Skip to main content

The Case For Gold Gets Stronger


By now it's no secret that the Comex market is basically bogus.  It's a paper contracts markets settled in cash, almost never in delivered gold. It's been the mainstay of an arsenal of available weapons that interested parties can use to manipulate the gold price, here is my post from a year ago on the subject:
http://dwahts.blogspot.co.za/2015/09/how-is-price-of-physical-gold-being.html

I would like to expand on this a bit, because here is a link from Zero Hedge that explores the theme further:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-09/charade-continues-london-gold-and-silver-markets-set-even-more-paper-trading

For a few years now I've been writing posts on a variety of different aspects of the gold price being manipulated, not just by market sculpting entities, not just because gold is a "safe-haven" investment in turbulent times (a superficial analysis which I hate because it cheapens the whole issue) but also by central banks that have have a vested interest in the inverse relationship between gold and fiat currency.  This is a key element that I often discuss because there are geopolitical (not just market) indicators we need to be following, and I don't see enough emphasis on this (obviously) by the talking head puppets on Bloomberg or MSNBC.



The key geopolitical factor is the icing over of relations between BRICS nations and the West, particularly Russia and China.  Those nations have been on an absolute gold buying binge.

Why?

As it turns out they may be buying substantially more than we actually realize.  See Here:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-09/australia-customs-department-confirms-bullionstar%E2%80%99s-analysis-gold-export-china

 I think it would not be unfair to accuse someone looking exclusively backwards at charts and trends (not looking forward in the real world) of having their heads in the sand.


Popular posts from this blog

Scientific Consensus is that Consensus is overturned 100% of the time

Everything you know is wrong. There is a very good reason why science succeeds more often than politics does.  Unlike politics, It's not a consensus or a vote,  it's actually method.  The scientific method. Anyone who has read this blog before probably knows I'm a lifelong science junkie as well as someone who spends thousands of hours breaking down the the political and economic agendas behind the special interest groups that guide public policy.  In many ways I'm actually uniquely qualified to tie these angles together in ways not well understood by the overwhelming majority of people.  That actually includes scientists. Scientists are notoriously naive in the political and economic forces that drive the human world.

First and foremost,  what is this so called 'consensus' anyway.  You will be horrified to find out,  it's not specifically that global warming is man made.  It's simply that humans contribute to climate change in an unknowable way and to…

CO2 is not a pollutant, it is greening the earth!

Whatever your persuasion is on CO² and AGW, nobody disagrees on the tremendous benefit it provides plant life. Many of the past famine disasters and desertification has CO² decline listed as a contributor.

http://dwahts.blogspot.co.za/2018/04/sheep-science.html?m=1

I feel I've already blown the notion that humans are the main cause of climate change out of the water. Or rather I've used the reasoning of others and put it together in a convenient outline. See my previous post above for starters.  However, I recognize that humans do increase CO² levels, no matter how tiny. Increases are likely to be very short lived because the earth has an effective feedback mechanism, but we can apparently get small increases, and it's been put forward on very poor science that this is a bad thing. That assertion hinges completely on bad models. More on that in the bottom most link.  Model's and the measurement sample dates are dubious at best.


Furthermore, the main increase in CO²  as…

You Don't Know What Capitalism Is So Stop Using The Word!

I am writing this for one purpose, to be able to post it every time the issue comes up in conversation to prevent myself from dying of boredom on a few key issues with label intellectuals, you know, the sort who drop labels for the singular purpose of demonstrating their talent at dodging real issues by posing as someone who knows the definition of a word.

When it comes right down to it, I personally think most economic and, for that matter, socio-economic systems across the entire capitalism/ socialism spectrum could work if corruption could just be reasonably controlled.  Many forget that Socialism still runs on the capitalism economics system and the finer points actually come down to policy and regulations. This is often missed.  That being said, I am fairly sure that many of the criticisms of communism for example are valid, and views that it does not work especially well because it tends to kill the inventiveness and passion of the human spirit do stand, but not for the reasons…