!-- Go to www.addthis.com/dashboard to customize your tools -->
Hardinvestor HardinvestorTraduire: TraductionSuivre:  Hardinvestor sur TwitterHardinvestor sur FacebookVidéos Hardinvestor DailymotionVidéos Hardinvestor YoutubePartager:  Partager

Hardinvestor- Investir sur l’or et l’argent Hard Investor   |  Silver is King, Go gold!

Pourquoi et comment investir dans l’or et l’argent ? Plus qu’un placement d’opportunité, il s’agit avant tout de sécuriser le pouvoir d’achat de votre épargne contre l’érosion monétaire et les conséquences de la crise systémique mondiale, tout en déjouant les pièges que réserve le marché de l’or et de l’argent, à l’investisseur non averti.


 

 Partagez  |

un "must read" sur les manip des banques centrales / minutes de la fED

Voir le sujet précédent Voir le sujet suivant Aller en bas
MessageAuteur
Messageun "must read" sur les manip des banques centrales / minutes de la fED
par du-puel Dim 14 Fév 2010 - 10:49

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/exclusive-bank-england-engaged-flagrant-gold-manipulation-interwar-period-new-york-fed-does-

cet article se réfère à un papier de 1995 du prof. Garrett qui porte sur les manipulations réalisées par la BoE et la FED de NY à la fin des années 1920.

Outre qu'on sait comment tout cela c'est ensuite terminé, la conclusion vaut son pesant d'... or : comme les BC mentent au moins de temps à temps et que l'investisseur ne peut pas savoir quand, celui-ci ne peut, donc ne doit, jamais leur faire confiance. Or la confiance dans ces BC est à la base de la plupart des "raisonnements" économiques.

--

Par conséquent, et de façon plus générale, le con-citoyen ne doit plus faire con-fiance aux monnaies de singe des BC, puisque (mal-)fondées sur la con-fiance, et devenir ainsi un Citoyen qui considère cette monnaie comme basée, de facto, sur la crédulité ce qui pourrait lui permettre de s'en sortir avant que les autres ne réalisent l'escroquerie.

Et quel(s) choix de monnaie honnête reste-t-il et est-il toujours resté dans l'Histoire ?

   du-puel

  Chef table à cartes
 Chef table à cartes

  avatar

  Inscription :   18/08/2005
  Messages :   3543

Revenir en haut Aller en bas
MessageRe: un "must read" sur les manip des banques centrales / minutes de la fED
par marie Mar 16 Fév 2010 - 0:08

excellent .. comment ne faire aucun rapprochement avec ce qu'on dénonce ici, depuis un bon moment?
en +, comme tu dis, quand on voit comment leur "magnifique manip" s'est terminée à l'époque. ...

commentaires de Chris Powell de Murphy et de James Turk .. et greenspan pour terminer .. en beauté ..



********************

Chris Powell

http://www.gata.org/node/8330


Bank of England falsified gold data to rig interest rates from 1925-31


Submitted by cpowell on Sun, 2010-02-14 19:38. Section: Daily Dispatches
1:53a ET Sunday, February 14, 2010
Dear Friend of GATA and gold:
Zero Hedge's pseudonymous Tyler Durden, less well known as Dan Ivandjiiski, yesterday disclosed a scholarly paper written by University of Tennessee economics professor John R. Garrett and published by the Journal of Economic History in September 1995 describing the Bank of England's falsification of gold holdings data, undertaken with the help of the U.S. Federal Reserve, to deceive the markets and manipulate interest rates secretly between 1925 and 1931.
Of course the ends of this deception and manipulation of gold data are the same that GATA long has been asserting for the contemporary gold price suppression scheme. The falsification of gold holdings data by the Bank of England as reported by Professor Garrett is mirrored perfectly by the data-falsification and market-manipulation scheme described in the April 1961 memorandum kept in the archive of former Fed Chairman William McChesney Martin, about which GATA consultant James Turk wrote at length in January 2009:
http://www.gata.org/node/7096
Durden/Ivandjiiski asks:
"Why did the Bank of England openly and flagrantly manipulate critical data? Why did it mislead the citizens of the country it was supposed to serve? And if this happened in the past, is it happening now? Is this the reason why the Federal Reserve is so opposed to exposing itself to public scrutiny and audits? If the Bank of England was engaging in outright fraud in the 1925-1931 period, why would today be any different?"
Durden/Ivandjiiski concludes:
"If after reading this historical evidence of central banking treason, senators are unable to pass Ron Paul's Fed transparency act, then there has to be open social action to clean out the Senate of all those who claim that the Fed's actions are pure and true, as they are merely corrupt cronies, bought entirely by interests of the Federal Reserve, and thus Wall Street."
So once again it has been established that deception and secret market manipulation are primary tools of central banking, particularly in regard to gold, and that it is all just a matter of long history and public record -- albeit history and public record that cannot be discussed in polite company, or at least not in the mainstream financial news media.
You can find Durden/Ivanjiiski's commentary, headlined "Exclusive: The Bank Of England Engaged In Flagrant Gold Manipulation in the Interwar Period via the New York Fed; Does History Repeat Itself?," along with Professor Garrett's study, at the Zero Hedge Internet site here:
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/exclusive-bank-england-engaged-flagrant...
CHRIS POWELL, Secretary/Treasurer
Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee Inc.

********************

Bill Murphy qui fait évidemment un rapprochement avec la vente de la quasi totalité de ses réserves par la bque d'angleterre en 1999 ...sur le point bas du prix de l'or à 250$ l'once


www.lemetropolecafe.com



James T is right on the money. Unreal how history has repeated itself and the gold world still won't go there. In the end the US gold scandal will rival any in our history as the gold price suppression scheme directly led to the financial fiasco of the day. Interestingly enough, it would seem what they did in the late 1920’s re gold contributed to The Great Depression too. If not, what a coincidence!
Some reasons WHY the Garrett paper is A BIG DEAL…
1. The decision by The Bank of England to sell 400 tonnes of its gold back in May 1999 was what attracted so many to the GATA camp. It made no sense to announce such a sale in advance and then to award the lowest bidders as winners of their auctions.
Back then various bullion dealers were still protecting their own massive gold loan positions, plus the 400 tonnes they absorbed from LTCM. It just dawned on me what the Bank of England sold is very close to what LTCM was short.
How corrupt was this insider operation? The sale was announced on May 7, 1999. From what I could tell the main Gold Cartel culprits back then were Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Chase Bank, and Deutsche Bank. From my MIDAS commentary on May 6:
May 6, 1999 - Spot Gold $289.10 up $2.10 - Spot Silver $5.36 down 1 cent
…We know "the squad" are all lining up to try and stifle a decent gold move to the upside, one more time. Deutsche Bank, Chase, Swiss Bank and Goldman Sachs were all there selling gold during today's session and, when they had to, even throwing the kitchen sink at the bulls attack. Deutsche Bank has been especially aggressive and noticeable in their selling the past few days. We got word late this afternoon that their bullion desk is calling their clients saying that the gold market is stopping at $290. I don't think Midas followers will be surprised when we tell you that big sellers late in the day today and taking on all bids were "Squad" honchos Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank. "The Battle for Navarone" is an important stand for them, for if $290 is taken out to the upside, their long standing bearish position could begin to look at bit shaky…

END-
Voila…
From the www.usagold.com website:
MARKET ANALYSIS (5/7/99): The gold market came under attack from the British last night in a surprise pre-dawn announcement(U.S. time) that it intended to sell off 415 tons of gold "in the medium term" -- over half of its 715 ton reserve. The gold is scheduled to be sold at auction by the Bank of England. The first tranche will total 125 tons to be sold over a ten-twelve month period beginning July 6. We have reported on the odd behavior of the British toward gold on several occasions in this report over the past few months. That odd behavior came to a head last night…
-END-
Nothing new under the sun. Clearly the Bank of England, the Fed, and its bullion banks coordinated their clandestine gold efforts to influence markets/interest rates, just as they did so long ago … the same team, just a new generation of players. GATA has long stated the Bank of England acted at the behest of the Fed.
2. A major theme of mine the past months, and the cornerstone of my conference presentations, has been the mainstream gold world and Planet Wall Street refuse to acknowledge the real gold story, which is why MOST of them have been, and remain, bearish. From my Phoenix conference notes:
So far, at least until now, these very visible folks have got it mostly wrong, while the GATA camp has been correct. How can this be?
Simple: they refuse to deal with the gold price suppression scheme and the gold flows involved, so their supply/demand numbers are all wrong and have been for a long time. These people are clueless, or very disingenuous…

-END-
Some things never change. From Garrett’s paper…
The Bank of England depleted its open-market portfolio by secretly sterilizing large gold inflowsThereafter interest rates were influenced by manipulating reported gold flows ... A gold flow falsification was over two-thirds as effective as an open-market operation.
***
This revelation ought to give Café members a great deal more confidence in GATA’s understanding of the gold market and, therefore, our predictions of a coming $3,000 to $5,000 gold price. You know what most of the mainstream gold world, and investment world, do not.
3. James Turk also remarked:
Just finished Garret's essay, which is truly remarkable. Of particular importance to me is the emphasis throughout the article placed on controlling market expectations, which is something we regularly hear from Bernanke regarding inflation. "Undoubtedly, the state of inflation expectations greatly influences actual inflation..."
http://www.fgmr.com/controlling-inflationary-expectations.html

***

More from my Phoenix conference notes:Soon other major financial institutions realized what GS was doing and copied them. Rubin continued these operations as the Goldman Sachs CEO and then took it to a new level as US Secretary Treasurer. That is how the gold price suppression became the lynchpin of his widely acclaimed "Strong Dollar Policy." GATA’s Reg Howe caught on to this notion in a paper titled, "Gibson’s Paradox and The Gold Standard," co-authored by Lawrence Summers in 1988. Summers, a professor at Harvard at the time, succeeded Rubin as US Treasury Secretary. The bottom line of Summer’s analysis is that "gold prices in a free market should move inversely to real interest rates." Control gold and it will help to control interest rates. The Summer’s fiasco never seems to let up as he is presently President Obama’s chief economic advisor.
***James is right on the money here too. Summers calls this BEHAVIORAL FINANCE and answers the question of why The Gold Cartel does what they do.

(...........)


The real "tinfoil hat" crowd are the ignorant who refuse to deal with both history, and the facts, about the real gold market. From 1925 to 2010 ... the gold drill back then is the gold drill of today. One needs to go no further than the above to understand why the Fed is so adamant about not being audited, and why they refuse to respond to GATA’s FOIA requests regarding gold swaps.
Anyway, what fun to gradually see the heat getting turned up on the Fed and their nefarious bullion banks like Goldman Sachs.

**************

James Turk

Just finished Garret's essay, which is truly remarkable. Of particular importance to me is the emphasis throughout the article placed on controlling market expectations, which is something we regularly hear from Bernanke regarding inflation. "Undoubtedly, the state of inflation expectations greatly influences actual inflation..."

http://www.fgmr.com/controlling-inflationary-expectations.html




******************

et pour terminer, Greeny en personne

Greenspan suggested gold price suppression in 1993

Submitted by cpowell on Sun, 2010-01-03 22:09. Section: Documentation
Remarks by Dimitri Speck

International Precious Metals and Commodities Show
Olympia Park, Munich, Germany
Saturday, November 7, 2009


…Greenspan's newly discovered comment is contained in one of these very transcripts, on Page 40 of the transcript here (Page 42 of the PDF version):
http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetar
ypolicy/files/FOMC19930518meeting.p...

Apparently Greenspan spoke informally with his colleague, Fed Governor Mullins, during the course of the meeting, and reported this conversation to his other colleagues.
Greenspan mentions the Treasury Department, since in the United States only the treasury and not the Federal Reserve can dispose over gold. The market price of gold was increasing at the time. In his unique, somewhat verbose style, Greenspan said:
"I have one other issue I'd like to throw on the table. I hesitate to do it, but let me tell you some of the issues that are involved here. If we are dealing with psychology, then the thermometers one uses to measure it have an effect. I was raising the question on the side with Governor Mullins of what would happen if the Treasury sold a little gold in this market. There's an interesting question here because if the gold price broke in that context, the thermometer would not be just a measuring tool. It would basically affect the underlying psychology."…

http://www.gata.org/node/8208



© Marie Forum Argent Or. reproduction interdite : pas de copier-coller. Faites un lien vers ce post. Suivez Hardinvestor sur Twitter et sur Facebook

   marie

  Skipper
 Skipper

  avatar

  Inscription :   05/02/2005
  Messages :   19756

Revenir en haut Aller en bas
MessageRe: un "must read" sur les manip des banques centrales / minutes de la fED
par marie Mar 16 Fév 2010 - 23:49

commentaires supplémentaires de B Murphy, ce soir

www.lemetropolecafe.com

The significance of the John R Garrett paper revelations cannot be overstated as far as understanding the big gold picture. It solidifies, and ties together, so much of what GATA has brought to the table over the years. I wrote the following over a decade ago. Note the insidious nature of this Gold Cartel beast … Bank of England / US & British politicians / LTCM / GOLDMAN SACHS, The Fed, etc…
9/5/99 Bill Murphy - Cafe des Scandales

Cafe des Scandales

It is fascinating to me that much of what we have covered in the Café over the past year is starting to synchronize and beginning to boil over a bit. Thus, I thought I would put some labor into this Labor Day weekend and examine what is happening on the potential "scandal" front, as well as update The Café on the peculiar nature of it all.
Much of the hubbub about the manipulation of the gold market began early last fall. Then, Long Term Capital Management was supposedly taken off the hook on a 300 tonne "borrowed gold" short position by the financial entities that bailed them out. Since I had heard as early as May, 1997, that they might have this amount of gold exposure, it was no surprise to me to hear so many rumors floating around of this nature and I did not hesitate to publicly question the propriety of it all.
Our protestations caught the attention of Long Term Capital Management and their attorney, James G. Rickards, who sent us a letter, along with an affidavit from Principal, Eric Rosenfeld. Rikards stated that Long Term Capital Management denies any involvement in the manipulation of the gold market and Rosenfeld said to the Cafe, "None of LTCM, LTCP, nor their affiliates, has ever entered into any transaction involving the purchase or sale of gold, including without limitation, spot, forwards, options, futures, loans, borrowings, repurchases, coin or bullion, long or short, physical or derivative or in any other form whatsoever."
I responded to Rickards in a letter saying that the Café never accused LTCM of manipulating the gold market, nor did I ever say that that they "traded" gold. I strongly suggested that had "borrowed" 300 tonnes (approx) of gold and had gold exposure in a credit sense with the bullion banks and asked him for a response.
He never did respond to me and it was just announced over the press wires that he resigned from Long Term Capital Management to join another firm. I will now have to find out who their new attorney is and start all over.
Then there is information we received from a very sophisticated source that a blind trust for Hillary Clinton "shorted" gold instruments just prior to the Bank of England gold sale. Ironically, the media reported yesterday that the down payment for the Clinton's new home in Westchester County, New York, came from her blind trust.
It was strongly suggested to me from a source that we try and find out if Hillary Clinton has a blind trust at Goldman Sachs. The Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee and the Café now have allies looking into this matter. We are trying to find out who is handling her blind trust(s) or any other type of account she might have and, once identified, attempt to elicit a response about the gold shorting innuendoes.
Why would this be the H-bomb as far as we are concerned? Simply put, I have set forth much commentary linking The Clinton administration, the N.Y. Fed, Goldman Sachs, Long Term Capital Management, England's Exchequer, The Bank of England and Prime Minister Tony Blair. A revelation of this nature would solidify the link. For example:
*Former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, is a former Goldman Sachs CEO.
*Former N.Y. Fed Governor, Ed Corrigan is a senior partner at Goldman Sachs
*London based senior partner, Gavyn Davies, is Goldman Sach's international economist and has close ties to Tony Blair. Davies wife, Susan Nye, is Chancellor of the Exchequer's office manager.
*Dr Sushil Wadhwani, former Director of Equity Strategy at Goldman Sachs International (1991-95), sits on the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee. The committee's duties include determining the Bank's objectives and strategy, ensuring the effective discharge of the Bank's functions and ensuring the most efficient use of the Bank's resources.
*Jon Corzine, former Goldman Sachs CEO, has close ties to John Meriwether, chairman of Long Term Capital Management.
*Former Fed vice chairman, David Mullins , was a partner in Long Term Capital Management which, of course, was bailed out in part by Goldman Sachs.

Exhibit 2 and further background information on the significance of the Hillary Clinton gold "shorting" story: this is commentary about the Bank of England gold sale from the document that I sent to Senator Phil Gramm, Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee:
"Yet, the night before the BOE announcement (May 6, 1999), I feared duplicity and this is what I wrote in my Midas du Metropole commentary entitled, 'XAU surges 46%':
"We know 'the squad' are all lining up, one more time, to try and stifle a decent gold move to the upside. Deutsche Bank, Chase, Swiss Bank and Goldman Sachs were all there selling gold during today's session and, when they had to, even throwing the kitchen sink at the bull's attack. Deutsche Bank has been especially aggressive and noticeable in their selling the past few days. We got word late this afternoon that their bullion desk is calling their clients saying that the gold market is stopping at $290. I don't think Midas followers will be surprised when we tell you that big sellers late in the day today and taking on all bids were 'Squad' honchos Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank. 'The Battle for Navarone' is an important stand for them, for if $290 is taken out to the upside, their long standing bearish position could begin to look a bit shaky."
The next morning I awoke to the Bank of England announcement. Since then the price of gold has collapsed over $36 - or almost 15% per cent - and the sale has ignited a furor all over the world, fostering talk of conspiracies, etc. Before, I get into the ramifications of the sale, I thought the following utterances by some of England's most notable officials might raise an eyebrow or two:
Wire service commentary July 14, 1999 (my comments in parentheses): "Asked in parliament if it was right to sell off part of Britain's reserves, Prime Minister Tony Blair replied, "The gold price has been falling for two years, so in fact if it carried on falling and we didn't sell we would lose money."
He then declined to say if he would meet with the South African Gold Industry delegation, but said the sale was justified stating, "We did this on technical advice from the Bank of England." (??? - Haruko Fakuda, CEO of the World Gold Council, was told that the decision was a political one and made by the British Treasury, not the bank.)
Prime Minister Blair then went on to say, "It is only the Conservative Party's utter obsession with the euro in some bizarre way. Given that Argentina and Switzerland are also selling gold, what it has to do with the euro I do not know. It is only that which is making them raise this issue. It was done, as I say, on technical advice. It was carried through perfectly sensibly and we actually got the best deal for the country." End
How wrong can you get? The best deal the Bank of England could have made would have been $30 to $40 more per ounce by carrying out the sale as all the other major countries have done for 20 years.
But the story now gets confounding. On Sunday July 11, The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, said in the London Times, "The proposal to sell the reserves was put to ministers by officials and, say TREASURY INSIDERS, agreed to it with LITTLE DISCUSSION."
According to the London Times article, the Chancellor is said to have been surprised and mortified by the reaction from Thabo Mbeki, the South African president, who said last week that the decision would have a "potentially disastrous effect" on South Africa.
Ok, so what gives here? Blair said it was a Bank of England decision. The Bank of England says it was a Treasury decision. The Treasury says it was only a Treasury decision of sorts and agreed to with little discussion.
Good grief. A decision that may have disastrous effects on South Africa, a democracy the West is committed to encourage, was made with little discussion and no one will take responsibility for it. Yet, it is such an important decision, that Tony Blair will not reconsider it, even though it appears he does not know who made the decision in the first place. Meanwhile, the mortified (but confused) Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, (just prior to the trip to England by the African delegation) was all over the wire services talking about the righteousness of his gold decision, while continuing to extol the virtues of the proposed IMF gold sale. The headline on the Reuters dispatch read: "U.K.'s Brown Sees Wide Support for IMF Gold Sales."
However, a Bloomberg audio report reveals that when The Bank of England's Eddie George was asked whether the Bank of England's gold sale was 1) his decision 2) whether he was involved in it or 3) whether he was consulted, his response was that he was consulted (which is a euphemism for being told). When asked who made the asset allocation decisions on the "bank reserves," he answered, 'the government' --that is, the politicians."
So, what do we have here? The English now say their decision to sell gold was planned for some time and made the announcement, coincidentally, as the price of gold was about to take off. They became the first central bank in over 20 years to make an announcement of this sort in advance. They knew this announcement would devastate the market from a psychological perspective and send gold prices crashing - and, of course, it did. The gold price went straight down more than $36 per ounce. This assured English citizens the worst price possible and cost the country hundreds of millions of pounds.. Now, no one in the English government will own up to making this mysterious decision which is devastating poor African countries, among others.
Meanwhile, as my May 6 commentary indicated, somehow the bullion dealers knew what was coming and told their clients as much."
It does not take an Einstein to comprehend the significance of determining if there is an account of any kind some place that shorted gold for Hillary Clinton just prior to the Bank of England gold sale announcement. With the help of others, I am in the process of trying to track down where her accounts are located, Then we will start asking questions. It will be interesting to first find out if Hillary Clinton has an account at Goldman Sachs of any kind!


***


It was Britain and the US secretly messing around with gold flows to affect markets in 1925-1931, in 1999, and up through today. And to think there are still so many mentally challenged people in the gold industry who still don’t get it.

One last note. It is important to note many of the major financial institutions were short gold they had borrowed at around a 1% interest from central banks … using the proceeds to fund their operations. They (Goldman Sachs the major one) were petrified gold would take off and put these gold loans in jeopardy. Therefore, they used their influence on the US and Britain and arranged for the English gold sale to demoralize the gold market for another two years.
And it all seems to have all started with Robert Rubin. What fun to put all this together and then appreciate how sinister and insidious the British gold sale really was (so much for the British taxpayer). Many of you have read this before, but not in the context of this entire scenario. The British gold sale was set in motion to protect the major investment banks, and most of all Goldman Sachs. GATA only became aware of this information two years ago….Before he was CEO of Goldman Sachs and then US Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin worked in London for Goldman Sachs. One of his duties was to oversee their gold trading operations. We know this because the CEO of Kirkland Lake Gold, Brian Hinchcliffe, a staunch GATA supporter, worked in London back then for Goldman Sachs and reported directly to Robert Rubin. This was many years ago and interest rates in the US were very high, say from 6 to 12%. Rubin had Goldman Sachs borrow gold from the central banks to fund their basic operations. They could do so at about a 1 % interest rate. This was like FREE money, as long as the price of gold did not rise to any sustained degree for any length of time. Soon other major financial institutions realized what GS was doing and copied them … which is why Frank Veneroso said in his 1998 Gold Book that the gold loans could have been as high as 8,000 tonnes way back then.
Oh yes, one last thing. These bullion banks then urged the major gold producers to hedge their future production at the bottom of the market, while GATA called the ones who did a bunch of complicit fools (AngloGold and Barrick are still trying to cover their hedges after BILLIONS of losses). This was yet one more source of gold supply (also borrowed from the central banks) to protect the massive gold loan short positions of the likes of Goldman Sachs and friends.
SCANDALE indeed!



© Marie Forum Argent Or. reproduction interdite : pas de copier-coller. Faites un lien vers ce post. Suivez Hardinvestor sur Twitter et sur Facebook

   marie

  Skipper
 Skipper

  avatar

  Inscription :   05/02/2005
  Messages :   19756

Revenir en haut Aller en bas
MessageRe: un "must read" sur les manip des banques centrales / minutes de la fED
par marie Lun 15 Mar 2010 - 17:31

décidément, les minutes de la FED recélent bien des trésors ..
les dernières trouvailles de Adrian Douglas qui s'échelonnent de 1978 à 1996
confirment les théses du Gata
http://www.gata.org/node/8430



Adrian Douglas: More Fed minutes document gold market manipulation


Submitted by cpowell on Sun, 2010-03-14 20:14. Section: Daily Dispatches
By Adrian Douglas
Sunday, March 14, 2010


The Federal Reserve's Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meets eight times per year to discuss and set interest rate policy. The minutes of these meetings are not released for five years. This ensures that few people will ever read them. Furthermore, the minutes are heavily redacted and edited.
In his 2008 book "Deception and Abuse at the Fed," Robert Auerbach documents how Fed officials perjured themselves when they lied to Congress about the existence of verbatim transcripts of FOMC meetings. The Sunshine Act of 1976 required all "agencies" to promptly make available to the public any transcripts, recordings, or minutes of discussions in official meetings. For 17 years Fed officials misled Congress in denying that verbatim transcripts or tape recordings existed. They claimed that recordings were taped over and transcripts were destroyed, leaving only the redacted and edited minutes in their archives. However, because of direct questioning by U.S. Rep. Henry Gonzalez before the House Banking Committee in 1993, it became clear the Fed had been lying. Shortly thereafter Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan ordered tapes and transcripts to be destroyed.
It is clear from such actions that the information contained in those transcripts must be very damaging or incriminating to the Federal Reserve.
After reading Auerbach's book I was inspired to dredge through published FOMC minutes. My thinking was that if an organization is so inept at covering up that detailed transcripts were retained, then perhaps it is also inept at completely redacting sensitive and incriminating information. What I found is quite astounding and serves as documented evidence by the Federal Reserve itself that it manipulates the gold market.
In the March 21, 1978, FOMC meeting --
http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/FOMC19780321meeting.p...
-- the following exchange took place.
* * *
CHAIRMAN MILLER. The Treasury has severe reservations about it. Originally, two weeks ago, they were taking the position that they would not be in favor of it -- that it raised too many problems for them. Since then I think they have become a little more open-minded about it. However, I think the first avenue is apt to be the sale of gold. Sales of gold were under consideration and were deferred partly because of the French elections, which are now over. So I think it's likely that the Treasury will start a program of selling gold, which I personally would favor. There are a lot of advantages in using gold because at least then we don't end up with debt and the currency risks that go with it. So I think that's an avenue that should be pursued. There has been a discussion about the level of gold sales that are possible -- what the market can absorb and that sort of thing. Henry can correct me, but I believe the Treasury feels that they could sell about 300,000 ounces a month.
MR. WALLICH. That would be a very moderate amount -- something like less than 60 million. And bear in mind that unless they can develop a means of selling the gold for foreign currency in a way that doesn't cause holders of dollars to buy that foreign currency in order to buy the gold, it could be completely counterproductive. Then there isn't going to be much of a net effect. There is some because, after all, we are importers of gold, which may reduce the imports of gold and may make the trade balance look a little better. There is some portfolio shift when there is gold in portfolios instead of dollars, so I wouldn't say it's without effect, but there are lots of qualifications on the possible success.
CHAIRMAN MILLER. The nice thing about this problem is that it's surrounded by dilemmas! Everything you do has an adverse effect on something else. Nothing is ideal. I might add that we live in a situation where the market is very realistic, very factual. That's why the possibility that gold would be sold caused the gold price to drop by $5. You don't have to sell gold; you just have to breathe [that you may] one day.
* * *
The last sentence by Chairman William Miller (Fed chairman in 1978 and 1979) telling the FOMC that the gold market can be manipulated by propaganda is very significant. This would certainly make Joseph Goebbels proud. This manipulative deception has been played out time and time again since then. This is why official gold sales are always announced in advance and the announcements are repeated many times, as happened with the International Monetary Fund's gold sales.
At the FOMC meeting of July 9, 1980 --
http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/FOMC19800709meeting.p...
-- the following discussion took place.
* * *
MR. BAUGHMAN. Is it considered a political no-no to sell gold in the current environment?
CHAIRMAN VOLCKER. Oh, I don't think so, necessarily. I don't think it's a political problem in the sense that you may be suggesting. It's a question of whether it's very useful or desirable at this stage. [If we sold gold] we'd have to do it alone; I think that's pretty clear. It isn't anything that's ruled out a-priori, but it's a practical matter of whether it's a good idea.
MR. BAUGHMAN. Well, it's between selling assets and borrowing money. That seems to me the significant difference.
VICE CHAIRMAN SOLOMON. The psychology, Ernie, is that [selling gold] seems to be much more effective if it's a component of an overall package of forceful measures than if it is done by itself. In the present climate it would look like a major act of weakness. And that might spur some additional dollar selling unless we did it on an enormously massive scale, not just the levels that we have before. On the other hand, if the situation gets to a point where once again we have to begin thinking carefully of a package, then along with some monetary policy measures it would be appropriate and add to the effectiveness -- this is my own personal feeling -- to do some substantial gold selling. And in that situation I think the Congress would understand that. We'd have less of a political problem also. So I think both factors operate.
CHAIRMAN VOLCKER. I should say, in connection with the political problem, that I don't think there are any great political constraints so far as the thinking in the Administration is concerned. There are politicians who would make a noise that would reflect upon the credibility of the action. If we sell some gold and then immediately get some congressional opposition, the market would say: "Well, they're not going to sell very much because there's too much opposition." And, therefore, it might not be very productive in terms of the impact we'd want to achieve.
MR. BAUGHMAN. There would be some grassroots opposition to it. I can report that, but I don't have any impression. ...
CHAIRMAN VOLCKER. Perhaps I spoke a little misleadingly because that kind of opposition, I think, does reflect on the credibility of the action. It raises questions about whether it could be sustained and what the [total] amount would be and whether it's really an accepted technique or not, even though in some sense I think it's not a political deal for the Administration except in terms of appraising that reaction. I can't quite see the Congress opposing it in a formal sense but there would be a lot of noise by these limited groups. We have to ratify these transactions.
MR. SCHULTZ. So moved.
* * *
What is noteworthy is the comment by Vice Chairman Solomon when he says selling gold "seems to be much more effective if it's a component of an overall package of forceful measures than if it is done by itself. In the present climate it would look like a major act of weakness. And that might spur some additional dollar selling unless we did it on an enormously massive scale, not just the levels that we have before."
This is without a doubt a proposal to undertake gold market manipulation, and what's more it is proposed to be on an "an enormously massive scale." This is not a discussion about selling gold based on a motivation to maximize the profit from such sales. Furthermore, the vice chairman admits to previous gold market intervention when he recommends increased selling of gold that is "not just the levels that we have before."
What is shocking is the apparent cavalier approach to breaking the law. Volcker says, "I should say, in connection with the political problem, that I don't think there are any great political constraints so far as the thinking in the Administration is concerned. There are politicians who would make a noise that would reflect upon the credibility of the action. If we sell some gold and then immediately get some congressional opposition. ..."
Note that the proposal implies that gold sales would occur without the congressional approval required by law.
The "strong dollar policy" was concocted by Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin in 1995. However, the mechanism by which such a policy could be implemented in a supposedly free market was never explained. GATA has long maintained that the policy involved the suppression of the gold price. In December 1994 the following exchange took place at the FOMC meeting --
http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/FOMC19941220meeting.p...
* * *
CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN. President Jordan.
MR. JORDAN. I think the main part of our problem right now is inflation psychology. It certainly reflects the lack of a nominal anchor. It suggests that it would be helpful to have a politically supported mandate to attain and maintain a stable value of the dollar. If somehow we could achieve the conditions of a true gold standard -- without gold but the steady purchasing power of money in the minds of people -- over time it would make some of these short-term things that we go through a lot easier to deal with."
* * *
Well, how about that? Achieving the conditions of a true gold standard without gold? Does that sound like a confidence trick? The last sentence of the FOMC minutes above here has been redacted. It would be extremely interesting to know the full extent of the discussion.
In response to a question posed by U.S. Rep. Ron Paul in testimony before Congress in 2005, Fed Chairman Greenspan confirmed that this financial wizardry has actually been implemented:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul267.html
* * *
MR. GREENSPAN: So that the question is: Would there be any advantage, at this particular stage, in going back to the gold standard? And the answer is: I don't think so, because we're acting as though we were there. Would it have been a question at least open in 1981, as you put it? And the answer is yes. Remember, the gold price was $800 an ounce. We were dealing with extraordinary imbalances, interest rates were up sharply, the system looked to be highly unstable -- and we needed to do something.
Now, we did something. The United States. ... Paul Volcker, as you may recall, in 1979 came into office and put a very severe clamp on the expansion of credit, and that led to a long sequence of events here, which we are benefiting from up to this date. So I think central banking, I believe, has learned the dangers of fiat money, and I think, as a consequence of that, we've behaved as though there are, indeed, real reserves underneath the system.
* * *
The last sentence is exactly what Mr. Jordan was pondering in the FOMC meeting of December 1994: How to have a gold standard without using gold. Greenspan says the Fed "behaved as though there are, indeed, real reserves underneath the system."
I think it is safe to say there is some financial wizardry that is apparent by implication. One either has real reserves or one doesn't. To behave as if there are when there are not is a confidence trick doomed to fail at some stage.
In the FOMC meeting of Dec 22, 1992, the Fed governors reveled in the fact that accounting errors in gold shipments could improve the U.S. balance of trade numbers --
http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/FOMC19921222meeting.p...
* * *
CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN. Did I hear you correctly when you said that the gold exports in October appear to have come from the coffers of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York? Has anyone looked lately?
MR. TRUMAN. Well, I didn't want to tell too many secrets in this temple!
VICE CHAIRMAN CORRIGAN. Obviously, we knew what happened to the gold, but I don't think we knew what it did to exports.
MR. TRUMAN. What happens in the Census data is that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is treated as a foreign country. [Laughter] And when a real foreign country takes some of the gold out of New York and ships it abroad, it counts first as imports and then as exports. However, the import side is not picked up in the Census data. So there you get the export side of it.
MR. LAWARE. Great accounting!
MR. BOEHNE. Great confidence building!
MR. TRUMAN. That's because you haven't been filling out your import documents!
MR. ANGELL. Let me run this by again. You mean a country owns gold and has it stored in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and if they ship it out, that's an export?
MR. TRUMAN. And in the balance of payments accounts it also counts as an import, so it washes out.
CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN. The Federal Reserve Bank's basement is a foreign country. When they move it out of the basement into the United States, it's an import. Then, when they ship it out again, it's an export.
MR. ANGELL. That makes sense!
MR. TRUMAN. And sometimes when they sell the gold, it might be sold into the United States, so it should count as an import. It doesn't necessarily always show up as an export.
MR. BOEHNE. That really clarifies it!
MR. KELLEY. Does it have to get out of your vault at all in order to be considered an import and an export?
VICE CHAIRMAN CORRIGAN. Well, I'm not even going to try to answer that. In this particular case I know what happened, so I think. ...
* * *
The most intriguing part of this discussion is the question by Kelley: "Does it have to get out of your vault at all in order to be considered an import and an export?"
While there is no explanation of the thinking behind Kelley's question (it was probably redacted), it is reasonable to extrapolate the inference that "ledger entries" for gold movements could be made to the import or export accounts without any gold having been physically moved.
At the May 18, 1993, FOMC meeting there was much discussion how gold influences public attitudes toward inflation. There were discussions about interfering in the gold market to change the public's expectation of inflation, and such postulated interference was even regarded as amusing by the FOMC --
http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/FOMC19930518meeting.p...
* * *
MR. ANGELL. Here's what I think would happen. I don't think we should increase interest rates by 300 basis points, but, if we did, I'm quite certain the price of gold would immediately begin a [sharp], quick [drop]. It would happen so fast you'd just have to go and watch it on the screen. If we made a 100-basis-point increase in the Fed funds rate, the price of gold surely would turn back down unless the situation is worse than I anticipate. If we made a 50-basis-point increase in the Fed funds rate, I don't know what would happen to the price of gold, but I'd sure like to find out! [Laughter]... People can talk about gold's price being due to what the Chinese are buying; that's the silliest nonsense that ever was. The price of gold is largely determined by what people who do not have trust in fiat money system want to use for an escape out of any currency, and they want to gain security through owning gold. Now if annual gold production and consumption amount to 2 percent of the world's stock, a change of 10 percent in the amount produced or consumed is not going to change the price very much. But attitudes about inflation will change it."
* * *
Later in the same meeting Greenspan pursued this line of thinking:
* * *
ALAN GREENSPAN: I have one other issue I'd like to throw on the table. I hesitate to do it, but let me tell you some of the issues that are involved here. If we are dealing with psychology, then the thermometers one uses to measure it have an effect. I was raising the question on the side with Governor Mullins of what would happen if the Treasury sold a little gold in this market. There's an interesting question here because if the gold price broke in that context, the thermometer would not be just a measuring tool. It would basically affect the underlying psychology. Now we don't have the legal right to sell gold but I'm just frankly curious about what people's views are on situations of this nature because something unusual is involved in policy here. We're not just going through the standard policy where the money supply is expanding, the economy is expanding, and the Fed tightens. This is a wholly different thing. Anyway, I'm most curious to get your views in these various respects, so please don't be afraid to throw things out on the table.
* * *
Greenspan proposed that if the gold price could be significantly depressed, then the public's inflation expectations could be radically altered.
In an FOMC meeting in January 1995 Virgil Mattingly, the Fed's general counsel, said the following --
http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/FOMC19950201meeting.p...
* * *
MR. MATTINGLY. It's pretty clear that these ESF [Exchange Stabilization Fund] operations are authorized. I don't think there is a legal problem in terms of the authority. The statute is very broadly worded in terms of words like "credit" -- it has covered things like the gold swaps -- and it confers broad authority. Counsel at the White House called the Treasury's general counsel today and asked, "Are you sure?" And the Treasury's general counsel said, "I am sure." Everyone is satisfied that a legal issue is not involved, if that helps.
* * *
This comment suggests that the U.S. gold stock has been mobilized in the market. When GATA urged U.S. Sen. Jim Bunning to pursue this matter with Greenspan, Mattingly responded (http://www.gata.org/node/1181):
"These inquiries focus primarily on a statement attributed to me that appears on Page 69 of the published transcript of the January 31-February 1, 1995, FOMC meeting to the effect that the Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF) has engaged in 'gold swaps.' Given the passage of time, some six years, I have no clear recollection of exactly what I said that day but I can confirm that I have no knowledge of any 'gold swaps' by either the Federal Reserve or the ESF. I believe that my remarks, which were intended as a general description of the authority possessed by the secretary of the treasury to utilize the ESF, were transcribed inaccurately or otherwise became garbled."
That doesn't pass the smell test. Mattingly's comments "were transcribed inaccurately or otherwise became garbled"? This is the same organization that lied to Congress for 17 years about the existence of any transcripts or recordings of the FOMC meetings. So do we believe him?
Notice the very clever inference -- "I can confirm that I have no knowledge of any 'gold swaps' by either the Federal Reserve or the ESF." He doesn't specify what type of "knowledge" he is talking about. Is it knowledge that any swaps were ever made or is it knowledge of the details of swap arrangements that were made? In any case Mattingly is professing not to know; he is not denying that any swaps have occurred.
The following discussion took place at the July 1991 meeting of the FOMC --
http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/FOMC19910703meeting.p...
* * *
ALAN GREENSPAN: Why have commodity prices failed to decline as much as they ordinarily would during recession periods? Now, it also looks as if commodity prices are not spiking upward in a recovery like they ordinarily would. So we have a different picture in commodity prices than I've seen in a recession and, frankly, I'm very puzzled by it. At the same time that commodity prices do not show the extent of the recovery, I think it's somewhat strange that gold prices failed to move down. Given central banks' reduced willingness to own gold, or given what I see as a reluctance in the foreign central banks and others to hold as large gold stocks, given countries in southeast Asia who have changed their attitudes [toward gold], and given the Soviet Union [sales], I don't understand why gold prices do not come down. It suggests to me that there may be some what we call 'crazies' out there who believe that gold is a good [inflation hedge]. And I guess I think that [inflation concern] is in the long bond.
* * *
Greenspan thus labels as "crazies" those investors who want to protect their wealth against the promiscuous money creation of his Federal Reserve. In 1966 Greenspan wrote an essay titled "Gold and Economic Freedom" in which he recognized the unique properties of gold as an inflation hedge --
http://www.321gold.com/fed/greenspan/1966.html
"In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.
"This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard."
And clearly once Greenspan had sold his soul to the devil and become a "statist" himself, he joined the antagonists of gold.
The following is a very enlightening discussion at the July 1995 FOMC meeting --
http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/FOMC19950706meeting.p...
* * *
CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN. I think I've got it! [Laughter] You are telling me that the SDR [Special Drawing Rights] certificate comes out of the Treasury and we cancel the Treasury obligation and it is wholly an asset swap so that the debt to the public of the U.S. Treasury goes down by that amount. Is that what happens? That solves President Jordan's problem too! [Laughter]
MR. JORDAN. Can I follow up on that? The same thing happened when we changed the price of an ounce of gold from $35 to $38 and then to $42.22. The Treasury got a windfall of about $1 billion to $1.2 billion in both of those so-called devaluations. So an issue on this is: What was the dollar price of SDRs that we monetized? You say I have an asset on my balance sheet and I don't know what the value of it is.
CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN. It's about $42.
MR. TRUMAN. It's $42.22; it's equivalent to the official price of gold.
MR. JORDAN. We do this at the official U.S. Treasury price of gold?
CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN. Do you mean that we can lower the debt to the public by moving the price of gold up to the market price? That could cut the debt back by a not insignificant amount!
MR. JORDAN. I have been trying not to mention that publicly for fear that someone might want to do it.
CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN. It's probably too late; we just mentioned it.
MR. JORDAN. It will become known five years from now!
MR. LINDSEY. Five years from now it will be read in the transcript for this meeting.
MR. BLINDER. By which time it already will have been done.
* * *
This exchange is extremely significant because it recognizes that external debt of the United States eventually will have to be balanced with the amount of gold claimed to be held by the Treasury. Interestingly enough the Fed doesn't want this information to be known, as this would essentially devalue the dollar overnight and give instant hyperinflation. But as Greenspan points out, it would inflate away the debt.
The five-year delay in releasing information to the public is clearly viewed by the Fed as a way to disadvantage the public. When the Fed and Treasury are forced by market conditions to balance the U.S. government's debt with its gold holdings, the dollar will be massively devalued and gold will be multiples of its current price. This would certainly make it advantageous to be one of the "crazies," as Greenspan affectionately calls gold investors.
I think the true crazies will be shown to be those people who have drunk the Kool-Aid to believe that a currency can maintain its purchasing power when the central bank confesses to employing a confidence trick -- that it is "behaving" as if there were real reserves underneath its currency system.
What can be concluded from these insights into the deliberations of the FOMC?
-- On several occasions the Fed discussed targeting gold prices with its policies.
-- The Fed admits that propaganda is effective against gold investors, insofar as just mentioning the possibility of selling gold can drive down the gold price.
-- The Fed at least contemplated interfering in the gold market, and on a massive scale. The Fed admits that the U.S. government has sold gold with the intention of reducing gold's price.
-- The record shows that the Fed opined that the statutes of the Exchange Stabilization Fund have legitimized "the gold swaps." Despite claims that this statement has been inaccurately transcribed or garbled, recent information suggests otherwise. In response to GATA's request to the Fed last year under the Freedom of Information Act for access to Fed documents about gold swaps, Fed Governor Kevin M. Warsh confirmed that the Fed does indeed have gold swap agreements with foreign banks:
http://www.gata.org/node/7819
-- The Fed does not want it to be known that the external debt of the United States could be substantially reduced by revaluing official gold at the market price, lest someone wants to do that. This is an admission that the official U.S. price of gold of $42.22 per ounce is a matter of smoke and mirrors. The ability of the Fed and Treasury to create money is linked to the only liquid collateral they have, gold. The gold price that is required to make the value of U.S. gold equal to the dollars issued is multiples of the current price, and is heavily dependent on how much unencumbered gold the Treasury still holds.
-- The Fed expressed the utility of having the virtues of a gold standard without using gold itself. Greenspan later confirmed that the Fed was behaving as if it was on a gold standard, as if there were "real reserves" underneath the system. This supports GATA's claims that the gold price has been suppressed by an increase in the supply of "paper gold" -- gold that investors believe they have bought and own but is really no more than a certificate saying they own the gold. This is the case with the London Bullion Market Association's unallocated gold accounts, unbacked exchange-trade funds, pool accounts, and gold derivatives.
The demand for real physical gold bullion is surging in the face of an impending daisy-chain of sovereign debt defaults. This threatens to expose the confidence trick -- that much more gold has been sold than exists. I have explained this in a previous essay, "The Tiny Market that is the World's Biggest":
http://www.gata.org/node/8248
The Federal Reserve can "behave" as if there are real reserves under the U.S. dollar, but there are none. A study of the heavily redacted and edited minutes of the Federal Open Market Committee reveal a penchant for targeting and manipulating gold prices, and deceiving Congress and the public.
The words of Alan Greenspan from "Gold and Economic Freedom" could not be more relevant:
"This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard."
Like clowns at a rodeo, there are too many academics creating a distraction discussing whether we will have deflation or inflation. We are now in an era of unprecedented deficit spending -- which means that confiscation of wealth will also be unprecedented. One of the most prolific money creators of all time has told us what to do to prevent it: Buy gold. But buy real physical gold, not a gold receivable.
-----
Adrian Douglas is publisher of the Market Force Analysis letter (www.marketforceanalysis.com) and a member of GATA's Board of Directors.



© Marie Forum Argent Or. reproduction interdite : pas de copier-coller. Faites un lien vers ce post. Suivez Hardinvestor sur Twitter et sur Facebook

   marie

  Skipper
 Skipper

  avatar

  Inscription :   05/02/2005
  Messages :   19756

Revenir en haut Aller en bas
un "must read" sur les manip des banques centrales / minutes de la fED
Voir le sujet précédent Voir le sujet suivant Revenir en haut


Page 1 sur 1
Permission de ce forum:Vous ne pouvez pas répondre aux sujets dans ce forum
Hardinvestor :: Argent - Or - Monnaie - Géopolitique / Forums publics :: Forum Or, Argent, Métaux précieux-
Sauter vers:




cours de l’or en dollar   cours de l’argent en dollar   cours du Hui   cours de l’or en euro   cours de l’argent en euro   ratio or argent