Should I withdraw CASH? Should I withdraw TRAVELLER'S CHECKS? Will either have any value if the banks fail?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

I realize that if we all go and withdraw a bunch of money, the banks will fail. Even with the extra "money" being printed by the Feds.

So I suppose I should leave my money in the bank. But I also don't want to be one of the ones who leaves his money in the bank, and loses it because lots of other folks take theirs out. What a quandary.

My conclusion is that I'll have to be one of the "bad guys", and remove at least most of my funds. I plan to start next week, then remove more next December, if there's any banks left then.

My question: should I keep cash around the house? Or should I hedge my bets and get traveller's checks? Will either have any value next year?

Anybody have any thoughts on this? What are y'all doing?

Al

-- Al K. Lloyd (all@ready.now), September 26, 1999

Answers

WHOA BIG FELLA!!! The travelers checks are NOT equivalent to cash!! They are even MORE of a promise to pay than YOUR OWN CHECKS!!! All you would be doing is transferring the ballance from YOUr account at the bank to another account in another bank.

Chuck

THIMK!!

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), September 26, 1999.


Honestly, if the banks and financial systems fail, then WHAT GOOD IS CASH?

It means nothing without banks and methods of interchange.

Be careful about being sucked into doing something stupid. People got suckered into buying gold at 300+ an ounce because they were afraid of Y2K or inflation. Somehow their money would be safe.. Some people have even liquidated their retirement funds and handed the IRS 38% (personally I'd rather lose the 38% to the market).

Like I've asked before, if the dollar crashes or the markets fail, who will have the 'money' to buy gold? What will they give you for your gold.. Would you exchange gold for food if there was a food shortage?

Cash is similar.. If banks fail, wouldn't cash be useless? I think you should have a variety of holdings. I have two houses.. If there is hyper-inflation, the gain there could help to offset the loss I'll take in stocks. I'd suggest that you be as diversified as possible.

If you really expect disaster, aren't preps the best investment? How about barter goods..

Don't get fooled into moving around huge amounts of your assets into speculative investments like gold. Keeping tons of cash around the house is dangerous as well.

I suggest that you diversify, and don't be led to make big mistakes out of fear and hype.

Bryce

-- Bryce (bryce@seanet.com), September 26, 1999.


I realize that if we all go and withdraw a bunch of money, the banks will fail. Even with the extra "money" being printed by the Feds.

(Gee, why do you think that is, Al? It is because the alleged 'banking' system is not 'banking' at all except in name. It is a scheme, Al. A scheme where they 'tell' you your money is there, and safe, when it is not. How did this happen? It happened because greedy bankers wanted to make more money. They wanted to make money off of property that was not their own. They reasoned that if this money is 'just sitting' there, why can't I lend out a small amount of it and make money on the property of someone else. After all, if I lend out only, let's say 10% of the deposited amounts, it would take 90% of the depositors to withdraw their money to cause me harm. So they lent it out. But that was not good enough for them. There was that other 90% just sitting there. And little by little they lent it all out till they worked their way down to a 4% reserve ratio. That means that for every 100 dollars that you deposit, only FOUR BUCKS is actually there. The banks themselves put YOU in this highly tenuous situation, Al. **THEY** did this to you.)

So I suppose I should leave my money in the bank.

( Why would you say something this utterly foolish? Think about what the Feds have promised. They and the banks have promised that there is enough cash to satisfy everybody. Are they telling the truth? I don't think so. But, let's take them at their word. Take your money out where you have a 100% guarantee that it can not be lost in a bank snafu. Guess what? You have harmed no one and you can re-deposit it next year with the minute loss of interest. Isn't the safety of the principle amount worth that?)

But I also don't want to be one of the ones who leaves his money in the bank, and loses it because lots of other folks take theirs out. What a quandary.

( No quandary at all, Al. Let all the morons leave their money in. but, soon enough, even they will figure it out just like you are figuring it out right now. soon, a whole lot more will be doing what you are contemplating right now, and soon it will reach a critical mass and the whole house of cards will be exposed and collapse.)

My conclusion is that I'll have to be one of the "bad guys", and remove at least most of my funds. I plan to start next week, then remove more next December, if there's any banks left then.

( Good for you. The sooner the better. Do it NOW. Not even next week. Do it NOW. Only, it does not in the least make you one of the bad guys. Why would you be the bad guy because you wish to have your own property where you feel most comfortable? Why does that make you a bad guy? Do you think it makes you a bad guy because everyone else is going to trust the blue smoke and mirrors? Does it make you a bad guy becuase you think it prudent not to rely on their mere assurances? Will their assurances pay you back if your bank goes under? No.They will be real sorry, but 'You can keep the toaster, anyway.")

My question: should I keep cash around the house?

(Why are you afraid of having your own cash?)

Or should I hedge my bets and get traveller's checks?

( Only if you have a death wish. Who will want to take one when they are only ultimately redeemable at a bank?)

Will either have any value next year?

(Initially. Then, toilet paper.)

Anybody have any thoughts on this? What are y'all doing?

Al

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), September 26, 1999.


Whoa, buddy. You need to stop listening to Mike Adams and start getting the real facts about Y2K.

-- Get Real (g@r.m), September 26, 1999.

Thank you Paul, You just saved me a lot of typing.

Get lots of ones and fives, you'll not often be able to get "change" from a fifty.

-- LM (latemarch@usa.net), September 26, 1999.



Good advice Mr. Milne. BTW, why not follow your own advice and move more than 5 miles from a convience store?

-- hyprocrites (here@timebomb.2000), September 26, 1999.


Was Mr. Milne driving this vehicle?

-- Robby2k (robby2k@onionbreath.com), September 26, 1999.


To' hypocrites'...

If you have the balls, you might explain your comment.

Or, just to save you the embarrassment, I live 12 miles from the closest small town. They do not have any 'chain' convenience store. They have a few gas stations with convenience store type items.

Other than that , the closest 'real' town is over 25 miles away. And even THEY do not have 7-11.

And am not quite sure what you meant by a 'convience' store, unless your spelling is as bad as your alleged intelligence gathering abilities.

Anything else, big-mouth?

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), September 26, 1999.


If your cash isn't worth anything in the bank, then why not have your money out of the bank? If your cash is worthless, then you can stuff it in your pillows and dream upon it. You are the King/Queen who rules over YOUR money. A bank is a business, and if your not happy with the business, then take your business somewhere else. People need to get over this mentality that the bank is like the government who will watch over and protect them! Yeh, RIGHT! They'll screw you in a minute! If nothing more, buy guns and ammo and lots of it with your money. There's always a demand for that, even more so than gold. JMTCW. Bardou

-- bardou (bardou@baloney.com), September 26, 1999.

I guess you could buy t-bills at least they would be the last fiat money to become worthless.

-- ron (rrest@hotmail.com), September 26, 1999.


Paul,

Do you ever come out from your bunker and meet with people? I'd like to meet you and I suspect that you aren't many hours from me. Can we do lunch?

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (faryna@groupmail.com), September 26, 1999.


Bardou, you're the greatest!

-- Porky (Porky@in.cellblockD), September 26, 1999.

Rambo and Billy Graham doing lunch? Oh I'd love to be sitting at the table next to you two!!!

-- Itchy Ears (itchyears@itchyearsss.xcom), September 26, 1999.

Thanks Porky, I needed that!

-- bardou (bardou@baloney.com), September 26, 1999.

Take it to e-mail, Stan.

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), September 26, 1999.


Al: Go to my website, Y2K Survive (www.y2ksurvive.com) and read through my Money page. The whole website is full of free information on all aspects of Y2K preparation.

If you stop and think about it for a moment, cash will be the only thing people have to buy things with in a Y2K economic crash or social collapse. People will still want and need things and whatever real physical cash that's around will obviously belong to the people who have it. If you need food and there's a man with a box of canned goods down the street who needs water, and you don't have a lot of extra water but you do have cash, you can give him some cash for his food and he can take it elsewhere and trade it for water. Banks have nothing whatever to do with the value of cash; cash has value because there is a limited supply of it and people will accept it as a store of value and a means of facilitating trade. Cash will be far more valuable in a Y2K crash than it is now.

If I were you, I'd cash in everything I possibly could and hide it close by you until next March, when we'll know just how bad Y2K is going to be. If it's really bad, you'll be a rich man; if it's not so bad, you can take the cash and reinvest it in whatever you want to. This is the prudent and conservative thing to do when faced with a likely Y2K catastrophe.

-- cody varian (cody@y2ksurvive.com), September 26, 1999.


QUESTION: Are $1, $5, $10 Dollar Bills less easily detected than the new 20s & 100s ???

Heard the new "monopoly" $20 + $100 bills have tiny metal strips that can be 'read' by a device far away, even from airplanes, thru walls, etc.

Nothing like that in the $1s, $5s, $10s ?

How would one wrap them to deter 'geiger' detection or sniffing dogs?

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), September 27, 1999.


Put your money in the microwave and zap it! Do the same with your driver's license.

-- micro maniac (micromanic@micromaniccc.xcom), September 27, 1999.

The "metal strip" is apparently a hoax; this came up in another thread many moons ago. The main worry with the new $20/$50/$100 bills is that there could suddenly, in the name of The War On Counterfeiting, be a recall of all of the older bills to get them out of circulation. For which you would probably get in exchange a check for the amount that you had to turn in, not cash in return. Needless to say, if you have stockpiled cash in these denominations, it would essentially wipe you out.

In point of fact, you should be stockpiling $10/$5/$1 bills plus quarters/dimes/nickels/pennies, as this is currency that is far more practical in a Y2K induced meltdown, since it is far more flexible. And there is presumably no danger of "recalls".

Just to be clear: the possibility of a "recall" of the $20/$50/$100 bills that was discussed on another thread months ago was pure speculation. I personally have not seen any info whatsoever that this is going to happen.

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.~net), September 27, 1999.

Micro maniac,

Are you serious about zapping the money in the micro wave?Please explain.

-- maggie (aaa@aaa.com), September 27, 1999.


I've posted this before, just thought you would be interested it explains fiat money http://members.aol.com/FTUN/index.html

Sec.19 and be it further enacted, that if any of the gold and silver coins which shall be struck or coined at the said mint shall be debased. . . every such officer or person who shall commit any or either of said offenses, shall be guilty of felony and shall suffer death. Free Coinage Act, April 2, 1792.

-- Mark Hillyard (foster@inreach.com), September 27, 1999.


Paul Milne, do you expect to win converts with your condescending and offensive style of writing, or do you just like to see yourself in print? Can't you tell serious talk from rhetoric? Do you really think I would feel bad for withdrawing my money?

If I thought that there was a possibility that a bank run could be averted by everyone leaving their money in the bank, and by doing so we could avoid a terrible depression, or worse, I would at least CONSIDER IT. But there is no way that we could convince even a tiny percentage of people to risk their life savings if they heard about a run on the banks. I'm sure you are familiar with what happened to the banks (actually I should say what happened to those with their money in the banks) during the Great Depression.

Tbanks for your lecture on how banks work. Do you think this is some new idea you are sharing? You are preaching to the choir. Duh.

My question is about whether EITHER traveller's checks OR cash will have value after y2k. If the banks don't fail, then traveller's checks seem like a good idea to me. (Yeah, I know, chuck, "thimk") IF the banks don't go down, I don't have to worry about someone stealing my traveller's checks. I take traveller's checks to Latin America whenever I go there; it makes me feel economically secure.

OF COURSE, if the banks go down, the traveller's checks will be worthless, but maybe the money will be, too.

Paul, I'm afraid your response was not much help, but thanks for trying (if that's what it was, and not just tooting your own horn)

Bryce, thanks for your very sound advice. I agree wholeheartedly with what you say, with the possible exception of your views on gold. I think gold will be worth a lot more than paper, if the banks fail. If the banks don't fail, gold is like any other speculative commodity. I DO have a diversity of holdings in real estate. I also have plenty of trade items. If a person could trade pure drinking water for things, I'll be the Donald Trump of traders (I have a water well of great purity which gives me many thousands of gallons a day with no pump, no electricity, no sunshine, no sweat.

My "problem" is that I still have a bit of money in CD's. Hence the question.

-- Get Real (g@r.m), September 26, 1999. >

Get Real, who is Mike Adams? And where do I get the "Real Facts" about y2k? I'd love to know. All the facts I get about y2k are not real.

-- LM (latemarch@usa.net), September 26, 1999.>

LM, why won't I be able to get change for a fifty? And for all I know, maybe a fifty won't be worth what a five is now. Or maybe a five will be worth what a fifty is now... Damn, I need some "Real Facts" again.

Make that "King", please, Bardou. But the truth is, I don't WANT to have a pillow full of worthless money. I'd rather go buy a solar pump or solar power for my house, or forty acres, or a new house for my kids, or any number of cool things. But my REAL preference is to be able to come out of y2k with approximately as much buying power with my cash as I have going into y2k. I don't want to make a killing, but I don't want to be screwed, either.

-- ron (rrest@hotmail.com), September 26, 1999.>

Thanks for the suggestion, Ron. I'm obviously no expert on money management, so would you please explain why you suggest t-bills?

Cody, I suspect you are making some assumptions about the value of money after y2k that are speculation only. No offense; as I said, I certainly am no expert, and I will visit the site you recommended.

I tend to agree that holding cash would be prudent, but I am getting a lot out of all the input on this thread, and will reserve judgement for a while longer.

< The "metal strip" is apparently a hoax; this came up in another thread many moons ago. ....

... In point of fact, you should be stockpiling $10/$5/$1 bills plus quarters/dimes/nickels/pennies, as this is currency that is far more practical in a Y2K induced meltdown, since it is far more flexible. And there is presumably no danger of "recalls".

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.~net), September 27, 1999. > Jack, the "metal strip" is certainly NOT a hoax, although it appears to be a "metallic" strip. Look at any bill printed since at least 1993, when I first saw one. Anything larger than a one dollar bill.

I am looking at a bunch of Federal Reserve Notes: a couple of ones, (both 1995's), a five (also 1995), a ten (also 1995), a twenty (1993) and two "funny money" twenties (both 1996). All of these bills, except the ones, have the strip in them. If you hold them up to a light (the computer screen will do nicely), looking right side up at the side with the presidents' face on it, you will see a strip about 1/16" wide, running vertically from top to bottom of the bill, about one inch from the left side. On the "funny money" it's about 3/4" from the left side. These strips have writing on them, which is easy to read, and which says, "USA TWENTY", or "USA TEN" and so forth, on them. Take a look. It is possible, by making a very small cut at one end, to slide the strip out of the bill. Perhaps this would make it "invisible" to scanners; I can't say. But you'd no doubt get hassled for mutilating the bill, if you got caught altering the bills. And I can tell you from experience that a bill which has been damaged in this way is not considered "legal tender" in either Guatemala, Costa Rica, Peru, or Bolivia. I carried a twenty around for three months because no one--not banks, hotels, casas de cambio, cabbies, NO ONE, would cash them.! NOt because of the missing strip (I doubt they knew that much about US currency), but because of the tiny tear in the bill.

As far as "there is presumably no danger of "recalls", I can tell you that the descendants of the Incas, in Bolivia, were selling coins (they were the equivalent of silver dollars, but were called "Intis") as collectors items, because they were no longer valid, the government having changed the monetary system to "soles".

Thanks to all (even you, Paul, assuming you weren't TRYING to be rude and condescending)

Al

-- Al K. Lloyd (all@ready.now), September 27, 1999.


I have just read all of the messages on this topic and enjoyed the variety of thought. The thing that impressed me the most is that none of us really know what is up. As a matter of fact, I think that I can say that nobody in the whole world really knows what is going to happen. And there is the real problem.

I don't understand the financial world. I was a professor of theoretical physics. If it were a question of quantum electrodynamics or general relativity, I would perhaps know what is going on. But banking and finance is not so easily understood nor so easily researched because of the human factor in it all.

So where does that leave me? Well, it leaves me where everybody else is---I just don't truly know what to do. And I don't believe that anybody else knows. What will happen when the clock strikes that fateful hour? Does anybody really know? I think that the answer is NO. I have read almost every site that exists and I have concluded that nobody knows nor can anybody know. As they say south of the border, "Solo Dios sabe que es en el futuro."

Since I am so totally in the dark as far as true knowledge is concerned, I must do what I can do to make myself and my family secure. So I have stockpiled food and diesel (I have a diesel car) and wood. I have plenty of water and I live in rural Maine. And I have removed my little bit of money from the bank. Will it be any good in the year 2000? I don't know. But I think that it has a little better chance of having value than if I leave it in a bank. I have converted much of my money into food and other necessaries because I will always use these things if nothing much happens.

I have encouraged everybody in my area to make preparations. I do care about my neighbors. I don't want them to suffer hunger or cold. I try not to sound like a doomsayer because this tends to drive people away from you. I try to show my neighbors that it is prudent--- like buying insurance.

Will the banks crash? Nobody really knows. But it does seem like a real possiblity. My advice to my children is that they should pull all of their money out of the bank except what they need to cover checks. If nothing happens, they can put it back in later if they want to do so. And I believe that this is as sound advice as I can give, knowing as little as I do.

J Wolfe

-- James G. Wolfe (jw1831@exploremaine.com), September 28, 1999.


J Wolfe says,

"Solo Dios sabe que es en el futuro."

Not to be pessimistic, Mr. Wolf, but I believe that should be "Solo Dios sabe que SEA en el futuro", if you get my drift.

He continues:

"Will the banks crash? Nobody really knows. But it does seem like a real possiblity. My advice to my children is that they should pull all of their money out of the bank except what they need to cover checks. If nothing happens, they can put it back in later if they want to do so. And I believe that this is as sound advice as I can give, knowing as little as I do."

Mr. Wolf, I appreciate both your advice, and your humility. The humility on this forum is almost unheard of. Thank you.

Thanks again to all of you. I think I have decided that taking out most of my cash is the way to go. As Wolf says, I can re deposit it later, if that seems prudent.

I guess having traveller's checks really does not make much sense, now that I think about it. If the banks have failed, who would be interested in a traveller's check? Even with bank failures, there is at least the possibility that Federal Reserve Notes will still be a viable medium of exchange.

Time will tell.

Al

My apologies to Sen~or Mud Wrestler for having typed in a language he disapproves of. After all, he is a "True Uhmericun"

-- Al K. Lloyd (all@ready.now), September 28, 1999.


Font?

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), September 28, 1999.


Disregarding for the moment the questions about banks after the rollover, and considering just the period before the rollover, I would like to offer a suggestion to consider IF enough people decide to retain physical possession of their cash that cash becomes so scarce that the use of cash in ordinary, day to day, purchases becomes rare. (Please pardon the length of that sentence).

In such circumstances, the use of credit cards would probably become even more prevalent than today, and someone using cash where credit cards would be accepted, may stand out like the proverbial sore thumb.

With that possibility in mind, my suggestion is to keep your credit cards intact, and your credit card accounts up to date, so that in such circumstances, you can "fit in" with the crowd, and not advertise your stash, and use cash only where necessary (and act like you are down to your last few bills).

Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), September 28, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ