Dear Friend of GATA and Gold:

Our friend R.B. writes:

"Once China or any country comes out with an official statement saying it has X tonnes of gold when it really as a lot more (as China certainly does), how does it turn around later and say it has (and had, in fact, at the time of the previous statement) much more?

"Also, the recent acknowledgment by the Tocqueville Gold Fund manager, John Hathaway, of gold price suppression by central banks raises the question of why he didn't 'come out' a long time ago. If people in the gold business had come out earlier about gold price suppression in appreciable numbers, maybe gold's position would be quite different today. It seems fair to exclaim: 'Only now are you aboard.'"

To reply to R.B.:

As for China's having to explain someday its misleading gold reserve figures, it could do what Saudi Arabia did in 2010 and say simply that it had the extra gold in "other accounts":

http://www.gata.org/node/9094

That is, the People's Bank of China could claim that other agencies of China's government, not the bank itself, had the unreported metal. Or the bank could say that it just bought the extra gold from those other government agencies, from Chinese banks, from bullion banks, or from someone else, like the Bank for International Settlements or the International Monetary Fund. Or the People's Bank of China could say that its previous report had mistakenly put a decimal point in the wrong place.

After all, today nearly everything financial and official is a lie, and nobody cares about lies, least of all mainstream financial news organizations, whose main business is to make sure that official lies are never challenged.

As for Tocqueville's Hathaway, GATA has been cordially nagging him for 15 years and he has cordially listened. He started coming around in public a few years ago. His commentary the other day exactly reflects in great detail what GATA long has been saying:

http://www.gata.org/node/15564

A few days earlier the CEO of London bullion broker Sharps Pixley, Ross Norman, started to come around in public as well --

http://www.gata.org/node/15533

-- even as he too has known better for a long time but has kept it to himself.

The problem is that these people are respectable and haven't wanted to risk their respectability with the financial establishment, with which they have been doing business. Further, these people have had business obligations to other respectable people who might have been harmed by any candor. But as "financial repression" by central banks has intensified beyond all expectation, these people's businesses now are being utterly destroyed and, being destroyed, these people no longer have much to lose by acknowledging gold price suppression. Respectability no longer is of much use to them.

Of course GATA would have liked to have had their support a long time ago, since, as you note, it might have made a difference. We'd like their support even now, as it still might make a difference. But we understand their circumstances, just as we understand our own.

That is, GATA is not respectable, has never aspired to be, and has nothing to lose, having realized soon after our formation that what we valued most -- democracy, individual liberty, free and transparent markets, limited and accountable government, and such -- already had been lost and was not going to be regained by respectability.

CHRIS POWELL, Secretary/Treasurer
Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee Inc.
CPowell@GATA.org

* * *

| Digg This Article
 -- Published: Sunday, 19 July 2015 | E-Mail  | Print  | Source: GoldSeek.com

comments powered by Disqus
Previous Articles by Bill Murphy