At the risk of beating a Tantric drum again to Resonorate the Mantra yet again, yes the Field story is "correct" in its assumption that the announcement of sale by the bank is already-sold-gold. The bank's leasing of gold was in order for the lessee to sell it, further to effect forward buys on the producer gold market. The acceptance of paper schist for gold-from-ore, is what the banks are faced with. I don't think their loaning groups are bankrupt however. In general they are well covered.
This may have something to do with the rising price of gold. Would you pay back gold you had borrowed at 250 dollars if the price was 300 now and it was rising? Why not pay in equivalent specie? DotCom stock - yes, that will do. How much do you want?
This paper being better than gold is quite the story isn't it? When have people believed this? Only when magic beans, tulips, swampland and dotcoms were the preferred medium of exchange. Trading specie is better than trade. So why deal in reality at all? Paper representations of it and manana always sound so much better than the ugly reality of what you get for your dollar these days. Promises can be made to shine better than the car wax. Ask any used car salesman.
This all started because banks could not make money on gold by lending it. They did not pay interest on gold deposits. Can you imagine? Why not? Because they could not charge the gold as an asset with governments! Gold on deposit was not considered an asset that a government would allow for calculation of allowed debt. (How much money the banks could loan for money or wealth on hand) This is one of the primary incentives to divest gold. Paper is an allowed calculable asset in order to increase debt. Debt is where the money is made. This sort of policy is so that governments can be in the banking business with "their" money. They are creating the money supply, not the people. They deny gold's value such that they can accumulate it and use it for trade and to support the dollar. I have never seen such a lie as Roosevelts treasury notes, "Promise to Pay the Bearer 1/35 of an Ounce on Demand" And then he makes gold illegal to hold in the US. Neat trick. Yet they voted for him.
We know of one solid rumour where people began to horde gold and bury it in the continental US in order to sell it later. 70 tons of it. It is supposed to remain unfound in a certain area. I get a lot of doubt on this one. I can't say I blame them, but it is documented rather well. (Not Victorio Peak)
The question you have to ask yourself is who makes the notes legal tender and why? Anyone's paper debt is as good as anothers as long as it is recognized by some system of credit. The Jews could develop banking in the middle ages because their brotherhood of gold trade business and deposit formed a network of trust that allowed transfer of debt. Europeans did not form these networks as the politics of the age did not allow cross border ownership of business or charging interest by Catholics. (Can you imagine Catholics being forbidden to steal. I think it started something.) When the Kings stepped in and made the Jews' gold business and lending business,
(established from about 700 AD on), a government franchise, it was shrewd move. But it led to some massive paper printings and horrendous inflation in France and Spain. England resisted it more by tying their money to sterling.
EC<:-} |
