This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
UK Treasury Relases FOIA On Gordon Brown's 1998 Gold Sale, Catches Tony Blair Lying, Questions US Treasury's Good Delivery Standards
One of the bigger stories in the UK over the past several days, has been the increasing pressure on Prime Minister Gordon Brown to justify his sale of 395 tons of gold in 17 auctions in the period from 1998 through 2002, when Brown was Chancellor of the Exchequer, a role identical to the one Tim Geithner now performs in the US as Treasury Secretary. The issue is that in the abovementioned period, gold was trading at the rock bottom prices of the past two decades, and as such his rush to sell is estimated to have cost UK taxpayers £6 billion. One reason previously given to Parliament, to explain the transactions from Treasury ministers and Tony Blair was that the sale was made 'on the technical advice of the Bank of England.' Today the UK Treasury has released long-withheld FOIA documents which disprove this claim, and indicate that in fact the BOE was if not completely against selling the bullion then certainly waiting until the price improved. Furthermore, as the Daily Mail reports, "A source close to the Bank of England said last night: 'It was not our
decision. It was their decision and we simply provided technical
advice. Then it was up to them.'" Yet, in light of recent LBMA manipulation revelations by GATA, it was most likely the association itself and its member banks which pressed the then relatively new Chancellor to do something against the interest of his people, potentially with promises of further rank extension in the "public services" arena. So far, they have not disappointed.
As part of the FOIA, (Full document attached below) it becomes clear that Brown attempted at least 4 tried to persuade the BOE to proffer a joint proposal from the Treasury and the Bank Of England as pertains to English gold sales in the late 1998 period. And even as the FOIA submission is now making the round, there is still a critical redaction. To wit, from the Daily Mail:
Two days before Christmas 1998 - just a month before the sale was
announced - a senior Treasury official wrote to the department's then
permanent secretary Gus O'Donnell: 'The Chancellor is keen that
officials at the Treasury and the Bank work together to produce a joint
proposal. As I understand it the latest proposal is not a joint one.
'The
Chancellor needs to know the status of the proposal, what the
difficulties are in drawing up a joint proposal, how you think we can
move forward in achieving a joint proposal.'
Three weeks
later Mr Brown met the then Bank Governor Lord George for lunch to
discuss the plan. But the outcome of the talks is unclear because the
Treasury has blacked out a key section of the only note referring to
it.
Lord George offered only the most lukewarm endorsement
of the decision at the time, telling MPs it was a 'perfectly reasonable
portfolio decision'.
If he had refused to agree to the sale he would almost certainly have had to resign.
Surely, Gordon Brown, facing with some very daunting poll numbers ahead of upcoming elections, will now have even more explaining to do.
Yet what mostly caught our attention was Annex #29 to a Bank Of England paper from September 28, 1998, in which the following was said:
The US treasury sold gold in two spells, two auctions of 23 and 15 tonnes in 1975, which were not continued in 1976 as the IMF auctions were announced and the spot price fell; a larger programme of 491 tonnes during 1978-1979 as the gold price rose sharply. Indeed the second programme was extended three times as demand for gold continued to push up the spot price. The US Treasury used a multi-price auction system initially with open bids, but switched to closed bigs by the end because open bids were causing market disruption [can't have a transparent market now, can we]. The auctions in 1979 offered two grades of gold: 995 fine and 900 fine. It is not clear whether this was a market-driven switch, or whether it reflected the US Treasury's preference.
Now correct us if we are wrong, but (London) Good Delivery standards by the LBMA have called for 995 and higher fineness since time immemorial. How is it that the US Treasury decided to dilute the content of its gold dispositions precisely at the time when gold prices were surging. And, more relevantly, why? Recall that in the period January 1979 - January 1980 gold price/toz went from $240 to $850! Did the US, for whatever reason forced to sell into the run up, need to dilute gold holdings due to a massive shortage of physical? By doing so, did the UST force buyer to sign "big boy" letters fully acknowledging that they were getting less than Good Delivery gold? Was this 10% dilution merely the first step in what Adrian Douglas recently highlighted would be the transition of gold claims holders into general unsecured creditors? If a 4x run up in gold forced the US Treasury to enact a 10% real dilution in gold, what would happen if gold surged 40x? Would the fineness of the adjusted "good delivery" drop to 100 or lower? Forget the LBMA and the threat of physical dilution - a much more relevant question is just how much of the alleged US gold holdings of 8133.5 tonnes is actually real. Surely, the question of just how much gold is there below the HSBC building in New York's Bryant Park, and below the FRBNY has never been more relevant.
- 25626 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -


this reminds me of the scene in the movie Austin Powers where Dr Evil comes back from being frozen and demands "$1 million dollars" or else he will destroy the world.
Yeah, 6 billion pounds, who cares? But the fact is, it was 395 tonnes of gold. That's why it was a rip-off of the British people. That's why heads should roll today. Unforgivable.
But it also points out the fact that gold is vastly under-valued. It's a screaming buy at $1110/troy oz.
.
This is no small story, the peoples' gold was sold under questionable circumstances to questionable buyers at multi decade bottom prices. The web of lies is being exposed. There wasn't any internet then, and much more controls were in place on information that circulated to the people. This is more high level deceit and theft, and the indigenous people of England are again the victims.
I must try and stay calm or my blood pressure will start to rise, but it seems this is just another example of Tony Blair acting in interests other than of the British people. Even now, a few years after his departure it is still hard to fathom who exactly Blair was working for. Maybe, we will find out he was actually a US asset, placed in the heart of the Labour Party, where people would least expect him to be. His appointment at JP Morgan would support this idea. Say what you like about the Queen of England, but she is a good judge of character, and she never liked Blair.
There is an interesting story from GATA below, which may hint that the decision by European central banks to cease leasing gold meant that some of the banks that were keeping the price low were in serious trouble, so the sale was hurried through. Now, if this was the case, you would hope Blair and Brown extracted some benefit in return for this, but we will probably never know the full story
http://www.gata.org/node/4210
I very well may have seriously misunderstood something, but unless my understanding (which is repeated here http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_999_on_a_silver_coin_mean ) is wrong, going from 0.995 fine to 0.990 fine is a reduction in gold content of 0.5%, not 10%.
Seems to me it's just not worth it refining existing 0.990 bars to get that extra 0.005 fineness. The cost of re-refining would be many multiples the increase of the price of the bar.
At best it meant they had to dig out some really old, dusty bars to make delivery (and arm twist a bit to get them accepted). Which could be significant.
They went from .995 fine to .900 fine which was a 9.5 % decrease in gold content. I know if I were shelling out $1100 an ounce for a kilo bar I'd want that f@ker (no link but I thought faker was more apt here) to be .9999.
1930's coin melt baby. This Ft. Knox, it does not mean what you think it means...
Moreover, I bet the 1970's USA gold sales referenced here where not even declared publicly. This is shop talk from the Fed to the BoE that was not meant to be put on paper. Someone smarter than me can access whether my belief is true or not.
I remember hearing nothing about these sales, but I was a pup. Volcker famously made a statement about how they "should never have let gold get so high" or something.
If you think it was a mistake to allow a price to get too high, you are implying you have control of said price.
"It was probably a mistake to allow gold to rise so high."
-- Paul Volcker, ex Federal Reserve Chairman in looking back at the rise of gold from $35 to $850 during the 1970s, per "Paul Volcker: The Making of a Financial Legend" by Joseph B. Treaster
If you talk about joint intervention, you are talking about a concerted effort by multiple parties. This could also be known as a conspiracy.
"Joint intervention in gold sales to prevent a steep rise in the price of gold, however, was not undertaken. That was a mistake."
Paul Volcker,from the Nikkei Weekly, which in 2004 published excerpts from his memoirs commenting on monetary policy and the rising gold price in the 1970s
That pretty much sums it up like a mathematician.
Logician, but yeah. That the idea that joint intervention could have been on the table tells volumes.
RICO?
Moreover, I bet the 1970's USA gold sales references here where not even declared publicly. This is shop talk from the Fed to the BoE that was not meant to be put on paper. Someone smarter than me can access whether my belief is true or not.
The .900 fine is "coin melt" of US gold coin that has always been 9/10ths. They were selling bars that were made from melting US gold coin or Latin Union coins if they had them.
It wasn't a conspiracy. They simply could not supply refined gold to Good Delivery standard.
This.
To me this sounds clearly like coin melt. Probably from what they had from FRDs looting. While I'm no fan of the government we don't know if they cheated customers at a 10% haircut either. But we have records of govs selling into the market to keep the price down. God bless them keep that price down and out of the hands of the banks and looters.
Why wouldn't they have been able to refine their .900 coin gold up to .995 before casting the bars though? Were they in a hurry or something? (I really don't know.)
Speed might have been an issue. It might also have been they did not want to be seen casting new bars. Casting new bars for sale might have had a few people talking and that word getting out would have been counter productive to keeping gold down. After all if the public knew they were scrambling to get gold together to sell, and if it is thought to keep the price down that would draw buyers to take advantage.
Awh shucks. That simple huh? You shouda wroten the story.
Moreover, likey the gold of We The People looted from my grandparents.
looted is a bit strong but paying them $22 an ounce and, when all who were going to turn it in turned it in, raising the price to $35 does seem a little sneaky. probably realized he wasn't losing any votes.
Looted describes it perfectly. It's an overt act of theft under color of authority. They knew they were going to devalue gold, they "paid" them $20.67 an ounce, then promptly devalued the paper they'd just given them by 70% by revaluing the gold to $35.00 an ounce. Instant hyperinflation! Theft from, and punishment of, prudent savers! It was the most immoral thing imaginable. Whether it was "lawful" or not doesn't really matter, does it? It was an act meant to maintain the status quo power structure. It wasn't done for the good of the people, it was done for the good of the upper class. It was done as an alternative to admitting that governments are incompetent and not to be trusted.
"Whether it was "lawful" or not doesn't really matter, does it?"
Thank you for saying that. True scoundrels will make sure whatever they do is "within the law" even if that means paying off the authorities to declare it so. The USA and most of the rest of the world has deliberately moved away from "common law" which is not just simple law but law that upholds the commonly held sense of proper justice and moved to "law of precedent" or worse, laws specifically written to allow certain behavior the law makers would not want the general public to participate in.
Hardly the definition of justice.
Actually was not lawful. IIRC FDR started looting it and they passed the law allowing the looting after the fact to legitimize it. Also one can argue it's unconstitutional because that was the first break away from gold and silver as money that would be finished in in the 70s. But as CD points out what is lawful is what they can get away with. Having a monopoly on force and violence lets one get away with a lot. He who has the gun makes the rules.
Many thanks SWRichmond.
In 1933 new President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed a bill forcing all the American people, to hand over all their gold at base rate. With the exception of rare coins. He disowned himself from the bill claiming to not have read it and his secretary of the treasury claimed this was "what the experts wanted".
exactly. If they didnt know what they were doing why is there always cash settlement availability in the event of not being able to deliver the hard commodity. Only reason is so that when it blows up and there is a default they get to claim some force majeure action and pay you off in paper while the market is closed with a 'holiday' and then when it reopens its a hell of a lot higher than before.
It's simple because it's normal for the state to loot it citizens. Look at history and you will see that governments rob their people constantly under all manner of pretenses. Must be nice to have the monopoly on force and violence!
Yeah, right. This means they couldn't get the price they wanted, so they chose to dictate it. The hidden hand fixes everything.
"redaction" and "To wit,..." and right beside one another, beautiful.
(Could not help myself, must be the drink.)
Another great article
Does it seem that things are cracking slowly. We seem to have a little more info daily. Thanks for the article info.
New article worth reading just posted - http://www.fofoa.blogspot.com/
Read through the history, you just might catch gold fever.
Got gold?
Something important has changed. Can you feel it? It started about 12 months ago and has changed more in the last month alone than it did in the previous 12 months, and more in the previous 12 months than in the past 12 years.
Can you figure out what it is?
While I expect history will point at several events, I believe the Barrick capitulation was the seminal event. Why? Because it was public, and it was the sort of event that caught the attention of the "investor class". I firmly believe that there are two reasons why the dollar hasn't broken: one is the financial class is completely invested in the dollar / Wall Street / geopolitical regime, and the other reason is that the investor class is the stupidest bunch of herd-instinct fucks imaginable. The Barrick capitulation was a public announcement that the gold suppression scheme had failed. Some of the investor class actually noticed, and the subject of gold became more "respectable". Events accelerated after it occurred. This is also when the number of radical Internet dollar bugs noticeably increased.
Yes, that same FOFOA paragraph struck me last night too. When he asked if we could figure it out, the only thing I could think of was the recent exposé of the COMEX manipulations (well, I was drinking too).
It amazes me that practically every day how much more I learn about gold and how corrupt our financial and .gov systems are.
Gordon Gecko's comment yesterday about how the "gold mothership" was quite the metaphor. I should have junked him! LOL
I've found FOFOA an interesting read but I always laughed about his price range. I'm not laughing as much anymore with revelation that the "physical" market is 100 to 1 fractional. Sure greed makes me think "Man it would be cool if my PMs moon shot" but then I also have to worry about what will society look like if/when gold rockets to the moon if the fractional system breaks.
Bliar now surely has to be the most discredited PM in our once proud nation's history.
Yet the conservatives likely won't be able to earn a majority. How much damage has New Labour done? Civil liberties, privacy, debt..
Well I hope if Brown wins again he'll do us a solid and sell the rest of UK's gold in a similar stunningly stupid manner. How did this loser fail his way to the top? Was he even ever elected for anything? I mean at least Bush was elected governor of Texas.
Of course! Like almost everyone to hold a UK cabinet post (other than Lord Chancellor) recently, he's a member of the House of Commons. He's MP for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath.
Guys - Forgive Me - So Sorry to Jac any post....
But I don't have my own forum and this is the one forum I pledge my allegiance too everyday.
So..... just wanted to get this out there and hope it helps a few people who are dealing with how to answer this query from our GOV.
Here ya' go
Census Rebutal
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Re: 2010 Census
@ 1234 Main St.
Any Where, USA 50001
To: United States Department of Commerce
U.S.Census Bureau
Dear Sir or Madame,
At the present time, there are (X) full time occupants residing in the above referenced address.
Pursuant to Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution that is the only information you are empowered to request. Our “name, sex, age, date of birth, race, ethnicity, telephone number, relationship and housing tenure” have absolutely nothing to do with apportioning direct taxes or determining the number of representatives in the House of Representatives. Therefore, neither Congress nor the Census Bureau has the constitutional authority to make that information request a component of the enumeration outlined in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution.
Furthermore, I/We cannot be subject to a fine or penalty for basing our conduct on the Constitution, because the U.S. Constitution trumps all laws passed by Congress.
Please reference the United States Supreme Court ruling:
Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson,
154 U.S. 447, 479 (May 26, 1894)
Please… Do NOT send any census taker in person to my door as I will just give them the same printed note and ask them to leave my property. You may then take any legal action deemed constitutional.
Thank you,
Occupant
P.S. (By the way, the above 116 year Supreme court ruling has NEVER been overturned.)
i.e. Further Supreme Court Rulings on the subject;
Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 190.
Boyd v. U.S., 116 U. S. 616, 630, 6 Sup. Ct. 524,
Re Pacific Ry. Commission, 32 Fed. 241, 250,
.
Thank you. I knew the form was illegal but didn't have the codes.
The trash is another way of handling the problem.
notice how the only question on the census form that is inside a box is the # of occupants? every other question is outside the box. sneaky sneaky.
Yes I noticed that, and only answered that question.
had an argument with my partner about it (filling out the entire form vs. not sending it at all). we compromised at just filling out the box. we'll see if the hired help come knockin in May asking for more.
Also--Canada sold almost 700 metric tons from 1980-2000
Take it for what its worth-but--some people--point out- using some good evidence-that the gold dumping was engineered-to bring down the Soviet Union--
Oil also went from $40 to $8-as the Saudies and Kuwaiti's flooded the market--
Gold and Oil were Russias biggest exports--
They did collapse--
The story is old--but so is this topic--
http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/steer/2004/images/CAgoldres...
http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/steer/2004/0915.html
http://www.lemetropolecafe.com/Authorlinkdocs/1672.htm
Putin is waiting for payback, but not passively. He has been arranging oil deals with China — in their respective currencies, that is, not using US dollars.
Putin has been actively buying large amounts of kilo gold bars for a few years now, massively increasing Russia's reserves.
To answer a question from another thread. Yes blogs are relevant...
I could say we just need to get physical delivery and call the bluff of the Western central bank printing presses. But I doubt that the gold market is any different than other products in general. The old 80% of your business is 20% of your customers adage is probably true for gold as well. I hope at some point one of the 20% stumble across this blog and start to take delivery of the gold bars they have bought. It would be nice to think that my purchases will make a difference but I doubt it.
One by one. Bit by bit. Ounce by ounce.
A tree just fell in the woods and was heard by all the main players, right round the world.
Yes, you make a difference, so double your efforts in convincing your family and friends of this historic inflection point, so that your decision to fight is amplified.
By all accounts, we are a small minority with the knowledge of this news (The whistle blower at the CFTC) and it is our role to spread it.
Go ZH, go GATA.
The fact that England had to buy Euro and support the EU common currency in terms of the resolutions they agreed to wouldn't have something to do with this would it?
No that would not make a good story for GATA .. and the other AU nuts ..
Now Blair (who I do not like) may not be a liar ... as the AU was sold with the technical advice on pricing tendered by BoE... Brown (who I definitely think is a wet squib) basically had no choice but to sell an assets and replace with mainly Euro ... or be fined ..
You cannot have your cake and eat it too .. either in the EU or not .. simple .. you will find that other EU countries had also sold AU so that they could have the minimum Euro holdings.
ok so why sell the peoples gold at the lowest price in close to two decades for the euro buy in? are you that naive to believe that rationale and to think that blairs actions were based soley on "technical advice?"....in the end you will find that the "Au nuts" were not nuts at all... and all along you were just another sheep in a government induced coma..
Yes Aurum. Pity that England signed into the EU and had to make a commitment as did the other countries.
You wish that you had the correct answer but are clutching at straws.
I do not trust any Government but two things:-
1. The UK had to comply with the EU treaty and buy Euro .. which they didnt have and
2. You are the one making the assumptions without any facts ...
Now on the first point there is evidence and on the second point ... assumptions lead to false conclusions ...
"The fact that England had to buy Euro and support the EU common currency in terms of the resolutions they agreed to wouldn't have something to do with this would it?"
And why did England have to buy Euro currency? Look deeper.
how do we know blair and brown lied about gold sales
watch the mouth move ..
lol. excellent.
Who is the benefited recipient of the sales? That is, who bought the gold? Could it have been the Rothchilds?
The gold was made available to cover their (and another bank's--I forget which one) short positions, yes. In exchange, they agreed to leave the market, which they did in 2004. Now the whole suppression scheme is being held up by JPMorgan. This is probably why it is failing. If they had more manpower, gold might still be at $300/oz.
Yes, why should the chosen ones have to pay market price. Those that have cash money rule the world. The strikethrough on cash isn't working, but I think you get my point.
Brown and Blair deserve some time in the tower of london with a bad assed medieval torturer. Only way they will ever see fit to tell the truth.
mmm, that HSBC reference got me thinking. HSBC got a foothold in the US through the purchase of Republic Bank. that was 1999. wonder how much of that hedge book they inherited from Republic?
Recently I listend to Sprott on King World News. This gives a lot of credence to what he said about one day the CB's are going to wake up and realize they don't have as much gold as they claimed.
A close friend of mine bought Gold just after the biggest sale and moved it into his pension - he's still long.
I moved part of mine into Gold at around $330 - I'm still long.
I'm voting Labour in the upcoming UK elections - I want them to reap what they've sown. If Conservatives (or Lib-Dems?!) get in, they will have to do some very hard and unpopular things, which would almost guarantee Labour being re-elected in the subsequent General Election.
DavidC
In Oz. labour f%$ks up and liberal fixes up ....
If he's not in physical possession, he doesn't have any. He has a piece of paper saying he has some.
Even a caveman would not have sold Au at the bottom...
Unless the caveman knew of a couple of bullion dealers trading through the LBMA that were in deep trouble, threatening to take down the entire exchange unless their shorts could be covered at much lower prices...
I'm gettin a kick out of watching people go long PMs just before a 3 day weekend !
Is that confidence or what ?
y bbbilly1326
on Thu, 04/01/2010 - 09:11
#283046
I'm gettin a kick out of watching people go long PMs just before a 3 day weekend !
Is that confidence or what ?
*************************************
Fear
Gold's oldest and dearest friend--
yep, and now ours too...........
It was theft pure and simple.
PUBLIC gold into PRIVATE hands at insane prices.
Short gold into the ground. Publicly announce the sales driving it even further down.
Thanks for the gumball.
Didn't GS go public about that time? Wonder what they did with the money?
Blair now on £50,000/week from JP Morgan in London. Turns up once a month and doesn't do any work, just drinks coffee and talks to young traders.
Blair was in on the deal just as much as Brown. Maybe he had to hand over the PM-ship to Brown as part of it.
When was the last time Fort Knox was audited? I heard during Eisenhowers presidency. WTF is wrong with us?
Was Fort Knox robbed of thousands of tons of gold?
This incredible story focuses on some 165.1 million ounces of gold which the United States allegedly lost between 1961 and 1971.
In a London Sunday Express article, which appeared on December 13, 1981, the writer quoted Dr. Peter Beter who believes the theft occurred in the late 1960s when the United States, a leading member of the London Gold Pool agreement, transferred 233.4 million ounces from Fort Knox to the Federal Reserve Bank in New York and London's Bank of England. Dr.. Beter was a financial adviser to the late President John Kennedy and a legal adviser to the American Gold Association and the American Export-Import Bank, according to the report.
According to the article, 23.1 million ounces were accounted for at the Federal Reserve Bank while another 45.2 million ounces arrived safely in England. The destination of the remaining 165.1 million ounces is unknown and Dr. Beter states that attempts to learn what happened have been "stonewalled" by treasury officials.
Jerry Nisenson, Deputy Director of Gold Market Activities at the Treasury Department, said: "We have investigated the claims of Dr. Beter and his supporters and we contend that the gold was not stolen. There is no cover-up. They have misinterpreted our books. The gold was being refined into better quality gold and those ounces just went up the chimney."
Edward Durell, identified as an Ohio industrialist, sheep farmer, and active Republican, supported Dr. Beter's claims, saying he believes the gold was shipped abroad, probably "to the Bank of England, and from there to an unknown destination."
The possibility of irregularities at the U.S. Assay Office in New York, through which all the gold was shipped, was noted in a brief item in Money, in January, 1980: "Loser: The Treasury Department, which reported $1 million in gold missing from the U.S. Assay Office in New York in 1978. The department said the federal investigators 'just could not tell what happened'."
The "missing gold" issue has been a hot one in America's conservative press but not widely publicized elsewhere. The apparent failure of the U.S. government to either prove that the gold is not missing or to explain what happened to it qualifies this for nomination as a "best censored" story of 1981.
SOURCES:
London Sunday Express, 12/13/81, "U.S. Probes 'Fort Knox Robbery'," by David Markham; Money, 1/80, "Loser: The Treasury Department;" Silver and Gold Report, an independent newsletter, 7/81, "Is Our Gold Still in Fort Knox?".
My continued rant! WTF did we let FDR take our gold during the '30's? Why did we and do we let the centralized government fuck us over and over ad infinitum? My testosterone is spiking after my killer weight training today and fueled by ZH and Radio Zero!
FORT KNOX
In 1933 new President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed a bill forcing all the American people, to hand over all their gold at base rate. With the exception of rare coins. He disowned himself from the bill claiming to not have read it and his secretary of the treasury claimed this was "what the experts wanted".
Bought at bargain basement price with money produced from nothing by the Federal Reserve, the gold was melted down and stacked in the newly built bullion depository called Fort Knox. Once collected in 1935 the price of gold was raised from $20.66 up to $35 per ounce, but only non American gold qualified to be sold. This meant those who had avoided the crash by investing in gold they had shipped to London could now nearly double their money while the rest of America starved.
But that's not all folks. By the end of WWII Fort Knox did hold 70% of the world's gold, but over the years it was sold off to the European money changers while a public audit of Fort Knox reserves was repeatedly denied.
Rumours spread about missing gold.
"Allegations of missing gold from our Fort Knox vaults are being widely discussed in European circles. But what is puzzling is that the Administration is not hastening to demonstrate conclusively that there is no cause for concern over our gold treasure - if indeed it is in a position to do so."
Edith Roosevelt
Finally in 1981 President Ronald Reagan was convinced to have a look into Fort Knox with a view to re-introducing the Gold Standard. He appointed a group called The Gold Commission. They found that the US Treasury owned no gold at all.
All the Fort Knox gold remaining is now being held as collateral by the Federal Reserve against the national debt. Using credits made from nothing. The Fed had robbed the largest treasure of gold on earth.
Now people, all through the last 50 years there have been allegations and we have heard that OUR, as in "WE, the people's" gold is NOT in Fort Knox. Here is another link
http://www.projectcensored.org/static/1981/1981-story22.htm
"Did the US, for whatever reason forced to sell into the run up, need to dilute gold holdings due to a massive shortage of physical? By doing so, did the UST force buyer to sign "big boy" letters fully acknowledging that they were getting less than Good Delivery gold?"
Tyler, when you offer to buy .900 fine you offer spot x 0.9. They would not have paid full price for a lesser "grade", that is why two difference grades were specified. You should get your posts on precious metals vetted by someone with practical experience in those markets to avoid this sort of embarrassment.
Good linux hosting option package offered by ucvhost which not only provides the best in terms of hosting packages but also believes in truly being there for the customer, 24x7. windows vps Moreover , they offer unlimited bandwidth as well as nearly 1GB storage along with database maintenance, email facility along with storage, availability of sub domain and many other important features for a very low price. ucvhost
Its one of the good platform for awareness of people. Keep sharing such stuff in the future too. xbox 360 s
I found lots of interesting information here. The post was professionally written and I feel like the author has extensive knowledge in the subject. Keep it that way masters in athletic administration