Prior Known Efforts at ManipulationOne other daunting challenge to the idea that gold is not being manipulated is that such a thought requires us to presume that all the past known and proven efforts at gold manipulation are just that: in the past. One thing I know is that when a tool has proven to be effective -- whether it is secretive liquidity injections by the Fed, or MBS purchases -- that tool tends to get used again and again, and in increasing amounts if called for. That is, what works is never dropped; it is merely set aside when not needed. The best we could argue here is that gold truly has no legitimate signaling mechanism at present, and therefore controlling its price has been set aside. For now... Or, if we believe that gold indeed has an important signaling function, it becomes all the more difficult to argue that its price is simply left to "the market" to set. One example:
On June 3, 1975, Fed Chairman Arthur Burns, sent a "Memorandum For The President" to Gerald Ford, which among others CC:ed Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and future Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, discussing gold, and specifically its fair value, a topic whose prominence, despite former president Nixon's actions, had only managed to grow in the four short years since the abandonment of the gold standard in 1971. In a nutshell Burns' entire argument revolves around the equivalency of gold and money, and furthermore points out that if the Fed does not control this core relationship, it would " easily frustrate our efforts to control world liquidity" but also " dangerously prejudge the shape of the future monetary system." Furthermore, the memo goes on to highlight the extensive level of gold price manipulation by central banks even after the gold standard has been formally abolished. The problem with accounting for gold at fair market value: the risk of massive liquidity creation, which in those long-gone days of 1975 "could result in the addition of up to $150 billion to the nominal value of countries' reserves." One only wonders what would happen today if gold was allowed to attain its fair price status. And the threat, according to Burns: "liquidity creation of such extraordinary magnitude would seriously endanger, perhaps even frustrate , our efforts and those of other prudent nations to get inflation under reasonable control." Aside from the gratuitous observation that even 34 years ago it was painfully obvious how "massive" liquidity could and would result in runaway inflation and the Fed actually cared about this potential danger, what highlights the hypocrisy of the Fed is that when it comes to drowning the world in excess pieces of paper, only the United States should have the right to do so. ( Source)If the price of gold was not "controlled," monetary policy outcomes would have been somewhat removed from the direct control of monetary bureaucrats. Gold was a threat to an institution dedicated to increasing its effectiveness and power. To give up the battle to control the price of gold, we have to presume something that has never happened in history: the willing abandonment of bureaucratic power to an outside force. There is also the London Gold Pool of 1969 and the strong dollar policy of the 1980s, which reveal that in the past, the price of gold has been officially monitored and controlled in order to help direct either a desired interest rate or dollar strength outcome. The point here is that gold price suppression is a clear matter of history at this point and has been well studied. Somehow I think some people have forgotten that history and, quite oddly, consider it less likely that gold suppression is happening today than in the past. I say oddly because the number of overt market interventions has been increasingly enormously over the past few years, and one might think this would soften opposition to the idea that gold, too, is being actively targeted.