This tell we have been done over by the "Banksters"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BFj7-eKU9M&feature=youtu.be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BFj7-eKU9M&feature=youtu.be
BOE refuses Australia to audits gold
- Thread starter thedigger
- Start date
Help Support Prospecting Australia:
Well, to keep it in proportion:
(1) Australia sent the gold years ago without organising how it would be audited in future
(2) The issue is over how it will now (finally) be audited - and the Australian Reserve Bank appears not to be concerned by the conditions on this imposed by the Bank of England. It is the people who made the video that are saying we should be concerned, not the Oz Reserve Bank
(3) Nobody is suggesting that it is missing
(4) Australia is not requesting its return
(5) The amount is tiny in national terms - about 5% of what the Australian government spends each year. We would hardly notice its loss (and none is suggesting it is lost or withheld), and it has as much impact on things like the "gold standard" issue as a shot-glass full of piss in the ocean.
So I would not panic - but it shows that our government (of whatever party) can be careless.
(1) Australia sent the gold years ago without organising how it would be audited in future
(2) The issue is over how it will now (finally) be audited - and the Australian Reserve Bank appears not to be concerned by the conditions on this imposed by the Bank of England. It is the people who made the video that are saying we should be concerned, not the Oz Reserve Bank
(3) Nobody is suggesting that it is missing
(4) Australia is not requesting its return
(5) The amount is tiny in national terms - about 5% of what the Australian government spends each year. We would hardly notice its loss (and none is suggesting it is lost or withheld), and it has as much impact on things like the "gold standard" issue as a shot-glass full of piss in the ocean.
So I would not panic - but it shows that our government (of whatever party) can be careless.
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2018
- Messages
- 1,779
- Reaction score
- 3,942
Hmm... Food for thought, isn't it?
Makes me wonder though, how does the law pertain that the Crown owns all 'royal metals' in Australia? (gold and silver). Who really owns it?
But more fool us if the govt hasn't been auditing it too. Over $4 billion dollars worth of our gold being stored there, and they never checked on it... Der... Trusting souls, weren't they?! Who'd be surprised if they did discover it was missing? But we don't know if it is or not, and this is actually all supposition.
It all sounded very dodgy to me though - on all sides of the story - RBA, Aust Govt and BoE.
And John Adams should watch his back, trying to take on 'the family' banksters. He might find himself involved in 'a terrible accident', if he gets too 'pesky' to them, pointing out potentially dodgy dealings at the Bank of England.
Makes me wonder though, how does the law pertain that the Crown owns all 'royal metals' in Australia? (gold and silver). Who really owns it?
But more fool us if the govt hasn't been auditing it too. Over $4 billion dollars worth of our gold being stored there, and they never checked on it... Der... Trusting souls, weren't they?! Who'd be surprised if they did discover it was missing? But we don't know if it is or not, and this is actually all supposition.
It all sounded very dodgy to me though - on all sides of the story - RBA, Aust Govt and BoE.
And John Adams should watch his back, trying to take on 'the family' banksters. He might find himself involved in 'a terrible accident', if he gets too 'pesky' to them, pointing out potentially dodgy dealings at the Bank of England.
Dishonesty can occur at any level (while $4 billion is chicken feed to a government - ours spent $84 billion last year - it can still be very attractive to individuals within a bank). However the Bank of England would have its own auditing of what it holds. The issue is simply that one should not rely on the auditing done by the organisation that you deposit with ("Still got that $4 billion of gold bars that I sent you mate - good"). The depositor should also check periodically - as the RBA is now doing. However with money one simply looks at "the books" to see that the money is there - with gold one has to go through $4 billion worth of gold bars checking their serial numbers. That is around 8,000 gold bars in this case, each weighing 12.4 kg , i.e. more than 80 tonnes, so not just Watto picking them up and counting them while noting numbers (and it would be usual to just check a percentage of these for that reason). So the Bank of England has to give access to its vaults to do that job for some time, while still carrying on its daily business in those vaults (no doubt ours is a drop in the ocean of what they hold). It is not a case of "OK we will just pop the 80 tonnes in the manager's office for you to check". So the B of E is trying to specify/determine how long it will take, what percentage of ingots will be looked at etc. - not unreasonable, and an auditing procedure that the Australian government should have contracted before depositing the bars. So it is obvious where the fault lies. There is absolutely no reason to suspect anything shady (although this is why one checks). No doubt if the government demanded return of the bars that could be done fairly rapidly (although even that should have been contracted originally) - but we have not requested that, we just want to look at them.MegsyB007 said:
Well 4 billion might be only chicken feed,but they are throwing a lot of it around,and there be a lot chickens to come home to roost.
The banks have leasing the gold out,and getting small return for the effort,but those leasing sell the gold and invest in a higher interest,but this only works if they get a good enough return,and the price of gold does not rise,that has been the big problem,that is why we see gigantic falls in the price of gold,they drop large amounts paper gold on the market,to drive down the price,go back have and have look at the price drops in 2013,GS told everybody the price in going down bigtime,and it did,but this where the problems are.
Well if we look at Gordon Brown action.
https://www.silverdoctors.com/gold/...ritains-gold-to-save-goldman-sachs-jp-morgan/
Here is a long article on the whole thing.
https://www.bullionstar.com/blogs/ronan-manly/central-banks-care-gold-price-enough-manipulate/
I would say we have no gold in the BOE,just BS,this not going to end well,thanks to a lot of people,who do not understand wealth and how it is created.
Wealth has to be "Mined, Built,or Grown"
The banks have leasing the gold out,and getting small return for the effort,but those leasing sell the gold and invest in a higher interest,but this only works if they get a good enough return,and the price of gold does not rise,that has been the big problem,that is why we see gigantic falls in the price of gold,they drop large amounts paper gold on the market,to drive down the price,go back have and have look at the price drops in 2013,GS told everybody the price in going down bigtime,and it did,but this where the problems are.
Well if we look at Gordon Brown action.
https://www.silverdoctors.com/gold/...ritains-gold-to-save-goldman-sachs-jp-morgan/
Here is a long article on the whole thing.
https://www.bullionstar.com/blogs/ronan-manly/central-banks-care-gold-price-enough-manipulate/
I would say we have no gold in the BOE,just BS,this not going to end well,thanks to a lot of people,who do not understand wealth and how it is created.
Wealth has to be "Mined, Built,or Grown"
It seems quite a jump to go from the B of E having requested details of how our reserve bank wanted to audit our gold and for how long they want to access the vault, to suggesting that the gold is not there. Who is suggesting that it is not there? Auditing is a normal financial process that should be carried out regularly, and any problem is just that we have been negligent in doing that, or of setting auditing conditions at the time of depositing it. One has to be into conspiracy theories, but I guess such theories sell. And while 4 billion in gold is a lot to you or me, it is only about 5% of what the Australian government spends each year (even if it were lost, its loss would hardly be noticed except electorally)..
All the gold held on the world's central banks doesn't cover a tiny fraction of the world's paper currency in circulation, or debt - the days when there was enough gold in central banks to back it are long gone, all the gold in the world could not do that. The "gold standard" returning is a pipe dream long abandoned as a returning possibility. Where gold IS important is as an inflation hedge and insurance for individuals and companies etc. (so it is worth holding some). There is no doubt that paper money is a concern but there simply are no alternatives - and yes, we are in a very risky situation worldwide.
Consider "When a bank issues a loan of $1000 to a customer, they debit the customer's loan account with $1000 and at the same time they credit the customer's deposit account with $1000, ready for using. The bank now has a new asset of $1000 and a new liability of $1000. The bank's accounts are still in balance because the assets and liabilities are increased by the same amount. The bank's balance sheet is simply expanded with the amount of $1000. The bank does not take the $1000 out of its reserves. The $1000 are new circulating money that did not exist prior to the transaction". The customer can now create even more "new money" because of the equity they supposedly have as a result, and the bank can bundle the debt into some other package and sell it on (so who holds the debt)?
That is the situation we are in here in Australia at the moment, with governments here having allowed a housing bubble, and it is what caused the Global Financial Crisis of 2008 when the housing bubble burst in the USA. If interest rates rose enough here that many people could not keep up their payments, there is no way such a large debt could be recovered, and the banks would be at risk of going bankrupt - they only have to hold assets equivalent to 10% of the debt. Fortunately we are in fairly good shape right now, and it is other aspects of the world financial system that are the main risk. These articles talk of financial institutions having been bailed out in the GFC, but it was really the world economic system being frantically subsidised to prevent its collapse.....
All the gold held on the world's central banks doesn't cover a tiny fraction of the world's paper currency in circulation, or debt - the days when there was enough gold in central banks to back it are long gone, all the gold in the world could not do that. The "gold standard" returning is a pipe dream long abandoned as a returning possibility. Where gold IS important is as an inflation hedge and insurance for individuals and companies etc. (so it is worth holding some). There is no doubt that paper money is a concern but there simply are no alternatives - and yes, we are in a very risky situation worldwide.
Consider "When a bank issues a loan of $1000 to a customer, they debit the customer's loan account with $1000 and at the same time they credit the customer's deposit account with $1000, ready for using. The bank now has a new asset of $1000 and a new liability of $1000. The bank's accounts are still in balance because the assets and liabilities are increased by the same amount. The bank's balance sheet is simply expanded with the amount of $1000. The bank does not take the $1000 out of its reserves. The $1000 are new circulating money that did not exist prior to the transaction". The customer can now create even more "new money" because of the equity they supposedly have as a result, and the bank can bundle the debt into some other package and sell it on (so who holds the debt)?
That is the situation we are in here in Australia at the moment, with governments here having allowed a housing bubble, and it is what caused the Global Financial Crisis of 2008 when the housing bubble burst in the USA. If interest rates rose enough here that many people could not keep up their payments, there is no way such a large debt could be recovered, and the banks would be at risk of going bankrupt - they only have to hold assets equivalent to 10% of the debt. Fortunately we are in fairly good shape right now, and it is other aspects of the world financial system that are the main risk. These articles talk of financial institutions having been bailed out in the GFC, but it was really the world economic system being frantically subsidised to prevent its collapse.....
It is his first part that I would question. He says that if you increased the gold price by almost seven timers you would have 40% enough gold to cover currency in commerce.thedigger said:
There are two problems that I can see here:
(1) What he proposes means banks only have 40% enough gold to cover currency in circulation - that means one and a half times that amount of currency is not covered at all. Doesn't sound like a very good standard. Otherwise you need to increase the price of gold by seventeen times to get full backing.
(2) How do you increase the price of gold by either amount? It might work for the USA whose Fed holds most of the gold held by the World's central banks. What about Australia that lacks almost any - does our currency become worthless? Or Belgium, a tiny country with large gold reserves - is it suddenly rich? The amount of gold held by Reserve Banks is not related to the size of their economies.I cannot see how one could ever distribute gold proportionally between countries relative to the size of their commerce (how do you estimate that?) before the price goes up. "You can export to us Australia because we have gold backing our currency - but you cannot buy from us Australia because you cannot pay us, your currency has no value". "Oops, we can no longer sell what we produce here in the USA". And who will decree this? As he says, any monetary instrument only has value if there is confidence in it (i.e. if it is universally accepted). Why would it be accepted if this were the situation?
This gets proposed a lot by gold producers because they want the price of what they produce to go up. Where are the videos of national bank governors who are proposing this? Ah, I forgot - it is all a conspiracy.....
One other issue is the effect of making a commodity worth so much more than it costs to produce it. Where is the money coming from to buy it? And wouldn't it skew the wealth of countries proportionally to their abilities to produce it (because at many times the present price, gold production would be huge - but who could buy it and with what)? Western Europe has negligible ability to produce it - how do they expand their economies over time (by buying other countries gold with currency not backed by gold)? OK, I give you a good deal, I sell it to you at quarter the price...woops, what happened to the standard.
Most things sound so easy so long as you don't consider how you will implement things in practice. Until we went off the gold standard, there was at least some proportionality in what was held. Now there is not - but there is so much more money in circulation than then!
We are going to have a financial crisis,when no body knows,but I feel it is not that far away.
This one will be much bigger from the last one,and this time,fixing it will be ?
As Robert Louise Stevenson said
Everyone, at some time or another, sits down to a banquet of consequences.
The consequences of "DEBT" it can not be fixed.
Good luck to those are looking forward to there golden years,and the supper that they are all counting on
https://theconversation.com/huge-pension-fund-deficits-are-a-global-crisis-in-waiting-88420
This one will be much bigger from the last one,and this time,fixing it will be ?
As Robert Louise Stevenson said
Everyone, at some time or another, sits down to a banquet of consequences.
The consequences of "DEBT" it can not be fixed.
Good luck to those are looking forward to there golden years,and the supper that they are all counting on
https://theconversation.com/huge-pension-fund-deficits-are-a-global-crisis-in-waiting-88420
thedigger said:
You have posted this same article about British pension deficits (by a Professor at the University of Bath), on PA previously:
https://www.prospectingaustralia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=440747#p440747
As I pointed out then (https://www.prospectingaustralia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=440789#p440789), it is NOT relevant to Australia, where the defined benefit pensions that are the subject of the article are a thing of the past.
Is it quite that simple? There are no longer new ones, but the liability to the old ones still exist.grubstake said:
From a University of Tasmania 2018 pension fund guide:
"Defined benefit pensions, paid from such super funds, are now becoming rare, but highly sought after financial products. About 10% of Australians are members of a defined benefit super fund... Older public sector super funds, and older corporate super funds still offer such super pensions, but often only to older employees who have been members of the super funds for many years. For example, nearly all public sector super funds have closed off the defined benefit pension scheme to new members".
The liability from such schemes might still be insufficient to pay out the pension fund holders. This has already occurred with Unisuper, the major academic fund operator. It simply lacked the funds to pay out and those in the schemes didn't get what they were supposed to get - they were not happy.
Similar threads
