” and is used in the Japanese name for Japan. Together, 中本 (Nakamoto) can be interpreted as “central origin” or “center source.”
 The name Satoshi (さとし) can be written with various kanji, such as or 悟司. The character means “wisdom” or “intelligence” in both Chinese (pronounced zhì) and Japanese (satoshi). In Japanese, two kanji are sometimes combined to deepen a concept—for example, 聡智 (sōchi) means “cleverness and wisdom,” where means “intelligent” or “clear-hearing,” paired with for “wisdom.” 
 
In the context of Nakamoto Satoshi, this combination could be interpreted as “very central” or “Central Intelligence.” If you understand Japanese writing, it’s not hard to see. I also think intelligence agencies sometimes like to drop hints—because even though they operate in secret, they still like to be talked about.

 
See also: 

Friday, August 23, 2024

The Central Bank of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi | Stephen M. Goodson

From 1551 to 1911 Libya was ruled by the Ottoman Empire, by Italy from 1911 to 1943 and from 1943 to 1951 was under the military suzerainty of Britain and France. The Central Bank of Libya was founded in 1956 and was run as a typical central bank until the bloodless coup d’etat of 1 September 1969. 
 
Mu’ammar Qathafi - A strict disciple of the Holy Q’uran, who abolished all forms of usury
and used the Central Bank of Libya for the sole benefit of the Libyan people.

Oil of an exceptionally high quality was discovered in 1959. However, King Idris al Mahdi as-Sanusi failed to capitalise on this bonanza or use it for the benefit of his people, and the bulk of the oil profits were siphoned into the coffers of the oil companies. On assuming power in 1969 Mu’ammar Muhammad al-Qathafi took control of most of the economic activities in the country, including the central bank, which for all practical purposes was run as a state bank. It operated as a banker of the local bankers and foreign bankers were not permitted to operate. Financing of government infrastructure did not atract riba (interest) and Libya had no national debt and no foreign debt. Its foreign exchange reserves exceeded $54 billion, which may be compared to reserves of developed countries such as the United Kingdom and Canada, which in 2010 were $50 billion and $40 billion respectively. GDP growth during the period 2000-10 was 4.32% per annum and the official figure for inflation was -0.27%.

 
Mass manifestation in support of Muammar Gaddafi in Tripoli,  July 1, 2011.

Colonel Qathafi was described by the mainstream media as being a “terrible dictator and a blood-sucking monster”, but the reality was that with the exception of the city of Benghazi and its environs, he had the support of 90% of the population. The following benefits provided by Qathafi explain why he was so popular:

   Free education. Free electricity. Free health care. Free housing (There were no mortgages).
  Students were paid the average salary for which subject they were studying.
  Students studying overseas were provided with accommodation, an automobile and €2,500 per annum.
   Newly-wed couples received a gift of 60,000 dinar ($50,000) from government.
  Automobiles were sold at factory cost free of interest.
  Private loans were provided free of interest.
   Bread cost 15 US cents per loaf. Gasoline cost 12 US cents per litre.
  Portion of profits from sale of oil was paid directly into bank accounts of citizens.
  Farmers received free land, seeds and animals.
  Full employment with those temporarily unemployed paid a full salary as if employed.

Qathafi’s Jamahariya “state of the masses” ensured that the wealth of this country of 5.79 million inhabitants was fairly distributed to all of its people. Beggars and homeless vagrants did not exist, while life expectancy at 75 years was the highest in Africa and 10% above the world average. The literacy rate was 82%. Regarding human rights Libya stood at 61 in the International Incarceration Index. The lower the rating, the lower the standing. The no.1 spot is currently occupied by the United States. Another major achievement, which Qathafi initiated was the conversion of the Nubian Sandstone Fossil Aquifer System into the Great Man-Made River, which supplies 6,500,000m³ of fresh water daily to the cities of Tripoli, Sirte and Benghazi. The extracted water is ten times cheaper than desalinated water. The total cost of the project, estimated at $25 billion was financed without a single foreign loan.
 
 
Although the central banks of Belarus, Burma, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, North Sudan and Syria do not fall under the direct control of the Rothschild banking syndicate, Libya had the only central bank run on genuine state banking lines, which exhibited the classic symptoms of full employment, zero inflation and a modern day workers’ paradise. The question arises as to why NATO intervened on the pretext of fabricated human rights abuses, the so called responsibility to protect. Since 1971 when the United States abandoned the gold exchange standard for the petrodollar with the connivance of Saudi Arabia, any attempt to displace the United States dollar as the premier reserve currency has been blocked and opposed with violence.
 
 Ezra Pound - 1943.
 
In November 2000 Saddam Hussein of Iraq decreed that all oil payments would in future be made in euros, as he did not wish to deal “in the currency of the enemy”. As has already been proven, the possession of weapons of mass destruction pretext was a deliberately concocted hoax and it was this currency decision, which cost Saddam Hussein his life and the destruction of his country. 
 
True, whether the quote is authentic or not.

In similar circumstances Qathafi announced in 2010 the creation of the gold dinar as a replacement for the settlement of all foreign transactions in a proposed region of over 200 million people. Libya at that time possessed 144 tons of gold. What was intended was not a return to the gold standard per se, but a new unit of account with oil exports and other resources being paid for in gold dinars. Qathafi crossed a red line and paid the ultimate price [he was assassinated by Western invasion forces in Sirte on October 20, 2011].

 The Truth About Libya - Stephen Mitford Goodson, 2011.

Since 2007 Iran has stipulated that payments be made in euro currency. On 17 February 2008 the Iranian Oil Bourse for trading in petroleum, petrochemicals and gas using primarily the euro, Iranian rial and a basket of non-US currencies was established. The first oil shipments under the new system were sold through this market in July 2011. This event must be deemed as one of the prime causes for the constant Israeli and American threats to annihilate Iran.


Quoted from:

 
See also:

Monday, May 13, 2024

Welcome to the UNIT - The De-Dollarization Bombshell | Pepe Escobar

Welcome to the UNIT – a concept that has already been discussed by the financial services and investments working group set up by the BRICS+ Business Council and has a serious shot at becoming official BRICS+ policy as early as in 2025.

  » The UNIT is a new form of international currency that can be issued 
in a de-centralized way, and then recognized and regulated at national level.  «

[...] The Global Majority has had enough of the centrally controlled monetary framework put in place 80 years ago in Bretton Woods and its endemic flaws: chronic deficits fueling irresponsible military spending; speculative bubbles; politically motivated sanctions and secondary sanctions; abuse of settlement and payment infrastructure; protectionism; and the lack of fair arbitration. In contrast, the UNIT proposes a reliable, quick and economically efficient solution for cross-border payments. The - transactional - UNIT is a game-changer as a new form of international currency that can be issued in a de-centralized way, and then recognized and regulated at national level.

  » Decoupling money from politics will undoubtedly offer unique opportunities 
for fair trade and investments across the globe removing economic bypasses created by 
political power plays and irresponsible fiscal and monetary policies.  «

The strength of the UNIT, conceptually, is to remove direct dependency on the currency of other nations, and to offer especially to the Global Majority a new form of apolitical money - with huge potential for anchoring fair trade and investments. It is indeed a new concept in terms of an international currency - anchored in gold (40%) and BRICS+ currencies (60%). It is neither crypto nor stablecoin. [...] The endgame is that everyone, essentially, may use the UNIT for accounting, bookkeeping, pricing, settling, paying, saving and investing.

 

See
also:

Thursday, November 9, 2023

Creditors And Debtors In The Real Sector Of The World


An interesting picture is emerging: China is a creditor to other countries in the world to the tune of more than 1,300 billion dollars. This is according to a report published by AidData: "With new data from more than 700 state-owned lenders and donors in China, we show that Beijing remains the largest source of international development finance in the world. It continues to surpass all other bilateral and multilateral sources of aid and credit to the developing world, including the US and the World Bank." Note that China, together with Hong Kong, is by a wide margin the world's largest lender. The top 8 largest debtor countries have not changed for many years (Ireland is to be overtaken by Italy early next year), but the amount of debt is growing: 1. US, 2. UK, 3. Japan, 4. Netherlands, 5. France, 6. Ireland, 7. Italy, 8. Germany. G8 total external debt ~ over $63 trillion. 

Wednesday, July 5, 2023

What is Money for? | Ezra Pound

The first thing for a man to think of when proposing an economic system is: WHAT IS IT FOR? And the answer is: to make sure that the whole people shall be able to eat (in a healthy manner), to be housed (decently) and be clothed (in a way adequate to the climate). 
 
 
 
Another form of that statement is Mussolini’s:

DISCIPLINE THE ECONOMIC FORCES AND EQUATE THEM TO THE NEEDS OF THE NATION.

The Left claim that private ownership has destroyed this true purpose of an economic system. Let us see how OWNERSHIP was defined, at the beginning of a capitalist era during the French Revolution.

OWNERSHIP is the right which every citizen has to enjoy and dispose of the portion of goods guaranteed him by the law. The right of ownership is limited, as are all other rights by the obligation to respect the rights of others. It cannot be prejudicial to the safety, nor to the liberty nor to the existence, nor to the ownership of other men like ourselves. Every possession, every traffic, which violates this principle is illicit and immoral.

Robespierre.
 
The perspective of the damned XIXth century shows little else than the violation of these principles by demoliberal usuriocracy. The doctrine of Capital, in short, has shown itself as little else than the idea that unprincipled thieves and antisocial groups should be allowed to gnaw into the rights of ownership. This tendency ‘to gnaw into’ has been recognised and stigmatised from the time of the laws of Moses and he called it neschek. And nothing differs more from this gnawing or corrosive than the right to share out the fruits of a common co-operative labour.
 
Indeed USURY has become the dominant force in the modern world.
 
Moreover, imperialism is an immense accumulation of money capital in a few countries, which, as we have seen, amounts to 4 or 5 thousand million pounds sterling in securities. Hence the extraordinary growth of a class, or rather a Stratum, of rentiers, i.e, persons who live by “clipping coupons” who take absolutely no part in any enterprise, and whose profession is idleness. The exportation of capital, one of the most essential economic bases of imperialism, still further isolates this rentier stratum from production, and sets the seal of parasitism on the whole country living on the exploitation of the labour of several overseas countries and colonies.

V. I. Lenin, quoting Hobson in ‘Imperialism, the highest stage of Capitalism’.

Very well! That is from Lenin. But you could quote the same substance from Hitler, who is a Nazi (note the paragraph from ‘Mein Kampf’ magnificently isolated by Wyndham Lewis in his ‘Hitler’) – ‘The struggle against international finance and loan capital has become the most important point in the National Socialist programme; the struggle of the German nation for its independence and freedom.’

You could quote it from Mussolini, a Fascist, or from C. H. Douglas, who calls himself a democrat and his followers the only true democrats. You could quote it from McNair Wilson who is a Christian Monarchy man. You could quote it from a dozen camps which have no suspicion they are quoting Lenin. The only people who do not seem to have read and digested this essay of his are the British Labour Party and various groups of professing communists throughout the Occident.

 
Thomas Piketty — Worse than Jewspapers.

Some facts are now known above parties, some perceptions are the common heritage of all men of good will, and only the Jewspapers and worse than Jewspapers try now to obscure them. Among the worse than Jewspapers we must list the hired professors who misteach new generations of young, who lie for hire and who continue to lie from sheer sloth and inertia and from dog-like contempt for the wellbeing of all mankind. At this point, and to prevent the dragging of red herrings, I wish to distinguish between prejudice against the Jew as such and the suggestion that the Jew should face his own problem.

DOES he in his individual case wish to observe the law of Moses? 
Does he propose to continue to rob other men by usury mechanism while wishing to be considered a ‘neighbour’?

 
 Fed Governors — Prevent the dragging of red herrings.
 
 
 See also:

Wednesday, February 22, 2023

Modern Fractional Reserve Banking - A Ponzi Scheme | Murray N. Rothbard

The banker issues fake warehouse receipts and lends them out as if they were real warehouse receipts represented by cash. At the same time, the original depositor thinks that his warehouse receipts are represented by money available at any time he wishes to cash them in. Here we have the system of fractional reserve banking, in which more than one warehouse receipt is backed by the same amount of gold or other cash in the bank’s vaults.
 

It should be clear that modern fractional reserve banking is a shell game, a Ponzi scheme, a fraud in which fake warehouse receipts are issued and circulate as equivalent to the cash supposedly represented by the receipts.

 
See also:

Tuesday, October 4, 2022

On Fiscal Mismanagement | Martin A. Armstrong

Martin A. Armstrong (Sep 13, 2022) - Don’t mix the problem of the quantity of money with what is actually money. They are two separate issues. The theory that inflation is tied to the quantity of money truly extends back to when metal was the money supply. The sudden discovery of America led to a huge wave of inflation in Europe. The FISCAL MISMANAGEMENT of Spain led to its total collapse. They were borrowing against the next shipload of gold coming in from the New World. They would not wait even to get it in, and they were so excited to spend it before it arrived.
 

[...] The amazing Decline and Fall of Spain is perhaps the greatest lesson if someone wishes to write “How NOT to Manage Government For Dummies.” The Spanish became both the richest nation and the greatest debtor, not that dissimilar from the United States, and succeeded in ending up as the poorest. Spain became a serial defaulter beginning in 1557, followed by 1570, 1575, 1596, 1607, and 1647 ending in a 3rd world status without hyperinflation. Their economic model was one of conquest and plunder rather than developing domestic industry and a viable economy.

[...] The endless increase in the supply of dollars is not the problem [...] Our problem is NOT that money is paper. The problem is those in charge of the government [...] No matter what is money, it CAN NOT be fixed in value. It must be allowed to float, for there are always trends that shift back and forth. Therefore, the relentless creation of money is not because they are paper dollars. As I said, you are blaming the gun rather than the shooter. This is fiscal mismanagement created by Marxism, where the politicians no longer know how to run for office without bribing the people for their votes. This is the system that is completely doomed.

Wednesday, August 24, 2022

The Magic of Money | Hjalmar Schacht

Man needs money, and cannot exist without it. The diabolic magic of money is here clearly visible. It has helped mankind to make immense strides in economic development, and has, at the same time, enslaved him. Regression to a money-less condition, or the modern method of exchange by means of money — any kind of money, but still money — these are the alternatives. Money plays the role of the sorcerer's apprentice, created to serve a master who cannot now rid himself of his indispensable sprite. It is the master now.


Hjalmar Schacht (1877–1970), President of the Reichsbank.

[...] Modern paper money, the banknote, is backed by its creator, the State. It is true that John Law, the inventor of paper money, recommended a kind of cover based on landed property, but Law, too, saw that the principal security for paper money lay in confidence in the government, which has legal control over all kinds of things which would provide security. The failure which put an end to Law's measures was not so much caused by a paper money inflation as by a collapse of speculative activity in the shares of the overseas enterprises he had founded. The value of his paper money was not based on these public companies, but only on their relationship with the state. Law rightly recognised that money, if it does not consist of tangible metal, is purely an internal affair of the national state. This remains true today.

For this reason, there is no such thing as international currency. It is unlikely that it will ever come into being. International money would have to be granted the status of legal tender in all countries in which it circulates. In all these countries, it would have to be possible to settle every state and private obligation in this currency. Any institution controlling this currency, irrespective of whether it is a bank or a government department, would dominate the world — an unthinkable situation. Currency is the most nationalistic factor in political life. Every central bank responsible for issuing it is dependent on the government of the country by whose laws it was instituted, and which makes its notes legal tender in the country's home territory.

The granting of credit is unthinkable without a central bank. No central bank can be allowed to act against the government of the country. The government is over the central bank, and influences its policies. It is thus also in a position to inflate the currency by taking up too much credit with the central bank. No international central bank could countenance such a situation. It cannot permit one of the governments with which it is associated to misuse its facilities unless every other government is in agreement. This, however, is a condition which cannot be reconciled with the fight of all against all in time of economic difficulty. No state will surrender so much of its sovereignty that its partners or competitors are given the power to prescribe its economic and financial policies. Standing over and above central bank and government, both of which are led and administered by changing personalities, there is a higher, impersonal, and substantially necessary law: the stability, the constancy of value, of money. This higher law has, in the past, granted the central banks an autonomous, independent position. Governments change, and can pursue good or bad currency and credit policies, according to whether or not it is to the advantage of the party in power.
 
"Dr. Schacht, you should come to America. We’ve lots of money and that’s real banking".
Schacht replied, 
"You should come to Berlin. We don’t have money. That’s real banking".
Hjalmar Schacht in an Allied internment camp, 1945. 

[...] Even if common currency is regarded and desired as the crowning achievement of the European Common Market, it would be wrong to leave the relationship between the government and the central bank out of account. […] The closer the economic ties between various countries, the easier will it become to reach agreement on currency policies. Whether these will ultimately lead to a unitary currency will always depend on the extent to which the participants are prepared to surrender their sovereignty. Here, in fact, is the Common Market's chief problem.

Tuesday, August 23, 2022

The Conspiracy of the Counterfeiters | Nikolai Starikov

Everything was going smoothly until 1965. Almost right after having been reelected to the post of President of France, Charles de Gaulle announced that his country would start to use real gold for international payments. According to the Bretton Woods Agreement he demanded that the USA exchange 1.5 billion dollars, kept by France, for real gold at a price of 35 dollars per ounce. It was the worst nightmare of a banker, when all creditors of his bank came to demand their ‘deposits’, as all FRS dollars were just obliging to pay the holders a certain amount of the precious metal. However, the required amount of gold had never existed, and consequently it was especially important to prevent the precedent. 
 
 Georges Pompidou, successor of President Charles de Gaulle, in 1969.
Guy de Rothschild's stooge in the Elysée.

The USA started to bias obstinate de Gaulle, who had already caused them trouble during his first presidential term, and even before that, when he was leading the Opposition in 1944-1945. Then during his second presidential term de Gaulle catastrophically endangered the mere fact of the ‘printing machine’s’ existence. Furthermore, the French President was determined, and when pressed, he withdrew from NATO and drove its formations out of his country. The USA had to exchange paper money for gold. In turn Germany, Canada and Japan made similar demands, though not in public like France, but secretly. Finally, the gap between the global amount of dollars and gold reserves in the USA was reduced even further. From 1960 until 1970 the dollar reserves kept in other countries tripled (and in 1970 came to 47 billion dollars, whereas the gold reserves of the USA came to 11.1 billion dollars at that time). It was necessary to urgently find a way out of this situation, but firstly the one who had entrenched the ‘printing machine’ must be punished. In 1967 de Gaulle returned the paper cash to the USA, and in May 1968 disturbances in France began. Demonstrations, the confrontation with the police, walkouts […] After almost a year of pressure Charles de Gaulle had to resign on 28 April, 1969. On 9 November, 1970 the ‘gravedigger’ of the dollar died due to heart failure.

The system established by the bankers was close to collapse. The gold default of the dollar concurred with the military defeat of the Americans in Vietnam. [...] Being aware that the capability of the USA to exchange dollars for gold at a fixed rate would be increasingly distrusted, they decided to get over this precipice in several steps. On 17 March, 1968 the Americans cancelled the dollar conversion into gold at a fixed rate for private traders. Central banks still could exchange dollars for gold at an official rate of 35 dollars per 1 troy ounce. At this, all ‘independent’ central banks in all countries were privately commanded to prevent such conversion by any means. On 15 August, 1971 the USA President Nixon, during his speech on the national (!) TV, incidentally announced the temporary taboo on the dollar conversion into gold at an official rate in central banks.

 Emmanuel Jean-Michel Frédéric Macron, the latest Rothschild stooge in the Elysée.
La république en marche. Allons enfants de la patrie.

That was a scandal indeed. However, it could become even greater, when it appeared that in the period up to the end of July 1971 the gold reserves of the USA descended to a threshold of less than 10 billion dollars. The affair proceeding any further could lead to complete catastrophe. On 17 December, 1971 the USA devalued the dollar by 7.89% in relation to gold. The official price of gold increased from 35 to 38 dollars per one troy ounce, but, curiously enough, the exchange of dollars for gold did not recommence. On 13 February, 1973 the dollar descended even lower in relation to gold, the rate became 42.2 dollars per 1 troy ounce. However, gold could not be acquired at this price, either. The American currency was not trusted anymore, and nobody hurried to sell their gold. The USA and Great Britain therefore had to share the benefits from the reserve currency emission with other countries.
 
French President De Gaulle predicted the dollar
crisis in 1965 and advocated the gold standard.

The only way out of the dead end was to print more paper money, which the global financial community would agree to treat like absolute values. It must be assumed though that this money was not financially assured by anything. On 16 March, 1973 during the International Conference in Paris, a compromise was found. The gold content of the dollar was officially cancelled. It goes without saying that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) confirmed and approved this decision, which would cancel all the principles of the financial system of that time and the system of the IMF itself. The epoch of floating exchange rates began in the world.

Quoted from:
 
The Gold Price (U.S.Dollars / Troy Ounce) 1792 to date
Gold Price (US Dollars / Troy Ounce) 1257 to date.