At the end of that article, it said:
"The world's biggest central banks, led by the US and Germany, sit on about 32 000 tons of gold in officially declared reserves. - Reuters"
I think that it is curious that we cannot get a straight answer from central bankers about how much of those "officially declared" reserves are sold, loaned, or promised in some fashion.
On that topic, I just found this interesting testimony at the GATA web site:
Bill:
The speech I attended was in Grand Rapids,
Mich., on April 15, Tax Day." It is
traditional for the Economics Club of Grand
Rapids to bring a speaker appropriate for
this event. This year it was Secretary
O'Neill. Seven hundred people were in
attendance. The local and national media were
there, as well as C-SPAN. The other reason
O'Neill was there is that he is good friends
with a local influential political supporter
who was having a birthday party. Vice
President Dick Cheney also attended that
event.
The reason for the speech was to make a case
for simplifying the tax code and impress on
everyone what a waste of resources our
current tax system is. As a certified public
accountant, I couldn't agree with him more.
For the most part O'Neill's, speech was
refreshing, though it is doubtful that any
real tax solutions will be implemented.
After the speech there is always time made
available for questions. I was first to raise
my hand, and I was acknowledged. I inquired
as to what U.S. policy is as to our gold
reserves and whether would he comment on
whether we were engaged in lending our gold
or using it for other financial means.
The moderator was quite taken aback by the
question, as it did not fit the theme.
Secretary O'Neill took his time and remarked
that the United States had gone off the gold
standard in 1971. He went on to emphasize
that our real reserves or currency strength
are based on our intellectual capabilities.
He never did address the question any
further. There was more talk about our
economy, etc.
I do not believe the government has any
intention to answer questions like mine. The
response was to ignore or marginalize the
questioner. This is the same way the shorts
were treated in the Enron fiasco.
It was clear that O'Neill did not appreciate
the question. You could tell by the way he
looked at me. It was also clear that the
audience had no idea of the relevance of the
question. Everyone was more comfortable
moving on to something more familiar.
O'Neill's speech received wide coverage in
the media, but nothing was mentioned about my
question. I am not surprised by that. I do
not know when C-SPAN will be airing the
speech.
Upon reflection, it is sad how irrelevant
gold and other tangible assets are viewed in
today's economy. Apparently the current view
is that intangible "assets" constitute the
real value. I find this especially
interesting in light of Enron and all the
other accounting scandals. High-level policy
makers like intangible assets, be they
intellectual capabilities or financial
instruments, because they can control them --
at least for a while.
Do I think gold is being used in a variety of
financial arrangements by our government? Yes
-- I could see it in the glare of O'Neill's
eyes. It's too bad, because in a lot of other
respects I admire him and the job he is
trying to do. If he and all the capable
business people in the room don't even
register this as a relevant issue, we have a
long way to go.
-- Bob Schellenberg
Grand Rapids, Mich. |
