Last week, the Wynter Benton copywriters appear to have taken on a new project by taking on the guise of 'ANOTHER', infiltrating the FOFOA comments thread. Unfortunately for them, FOFOA is pretty sharp, recognising their true colors from the very start, and quickly sent him packing . Regardless of the motivations or intent of the FakeAnother, the imposter followed a pattern common to most cons:
- Locate a group of people and identify their area of interest.
- Establish some form of credibility (real or imagined), using any available technique.
- Refuse verification and discussion of key topics, using various run-arounds or ambiguity.
- Inject an ideas stream using credibility, while it lasts.
"The identity of your Big Trader matters not, do not concern yourself with speculation of events past. It was China! and it still is China. PAGE, the backdoor into the Treasury and now the LME. Yes, China holds a very strong hand and it grows stronger." [link]
The key to the imposter identification is the brush-offs regarding any authentication challenge. I won't go into it because it's yesterday's news already but for a while I wallowed in the beautiful ironic possibility that perhaps ANOTHER had broken his long silence and was chased away by the faithful. There is also still the chance that ANOTHER was an early Wynter Benton, but I won't advance that concept for obvious reasons (only to say that I'm intrigued by the possibility at a philosophical level). The trouble for anyone wanting to debunk the freegold thesis is that they must debunk a large body of resesarch which (to date) has generally held up against much scrutiny.
I don't think Martin Armstrong succeeded in debunking freegold theory. Many folk (including myself) have been writing Martin to get him to investigate the Freegold thesis, simply to see if the concept has merit in the context of his economical understanding. His recent essay titled 'The Truth About Gold & Why You Should Buy It!' disappointed me in general (pdf version). Originally I tuned out long before page 19, but Kid Dynamite made me take another look.
Martin writes: ".. The first statement I was hit with was how the investigation would uncover that mythical person who sold in effect PAPER STOCKS they did not own to force the market down. I asked how is it possible for any short to ever outnumber the longs? If at the time he borrows shares from a long and sells then to another person creating a second long, how does he outnumber the longs? He is at best outnumbered two-to-one. Now let’s take futures or naked shorts in stock. In order for some player to sell, there has to be a buyer. Everything is always evenly matched. So again, neither side can out-number the other." (page 21).
This old chestnut. It's a criticism of the 'paper gold' theory, that somehow the amounts of paper gold in circulation don't make a difference. Perhaps he hasn't read Victor's essay about Alice and Bob, but one of the best things I've learnt over the last few years is from Brian O'Flanagan - basically that if you lend something then you don't own it. More difficult in the case of naked shorting, where the owner doesn't know that the underlying security has been lent. So on their books, they will have an asset (long) and one someone else's books, they also have an asset (long). Isn't that fraud? In the meantime, the other longs have capitulated and sold off their asset because the value apparently took a nose-dive because apparently the market was oversupplied. False signal, you should have known better, etc, etc. right. Net-neutral, 'it's just trading', Yes, sure, but it's legitimate in the same way Martin Armstrong boasts (in the same paper) about how he helped the arabs side-step the religious definition of ursury, by implementing a different form of rent-seeking (thanks Martin, for your contributions to society).
I did a whole bunch of study and came up with a flowchart of how the market works. I know the diagram won't win any awards, but I also doubt it can be refuted, even by Kid Dynamite ;).
Notice here, that the market activity is all net-neutral, as is the original stock of dollars, and that the final result the same regardless of what takes place in the black box. As simple as it is, this is my current theory and understanding of the metals markets. This effect can (and does) occur regardless of whether the ETF's have all the metal they claim (which I'm absolutely sure they do), so when we are pursuing a definition of fraud, are we not required to get a better definition? Are not the concepts so deep and intertwined in our complex modern society that it requires a better definition (of fraud) than just postulating that the ETF's have no metal, or asserting that China must be buying up all the bullion? At my local bullion dealer's waiting room there were photocopies of an article by Jason Hommel stating a case for silver over $150/oz in a few years. I didn't even look at it, but I did wince. Last time I checked, JP Morgan hasn't crashed despite the MANY MANY ounces of physical silver which have been sold to the market since the idea got floated by Max Keiser and all the rest (so that particular idea must be bullshit, but who will admit to it?).
In the same essay (page 22) Martin debunks the PAGE hype (the very thing that the FakeAnother was trying to promote) and to a large degree I agree with a lot of things he has to say. I watch with interest as the heavyweights battle out the argument for hyperinflation, especially since it's not possible for someone to be 100% correct in every opinion. I rather suspect once he takes the time to properly critique the freegold thesis, he will probably have his own 'ahah' moment.