-- Published: Friday, 14 March 2014 | Print | Disqus
By Dr. Jeffrey Lewis
"The first rule of mainstream financial journalism and, particularly, financial journalism about gold is never to put a specific critical question about the monetary metal to any of the primary participants in the gold market, central banks. That is, nearly all gold market reporting is, by design, irrelevant distraction at best, disinformation at worst."
-Chris Powell, Gold Anti Trust Action Committee
That is, as long as it is taboo to make specific and detailed mention of silver or gold price manipulation. It is as if there is some underlying existential dilemma journalists face while dealing with this issue. Talent is not everything. There is no lack of talent and otherwise powerful voices.
It must be the effect of no skin in the game. Journalists are underpaid relative to astro-physicists turned algorithm traders. Therefore, it is safer to sell out to the devil and enjoy the accolades and promotions, even at the expense of unearthing the most important issues of our time.
What could be more important? What could be more crucial to the functioning of civil society than issues of economics and transparency in finance that trickles up to the courage of our leaders? A million social issues wedged between social action will cease to exist in a currency collapse. Instead, these emotions coalesce into a tsunami that leaves a vacuum for the loudest and meanest voices to fill.
Journalism had its roots in transmitting the voice of the masses from the grass roots. The pen of liberty extended; the fourth branch of government.
We note once again that the mainstream (this time, The Economist) has published a piece focusing on manipulation centered on London.
The fix is the poster child for an outdated process, an oligarchical remnant, dominated by the largest players.
Why not go after the CME and CFTC? At least they publish actual data.
All any respectable journalist would need to do is contrast the trading structure in London with New York - a dive one layer deeper, then mention the lopsided positions at COMEX - regardless of who publishes the data - because it reveals all one needs to know.
Can you imagine a journalist coming clean with the following?
"It has been known for years that the largest traders in the silver futures markets, in the so called commercial category, have maintained short market corners that would make the Hunt Brothers blush with regard to the size of their attempted long. Furthermore, even if these were hedged positions (they would be horrible for the clients if they were, but they are not), the very existence of positions this size violates the law because there is no possible way that a position like this wouldn't be used to move the price at will for a profitable arbitrage".
"Manipulation is in all directions and must serve a wider scope of interest. The system can be gamed from many directions."
GATA has broadcast the legal precedent; Ted Butler has tirelessly chronicled the mechanism used. And the rise of HFT has sealed the deal for the self-regulated, yet for profit exchanges.
Manipulation is just one more arbitrage made legal and hugely profitable for pockets deep enough to position themselves. Obviously, it also conveniently serves to indirectly support the medium of exchange by pressuring and controlling the price of its counterpart, the precious metals.
All in all, London is a safe place to look and answer the drama - or create some drama of its own.
Or it's probably more likely that we've become too complex and over specialized, making it even easier to control information.
Because price action makes market commentary, the main event will surely be spun in the favor of the mainstream. The big banks will profit simply because they are involved in practically every derivative imaginable, including indirect ownership of the liquidity and cash flow of the miners.
In this way, the financial journalists (who missed it) will never lose. They will be rewarded for their lack of credibility by suddenly connecting the dots - most likely by finding a suitable or fashionable scapegoat.
Wouldn't it be something if they would then juxtapose the conspiracy facts of market manipulation with revelations regarding surveillance?
Are prices managed 24/7 like phone and email conversations?
Prices are certainly monitored. And ‘monitor’ in this context is simply a euphemism for control, just as QE is a euphemism for money printing. And surveillance is a euphemism for the police state in which citizen equals criminal.
And monitoring prices is one thing. When the monitoring authority has the ability, mechanism, and the trade structure available to intervene, you can be sure that they will.
The bottom line is that the direction of prices will move when those who control it decide to let it; whether it fits with the narrative is a moot point. And sadly, the commentary and mainstream publications will continue to fumble with only part of the truth in order to purposely miss the big picture.
| Digg This Article
-- Published: Friday, 14 March 2014 | E-Mail | Print | Source: GoldSeek.com