Gold, as a commodity, is one of the world’s oldest standards of value. Values rise and fall; however one of the most compelling arguments right now, is whether or not its price is being manipulated — in a downward way. I’ve read a number of articles over the recent months and years that suggest that there are indeed bodies that manipulate the price. But this one below is one of the most compelling, adding perspective to the whole argument that gold’s price is not a completely market-value setting — and gives some of the reasons why.
The author of this blog, Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, comes with credentials: He is an economist, and was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Ronald Reagan — and co-founder of Reaganomics. So, for any who question what’s going on with the price of gold, what you’re about to read (astounding as some of it is) comes from authority.
For those who prefer a thumbnail sketch of the article, Dr. Roberts reveals that, on the day that gold dropped some 100-200 points (April 12, 2013), the Fed sold naked shorts — or plainly speaking, sold over 16 million ounces, or over $28 billion of gold that (as a naked short) they did not own.
Selling $28 billion of gold will obviously suppress a market value. Selling $28 billion of gold that one does not own is thought provoking.
On can only conclude that, one day soon, all financial birds come home to roost, and that no amount of manipulation will in fact have any effect whatsoever.
This past week, I was asked what I thought of the dramatic price drop of gold. My response, surprising to even me in it’s forcefulness, was “I think this is the dramatic receding of the water that happens right before the tsunami. It is, itself, an indicator of the tsunami.”