If this matters…
Comment. Send a letter you'd like me to post. Like the Hickory Hound on my various platforms. Subscribe. Share it on your personal platforms. Share your ideas with me. Tell me where you think I am wrong. If you'd like to comment, but don't want your comments publicized, then they won't be. I am here to engage you.
Get in touch: hickoryhoundfeedback@gmail.com
HKYNC News & Views Dec 21, 2025 – Executive Summary
Hickory Hound News and Views Archive
📤This Week:
(Monday): PRODUCT DEPTH: THE HIDDEN SIGNAL OF MARKET COLLAPSE (Part 3 of 9 on The Hound's Signal)
(Tuesday): Hickory 101: Lesson 7 – The Local Lens - the purpose of this lesson — to show you that Hickory isn’t just a local story. It’s a reflection of national patterns that hit early, hit hard, and leave marks that don’t fade.
(Thursday): ⚙️Structural Schisms 8: Fading from the Map - looks at how Hickory’s identity has weakened as its institutions—newspapers, schools, churches, and civic groups—lose influence. The city’s story once bound generations together; now that story is breaking apart. This essay explores what happens when a community forgets itself, and what it will take to remember again.
Friday: WHY MARKET COMPLETENESS RARELY RETURNS ONCE LOST (Part 4 of 9 on The Hound's Signal)
📤Next Week:
(Tuesday): Hickory 101 — Lesson 8: Finding the Signals - Signals → Noise → Trends → Anomalies
(Thursday): Assessing Where we are at the end of 2025
🧠Opening Reflection: — Back on the Yellow Brick Road
Fifteen years ago, I reached into the past to tell a story that many know from childhood. People know the movie and some know the book. People understand the imagery of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, but not the deeper meaning beneath it. The allegory was never a gimmick; it was a way to translate a dense subject into something people could recognize.
-------------------------------
Follow the Yellow Brick Road - The Wizard of Oz and 1890's Monetary Policy - 5/27/2010
At the time, it was easy to read those essays as historical commentary. The gold standard was long gone. The silver debates were settled. The dollar felt stable. Inflation was low. Confidence was settling down after the financial crisis of 2008 had shaken things, but 2008 still felt like an exception rather than a pattern. The Yellow Brick Road articles landed as reminders—interesting, instructive, but comfortably distant.
What I was really writing about then wasn’t metal. It was structure—who controls money, who gets protected when pressure builds, and who absorbs losses when promises can’t all be kept. Those questions didn’t disappear when the gold standard ended. They just stopped being debated openly, because people don’t argue about systems they don’t understand.
Back in the late 1800s, when The Wizard of Oz was written, the fight over money was not hidden or obscure. People knew there was a conflict over how the economy was being run, and they argued about it openly. It showed up in elections, in newspaper editorials, and in public speeches. Money policy was not buried inside institutions or explained away with technical language. It was understood as a political choice with real consequences.
The debate over gold versus silver was not academic theory. It had clear sides and clear constituencies. One side benefited from tight, scarce money. The other needed money to be easier to get. You could draw a straight line between the policy and the people it helped or hurt.
Farmers, shopkeepers, and small producers lived close to the margin. They borrowed to plant crops, stock shelves, and keep their operations running. When money was scarce, prices fell while debts stayed the same. That meant repayment got harder even if people worked just as hard as before. They weren’t asking for special treatment. They wanted enough money circulating in the economy so prices, wages, and incomes could rise to a level where debts could realistically be serviced.
Creditors and financial institutions wanted the opposite. Tight money protected the value of loans. It reduced the risk of inflation eating into returns. It increased the real value of what was owed to them. Scarcity worked in their favor, because every dollar carried more weight. What made life harder for borrowers made balance sheets safer for lenders.
The stakes were visible because the mechanism was visible. Money was tied to specific, understandable rules. There was a gold standard. There was a silver ratio. There was a fixed conversion price. You could point directly to the rule creating the pressure in the economy.
People knew what they were arguing about because they could see the levers. The gold standard limited how much money could circulate. The gold–silver ratio controlled liquidity. Policy choices determined who got relief and who was forced to adjust. Even when people disagreed on the outcome, there was clarity about the tradeoffs. Everyone understood who benefited and who paid.
That clarity is what made the debate political instead of technical. It wasn’t hidden behind expertise. It wasn’t deferred to institutions. It was fought openly, because the system was simple enough for people to understand—and because the consequences were impossible to ignore.
Today, the mechanism is quieter. We don’t argue about gold standards anymore. We argue about affordability. About wages not keeping up. About rent, groceries, insurance, and energy costs rising faster than paychecks. We argue about why savings don’t feel like savings anymore. The language changed, but the tension didn’t. The debate didn’t go away—it went underground. People still bear the consequences, but the decisions that cause them are harder to see and harder to challenge.
In 2010, a dollar still felt like a stable reference point. Today, it buys less—not because the system collapsed, but because erosion rarely announces itself. That slow drift was exactly what the old bimetallists were trying to make visible.
Gold and silver didn’t reenter the conversation out of nostalgia. They resurfaced because stress still finds a way to register, even when public debate has moved on.
Fifteen years ago, the Yellow Brick Road was a metaphor. Today, it feels more like a timeline. Not because history repeats itself cleanly, but because structures rhyme. Systems built on promises don’t usually fail all at once. They stretch. They adapt. They protect themselves. And they ask households to adjust quietly, incrementally, until the adjustment feels normal.
That’s the part that’s easy to miss if you only look at headlines. The dollar hasn’t collapsed. It’s still dominant globally. It’s still accepted everywhere. It still settles debts. But settlement and value are not the same thing. A promise can be enforced long after its purchasing power has changed. The system doesn’t need to break to transfer cost. It just needs time.
When I wrote those essays in 2010, the idea that ordinary savers might be absorbing losses without a formal crisis still felt theoretical. Today, it feels lived. People sense the erosion even if they can’t quite name it. They know something is off. They know the math doesn’t work the way it used to. They know doing everything “right” no longer guarantees security.
That’s why revisiting the Yellow Brick Road matters now. Not to relitigate gold versus silver, and not to argue for a return to old standards, but to remember what those debates were actually about. They were about how monetary systems distribute pressure. About which classes get flexibility and which gets the discipline of sacrifice. About whether losses are acknowledged openly or reassigned quietly.
The Yellow Brick Road pieces were never meant to predict the future. They were meant to explain a structure—how monetary systems behave when pressure builds, how promises stretch, and how losses quietly migrate when they can’t all be honored at once. That structure didn’t disappear. It just became harder to see.
⭐ Feature Story ⭐
The American Money System
The History of Gold in the United States
Gold has never been just a commodity being traded around. It functions as a check on institutional trust and a limit on institutional power. It tells you whether the system is credible and whether the promises the government makes can actually be kept. The history of gold prices isn’t market trivia—it’s a record of policy decisions and their consequences.
For most of the nation’s early life, gold functioned as money as much as an asset. Under the classical gold standard of the 19th century, the dollar was defined in terms of gold, not the other way around. By 1834, the United States fixed gold at $20.67 per ounce, a price that remained largely unchanged for nearly a century. Stability was the point. Gold was not supposed to move; it was supposed to anchor.
That anchor was tested almost immediately by expansion. The California Gold Rush flooded the monetary system with new supply, accelerating westward growth and financing railroads, industry, and settlement. Yet despite the influx, the official price of gold did not change. Instead, the additional supply expanded economic activity. This was an early demonstration of a recurring American pattern: when gold entered the system directly, growth followed. When it was restricted, pressure built elsewhere.
By the late 1800s, the rigid price of gold was locked at $20.67 an ounce, even though the economy was changing fast. Railroads, factories, and large corporations were growing, but the amount of money in circulation was not growing with them. Because the dollar was tied to a fixed amount of gold, there simply wasn’t enough money moving through the system. That made debts harder to repay, wages tighter, and everyday life more stressful for farmers and workers. The fight over silver wasn’t about symbolism or tradition—it was about needing more money in circulation so the economy could function. Gold didn’t stop working. The rules built around it stopped working for the people living under them.
The most dramatic rupture came during the Great Depression. In 1933, with banks failing and confidence collapsing, the government shut the banks and suspended gold convertibility. People were forced to turn in their gold and were paid $20.67 an ounce because that was the legal price at the time. Then, once the gold was off the street and sitting in government vaults, the price was reset to $35 an ounce. That didn’t make the public whole—it made the government whole. Same gold, su
Silver, Gold, and the Fault Line in American Money
From the beginning, gold and silver were never equals in the American system, even when the law said they were. Gold functioned as the settlement layer—the metal preferred by governments and financial centers. Silver lived closer to the ground. It was the money people actually used for daily life: wages, local trade, small transactions. That division mattered, because decisions about silver directly changed who could get credit, how easily debts could be paid, and how much money moved through the real economy.
Early on, the United States tried to balance those roles through a bimetallic system, fixing the gold-to-silver ratio at roughly 15-to-1. Gold was priced around $20.67 an ounce, silver about $1.29. That ratio was not natural law. It was a compromise meant to keep enough money circulating for a growing country while still anchoring the system to something scarce. For a time, it worked. Silver handled everyday exchange. Gold sat in the background for reserves and settlement.
As the country industrialized and finance concentrated, that balance became inconvenient. Tight money favored creditors and financial institutions. Silver made money more available. That put it directly in the crosshairs. When silver was effectively removed from the monetary system in the 1870s, the change was framed as technical, but the effects were immediate and real. Credit tightened, liquidity shrank, and the real burden of debt increased. Prices fell. Wages lagged. Pressure built where people lived and worked.
The numbers told the story. Gold stayed fixed. Silver fell. By the 1890s, silver traded closer to $0.60–$0.70 an ounce, pushing the gold-to-silver ratio beyond 30-to-1. That was not a market accident. It was policy. Less silver meant less money moving through the economy. Farmers, workers, and small businesses felt it immediately. Banks did not.
That is why the backlash was not abstract. The fight over silver was a fight over who the economy would serve—financial institutions that controlled credit, or the working economy that depended on access to it. Free silver movements did not emerge from confusion about economics. They emerged because the money supply no longer matched the scale of the economy. Silver represented flexibility and breathing room. Gold represented discipline, restraint, and control. The system chose control.
That choice carried consequences. As gold became dominant, silver was pushed aside—not because it failed, but because it made the system harder to manage from the top. Silver’s volatility was treated as a flaw when it actually reflected how closely it tracked real economic demand. Silver moved with production, population growth, and industrial need. Gold moved with confidence and reserves.
When the gold standard finally broke in the twentieth century, silver did not regain its monetary role. Instead, it was quietly repurposed. Governments reduced silver content in circulating coinage and eventually removed it altogether. This was another form of default—less dramatic than gold confiscation, but just as telling. The money people held kept its face value while losing its substance. The system insisted nothing had changed.
Under Bretton Woods, gold was fixed at $35 an ounce. Silver floated, but under pressure. Through the 1950s and 1960s, silver hovered around $1.25–$2.00, while gold remained pinned. The gold-to-silver ratio widened into the 20s and 30s, signaling a system prioritizing stability at the top over flexibility below. Once again, the structure depended on restraint holding indefinitely.
When the gold window closed in 1971, both metals were finally cut loose. Gold moved first. Silver followed harder. Inflation, energy shocks, and distrust in policy pushed silver from roughly $1.50 to nearly $50 an ounce by 1980. Gold reached $850. The ratio collapsed to roughly 17-to-1. This was not modern speculation. It was repricing after decades of suppression, with silver reacting faster because it sits closer to the real economy.
Then came the reversal. High interest rates crushed inflation, restored confidence in paper assets, and sidelined both metals. Silver fell harder than gold. Through the 1980s and 1990s, silver drifted between $4 and $6, while gold slid toward $250–$300. The ratio blew out past 60-to-1. Control was back. Liquidity was restrained. Financial assets took priority again.
That confidence cracked in the early 2000s. As monetary policy loosened and debt expanded, both metals began climbing. Silver rose from about $4.50 in 2001 to nearly $50 in 2011. Gold moved from $270 to over $1,900. The ratio tightened into the 30s. Silver’s volatility was not irrational. It was signaling stress inside both money and production.
After 2011, suppression returned. Silver fell back into the teens. The ratio widened again, at times exceeding 100-to-1—an extreme level that reflected stress being absorbed unevenly, with confidence propped up at the top and pressure building below. In the past decade, the pattern repeated. Gold moved above $2,000. Silver lagged, then surged. Ratios compressed, then stretched again. Today, December 18, 2025, gold stands above $4,300 an ounce and silver above $65 an ounce—a roughly 66-to-1 ratio.
Across American history, the signals have been consistent. Gold measures trust in the system’s promises. Silver measures stress in the system’s working parts. Gold waits. Silver reacts. Gold negotiates with the currency. Silver negotiates with both money and production. Together, they do not predict collapse. They record where pressure is building—and who is being asked to carry it.
The Dollar in the American System
The U.S. dollar has never been a neutral unit of measurement. From its beginning, it was a political instrument—created to organize trade, settle debts, and project authority across a growing nation. Its value has never existed on its own. It has always been defined by what it could be exchanged for, who could issue it, and how far the government was willing to go to defend or adjust it.
At the founding of the republic, the dollar was not a free-floating currency. Under the Coinage Act of 1792, it was defined in relation to both gold and silver. This bimetallic system anchored the dollar to physical restraint. A dollar represented a fixed claim on metal, and the money supply could not expand faster than those reserves. That limitation was intentional. It was meant to prevent over-issuance, inflation, and political abuse.
Throughout the early nineteenth century, the dollar functioned as a receipt for metal rather than a detached promise. By 1834, gold was fixed at $20.67 per ounce, and the dollar’s value was implicitly tied to that ratio. Stability was the goal. The dollar was supposed to be boring—predictable, limited, and trusted.
That discipline was tested as the country expanded. The California Gold Rush injected massive new metal into the system, allowing the money supply to grow without changing the dollar’s definition. Railroads, industry, and westward settlement expanded rapidly. Growth followed because the dollar was still tethered to something real. The system grew by adding substance, not by stretching promises.
By the late nineteenth century, strain emerged. Industrial consolidation, railroad finance, and corporate debt expanded faster than the supply of money. Because the dollar remained tied to a fixed quantity of gold, liquidity tightened relative to economic activity. Prices fell. Debts became harder to service. Wages lagged. The dollar did not collapse—but it grew rigid. Political pressure built not because the system failed, but because it refused to bend.
By the early twentieth century, that rigidity collided with a more complex financial system. Banking was fragmented, credit was uneven, and financial panics were frequent. When stress hit, there was no central authority to stabilize liquidity. The Panic of 1907 exposed how fragile this arrangement had become, requiring emergency coordination by private financiers to prevent collapse.
That crisis led directly to the creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1913. Officially, its purpose was stability. The Federal Reserve was designed to act as a lender of last resort, smooth credit cycles, and reduce banking panics. It was not presented as an abandonment of the gold standard, but as a way to manage it more effectively.
This marked a fundamental shift. The dollar was still legally defined in terms of gold, but its day-to-day behavior was no longer governed solely by metal. Interest rates, reserve requirements, and credit conditions could now be adjusted administratively. For the first time, the dollar had a central manager. Flexibility entered the system—not by rewriting the law, but by operating around it.
That flexibility expanded rapidly during World War I. The Federal Reserve helped finance the war through credit creation on a scale impossible under a strictly passive gold system. The dollar supply grew far faster than gold reserves. After the war, attempts to restore prewar discipline revealed how far the system had already drifted. The dollar remained nominally anchored, but in practice it depended increasingly on management rather than restraint.
By the time the Great Depression struck, the transformation was complete. In 1933, amid bank failures and collapsing confidence, the government declared a national bank holiday and suspended domestic gold convertibility. Gold was centralized, and in 1934 the dollar was deliberately redefined by revaluing gold to $35 per ounce.
This was not a market event. It was a political decision to weaken the dollar by roughly forty percent. The same ounce of gold now required far more dollars to buy. Debts became easier to pay. Prices began to rise. But savings were damaged. People who had worked, saved, and held dollars absorbed the loss. The dollar survived—but only by being changed.
From that point forward, the rule changed. The dollar would no longer be defended as an invariant unit. It would be preserved through management.
After World War II, the dollar entered its most powerful phase. Under the Bretton Woods system, it was pegged to gold at $35 per ounce, and other currencies were pegged to the dollar. The United States held most of the world’s gold and dominated global production. The dollar became the world’s settlement currency—not because it was perfect, but because it was trusted and unavoidable.
For a generation, the system worked. But the flaw remained. Dollars could be created faster than gold could be accumulated. As deficits grew and global commitments expanded, foreign governments accumulated claims on American gold. The dollar stayed fixed on paper while pressure built underneath it.
By the late 1960s, that pressure broke. Foreign governments demanded gold instead of dollars. In 1971, convertibility ended. The dollar became a fiat currency—backed not by metal, but by law, enforcement, and confidence.
The consequences followed quickly. Through the 1970s, inflation surged, energy prices spiked, and the dollar lost purchasing power. By 1980, discipline was reimposed through sharply higher interest rates. Inflation was crushed. Confidence returned.
The following decades were the dollar’s financialized era. In the 1980s and 1990s, high real rates, globalization, and expanding capital markets restored belief. The dollar strengthened. Paper assets flourished. Gold and silver were sidelined.
That belief cracked in the early 2000s. After the dot-com collapse, monetary policy loosened. Debt expanded. Risk was deferred rather than resolved. The dollar absorbed strain by becoming more abundant. The same pattern repeated after the financial crisis and again during the pandemic. Each time, the dollar was used to buy time.
Today, the dollar remains dominant—but not intact in real terms. It is still the world’s primary reserve and settlement currency. But its purchasing power has steadily eroded. This is not collapse. It is adjustment.
Across American history, the rule is consistent. When restraint holds, the dollar is stable. When restraint breaks, it is diluted. Losses are not announced—they are reassigned. The dollar survives not by staying the same, but by being changed when survival requires it. That is what the record shows.
My Own Time Ω
Opening — Mismatch
The Yellow Brick Road pieces I wrote fifteen years ago were an attempt to explain what I was watching happen during the Great Recession by tracing it back to how we built the modern American money system in the first place. I’m revisiting that story now, nearly a generation later, because the same pressures never really went away. They just became more familiar.
Those essays weren’t really about precious metals. They were about money—how it works, who it serves, and what happens to ordinary people when the system drifts away from the promises it makes. You could see it then, and you can still see it now. People work, try to save, and play by the rules they were given, yet the system increasingly makes long-term stability harder to achieve. Planning ahead feels riskier than it used to, and building a durable future feels out of reach for more people every year.
We’ve always been told that steady work, avoiding excess debt, and saving what you can will lead to security over time. But what people are living through doesn’t line up with that advice. Debts are harder to manage even when nothing goes wrong. Savings no longer provide much protection because banks pay little interest while everyday costs climb faster than incomes. At the same time, people are told they should invest in financial markets—often with money they don’t realistically have left over to risk.
The Wizard of Oz gave me a way to talk about that disconnect without forcing readers into technical arguments. The book was written by L. Frank Baum during the Gilded Age, another period when the economy looked prosperous on the surface while many people felt squeezed underneath.
The allegory was useful because it showed how things can look solid and trustworthy on the outside while working very differently underneath. The people in the story believe everything is being run by someone in control, but what actually keeps things going is a set of switches, levers, and routines most people never see and are never asked to understand.
That’s how our money setup often works. The rules can change without an announcement. Decisions that affect costs, debt, and savings can be made quietly, and people don’t find out until they feel it in their bills, their bank accounts, or how hard it is to get ahead. Nothing feels broken all at once, but life slowly gets tighter.
That tension—between what the system claims to deliver and what people actually experience—is what my articles were about fifteen years ago, and why it still matters now.
Adjustment
Over the past fifteen years, the American economy hasn’t suddenly broken, but it has steadily gotten harder for ordinary people. There was no single moment where everything snapped or officials came out and said the rules had changed. Instead, there were a series of moves that quietly reshaped how money worked.
After the Great Recession, borrowing was made cheap and saving paid almost nothing. If you had debt, it was easy to refinance. If you were careful and saved money in the bank, you were punished with near-zero returns. That wasn’t an accident. It was a choice meant to keep markets moving, even if it hurt people who relied on savings.
In 2010, the national debt stood at about $13.5 trillion. By 2025, it has climbed past $36 trillion, with a large share added during and after the COVID years. The government borrowed heavily to keep things running, and the cost showed up later in higher prices. Inflation surged, and while borrowing became more expensive, bank savings still failed to keep pace.
At the same time, financial markets soared. The Dow Jones Industrial Average was around 11,500 in 2010. Today it sits above 48,000. Looking at those numbers, you’d think everyone was thriving. But stock markets mostly benefit people who already own financial assets. They don’t reflect how most households live.
From the outside, things still appear functional. People have jobs. Credit is available. Stores are open. The rules are still written down. That surface stability makes it easy to believe everything mostly works. But fewer people trust that the system will actually reward long-term effort the way it once promised.
What’s changed is the conversation. People aren’t talking about policy or interest rates. They’re talking about effort. Working full time isn’t enough. Many people work multiple jobs just to stay afloat. Even careful budgeting feels fragile. Saving money no longer brings peace of mind.
Psychology
Adjustment slowly came to feel like responsibility. Plans were delayed, spending tightened, expectations lowered, and that behavior was framed as maturity rather than warning. Because everyone was doing it, it felt normal.
There was no single trigger. Pressure accumulated. Each year required more attention and left less margin. Costs that once ran on autopilot—housing, insurance, utilities, healthcare—demanded ongoing calculation. Not panic, just constant monitoring.
The mind filled in explanations. People attributed strain to cycles, transitions, or temporary conditions. Because collapse never arrived, adaptation became the goal. Endurance replaced progress as the measure of success.
This is where misattribution sets in. People internalize structural pressure as personal obligation. They respond by adjusting behavior rather than questioning conditions. Over time, expectations reset downward.
Reframing
After a while, people notice something isn’t adding up. Not because they’ve stopped working hard, but because the effort isn’t getting them where it used to. The question quietly changes from “What can I do better?” to “What am I actually dealing with?”
Older ideas start to make sense in a different way. Pressure keeps landing on the same people. Relief shows up somewhere else. And the explanations for why things are fine always sound calmer than daily life actually feels.
What settles in isn’t anger or panic. It’s recognition. The guidance stayed the same, but what it could realistically deliver changed.
In Closing — Balance
I don’t come out of this with answers or a list of fixes. I come out steadier than I was before. There’s a difference. Knowing what you’re dealing with doesn’t make it disappear, but it does change how you carry it.
What matters now is knowing where you actually stand—what effort can change things and what effort only absorbs energy. That distinction doesn’t make life easier, but it makes it clearer. And clarity, at this point, is worth more than comfort.
The Yellow Brick Road was never about escape. It was about seeing things as they are. Pulling back the curtain doesn’t bring everything down, but it does end the belief that strain is random or evenly shared.
You may not be able to change the road, but you can walk it with better understanding, without self-blame, and without pretending the ground is something it isn’t. That isn’t resignation—it’s solid footing and personal balance.
