tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6089228851855763774.post274758237513015736..comments2024-03-29T07:10:06.022+08:00Comments on Gold Chat: Straining at gold gnats while swallowing central bank camelsBron Sucheckihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00530576934994289879noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6089228851855763774.post-68615587523429498782015-01-20T19:34:24.870+08:002015-01-20T19:34:24.870+08:00Chris Powell does not possess an abundance of cred...Chris Powell does not possess an abundance of credibility himself. Similarly, I remember when Bill Murphy debated Jeff Christian in 2011. God that was painful. Jeff didn't have to exert himself even 1% to defeat Murphy. Sadly, Murphy could have easily been beaten by anyone who had done 1-2 years of decent research, even if they were teenagers. GATA has managed to dig out a lot of incredibility valuable papers, etc, but when it comes to the actual talking, using the knowledge stored in their heads, sadly their performance is extremely sub-par. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6089228851855763774.post-58786770974162442762015-01-18T10:24:53.134+08:002015-01-18T10:24:53.134+08:00Sorry, Jake's just spamming with a lot of Bron...Sorry, Jake's just spamming with a lot of Bron is an idiot stuff so I've turned on moderation. I don't read it just tick it spam and I'd say don't feed the troll but you make a good point so I let your comment through.<br /><br />I note that Chris responded http://www.gata.org/node/14965 "to GATA Suchecki long has seemed respectable enough -- that is, intelligent, incisive, and informed -- always to be required reading" I suppose that makes them idiots too according to Jake, oh well.Bron Sucheckihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00530576934994289879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6089228851855763774.post-30782432115787352862015-01-18T08:34:21.124+08:002015-01-18T08:34:21.124+08:00This was going to be my reply to Jake, but it look...This was going to be my reply to Jake, but it looks like he's been banished again! <br />I'll post my response anyway:<br /><br />Jake wrote:<i> "Only enormous bankster illegal paper positions can move gold prices such as they have been since 2011."</i><br /><br />My reply: Keith Weiner brilliantly demonstrated in real time time that it was actually physical selling that collapsed prices in April 2013 rather than paper positioning. This was later revealed to be the case from the trade data... investors that had been pulling gold into the West during the bull market (e.g. in 2009 the UK net imported 1100mt) suddenly stopped and became suppliers on a net basis. This reversal was brutal with the UK net exporting 1400mt in 2013, a 2500mt swing from the peak. <br /><br />Are Western investors now reconsidering their bearish position? Moves in GLD holdings last 2 days suggest they could be, meaning India + China + West pulling in the same direction again.rowingboatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6089228851855763774.post-24863033029715598452015-01-16T06:45:10.526+08:002015-01-16T06:45:10.526+08:00Where GATA went wrong from the very start is they ...Where GATA went wrong from the very start is they analysed gold like a commodity. With demand outstripping supply they assumed this gap was being filled by central banks. In the late 1990's they concluded 25% of central bank gold had gone forever, and updated this to 50% several years later.<br /><br />It is GATA who strain at gnats / swallow camels because it is Western investment demand followed by divestment that govern gold prices. No one in the gold community wants to acknowledge the thousands of tonnes of gold (and silver) net imported into UK during the bull market, for example.<br /><br />Many questions can be answered by examining national trade data but of course this doesn't happen. Instead it is very convenient to blame central banks who lost all of their gold years ago, but will continue to be blamed for many more years nonetheless.rowingboatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6089228851855763774.post-57624386714807502292015-01-16T06:37:56.509+08:002015-01-16T06:37:56.509+08:00Sorry, I have no idea how you can consider all tho...Sorry, I have no idea how you can consider all those articles I have written on central banking as contending that institutional manipulation of markets is a nominal issue. See what you want to see.Bron Sucheckihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00530576934994289879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6089228851855763774.post-72982563913430644702015-01-16T05:26:05.094+08:002015-01-16T05:26:05.094+08:00I'm glad Chris Powell considered his "j&#...I'm glad Chris Powell considered his "j'accuse" enough to deliver it to you, Bron.<br /><br />If you are contending, Bron, that institutional manipulation of markets is a nominal issue, then I'd say your credibility has been tapped out.<br /><br />It stands that those who've learned to peacefully coexist with evil have not long delayed their own doom at the hands of that very evil. <br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08187218441695383848noreply@blogger.com