Confused or intentionally confused?

From an article posted in coinflation:

http://kingworldnews.com/kingworldn...oing_On_With_The_German_Gold_&_Fort_Knox.html

So I am just confused. Rick Rule, who the writer describes as one of the richest people in the world and who works with Eric Sprott, talks about German gold repatriation. He asks why its taking the Fed so long to deliver the gold, (fair enough), but then states, "They don’t think that I have a right to understand anything with regard to the gold that is allegedly stored in Fort Knox on my behalf as a US citizen". Huh? The Fed has NOTHING to do with Ft Knox, Ft Knox has never is only property of the US, not the Fed, and is not involved in any kind of international holdings. Why does he bring up Ft Knox at all? HIs original point was concerning the Fed and their NY gold vaults.

Then he later states "The macro issue that is of interest to me is the unsustainable level of government expenditures relative to revenue -- and the fact that they are bridging the gap via either the sales of debt, or in the case of the United States government by quantitative easing, which I would refer to as counterfeiting". The US is COUNTERFEITING US dollars? Huh? How can the institution solely responsible for printing US dollars, and solely allowed to decide how many to print, be accused of COUNTERFEITING?

You know, I am curious about the German situation as well, and I hate the government's massive borrowing. But, are we to believe this "one of the worlds richest men and who works with Sprott" just had a mental lapse in an interview? Or, was his words carefully chosen to sow as much panic buying of pm possible, (thereby making him even richer I am assuming)? This is the kind of stuff I find infuriating. Why did this have to be either unintentionally or intentionally deceitful when the underlying premise was a good premise. Drop off these two aspects of this interview, and I pretty much agree. However, having such deceitfulness in the interview makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up, and actually makes me stop and reevaluate why I might agree with such a person at all. However, I bet you that to many who do not understand the difference between the Fed and Ft Knox this helps feed the whole "what is in Ft Knox" hocum.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I'd chock it up to mental laziness.

 

No, I think you are right and that his words were carefully selected.

 

Perhaps he is trying to misdirect why in the gold downfall, clients get poorer and the fund principals get richer....No they wouldn't do that !!!

 

Gasp!!!! One of the mods making a political statement!!! No, it couldn't be!!!!

JK, I'm giving ya a hard time.

 

I think it was more of a "corporate greed and malfeasance" statement than politics.

 

The world is run by a group of criminal bankers, who fund both sides of wars in order to profit. (this is why I call them criminals, they are heavily contributing to the deaths of innocent people in order to make a profit)

They also use deceit to hide the truth from the average citizen. One example of this is their naming of the Federal Reserve. That name would certainly imply government ownership, however no it does not. It's owned by privately owned banks, who in turn are owned by private citizens, many who aren't even U.S. citizens. So one of, if not the most powerful institutions in the United States is owned in part by foreigners. Can you say conflict of interest?

I could go on and on about all the fraudulent ways they make money but anyone can do the research themselves if they truly want to know. However I will caution you that ignorance truly is bliss!

A good place to start would be the book, The Creature From Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin

 

Actually the sad thing is that it might not be malfeasance at all, it may be correctly in line with the due diligence filings that all account holders agree to accept. And I do not even know the political association of the principals.

 

So I hear this "owned" term about the Fed a lot. What exactly is meant by that? Do they get to govern how the Fed is run? No, that is done by US appointed officials. Ok, so if they "own" it it must mean they get the profits? No, banks get a modest return relational to funds deposited there. All other profits of the Fed get deposited every year into the US treasury.

So, please elaborate how the Fed is "owned" by banks and foreigners. I would love to hear it, since all traditional examples of ownership are visibly absent.

 

That is political, but I was kind of joking.

...and this is really political!

BTW, the Federal Reserve is owned by the Federal Reserve, not private banks.

 

Just a small gripe, but federal does not imply United States Federal government ownership as federal is an adjective used to describe on organizational structure of independent members. It so happens that the U.S. government is one of many institutions organized according to federal principles. Had they called it the Third Bank of the United States you might have a point, but most people can define neither Federal nor Reserve, so I think it's a stretch to say the name is intentionally misleading.

 

Ah, I didn't know that, but neither does most of the public.

 

I think the argument about the Fed tends to devolve into semantics -- the shareholders, as I understand it, are largely individuals with concentrated positions in regional and large banks. This might not make sense at first until you realize that the banking industry is today very concentrated and uncompetitive from a free market standpoint. Yes, Fed officials are appointed by government officials, but there's no doubt private banks have a lot of input in the process. As for the Fort Knox and Fed distinction -- that's interesting and I'll look more into it. It could have been a verbal lapse since the Treasury and Fed work in tandem. By the way, I am also disturbed by the news that the Fed only provided the Germans with 5 tons of gold in the first year after their repatriation request.

 

I'm having some problems with this, let me list them.
1. "...the banking industry is today very concentrated and uncompetitive from a free market standpoint." Which banking industry, and how are they being uncompetitive? There are three 'classes': the lending/savings banks, the investment banks, and the hybrids. ...and don't tell me that all the big banks are both, because I know for a fact that at least two of them aren't.

2. "Yes, Fed officials are appointed by government officials, but there's no doubt private banks have a lot of input in the process." Ok... so how are they giving this input, why would the government request it, and what reasons do you have to be making this statement?

 

I think the guy is just a self-glorified sleazy salesman...and not a very effective one at that.

 

I only know one thing concerning Ft. Knox.....and that concerns the plot by Goldfinger to radiate the gold within it......It would of been a failure even if he`d been successful. Gold only has one isotope that has a half life of more than a couple of days. Even if a nuke were to be detonated.....the radioactivity (in the gold itself) would of only lasted a few months.....not the 58 years that 007 quoted.

But to be serious, I too am curious as to why the Germans only received 5 tons the first year.

 

Yes, the German thing is curious. However, think about it this way, why should the Fed have to physically hold it for free? There is a ton of expense in this. So, my guess is that it was lent to a financial institution with the werewithal to make good on the debt when needed. I believe the Fed is simply unwinding those positions. We might as well make some money holding someone elses asset, if they aren't paying storage charges.

Did you hear the French hadn't sent back one ounce from the gold they owe the germans?

But, I agree it was an interestig point the article could have simply covered, and not twisted it into another propaganda piece. Again, I am not trying to bad mouth pm at all posting these articles, just to continually show there is some severe bias in pro pm reporting, just like in anti pm reporting. I simply wish people to recognize bad reporting and/or manipulation attempts.

 

I think the inaccuracies in his interview may be an insight into his viewpoint of the relationship between the the Fed and the government. Lets face it, at this point in time, neither can survive as they currently do without the other. Yes, they may be technically different entities but when ones survival is dependent on the other, that unifies them.

 

The issue isn't storage fees, with regard to only 5 tons getting repatriated from the Fed the first year. The issue is that the Fed could only provide a measly 5 tons. This adds additional weight to the claims that there is a strain in the physical market and that the Fed has sold or rehypothecated the gold. This tension between the Germans and the Fed may underlie the recent claim by German officials that there is market manipulation in the precious metals -- a warning shot to the Fed that it had better pony up or some inconvenient exposure will be brought to its activities. What I find strange in this forum is how skeptical some members are about manipulation -- when it is clear, to me at least, that all markets are manipulated in illegal ways. When gangsters turn on one another, this stuff tends to happen.

 

That's not my understanding of the repeal of Glass-Steagall. With its repeal, according to Nomi Prins and other sources of mine, investment and regular banks effectively merged, allowing customer deposits to be used as collateral for highly-leveraged and risky investments.

I don't believe it's controversial at all to state that banks have a lot of input and sway in Fed activities -- after all, one of the Fed's main tasks, and seemingly its top task, is to ensure that private banks remain solvent.