I wonder how much of that are foreign central banks moving their gold reserves out of the USA... France, The Netherlands and Germany have been moving gold.
France completely exited New York, the Netherlands roughly halved what they've stored there. That was in 2026. They didn't physically ship any of it, they sold it and rebought in Europe.
Germany moved 111t from New York in 2016, and, afaict, nothing since then. There's still 1236t left.
Italy also keeps over 1000t in New York (no plans for repatriation).
Banks can keep it in US and stay happy, they don't necessarily immediately need physical gold. So it's quite efficient, lots of govts do similar stuff.
If the Banque de France holds physical in New York and sells it to JPMorgan (nothing moves) and then in Paris buys contract for physical from UBS, there will probably need to be physical gold that moves.
In all likelihood, Swiss gold held by e.g. a Gulf customer might be sold to Paris (nothing moves) and JPMorgan may entice Venezuela to take those contracts on its balance sheet (nothing moves). But if it’s a big trade, the price of delivering physical in Paris (or Genève) will go above spot in New York at which point it’s profitable for JPMorgan to take delivery, load up planes and physically ship gold.
You wouldn't need many ships. The volume of a single shipping container is enough for 1300 tons of gold. Of course gold is extremely heavy, you'd need a specially built container to support that much gold, but the point is the storage space of any ocean going ship can comfortably carry the entire gold reserve of an entire country.
If you actually loaded gold into shipping containers and obeyed the weight restrictions, all the gold in the world would take up less than 8400 TEU, which would be considered a mid size cargo ship.
This actually happened in 1965. De Gaulle, the president of France at the time, sent the French Navy over to America and took their reserve gold back home. This prompted other countries to do the same and by 1971 America had switched from a gold standard to a fiat currency.
You're leaving out some really interesting context there. After the Great Depression the economic equilibrium the world settled into, with the Bretton Woods treaty, is that participating countries, which was most of the non-Soviet aligned world, would agree to base their currency's value on the USD.
That'd obviously give the US an immense amount of power, so in exchange the US would agree to make the USD convertible to gold at a fixed rate by other countries (as opposed to e.g. individuals). So the whole point here is that if the US tried to print a whole bunch of money to exploit our 'exorbitant privilege', countries would be able to take their now devaluing USD and exchange into a gold at a stable rate and make a whole bunch of money. So it was intended to be a self correcting system.
The problem is that the US did print a whole bunch of money anyhow, and when France and other countries said 'hey we'd like to convert our USD to gold' we just said 'nah' and defaulted on our obligations, bringing Bretton Woods to an end in 1971. That signaled the beginning of the modern completely fiat economic system, and led to some wild quotes from the time. For instance the Secretary of the Treasury under Nixon (who was president in 71) has a great quote of, 'The dollar is our currency, but your problem.'
---
It's critical to understand this history to understand what's happening today with countries increasingly seeking to replace the dollar. Many want something akin to Bretton Woods 2.0, but without any country being given a win button. And that's not so easy to devise!
India brought several tonnes back from London. Approximately 250T was brought back in 100% cases it was brought from totally ordinary cargo planes. From what I have heard, hardest part of securing customs exemptions at port of entry in India.
To supplement this, there was an interesting situation in 2025 [0] where a financial signal developed and we saw physical gold flows from London to New York. A very similar mechanism; governments do something, price signal develops, gold starts flying around.
Gold is heavy sure, but its $/weight value is still much higher than basically any other cargo - the plane vs ship choice would be even more weighted towards the plane with gold than with most other cargo.
I’ve found a few references for air but none for recent (2022-2026) sea movements yet. This article talks about illicit gold concentrates moving by sea but notes:
“In focussing almost exclusively on gold bars, jewellery, and high-grade recycled gold (over 40% purity), all of which generally travel by air, analysts have tended to disregard the maritime space as a significant arena for illicit gold flows (LBMA, 2022[9]).”
The Hong Kong gold vault stores at the airport, not the harbour:
“ Half of the world’s population, including those of China and India, lives and can be reached within five hours if the metal is loaded on a plane and sent from the Hong Kong airport”
No; but the volumes are tiny and the cost of freight is not very high. If I were talking about moving gold I would expect it to be flown because the risk of piracy would be too high. It is easier to plan, secure and monitor a flight.
It does amuse me greatly that major world powers are trading large piles of stones in a place without moving them just like that. That's deeply satisfying.
Buying in Europe creates a demand in Europe, and selling in US creates extra supply in US. So, the market takes care of the transfer from high supply to low supply area.
That’s an insane amount of gold production. I watch gold rush and last season the two largest producer were just about 11k ounces, moving and washing a massive amount of dirt and rocks.
All their properties are played out. They're scraping the bitter dregs from properties that used to produce a massive amount more gold using extremely primitive tech to do so. In some cases, they're just re-running old mining tailings and scraping the ground at the edges of areas they knew were good.
If the price of gold didn't go up several thousand percent since the Klondike Gold Rush, there would be 0 reason to be up there at all. The Klondike produced -- on the low end of estimates -- 10 million ounces of gold worth in 10's of billions of dollars in today's money.
> I watch gold rush and last season the two largest producer were just about 11k ounces
I remember watching the first couple seasons of that show. Every time it went to commercial break they'd try to hype up the melodrama with "we gotta do X or we're not gonna reach a thousand ounces!"
My wife and I still quote that to each other out of the blue.
It’s specifically nonmonetary gold, so that’s a separate issue unless those nations were holding non-reserve gold here.
Although a sibling commenter mentioned that they moved their gold by selling it and rebuying it in Europe. If that gold qualifies as non-reserve gold after sale, and is moved out after sale to (for example) China, then perhaps?
If central banks sell their gold in the US and buy new gold abroad (to save themselves physically transporting the gold across the ocean[0]), I suspect that the demand this creates for gold abroad will ultimately cause US gold exports to rise, too.
From the article:
> The U.S. government is still reporting that its gold reserves are unchanged, so these exports look to be coming from current mine output and recycling operations.
Not sure if "The U.S governments gold reserves" also includes the ones from other countries though.
I don't think that counts as exports although they could be selling in the US and buying locally where traders move the gold (then it will be counted as exports).
They will probably come back saying that cash earned from labour is capital, and by completely missing the point will have proven how effectively capital-owners can pit a worker against its own interests.
Lots of places set the budget, and then apportion the taxes based on mark-to-market value of the properties (the mill rate is set to clear the budget).
As housing appreciates, the mill rate will decrease, leaving the tax burden unchanged.
It encourages people to participate in local elections because the budget sets the mill rate, and the council sets the budget.
Given that this is Canada, the first and fourth amendments don't come into the discussion.
Canada's rights are in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and they aren't absolute.
Part 1, Section 1.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Subject to that, we get Section 2.
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
I think this just highlights that a law, as written, isn't everything.
Say one country has this type of "feel-good document," but it's consistently interpreted by powerful courts as a strong protection, and the government generally leaves people alone due to democratic norms. Another country has a strict and absolute constitution, but courts in practice don't interpret it as such, or people are more frequently harassed when criticising the government. Where would you feel more comfortable speaking your mind, and which document is more useful for protecting freedoms?
I'm not making a specific claim about any real countries, though I would say that freedoms are not strictly worse-protected in Canada than in the US. I'm only stating that a law or other document in and of itself can't protect anything - government and society need to respect it.
Democracy is about more than just elections, and freedom is about more than just laws.
I disagree as there's often reasonable exceptions to "rights", especially when they might infringe other people's rights. e.g. The right to freedom isn't absolute in any country that has prisons.
Au contraire, taking rights as if they're defined absolutely means that conflicts between them cannot be resolved equitably, but rather only binary-axiomatically. In this US, this plays out as most natural rights being undermined through inescapable interactions with corpos, with the justification that you've "voluntarily" agreed that you will not exercise your right. There are some exceptions of course (eg Pruneyard v. Robins), but they're more like exceptions that prove the rule.
US courts giving insane leeway to corporations in what a contract can include has nothing to do with whether rights are defined absolutely or not. The exact same scenario could play out if the voluntarily waived rights were reasonably limited rather than unlimited.
> could play out if the voluntarily waived rights were reasonably limited rather than unlimited
My point revolves around the unlimitedness of the other right that is being used to override the first right in question. A large part of that "insane leeway" is exactly due to the corpos' rights being taken as unlimited/absolute - note how the argument in Pruneyard was trying to use property rights to override free speech rights.
But sure, rather than tweaking the conception of rights, we could instead target reform at reigning in the "rights" of corpos - they are merely whole-cloth creations of government, after all. But I suspect we'd still hit corner cases with sufficient power imbalances between individuals (say a small-time landlord and their tenant, with the landlord attempting to curtail the tenant's speech).
There is nothing in Canadian Charter of Rights that prevents corporations' rights to be taken as unlimited. Section 1's phrase "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified" makes it very easy - the judge just has to say that any limits would be unreasonable, and voila, rights are now unlimited. And overriding rights of individuals is just as easy - the judge only has to say that limiting them is justified, and bam, rights are limited.
At least with American system, they actually have to come up with an opposing right that's in conflict with the one they're limiting. In Canada, any right can be limited even without any conflicts.
From what I can tell the residency change for a billionaire is about how often you fly to your various homes. Zuckerberg I think hasn't gotten rid of his Palo Alto or Lake Tahoe property, he just added a FL house and will have a cap on how many days per year he's in CA right? This isn't like a normal person with 1 house relocating.
Also, every car manufacturer has to go through crash testing and homologation in order to sell cars directly to US consumers. And, without a parts supply chain, maintaining a car becomes very difficult. So even paying 200-300% over the sale price with third-party homologation makes private importation expensive, painful, and slow.
Windows supports it but git disables creating symlinks by default.
> Short version: there is no exact equivalent for POSIX symlinks on Windows, and the closest thing is unavailable for non-admins by default unless Developer Mode is enabled and a relatively recent Windows 10 version is used. Therefore, symlink emulation support is only turned on by default when that scenario is detected. Support can be enabled by the user, via the core.symlinks=true config setting.
Think embezzlement. Think someone with a political agenda who changes the homepage on the way out the door.
Having a single point of control is asking for trouble.
reply