I have done a lot of reading lately on actual gold supplies.
Although I am not yet convinced, some writers, including some very serious students of gold markets, make a substantial case for the proposition that gold has been used fractally. A substantial case does not mean a necessarily convincing one, though it is fresh meat for the conspiracy nuts.
In my view, one of five propositions, or a combination of the five, are true: First, there has been indeed issuance of paper gold in excess of supply, resulting in fractal gold. Second, the writers who insist that there has been unsupported paper gold are wrong because they cannot adequately determine the exact amount of supply. Third, gold which has been previously unaccounted for is entering the market or entered it via laundering when gold was at a very low price. Fourth, there has been enough tungsten fraud to make a difference. Five, none of the above.
The bugs insist the first proposition is true.
I don't know if any or all are true.
The gold market is not exactly transparent.
If we do have fractal gold and/or tungsten fraud sufficient to make a difference, the price should go straight up. Otherwise, gold should continue to rise as governments insist on debasing currencies.
I think the folks who claim that fractal gold is a certainty are probably clueless. But they are doing a good job of talking their book and stoking the fires of a mania.
Anyone who claims to have a handle on the gold market, esp. when unprovable claims like fractal gold are made, is probably lying.
Beware of male bovine manure. |
