Gold's Manipulation in 1975 Isn't a Smoking Gun
By Mike Mish Shedlock Sep 29, 2009 9:00 am
Government efforts to keep the metal's price down have proven ineffective.
Numerous people have asked me to comment on the Zero Hedge article Exclusive Smoking Gun: The Fed On Gold Manipulation.
The "Smoking Gun" is a now declassified document about gold that was sent to President Gerald Ford on June 3, 1975 by Arthur Burns, chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1970 to 1978.
The document concerns the "broad question as to whether central banks and governments should be free to buy gold, from one another or from the private market, at market-related prices."
Market prices at the time were $160 to $175 and the official price was $42.22 per ounce.
Arthur Burns states, "It is an open secret among central bankers that, at a later date, the French and some others may well want to stabilize the market price within some range."
Burns also says, "The Federal Reserve has sought to avoid taking a rigid position," while going "some distance to try and conciliate the French view." Yet... "If we do ever accede to French views on gold, we should at least use our bargaining leverage to some major political advantage."
Finally, Burns states, "All in all I am convinced that by far the best position for us to take at this time is to resist arrangements that provide wide latitude for central banks to purchase gold at market-related prices."
Shocking Revelation?
Burns sought an agreement whereby central bankers and governments wouldn't buy gold at market prices. Because gold prices never traded at $42.22 again, essentially that was an agreement to not buy gold.
After Nixon closed the gold window, why is it such a revelation that events like this happened? Did any governments cheat?
The most interesting thing in the document was Burns's willingness to bargain for "political advantage." However, the idea that governments are lying manipulators willing to sell their soul for the right political advantage can hardly be considered a startling revelation.
Smoking Gun or Historical Footnote?
The importance of this document is only in the historical sense in that it helps shows us how the move toward an irredeemable fiat currency evolved around that time.
The document has no direct bearing on what is happening today, although it remains true that gold is the enemy of the welfare warfare state and its central banks.
The so-called "smoking gun" of 1975 is much ado about nothing. It's nothing more than a historical footnote with little current relevance.
Misplaced Fears
If governments today are still acting to suppress the price of gold by the same methods, let's have more of them because they clearly aren't working.
Given that the price of gold is roughly $1,000 an ounce, it goes to show that governments are not bigger than the market, and that such manipulation (even if it does still exist) can never work in the long run.
The fear shouldn't be of government to government agreements that can never work in practice, but rather a fear that governments may tax gold sales profits at some phenomenal rate, thereby effectively confiscating gold a second time.
The "Smoking Gun" is a now declassified document about gold that was sent to President Gerald Ford on June 3, 1975 by Arthur Burns, chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1970 to 1978.
The document concerns the "broad question as to whether central banks and governments should be free to buy gold, from one another or from the private market, at market-related prices."
Market prices at the time were $160 to $175 and the official price was $42.22 per ounce.
Arthur Burns states, "It is an open secret among central bankers that, at a later date, the French and some others may well want to stabilize the market price within some range."
Burns also says, "The Federal Reserve has sought to avoid taking a rigid position," while going "some distance to try and conciliate the French view." Yet... "If we do ever accede to French views on gold, we should at least use our bargaining leverage to some major political advantage."
Finally, Burns states, "All in all I am convinced that by far the best position for us to take at this time is to resist arrangements that provide wide latitude for central banks to purchase gold at market-related prices."
Shocking Revelation?
Burns sought an agreement whereby central bankers and governments wouldn't buy gold at market prices. Because gold prices never traded at $42.22 again, essentially that was an agreement to not buy gold.
After Nixon closed the gold window, why is it such a revelation that events like this happened? Did any governments cheat?
The most interesting thing in the document was Burns's willingness to bargain for "political advantage." However, the idea that governments are lying manipulators willing to sell their soul for the right political advantage can hardly be considered a startling revelation.
Smoking Gun or Historical Footnote?
The importance of this document is only in the historical sense in that it helps shows us how the move toward an irredeemable fiat currency evolved around that time.
The document has no direct bearing on what is happening today, although it remains true that gold is the enemy of the welfare warfare state and its central banks.
The so-called "smoking gun" of 1975 is much ado about nothing. It's nothing more than a historical footnote with little current relevance.
Misplaced Fears
If governments today are still acting to suppress the price of gold by the same methods, let's have more of them because they clearly aren't working.
Given that the price of gold is roughly $1,000 an ounce, it goes to show that governments are not bigger than the market, and that such manipulation (even if it does still exist) can never work in the long run.
The fear shouldn't be of government to government agreements that can never work in practice, but rather a fear that governments may tax gold sales profits at some phenomenal rate, thereby effectively confiscating gold a second time.
No positions in stocks mentioned.
The information on this website solely reflects the analysis of or opinion about the performance of securities and financial markets by the writers whose articles appear on the site. The views expressed by the writers are not necessarily the views of Minyanville Media, Inc. or members of its management. Nothing contained on the website is intended to constitute a recommendation or advice addressed to an individual investor or category of investors to purchase, sell or hold any security, or to take any action with respect to the prospective movement of the securities markets or to solicit the purchase or sale of any security. Any investment decisions must be made by the reader either individually or in consultation with his or her investment professional. Minyanville writers and staff may trade or hold positions in securities that are discussed in articles appearing on the website. Writers of articles are required to disclose whether they have a position in any stock or fund discussed in an article, but are not permitted to disclose the size or direction of the position. Nothing on this website is intended to solicit business of any kind for a writer's business or fund. Minyanville management and staff as well as contributing writers will not respond to emails or other communications requesting investment advice.
Copyright 2009 Minyanville Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright 2009 Minyanville Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
(3)
Reply
2009-09-29 09:33:56
Proving a negative
Gold adjusted for inflation is still a long way from its previous high. Saying that gold is now around $1,000 (implying since it is higher in non inflation adjusted price than the peak in the 80's that it isn't manipulated) is circular logic and doesn't prove either argument.
High gold prices are just as dangerous to central banks today as it was in the 70's and 80's. What makes anyone think the central banks wouldn't attempt to control what is dangerous to them?
If high gold prices aren't alarming and seen as a repudiation (or at least flying in the face) of fiat currencies, why does everyone go into high alert when gold pushes about $1,000. It's about more than just making new highs. Higher gold prices are seen as a canary in the coal mine and a direct affront to fiat currencies.
And that makes central banks nervous. I find it hard to believe that central banks will attempt to control so many other psychological aspects of the economy and leave gold alone.
High gold prices are just as dangerous to central banks today as it was in the 70's and 80's. What makes anyone think the central banks wouldn't attempt to control what is dangerous to them?
If high gold prices aren't alarming and seen as a repudiation (or at least flying in the face) of fiat currencies, why does everyone go into high alert when gold pushes about $1,000. It's about more than just making new highs. Higher gold prices are seen as a canary in the coal mine and a direct affront to fiat currencies.
And that makes central banks nervous. I find it hard to believe that central banks will attempt to control so many other psychological aspects of the economy and leave gold alone.
2009-09-29 12:46:08
When Is A Dollar Not A Dollar?
Mish,
Great article.
I wanted to comment on:"a fear that governments may tax gold sales profits at some phenomenal rate, thereby effectively confiscating gold a second time."
I don't whether or when it will happen, but I am glad you are posting ways in which the government can "adjust" the value of the debt.
I read David Rosenberg last Friday mentioned the last major gov. policy tool left is the value of the dollar.
We shall see. If you hear anything or have other thoughts on this topic over the next few months/years, please post them.
Largest debt bubble in history. How to get rid of it:
-Reflate: They are trying but will fail. The Bloody Mary cure for a hangover.
-Recession: Let deflation do it's thing. Recession after recession for decades. Japan.
-Restructure: Debt for equity, bankruptcy. Politically difficult, actually the best way
-Revalue: Revalue the dollar to reduce the real value of the debt. A desperate act, but Roosevelt did it(60%!), and it did lower unemployment. Iceland also did it.
Great article.
I wanted to comment on:"a fear that governments may tax gold sales profits at some phenomenal rate, thereby effectively confiscating gold a second time."
I don't whether or when it will happen, but I am glad you are posting ways in which the government can "adjust" the value of the debt.
I read David Rosenberg last Friday mentioned the last major gov. policy tool left is the value of the dollar.
We shall see. If you hear anything or have other thoughts on this topic over the next few months/years, please post them.
Largest debt bubble in history. How to get rid of it:
-Reflate: They are trying but will fail. The Bloody Mary cure for a hangover.
-Recession: Let deflation do it's thing. Recession after recession for decades. Japan.
-Restructure: Debt for equity, bankruptcy. Politically difficult, actually the best way
-Revalue: Revalue the dollar to reduce the real value of the debt. A desperate act, but Roosevelt did it(60%!), and it did lower unemployment. Iceland also did it.
2009-09-29 22:10:09
Expropriation
Thanks, Mish, good article and good find (I read the whole Memo, to make sure I am more familiar with how the Fed "thinks" and acts). Cannot help but support wholeheartedly Ron Paul's drive to audit these bast@rds (aint gonna happen of course, 'nough trillions at stake on the Street to never ever do anything like this).
Re the new tax, of course they can slap it on, but I think Gold, if in physical form, can be taken out of the country (which I am sure 90% of the folks who have brains will do). Yes, they can and will catch some on the boarder, but hey, bootlegging is just another form of fun. I do not think those who are buying physical metal now are stupid and soft enough to roll over and just pay the crooks on the Hill their newly-minted taxes just because they have failed to manage the country's finances in prior decades.
Re the new tax, of course they can slap it on, but I think Gold, if in physical form, can be taken out of the country (which I am sure 90% of the folks who have brains will do). Yes, they can and will catch some on the boarder, but hey, bootlegging is just another form of fun. I do not think those who are buying physical metal now are stupid and soft enough to roll over and just pay the crooks on the Hill their newly-minted taxes just because they have failed to manage the country's finances in prior decades.
Get real-time options trading ideas from Steve Smith, veteran options trader and newsletter author, plus let him show you the way to cut risk and boost your returns through the strategic use of options. Click here for a free 14 day trial to OptionSmith by Steve Smith.
Copyright 2009 Minyanville Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved

















