Guest Post: Gold Manipulation: The Logical Outcome Of Mainstream Economics Part 1

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Martin Sibileau of A View from the Trenches blog,

This is the first of three articles I will post on the suppression of gold. What drives me to write about the topic? I am tired of seeing endless proof of suppression (i.e. the typical take downs in the price at either 8:20am ET or at 10am-11am ET, with impressive predictability) and at the same time, it is unfair that anyone who voices this suppression be called a conspiracy theorist. Therefore, these three letters will give a rigorous theoretical support to the claim.

The first letter will show that, under mainstream economic theory, the suppression of the gold market is not a conspiracy theory, but a logical necessity, a logical outcome. From the publication of this letter onwards, the onus to prove the contrary will fall upon mainstream economists. The conspiracy theory will actually be the opposite: To claim that suppressing gold is not necessary.

The second letter will show how that suppression takes place. For those familiar with the gold market, this letter will offer nothing new and perhaps, it will even be incomplete. But at the macro level, I will seek to offer an insight.

The third letter will examine the consequences of this suppression and rigorously, prove that the claim of the gold bugs, namely that physical gold will trade at a premium over fiat gold or gold paper is also not a conspiracy theory, but the logical outcome of the current paradigm.

Before I begin, I would like to say that I think proving the logical implication from mainstream economics that gold needs to be suppressed is perhaps comparable to Von Mises demonstration of the impossibility of economic calculation under socialism. Both are very intuitive, of consequence, and a necessary intellectual step. Without further ado, let’s start with the first thesis: The suppression of gold is a logical necessity, under mainstream economics.

Axioms of mainstream economics

1.-Policy makers believe that there exists a general level of prices, and it can be measured by a price index (Ludwig Von Mises absolutely demolished this notion, but this is outside the scope of this letter. What is relevant is that price indices are “measured” and published by every nation and the market trades on them).

2.-Policy makers believe that in the long term, growth in the supply of money is neutral (Even David Hume laughed at this notion back in 1752)

3.-Policy makers use the general-equilibrium framework introduced by Léon Walras

4.-There exists a gold market and within this market, there are investors who see gold as money, as gold has been money for thousands of year

5.-In global trade, there is no relevant single price index, but relative prices, affected by cross exchange rates.


If axioms 1-5 hold, both a global monetary coordination (as opposed to currency wars) as well as the suppression of the price of gold are required, for the global economic system to remain stable.


Between 1874 and 1877, the works of Léon Walras introduced the notion of general equilibrium in Economics. Considered by Schumpeter as “the greatest economist”, in 1874 Walras published “Éléments d’économie politique pure, ou théorie de la richesse sociale”, as he was teaching in Lausanne. His work examined the conditions necessary to reach equilibrium in an economic system, based on a system of simultaneous equations. To this day, mainstream economists, including those at the helm of central banks, rely on the framework of general equilibrium to work out the theses on which their policies are based.

For obvious reasons, I cannot be exhaustive and therefore fair to M. Walras in this short article. Briefly, general equilibrium in an economic system with (n+1) markets implies that if the first n markets are in equilibrium, the last market, n+1, must be in equilibrium as well. In the same fashion but at an aggregate level, if the n markets show an excess of demand (supply), the (n+1) market must have an excess of supply (demand) large enough to offset the sum of the excesses of the n markets. This conclusion is known as the Applied to our context, if we think of the (n+1) market as the global money market and the same is oversupplied because every central bank is monetizing sovereign debt, it must hold that the rest of the markets, on aggregate, must be overdemanded for the world economy to be in equilibrium. That is exactly what policy makers believe they can achieve. To be precise, I shall call here the global money market to the aggregate of fiat currency markets.

<a data-cke-saved-href="" href="" _law"="">Later on, in 1949, another economist, Don Patinkin published a work titled “The Indeterminacy of Absolute Prices in Classical Economic Theory“, on Econometrica. Patinkin decisively demonstrated that under the Walrasian analysis, the absolute level of prices cannot be determined and that markets clear (i.e. supply meets demand) driven by relative prices. Indeed, the whole notion of a price index is flawed. As Rothbard pointed out:

“…After one commodity, say gold, is chosen to be the medium for all exchanges, every other good except gold will enjoy a unitary price, so that we know that the price of eggs is one dollar a dozen; the price of a hat is ten dollars, and so on. But while every good and service except gold now has a single price in terms of money, money itself has a virtually infinite array of individual prices in terms of every other good and service. To put it another way, the price of any good is the same thing as its purchasing power in terms of other goods and services…(…) In short, the price, or purchasing power, of the money unit will be an array of the quantities of alternative goods and services that can be purchased for a dollar. Since the array is heterogeneous and specific, it cannot be summed up in some unitary price- level figure…” The Austrian Theory of Money, 1976

In other words, agents do not bother about a price index, because they only look at relative prices. At this point, one has to make the following observations:

a)      We cannot blame Walras. When he wrote, the world was a different place. There was sound money and in 1879, the gold standard would fully blossom. Indeed, with commodity-based money and no aggregate leverage or re-hypothecation the sorts of which we suffer today, imbalances were less pronounced and relative prices were all what mattered (It is necessary to clarify here that the gold standard of 1879 did not enforce a 100% reserve requirement. These two conditions, as far as I know, where only met during the golden time of the Bank of Amsterdam).

b)      In the world of fiat money that Patinkin was familiar with, the illusion of the existence of a level of prices was relevant. It was a world of relatively closed economies, that ended with the birth of the likes of Wal-Mart. More than half its population lived under communism, there was relatively little outsourcing, no internet, no Euro zone, no NAFTA or other free-trade blocks.

But if axiom 5 is correct, in a fiat world with the integration which we still enjoy, Walras’ implied condition that markets can operate based on relative prices only, namely cross fx rates, should hold. Mainstream economists after all could not point to a global price index which does not exist. Most if not all goods are made with components/inputs produced in different currency zones with different local price levels, as measured by mainstream economists. There is no global consumer price index, unless one (like me) measures everything in ounces of gold.

In such a context, it is conceivable and necessary to look at the global economic system as a set of (n+1) markets where the last one, the (n+1) market is the global fiat money market. As long as this market remains balanced, the rest of the markets should not be impacted by global monetary policy.

To obtain the global money market in balance, there must be global monetary policy coordination. Currency wars should be clearly discouraged. Under mainstream economics, there is a benefit in achieving balance at an aggregate level, where the excess of demand in a currency is offset by an excess of supply in another currency. This is what we have observed between the US dollar and Euro currency zones. This is a direct implication of axioms 1-5…But what about the manipulation of the gold market?

When we consider gold as an additional currency, it is clear that its imbalance, for instance, an excess in the demand of it, has to be offset by the opposite imbalance in fiat currencies, if the global money market is to remain in equilibrium. If gold is demanded more than is supplied, fiat currencies will have to be supplied more than demanded. In similar fashion, if there is global coordination to maintain the global fiat money markets balanced at an aggregate level, gold must be also balanced.

But balance is not what policy makers (i.e. central bankers) are looking for these days. They see an imbalance in the n markets for goods and seek to address it with another imbalance in the global fiat money market. They want to induce an excess of demand on the real side of the economic system through an excess of supply in the global fiat money market. But as money is simply another necessary good, people need sound money; a sound asset as a medium of indirect exchange. If  the idea of central bankers is to weaken the liabilities of the banks they lead, people will simply switch to gold. This, of course, is unacceptable to the existing rulers. Therefore, it is hereby demonstrated that to either keep the status quo (i.e. global fiat money market balanced) or to boost an excess demand in real assets, it is a logical necessity to manipulate the gold market; either to leave it balanced or oversupplied.


Having demonstrated that if axioms 1-5 are true, the manipulation of the gold market is a logical outcome, I want to make a final observation. If global coordination of currencies would leave the global fiat money market balanced, the balance in the rest of the markets would entirely depend of fiscal policy.

But there is an inconsistency here, because the flow and stock of fiat money in most if not all currency zones today are governed by fiscal policy (i.e. by the monetization of fiscal deficits). Therefore, to enforce a balance in the global fiat money market via coordination of central banks is impossible. What may be feasible is to coordinate the expansion in the supply of global fiat money. But if that is the case, we fall back to my proposition: that the manipulation of the gold market to leave it oversupplied is the logical outcome. To pretend it is not…is a conspiracy theory! The onus is on mainstream economists, to prove me wrong.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
LawsofPhysics's picture

What a load of crap.  The thesis is simple really.  When fraud is the status quo, possession is the law.  Gold is only worthless if you really think that no one would be willing to share the fruits of their labor in exchange for some gold.  many years of history is pretty clear on this.

knukles's picture

One of my uber-liberal statist pals asked me the other day; "Knuks, why the hell would you be investing in gold if it's a rigged market?"
Which for someone who is a gubamint worker, has everything handed to them on silver platters stolen from the public and knows little of economic reality is actually a very good question, no?
So I explained it to him.... 
He looked at me askance and asked why I just don't own stocks or bonds, then?  Implying no manipulation.
From thence I proceeded to explain how the ES, S&P, et al were manipulated, how bond prices are being manipulated...
And he said...

Naw, that can't happen here!
They wouldn't do that!

I didn't feel like explaining it all over again, so I took the skins I won from him and went home.

Which actually helped strike home to me that they're all bloody manipulated.  Free markets, pshaw.
While I'd known it, the true breadth and magnitude of the crimes had never been clearer.


And this is why we're frightened of a buncha rag heads in caves somewhere...

fonzannoon's picture

knukles if your buddy was a true lib gubbamint worker worth his salt he would be asking you that while he was not counting his 2 shots out of the trap and giving himself a 4 footer for the skin.

That's how they do it around here.

knukles's picture

I have in the past pointed out to him on days he's having a great round and I not so much, why he won't take some of my strokes as in redistributing the wealth for purposes of more equal results, fairness and feeling good about himself.

He generally tells me to do something unnatural.
Point made.
Amazing thing is that the neo-cons and uber-liberals all try to sweet talk me and convince me to help gang up on the other guys and I just start explaining the Hegelian Dialectic and then float a highly controversial topic as an example.

They'll remain silent for a hole or two and then all of a sudden, BAM!, the argument between them (pure Dialectic) begins anew, they're distracted, play poorly and I'm a lovin' it.
Harvey Penick called it "the Needle".

It works, over and over... just like on the Big Stage with the Masses.

disabledvet's picture

Exactly. The Fed has stated "they want to INFLATE assets." I can already here them in their "2008 Plunge Protection Team War Room" making the case for "massive purchases of gold and energy futures." it's not like the dollar was collapsing then (it was soaring actually)..."the only problem would be inflation" which is where QE came in. The rhetoric here is a Bankster's dream come true! "if you really want to make him shit his pants you'd be me" hehehehehe. "nice way of saying I realized I was really wrong early on" and maintained my equity exposure. (not the first collapse I've done this actually. Did the same after 9/11.) I think where we have the problem is NOW. If the Fed (as Buying Agent 7-320-1...and no the media cannot say who that is even though they know) ramps UP gold "to get those competitive juices flowing" NOW the "conspiracy" makes sense...especially when coupled with hammering energy futures "to the moon" while "making sure Detroit who we now own produces one gas guzzler after another." nay, veerily, alas..."the ugly reality of the non-recovery remains." so whatever was being promised the President he's still left with an even BIGGER pile of bullshit than before. So again while I'm out of the equity index (for now) I'm still rooting for it..."but I am taking the Zero Hedge investing Platform and going all in" by taking a long position in Treasuries...something that has thirty years of mo behind it "and a very compelling data set in the immediate term."

FEDbuster's picture

I'll take the Russian and Chinese side of this trade.  Keep pushing the price down, so I can stack more in my safe.  No margin, no re-hypothication, no leasing, no counter party, etc....

The Second Rule's picture

None of this will end until we stop putting money ($) on a a throne and granting it the power of divinity. Money has no magical power other than what we confer upon it. The Fed is engaged in what is now, post-Jeckyl Island, a century long burlesque act of plate spinning (coupled with a 95% real reduction in the value of the USD). Everyone knows that at some point the plates will come crashing to the floor. We've all seen the act before, and that's how the act always ends. But we never seem to grow tired of the plate-meisters spinning the plates. We're just fixated, thinking that somehow they will pull it off...this time. Of course, not true. At some point we probably will revert to some monetary system based on something that is real: maybe bbls of oil, maybe gold, maybe time itself (a la the movie). Who knows. I'll make another prediction. At some point the debt-slate will be wiped clean, Jubilee style, across the planet, for everything: student loans, home loans, credit cards, taxes, all of it. I hate using words like HOPE, but hopefully that will be the utter end of money that loses value over time--without a doubt the most insane human invention in the history of insane human inventions.

Slightly Insane's picture


If I had any uber liberal statist pals ..... either I would have eaten them ... or buried them (jokingly of course), but in the future, maybe not so jokingly.


In the future, when the deer run short, you may invite your friend over for dinner.

Slightly Insane's picture

You fucked up again .... Gold is what you (the holder of it) deems it is worth ... no one else.  It is ... what will you trade it for ..... in times of utter starvation .... gold has little value .... unless there is someone willing to trade you food for it ..... so in an absence of food .... gold .... has little meaning.  The concept realy is simple ..... needs for wants.

JOYFUL's picture

you are correct LawsofPhysics...this baffling display of b.s. has all of the heavy-handed pendantry of "austrianism" at it's worst, and none of the graceful tracing of economic forces and the events of history that can be gained from reading the works of some of that schools' more cogent practitioners.

Case in point:

There was sound money and in 1879, the gold standard would fully blossom. Indeed, with commodity-based money and no aggregate leverage or re-hypothecation the sorts of which we suffer today, imbalances were less pronounced and relative prices were all what mattered

Huh? "fully blossom..." And imbalances less pronounced? Commodity based money? GoldeN Age of the Bank of Amsterdam??? Put down the crac pipe son, and pull on a puff of Feteke:

"January 1, 1879, Resumption Day, when the payment of the greenback in gold (but not in silver) specie was resumed, coincided with the date when the Latin Monetary Union in Europe closed its last Mint to silver ? marking the end of the silver standard in the Western countries. The coincidence is ominous....

The silver standard did not die a natural death. It was deliberately killed. A proper search for the assassins was never carried out. January 1, 1879 (Resumption Day, when payment of the victorious Union’s currency, the greenback was resumed in gold specie ? but not in silver)." (

The author appears to be as deficient in knowledge of the most important elements of C19th economic history as he is in making a clear and cogent use of the English language. This whole piece has once again proven the timeless wisdom of that old adage - 'a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.' This guy has had way too much schoolin, and way too little exposure to the real fail.


jmcoombs's picture

JOYFUL hit the nail on the head and eloquently as well.  Only a person who has no idea what he is talking about would write such an incomprehensible piece.  Can you imagine writing a brief in a court case like that and expecting the judge to read it, let alone rule in your favor?  Absurd.  Would he rule in your favor because he simply thinks you are so damn smart?  It is like G.W.F. Hegel, who was proud that only a dozen people on earth understood his philosophy.  What a phony.  What is that saying, "To be great is to be misunderstood."  I was going to forward the piece to my buds after seeing the title (I got excited), then realized that the guy doesn't make an intelligible case.  It certainly isn't intelligible if you can't explain it to someone face to face....................Occham's Razor.  The simple answer or explanatoin is the best one. 

fonzannoon's picture

the onus is on main stream economists to be forced to give a shit.

disabledvet's picture

Damn Skippy. "many an economist sells short." but will he take OWNERSHIP? (this is no mere question or rhetorical device either...

Duffminster's picture

They don't teach the Austrian school theory in the "leading" modern universities so it is doubtful that the "mainstream economist" will "give a shit".

The article is compelling and in some ways but failed to mention the use of Gibson's paradox as a primary tool that central banks can use to help keep interest rates low (see:   Of course being the primary consumer of recent US debt, has replaced Gibson's paradox as a primary tool in my opinion.  Flooding the TBTF with massively excessive liqudity (which never makes it to the broader economy via credit expansion to the lower echlons of business and consumers) is a residual side effect of all the related purchasing activity from the primary dealers by the Fed and a major problem for the broader economy.  It is this factor coupled with the Fed's belief that a higher stock market will be a primary driver for economic growth, rather than actually getting some of the credit into the hands of small business and consumers that is very frustating to me and which I believe is largely while the policy is failing.

"...Without getting too much into theory, Gibson's Paradox has been the orthodox explanation for movements in the price of gold for a good quarter century. This orthodox explanation was crafted by Robert Barsky and Larry Summers in a famous paper called "Gibson's Paradox and the Gold Standard", and it said that gold (and other metals, especially "non-ferrous metals") is inversely correlated to real interest rates. When real interest rates go down, gold goes up.

Gibson's Paradox is actually a fairly old phenomenon mentioned by Keynes who picked it up from Gibson. Gibson had pointed out that, contrary to expectation, interest rates were strongly correlated with general price levels rather than the rate of change in those price levels.

As Barsky and Summers showed, prior to the collapse of the gold standard, if interest rates dropped, so did prices. But, since the gold standard fell in 1971 (and shortly before), when interest rates drop today, prices are likely to slow in growth or stabilize, but not fall...."

This article lays out a case for price supression based on the thinking and possibly direct influence of Larry Summer's work on Gibson's paradox and possibly as a result of his time spent in high places in DC.

There are various possible explanations for the metals manipulation.  I tend to agree with the GATA theory that the largest Bullion banks and primary dealers in conjunction with funds work in concert to implement an un-published policy of capping gold and silver prices.  I believe additionally that the debt crisis can not be resolved within the current architecture of the financial system other than through long term currency debasement by the most indebted nations.  The logical path for the uber-wealthy to protect their wealth will be through holding non-rehypothicatible money such as Gold and Silver and that part of the manipulation in paper PM markets is to provide all monied interests to scare the weak handed longs into selling their gold at these super lower prices.   When the pressure boiler builds on physical demand it will eventually create a commercial signal failure.  

What really throws me is why the Fed isn't working to get some of the cash that it is supplying to the primary dealers into the hands of small business to create jobs, stimulate growth and innovation.   I guess its for the same reason they seem to be intent on destroying the US Postal service by making them the only agency that has to pre-fund its retirement fund, they want a world dominated only by large companies that they own a stake in?

Anyway, I believe we are close to a bottom here and I look at the 10 and 20 year charts, the level of debt, the fact the Fed is the only real buyer in US debt, the situation in Europe and the increasing corruption in government everywhere and the size of the derivatives markets and the associated growing total risk and physical gold and silver make increasing sence me.

Bicycle Repairman's picture

"The logical path for the uber-wealthy to protect their wealth will be through holding non-rehypothicatible money such as Gold and Silver and that part of the manipulation in paper PM markets is to provide all monied interests to scare the weak handed longs into selling their gold at these super lower prices.   When the pressure boiler builds on physical demand it will eventually create a commercial signal failure.  "

Who are the "weak hands"?  Certainly J6P.  But how much does J6P actually own?  Not much.  So who are the "weak hands" (other uber-rich?  Governments?) and what will it take to get them to capitulate?  And when will that happen?  Can any J6P survive the shakeout?  Who needs confiscation?

Kirk2NCC1701's picture

Lt. Uhura, translation please.

Uhura:  Captain, it says we're "screwed".

Dr. McCoy?

Dr. McCoy:  Jim, I think he wants to prescribe a New World Order, based on the New FRN -- the New Feudal Reserve Note.

medium giraffe's picture

If it's called the NFR, I'll buy you a beer, but if it's the Bancor, you get the round in.  Deal?

pendragon's picture

chips on shoulders

mmc1968's picture

How come when gold moves up, is because of fundamentals.  But when gold is down, is clear manipulation?

All you preppers need to get a clue.

Confundido's picture

Oh, it's simple, really: When gold moves up, it does not do so instantly at 8:20am ET or ar 10:30am ET....otherwise, the market would kill whoever does that move for profit. And certainly, the central banks would not be involved in that trade. 

Then, imagine who would be involved in selling at those exact times...and at the same time, does not care whether it does or not make a profit....clearly not someone in the private sector or someone in the private sector, with central bank's backing.

lasvegaspersona's picture

try asking for 10 metric tons of'll likely get a call

Ask for 100 MT and you will be laughed at....

Now ask where China gets 800+ MT a year without running up the price....

Once you start asking these questions you will begin to see the problem...

Academic proof will play no role in resolving this was mentioned above, it would be up to the bankers to give a shit...

new game's picture

one would think they would change up the time of day and at least be a little sneaky...

i agree with his thesis, though.

i think they(fed banks)just don't give a fuck, cause their policy sure doesn't

help the majority.

control freaks, and if you know one, they are sub-human...

The Second Rule's picture

The mysteries of gold manipulation elude me. Because when I cross-correlate gold, oil, and the S&P they all appear to be pegged over the long term. I don't disagree there is manipulation, but I see it as $USD manipulation vs. the broad market, not "gold" specifically. Yes, you can have spikes of volatility, but PMs have always been volatile. Or am I missing something?

And I am talking normative values. I am well aware that the market adjusted for gold would be priced much lower.

jimmyjames's picture


 Yes, you can have spikes of volatility, but PMs have always been volatile. Or am I missing something?


Maybe you're looking at gold volatility on a micro scale?

It doesn't look very volatile over the long haul-remember-gold was in a bear market for 20 years prior to this-so not much volatility there either-i

The Miser's picture

The Libor scandal answers any question one may have about manipulation. 

Motorhead's picture

Shhh, you'll piss off Eric King at King World News.

But, yeah, no shit...that's the shit you see on the Yahoo message boards...."obvious" manipulation.

Whalley World's picture

your understanding of this market is truly underwhelming.

new game's picture

i am so mfk'g sick and tired of these book selling gold experts.  FUCK EM ALL.

they make money on bullion trade every which way, sell their service and pronounce themselves experts-fuck-em.

every last one of them can go suck donkey dick.

wake - up and delete these from favs and think for YOURself...

oh and the t-shirt to my left has calmed me way back down.  HONEY! are still awake :)

Banksters's picture

The paper gold to real gold is between 50/1 to 100/1.   If you think the central bankers don't have a vested interest in quashing alternatives stores of wealth, via leases, you are an imbecile.   

mmc1968's picture

One of these days I am going to show up at your house and take all of your gold while you are sleeping.

Banksters's picture

You can't have my gold, but I'll gladly give you some lead.

mmc1968's picture

Just for that, I will now take your gold and your woman.

resurger's picture

take my woman, leave my gold

FEDbuster's picture

I am sure there are a few around here that would give you some gold to take their woman.

Hulk's picture

Naw man, thats what the Tungsten is for!!!

WmMcK's picture

My woman will fill you with lead first/also.

mmc1968's picture

One of these days I am going to show up at your house and take all of your gold while you are sleeping.

lunaticfringe's picture

In order for a con to take place, there must be a mark. A sucker. If you look around and you aren't the con man, there is only one thing you can be. Savvy?

mmc1968's picture

Is that what the guy told you as your were leaving the poker game broke?

IridiumRebel's picture

Judging by the crew of "Molon Labe" folks, that would probably be a very dumb idea. 

jimmytorpedo's picture

I will send you to my gold with 1000oz bar of silver attached to your leg.

Did I mention I lost it all in a dreadful ice fishing accident?

lasvegaspersona's picture might want to reset you calendar .... central banks are not leasing anymore, they are net buyers....which is causal in this whole crazy market...

if we still had CB leasing we would not need  manipulation (as much) we could get by with good old fashioned price suppression thru increased supply. What we are witnessing now is what happens when there is NO way to increase supply. When the last seller (of physical) decides to quit selling it will be game over for the bullion banks....and the dollar.

BeerBrewer09's picture

perfect post. and if crude keeps climbing–think summer pricing–the miners will just stop producing at these supressed prices. has anyone tried to buy ammo lately?


the gun/ammo situation RIGHT NOW will be the precious metal situation in the next year.

continue buying.

SilverIsKing's picture

Because the fundamentals dictate that the price of gold should be higher so when it goes higher, they are moving in the direction of the fundamentals.  When gold gets slammed at the same exact time every day to the point at which it is obviously being held down, those who have a brain call it how they see it...manipulation.

The above doesn't apply to each and every move up and down but there is clearly plenty of manipulation of gold (and silver) prices just like there was proven manipulation of LIBOR and the overall equity markets.  Since gold is a direct competitor to fiat currencies, it does make sense that the governments around the globe would like to maintain a competitive edge as they debase their fiat currencies.

One thing is for certain, it can't go on forever.  At some point, the supply of physical will eventually run dry.

Anything other questions?

knukles's picture

Why are equities at all time highs?
Why are interest rates close to historical lows?
Why is the West freeing holders of their natural resources throughout the world?
Why is the MSM so impartial, insightful, credible and altruistic?
Why has the War on Drugs not been won?
On Poverty?
On Illiteracy?

Everything's fine, go back to sleep.
And it has absolutely nothing to do with whether one is a "prepper" or even "preppy".

lasvegaspersona's picture

a golden pillow is firm, lumpy but firm, and it induces good REM and delta wave sleep.