Sales by overseas central banks could see a sharp fall in gold prices, the Financial News reported Wednesday, citing Zou Pingzuo, a central bank researcher.
"Investors should be careful about investing in gold. Gold prices could fall sharply because of intensive gold sales by the U.S. and other overseas central banks," Zou said.
To me this a sign of desperation by the Chinese. There has been no indication by the US to sell and all recent talk is about central banks buying. They are trying the old scare tactic of central bank selling to try and push the gold price down. They want to buy as much gold as they can but don’t like the current high price.
I think they are hoping this "bubble" will deflate and they can continue with their sneaky "get out of dollars and buy gold". What happens when the Chinese realise the price isn't going to drop? Will they be forced to go all out and start buying whatever physical they can?
Philosophical fallacies and socialist falsifications of economics and history have gained sway in the school system to poison our citizens' minds against the American concept of freedom. Such fallacies have created a grossly distorted image for the man in the street about the way the world works. Freedom is now seen as inimical to human dignity. Creative entrepreneurship is portrayed as exploitation of the poor instead of their only hope. Gold is termed a "barbarous relic" instead of history's proven store of value. ...
We are being conditioned to accept sloth as normalcy, servility as dignity, weakness of will as compassion, and government conveyed privilege as justice. The world of sanity and rationality gives way to regimental nightmares of Orwellian "newspeak" and "political correctness" in order for legions of middle-class sluggards to feel good about themselves while they live out their spiritually squalid lives queuing up to the entitlement troughs of the mega-state.
My response to the article agrees very much with the comments of MetaCynic:
Accepting Hultberg's argument that ideas are the engine of not only entire civilizations but of every individual, begs the question why do some ideas gain traction and not others. Why did the ultimately unworkable collectivist ideologies of the big picture intellectuals, Rousseau, Hegel, Comte and Marx, find acceptance in the midst of the wondrous prosperity produced by the Enlightenment's Industrial Revolution? Why does the siren call of unaccountable collectivism to this day continue to outsell individual liberty with all its attendant responsibilities?
Despite its clashes with reality, do collectivist intellectuals really have to work very hard to find widespread acceptance for their ideas? Maybe there has always been a ready market for their disabling poison. In politicians and bureaucrats they have, of course, an enthusiastic audience eager to legitimize their own drive for wealth and power. In the envious masses they have deluded voters proudly participating in the process to redistribute the wealth of others into their own pockets. And in the captains of industry they have "capitalists" in need of protected markets and guaranteed profits. The great majority of humans are conformists and clock watchers interested only in comfort and entertainment.
