Dear Friend of GATA and Gold:

In commentary posted at Kitco yesterday, "Confessions of a Gold Analyst: Will You Let The Inmates Run The Asylum?" --

http://www.kitco.com/commentaries/2015-12-14/Confessions-of-a-Gold-Analy...

-- ElliotWaveTrader.net writer Avi Gilburt criticizes GATA for being "wrong" for more than four years.

But wrong about what exactly?

Gilburt mistakenly perceives GATA's work as being to predict imminently higher prices for gold. While higher prices are implicit in the huge short position central banks long have been underwriting in the gold market, GATA's work is not to give investment advice, nor to predict prices. Rather GATA's work has been to document, publicize, and oppose the largely surreptitious intervention in the gold market by central banks, and to oppose their market rigging generally.

Gilburt's criticism is of more interest when he approaches the documentation GATA has compiled over the years. He writes: "If you read all the 'proof' presented by the manipulation theorists and really think about what it means, you would recognize that they have either presented statements being taken out of context (which I have shown in some of my prior published articles), or they have shown that there may be small movements in metals that may have been manipulated."

The only defense against criticism that documents have been taken "out of context" is to review them all one by one, which GATA more than encourages -- GATA pleads for this. If Gilburt has "shown" such contextual distortion in previous articles, GATA has not seen them, maybe because they have not been published in the clear. We would welcome a detailed exchange with Gilburt about particular documents.

In any case some central bankers themselves seem to have construed the documents pretty much as GATA does:

http://www.gata.org/node/11304

http://www.gata.org/node/4279

http://www.gata.org/node/11012

http://www.gata.org/node/12016

http://www.gata.org/node/10839

News organizations controlled by the government of China also have construed the documents as GATA does, as have officials of the gold industry in China:

http://www.gata.org/node/10380

http://www.gata.org/node/10416

http://www.gata.org/node/13446

http://www.gata.org/node/13314

Just a few weeks ago an Austrian central banker, speaking at the London Bullion Market Association conference in Vienna, cheerfully conceded surreptitious intervention in the gold market by central banks and then, when his admission made it outside the conference, locked himself in his office, or was locked up there, to avoid an attempt to question him about it:

http://www.gata.org/node/15897

No analysis of the gold market is worth anything if it fails to address the following questions, which GATA encourages Gilburt and all gold market analysts to address:

-- Are central banks in the gold market surreptitiously or not?

-- If central banks are in the gold market surreptitiously, is it just for fun -- for example, to see which central bank's trading desk can make the most money by cheating the most investors -- or is it for policy purposes?

-- If central banks are in the gold market for policy purposes, are these the traditional purposes of defeating a potentially competitive world reserve currency, or have these purposes expanded?

-- If central banks, creators of infinite money, are surreptitiously trading a market, how can it be considered a market at all, and how can any country or the world ever enjoy a market economy again?

Documentation responsive to these questions, along with a summary attempting to put the documentation in context, can be found here:

http://www.gata.org/node/14839

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

* * *

| Digg This Article
 -- Published: Tuesday, 15 December 2015 | E-Mail  | Print  | Source: GoldSeek.com

comments powered by Disqus
Previous Articles by Bill Murphy