In fairness, if we had kept the gold and sold it off today, at it's high, in five years time as the price appreciates further, we;d be having this same argument.
It's a bit like saying to someone how stupid it was to sell their home for £85,000 in 2001 when it's worth £136,000 today.
Spot on.
I can't believe all the fuss that has been made about these gold reserves that the average person in the street cares little & knows even less about.
Does anybody think that if we still had that gold, we (the man in the street) would be any better off?
It's more to show the competence, or lackoff, of Gordon Brown.
I can see your point, although I maintain that the critics are still a bit harsh on him, as he effectively gambled & it can only go one of 2 ways when you gamble; you win or you lose.
People who are critical of him over this must be expecting Brown to be psychic or something.
I'm not an apologist for Brown, but I am quite certain that if he had a crystal ball & knew that the price of gold was going to escalate almost a decade later, he'd have hung onto it.
It is not the fact that the then chancellor sold off our gold, he has that right.
But if the market is at a 20year low and all non sycophant advisers said not a good time to sell, then it is somewhat stupid to announce you are going to sell 400 tonnes of gold while the market was at a low thus dumping the price even further.
I'm sure I've read something on DS that said the development(?) has been held back because of those costs. And that it has an effect on the UK leading the field as it was before?
I'm sure I've read something on DS that said the development(?) has been held back because of those costs. And that it has an effect on the UK leading the field as it was before?
I haven't a clue as to the veracity of this claim but I posted it to illustrate that Brown's tenure has not been the unmitigating disaster the naysayers on this forum would have us believe.
Furthermore, it was an auction. The fact that these companies bid too much is hardly the fault of Brown, it is management incompetence at the phone companies.
It is not the fact that the then chancellor sold off our gold, he has that right.
But if the market is at a 20year low and all non sycophant advisers said not a good time to sell, then it is somewhat stupid to announce you are going to sell 400 tonnes of gold while the market was at a low thus dumping the price even further.
this could be the real reason behind the gold sales..
For the two weeks ended April 6 1999, non-commercial short interest in gold totalled 88,363 contracts, according to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in Chicago. That was the largest short position in history. Short interest has declined in subsequent weeks but still remains at extremely high levels, equal to about 10% of total production last year. ... Long Term Capital had a large short position in gold -- estimated to be 300 tons. When Federal Reserve officials brokered together a consortium to rescue Long Term Capital last August, they were aghast at the extent of the firm's gold short. Moreover, if Long Term's Wall Street clients were mimicking the once-legendary hedge fund's strategies, as some contend, many of the same firms given the task of saving the hedge fund (and thus, "the system") were also short gold. Thus, a rise in the metal would not only add to the misery at Long Term Capital, but many of the same institutions responsible for its rescue. The Central Bank of Italy and Fed officials were invested in Long Term Capital. The price of gold tumbled $7.60 an ounce to $283.10 after the Bank of England, much to the gold community's surprise, announced its plans to sell up to 125 tons, or almost 60% of its reserves, between now and March 2000. The Gold Antitrust Action Committee has retained securities law specialist Berger & Montague to assist in the "investigation of the alleged manipulation of the gold market," according to a press release from the organisation. ( The Street.com 18/5/99)
I just dont understand the reasoning behind labelling anything 'alternate' as conspiracy theory. By that measure, we could also argue that the 'mainstream' is full of possible conspiracy theories.
A little common sense would allow anyone to understand, that such actions would be kept from the public at all costs. The general public have been aptly trained to follow a rose tinted ideal of the world around them. So it's natural that anything out of the ordinary is immediately shunned. Add the fact that most of the 'mainstream' ideas and agendas are also simply being stated (usually without proof); then that makes for a highly confusing world.
I believe and think strongly against the Zionist movement. I stand against figures who dabble in groups such as the Club of Rome & Bilderberg group.
I don't believe either side can or will ever produce damning evidence; so only time will tell who's right and who's wrong.
That's my rationale anyway
I just dont understand the reasoning behind labelling anything 'alternate' as conspiracy theory. By that measure, we could also argue that the 'mainstream' is full of possible conspiracy theories.
I wouldn't say that there's an intent to arbitrarily label anything outside the mainstream view as a CT.
It's fair to say that there might be any number of candidates, as far as covert agencies with a considerable degree of influence on people with power is concerned. It's even fair to say that we wouldn't know about it if it were true.
However, "might" is not equal to "is", and if one is to go around asserting that something is the case, then the standards of evidence required rise accordingly.
To claim on the one hand that we wouldn't know about it if it were true, then to turn around and claim that such a secretive stitch-up really is going on and that one knows the precise nature of said stitch-up - that's where it gets dicey.
And it is certainly not an appropriate or constructive contribution to discussion to make such assertions, then when pressed on them, exhort others to "go and do their own research". That's simply a lazy way of attempting to get off the hook of substantiating one's claims, not a genuine attempt at an exchange of ideas. (Note, I'm not saying you do this!)
I don't know what you have against the Club of Rome or the Bilderberg Group though. One's a think-tank, the other's a talking-shop whose membership changes with the prevailing geopolitical winds.
I'd just like to know his justification for selling it when it was at an all time low? If he sold it now to repay some of our debt that I can sort of see the logic to that.
I'd just like to know his justification for selling it when it was at an all time low? If he sold it now to repay some of our debt that I can sort of see the logic to that.
I think a few of us would like to know the answer to that.
I'd just like to know his justification for selling it when it was at an all time low?
Telling everyone he was going to do it helped create the all time low as well. It's not just selling the gold that was the problem, but the incompetant way the sale was handled, apparently against advice. That advice is what we're expecting to get released under FOI.
Telling everyone he was going to do it helped create the all time low as well. It's not just selling the gold that was the problem, but the incompetant way the sale was handled, apparently against advice. That advice is what we're expecting to get released under FOI.
Telling people you are going to do things is how it works though. If you don't tell people you are going to sell something, no one will be interested in buying. Of course the indication you are going to sell affects the market, but this is true of any large transaction.
Even if the sale was conducted without announcement the price would immediately have been affected as soon as buyers were sought.
=========================
There appears to be a perception that the gold represented our entire financial reserve, but it is in fact a small fraction of our reserves. Also it's not the function of the BoE to treat gold reserves as a commodity to speculate with. Brown was not attempting to make a profit on the sale by selling it at a high value. It was being sold for other reasons, probably to support the Euro, despite the price being low.
Ahhh I can picture the scene now. The treasury in 1997(that's right I think):
GB: I am going to be the first Chancellor to ever abolish boom and bust!
Treasury Official: Errr, yes. Very nice idea Chancellor but how can you do that?
GB: By selling off all our gold you public school educated ****!
Brown picks up a chair and throws it narrowly missing his Treasury official.
Treasury Official(in a shaky and frightened voice): Errr - yes Chancellor. I'll get the Bank of England on the phone now.
GB: Good! Get me six bananas as well!!
Brown then storms off out the room.
Very colourful, but I don't think even Brown thought he could abolish boom and bust by selling some gold. You've lost me completely with the banana reference.
Very colourful, but I don't think even Brown thought he could abolish boom and bust by selling some gold. You've lost me completely with the banana reference.
He apparently snacks on about four or more bananas a day.
The point is there was no reason to sell the gold at the time and he sold it when gold was at a record low and he then sold it for even less than the going rate.
Complete and utter moron.
Yet again people repeat the lie that he sold it at a record low. Why do people do that? Are they too lazy to check their facts or is it that they can't be bothered to post the truth because it interferes with their political viewpoint?
Comments
Spot on.
I can't believe all the fuss that has been made about these gold reserves that the average person in the street cares little & knows even less about.
Does anybody think that if we still had that gold, we (the man in the street) would be any better off?
It's more to show the competence, or lackoff, of Gordon Brown.
I can see your point, although I maintain that the critics are still a bit harsh on him, as he effectively gambled & it can only go one of 2 ways when you gamble; you win or you lose.
People who are critical of him over this must be expecting Brown to be psychic or something.
I'm not an apologist for Brown, but I am quite certain that if he had a crystal ball & knew that the price of gold was going to escalate almost a decade later, he'd have hung onto it.
I look forward to a thread congratulating Brown on his foresight.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/727831.stm
Good points.
Brown has his faults, but not everything he has done is wrong.
I just cannot understand this furore about the gold.
Like I said before, he isn't psychic & when did the GBP start caring so much about Britain's gold reserves?
Aren't there more important things for us to worry about right now?
But if the market is at a 20year low and all non sycophant advisers said not a good time to sell, then it is somewhat stupid to announce you are going to sell 400 tonnes of gold while the market was at a low thus dumping the price even further.
Has that been a good thing though?
I'm sure I've read something on DS that said the development(?) has been held back because of those costs. And that it has an effect on the UK leading the field as it was before?
I haven't a clue as to the veracity of this claim but I posted it to illustrate that Brown's tenure has not been the unmitigating disaster the naysayers on this forum would have us believe.
Furthermore, it was an auction. The fact that these companies bid too much is hardly the fault of Brown, it is management incompetence at the phone companies.
http://www.theonion.com/video/us-to-trade-gold-reserves-for-cash-through-cash4go,14346/
this could be the real reason behind the gold sales..
(the gold ceiling was $300)
http://www.kc3.co.uk/~dt/gold.htm
For the two weeks ended April 6 1999, non-commercial short interest in gold totalled 88,363 contracts, according to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in Chicago. That was the largest short position in history. Short interest has declined in subsequent weeks but still remains at extremely high levels, equal to about 10% of total production last year. ... Long Term Capital had a large short position in gold -- estimated to be 300 tons. When Federal Reserve officials brokered together a consortium to rescue Long Term Capital last August, they were aghast at the extent of the firm's gold short. Moreover, if Long Term's Wall Street clients were mimicking the once-legendary hedge fund's strategies, as some contend, many of the same firms given the task of saving the hedge fund (and thus, "the system") were also short gold. Thus, a rise in the metal would not only add to the misery at Long Term Capital, but many of the same institutions responsible for its rescue. The Central Bank of Italy and Fed officials were invested in Long Term Capital. The price of gold tumbled $7.60 an ounce to $283.10 after the Bank of England, much to the gold community's surprise, announced its plans to sell up to 125 tons, or almost 60% of its reserves, between now and March 2000. The Gold Antitrust Action Committee has retained securities law specialist Berger & Montague to assist in the "investigation of the alleged manipulation of the gold market," according to a press release from the organisation. ( The Street.com 18/5/99)
A little common sense would allow anyone to understand, that such actions would be kept from the public at all costs. The general public have been aptly trained to follow a rose tinted ideal of the world around them. So it's natural that anything out of the ordinary is immediately shunned. Add the fact that most of the 'mainstream' ideas and agendas are also simply being stated (usually without proof); then that makes for a highly confusing world.
I believe and think strongly against the Zionist movement. I stand against figures who dabble in groups such as the Club of Rome & Bilderberg group.
I don't believe either side can or will ever produce damning evidence; so only time will tell who's right and who's wrong.
That's my rationale anyway
I wouldn't say that there's an intent to arbitrarily label anything outside the mainstream view as a CT.
It's fair to say that there might be any number of candidates, as far as covert agencies with a considerable degree of influence on people with power is concerned. It's even fair to say that we wouldn't know about it if it were true.
However, "might" is not equal to "is", and if one is to go around asserting that something is the case, then the standards of evidence required rise accordingly.
To claim on the one hand that we wouldn't know about it if it were true, then to turn around and claim that such a secretive stitch-up really is going on and that one knows the precise nature of said stitch-up - that's where it gets dicey.
And it is certainly not an appropriate or constructive contribution to discussion to make such assertions, then when pressed on them, exhort others to "go and do their own research". That's simply a lazy way of attempting to get off the hook of substantiating one's claims, not a genuine attempt at an exchange of ideas. (Note, I'm not saying you do this!)
I don't know what you have against the Club of Rome or the Bilderberg Group though. One's a think-tank, the other's a talking-shop whose membership changes with the prevailing geopolitical winds.
I think a few of us would like to know the answer to that.
Telling everyone he was going to do it helped create the all time low as well. It's not just selling the gold that was the problem, but the incompetant way the sale was handled, apparently against advice. That advice is what we're expecting to get released under FOI.
GB: I am going to be the first Chancellor to ever abolish boom and bust!
Treasury Official: Errr, yes. Very nice idea Chancellor but how can you do that?
GB: By selling off all our gold you public school educated ****!
Brown picks up a chair and throws it narrowly missing his Treasury official.
Treasury Official(in a shaky and frightened voice): Errr - yes Chancellor. I'll get the Bank of England on the phone now.
GB: Good! Get me six bananas as well!!
Brown then storms off out the room.
Even if the sale was conducted without announcement the price would immediately have been affected as soon as buyers were sought.
=========================
There appears to be a perception that the gold represented our entire financial reserve, but it is in fact a small fraction of our reserves. Also it's not the function of the BoE to treat gold reserves as a commodity to speculate with. Brown was not attempting to make a profit on the sale by selling it at a high value. It was being sold for other reasons, probably to support the Euro, despite the price being low.
He apparently snacks on about four or more bananas a day.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthadvice/jameslefanu/7220832/Is-Gordon-Brown-right-to-be-eating-so-many-bananas.html
A bit of health advice for him.
If he's using so much energy shouting at staff and throwing furniture around he'll need all the vitamins and nutrients he can get.
Yet again people repeat the lie that he sold it at a record low. Why do people do that? Are they too lazy to check their facts or is it that they can't be bothered to post the truth because it interferes with their political viewpoint?
The answer could be yes, as thee value of sterling could be higher which affects everything we buy and sell internationally!
The answer could be yes, as the value of sterling could be higher which affects everything we buy and sell internationally!