Talk:Liberty bond

Title of article should be "Liberty Bond"

Per WP:TITLE, "Do not capitalize second and subsequent words unless the title is almost always capitalized in English (for example, as in proper names and book titles)." The "bond" in "Liberty Bond" is always capitalized in this article. That suggests that the title of this article should be "Liberty Bond". I will change it if there are no objections. --Richard (talk) 00:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Gold Reserve Act of 1934

I have reverted the factual information concerning the 4th bond's default deleted by another user. I have also deleted the user's claim that the issue was "affected" by the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 since it is unsourced. The Gold Reserve Act did a number of things, but none of its actions attempted to retroactively change the terms of the 4th Liberty Bond. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Chamberlain (talk • contribs) 17:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Legal Basis of the Technical Default

Since the apparent objective of the previous editor who attempted to delete information out of the default notice for the 4th Liberty Bond was to somehow show there was a legal basis for the default I have added a paragraph concerning the legal basis for the technical default which was House Joint Resolution 192, not the Gold Reserve Act as the previous editor erroneously implied. Moreover, this resolution was later ruled unconstitutional as the references show. For those who are interested in the legalities of this decision essentially what happened is that the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had acted unconstitutionally in trying to disavow the gold redemption, but that the plaintiff had no claim because he could not prove he had been harmed. John Chamberlain (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Convertibility Issue

One serious flaw with the article as it stands now is that it claims the Treasury raised $17 billion dollars for the war effort with the Liberty Bonds. This figure was apparently calculated by adding up the amounts of the issues. It is manifestly incorrect, however, to do this, because some of the issues were convertible. For example, most of the 1st bond for 3.5% was rolled over into the 4% bond. So only a fraction of the 2nd bond was new money, the majority was just rolled over 3.5% bonds. Also, the figure does not take into account secret discounts the Treasury undoubtedly offered brokers to move the bonds, nor does it deduct the enormous expenses of advertising and distributing the bonds. I have not attempted to make these calculations but at some point this should be done to come up with a more realistic gauge of the financial impact of the bonds. John Chamberlain (talk) 23:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Repayment Material

I deleted a long and somewhat gratuitous "repayment" paragraph and a section change from "default" to "repayment". The essential point of the section is that the relatively small amounts of the earlier bonds were retired in gold or gold-backed dollars in the 1920s. Providing detailed minutiae about this process is unnecessary. If you think these details are important, put them in their own section. The salient issue, and the subject of the section is the default of the fourth bond so titling it "repayment" is ridiculous. There seem to be a lot of people out there who want to pretend the United States have not defaulted on their bond issues which is false and, I think, a rather deceptive idea to propagate. The US has defaulted on at least five different occasions, possibly six if you can sort out the fuzzy history of the War of 1812. A key financial aspect of the depression of the 1930s was the default on the Liberty bonds which is why the section is there.John Chamberlain (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the repayment information, as I think it gives useful context to the circumstances of the default. Your assumptions about my "objective" are wrong. I have no intention of playing down the dishonesty of the government's actions. – Smyth\^talk 15:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I have no objection to the small SEPARATE section on the repayments during the 1920s. If you want to write a dissertation on the subject, make a new page and link it. Stop deleting references to the default, trying to disguise or minimize the fact it was a default, or changing my language to delete the use of the word default or I will start reporting your deletes as vandalism.John Chamberlain (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Even if I did have the agenda you were assuming, it wouldn't be "vandalism" – that word has a specific meaning. But I do not have that agenda. You will observe that I retained the word "default" in the section title, and used it myself in the paragraph above on this talk page. I will respond to your other points tomorrow. Meanwhile, I think you should calm down and apologise. We are on the same side here. – Smyth\^talk 21:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I deleted two subjective statements in your additions, one about the supposed "reasons" for why the Treasury did not redeem the 4th bond according to its terms (which is both unsourced and wrong), and the other a subjective, unsourced comment about the capabilities of the US Treasury to pay its debts. Also, the source for your repayment information (The Los Angeles Times) is not a reputable source for this kind of information. I recommend resourcing this paragraph using authoritative information such as official US Treasury reports.John Chamberlain (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

First, these were not "my additions", as I did not originally write them. I simply restored some material from the history which I thought could be informative.

You're quite right about the "unsourced comment about the capabilities of the US Treasury to pay its debts". But what's wrong with the statement that the Treasury refused to redeem the bond in gold because private ownership of gold was illegal? What other reason could there be? – Smyth\^talk 21:17, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

First of all, that's not what your text said. It cited an executive order. Second of all, executive orders are not laws. Third of all, the policies of the Treasury at the time were based on a specific law which is cited as a reference in the article already, and also is discussed in the Supreme Court decision, neither of which have you apparently read. Fourth, just because an organization claims a reason for doing something, does not mean that is why they did it. Making judgmental and speculative statements about the motives of others, about whom you know little or nothing, is not factual reporting. 72.74.135.150 (talk) 06:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 05 August 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Request withdrawn. – Smyth\^talk 10:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

---

Liberty bond → Liberty Bond – Capitalization is used throughout the article. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC) --Relisted. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)  – – Smyth\^talk 19:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that's just something he always writes when he thinks a move needs discussion. I didn't see anyone actually contesting it. – Smyth\^talk 20:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• Question please present evidence that modern reliable sources capitalize this. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

• Actually a few minutes' searching indicates that the most common term is the capitalized "Liberty Loan". – Smyth\^talk 10:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose – nom's rationale is not a reason to change the title. Dicklyon (talk) 06:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Local laws

Apparently there is at least one case of a man convicted for the crime of not owning a Liberty bond, as in the Tulsa Outrage article, but there is no direct citation. Since this article is more active, I would like to ask if editors have come across any kinds of legal oddities about Liberty bonds or unusually restrictive (by modern standards) local laws. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

missing important informations

1.) amount of propaganda ressources

for example: "Speaking Campaign for Fourth Liberty Loan Starts Today Washington, Sept. 22. The speaking campaign on behalf of the fourth Liberty loan, Which opens formally next Saturday, will start tomorrow. Forty thousand four-minute men, 20,000 others working under direct supervision from the central Liberty loan organization, and at least 50,000 volunteer speakers, who will travel in automobiles from village to village. Each of. 24 war exhibit trains is to carry a squad of speakers, including many American and allied soldiers recently returned from the fighting front. Among the speakers booked are Vice President Marshall, Secretaries Daniels, Lane and McAdoo, former President Taft, James W. Gerard, William J. Bryan, William Allen White, Opie Read and Meredith Nicholason. Scores of representatives and senators will campaign for the loan."

source:Omaha daily bee., September 23, 1918, Page 5, Image 5

2.) Terror campaign against "slackers" etc. supported by Wilson-government to force neutral Americans into signing war bonds and register for draft.

source: "American Midnight" 77.3.125.236 (talk) 02:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)