With his commentary written yesterday, "Damn Manipulators,"
posted today at GoldSeek and Gold-Eagle --
http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1469110080.php
http://www.gold-eagle.com/article/damn-manipulators
-- was Elliott Wave Trader's Avi Gilburt sneering about GATA?
Gilburt wrote of yesterday's trading: "As the metals market dropped
today, I am quite certain that the evil manipulators have become the talk of
the town once again. No one speaks of them when we are rising, because that
is how the market is supposed to move (cough, cough). But now that we have
dropped, it is 'clear' that it must be manipulation."
Gilburt adds that yesterday's smashing of gold and silver was ordinary
market action predicted by his magic charts of technical analysis -- and
maybe it was. But how does he or anyone outside central banking know
that the market action had nothing to do with government intervention? Can
Gilburt's charts penetrate the trading rooms of the Federal Reserve Bank of
New York, the Bank of England in London, the Banque de France in Paris, the
International Monetary Fund in Washington, and the Bank for International
Settlements in Basle?
Of course GATA has no entree into those trading rooms either. But we have
compiled some documents from the institutions that run the trading rooms,
confirming that they are heavily and surreptitiously intervening in the gold
market or in facilitating the surreptitious intervention of other central
banks and government agencies:
http://www.gata.org/node/14839
According to the director of market operations for the Banque de France,
Alexandre Gautier, this surreptitious trading occurs "nearly on a daily
basis":
http://www.gata.org/node/13373
Since central banks have the power to create infinite money, why would
they bother holding and trading gold, except as has been confirmed candidly
by the annual reports of the Reserve Bank of Australia -- "primarily to
facilitate policy operations in the foreign exchange market"?:
http://www.rba.gov.au/publications/annual-rep...df/2015-repo...
Gilburt is mistaken again when he writes that "no one" speaks
about gold market manipulation when the price is rising. For many years, with
the price rising and the price falling, GATA has addressed the possibility of
an upward revaluation of gold by central banks, another form of market
manipulation.
For example, since 2007 GATA often has called attention to the 2006 paper
on this subject by the Scottish economist Peter Millar, who argued that
central banks will have to revalue gold upward by as much as 700 percent to
avert a catastrophic debt deflation:
http://www.gata.org/node/4843
We also often have called attention to the 2012 study by the American
economists and fund managers Paul Brodsky and Lee Quaintance, who maintain
that the major central banks are engaged in redistributing world gold
reserves among themselves in advance of such an upward revaluation:
http://www.gata.org/node/11373
And we often have called attention to the 2008 appearance on Business News
Network in Canada by former Federal Reserve Governor Lyle Gramley, in which
he asserted that the Fed might reliquefy itself by upwardly revaluing gold:
http://www.gata.org/node/6989
Yes, manipulation of the gold market by central banks can be up as well as
down, and since it defeats free markets either way, it's objectionable either
way.
Odds are that since they are the biggest participants in the gold market,
central banks know a lot more about the origin of yesterday's price smash
than Gilburt's magic charts know. The central banks aren't telling and
Gilburt isn't asking them and making a point of their refusal to answer,
since it might be very bad for his newsletter business if anyone outside
central banking knew exactly how central banks were intervening at any
moment. For then people also would know that the data Gilburt is analyzing is
no more genuine than Pokemon characters.
