Zero Hedge
0
All posts from Zero Hedge
Zero Hedge in Zero Hedge,

Legal Tender Coins Shed Clues On Bullion Racket, Part II

 

 

 

Read Part I Here

 

 

 

........Jeff Nielson for Sprott Money

 

 

Part I of this series provided what (for some) is a revelation: the absurd, $5 (Canada Maple) face-value on our legal tender, minted silver coins is not some totally arbitrary anomaly. Rather, it was a part of the strategy of the One Bank to pretend that its fraudulent paper currencies were not (and are not) losing value at a catastrophic rate.

 

 

The banksters did this in a multi-pronged approach. They selected the approximate price for silver which existed at the time that Paul Volcker assassinated the gold standard, and used that number ($5 Canada Maple) as their nominal face-value for our coins. Then they attempted to freeze-forever the market price for silver at that $5-level. It was never a viable long-term strategy; but being psychopaths, that didn’t stop the banksters from pursuing it.

 

 

While our mystery is solved with respect to our silver coins, what about our gold coins? Here we can be unequivocal: the face-value on our legal tender gold coins is entirely arbitrary – in absolute terms. At no time since Volcker assassinated the gold standard has the price for gold been lower than $200/oz, and for most of that time it was above $300/oz, many multiples of the ridiculous $50 face-value.

 

 

Those playing Devil’s Advocate could argue that the reason our coins currently have a $50 face-value in both Canada and the U.S. was because Canada originally chose that face-value when it began minting Gold Maples in 1979. The rebuttal to that line of reasoning is simple: when has the United States ever considered itself bound by any “standards” set by another nation(s)?

 

 

The One Bank has consciously chosen to have the U.S. act as a “rogue regime” in virtually every sphere of international relations. It regularly initiates unilateral acts of war, and while it regularly signs various treaties with other nations (i.e. trade pacts and arms-limitation agreements), it finds it impossible to abide by the terms of these international agreements for any length of time.

 

 

Clearly if the U.S. government (meaning the One Bank) would have preferred a different, arbitrary face-value for its own minted coins, it would have chosen that number – and then pressured Canada’s government/mint to accede to the American “standard”. We must therefore conclude that the nominal $50 face-value on these minted gold coins was a deliberate choice, and not merely some ‘accident of history’.

 

 

With the $50 face-value having absolutely no significance in absolute terms, we must look for relevance in relative terms, i.e. in relation to the nominal face-value of our silver coins. It is here where we gain further insight, in the form of the price ratio, 10:1.

 

 

Historically, over literally thousands of years, the gold/silver price ratio remained relatively constant, near 15:1. This price ratio is a natural reflection of the supply ratio of the two metals (within the Earth’s crust), 17:1. Yet we are told via the propaganda of the Corporate media that the “normal” price ratio for silver to gold is supposedly in the range of 50:1 to 70:1 – the perverted extremes which are/were the direct product of the One Bank’s serial suppression of the price of silver.

 

 

Even as the physical (supply) ratio between these two metals has steadily narrowed due to the destruction of silver stockpiles, the Corporate media has maintained this ludicrous fiction regarding the price ratio. Yet here we get a rare glimpse into the actual thinking of these banksters regarding the pricing of these metals.

 

 

They consciously chose $5/oz (Canada Maple) as their “correct price” for silver, and then consciously chose what we must assume was their “correct price” for gold in relation to the price of silver: $50/oz – a 10:1 ratio. Knowing that the erosion of silver stockpiles had already begun accelerating by the mid-1980’s; the natural presumption is that the chosen price ratio in the mid-1980’s reflected the actual (above-ground) supply ratio of the two metals. But the majority of the decimation of silver stockpiles took place after the mid-1980’s, after the banksters had taken the price of silver to a 600-year low (in real dollars).

 

 

Why manipulate the price of silver to absurd ratios of 50:1 or 70:1, when the banksters themselves knew that a rational/appropriate price-ratio for the two metals (as of the mid-1980’s) was 10:1? Simple. This relates directly back to what was said in Part I: it is silver which is the more-important of these two monetary metals (in the crimes of the One Bank). It was/is silver which these Criminals are obsessed with keeping out of the hands of the Average Person.

 

 

How best to accomplish this? (Attempt to) hoard that silver, and the silver still exists – and is subject to the risk that the banksters’ own greed would cause them to disgorge that silver onto the market, at some point. But destroy all that silver, by having it “consumed” (i.e. strewn amongst the landfills of the world), and you keep the Peoples’ Money out of the peoples’ hands, forever.

 

 

The 10:1 gold/silver price ratio which the One Bank chose as the legal/nominal price ratio, and the (approximate) 60:1 market price ratio it has imposed upon us tells us several things. It provides a metric to show the much more extreme level of silver-manipulation versus gold-manipulation, as shown (empirically) through the more-extreme level of silver-shorting.

 

[chart courtesy of Nick Laird, Sharelynx.com]

However, the extreme degree in which the banksters have skewed the (market) price ratio from a rational/fundamentals-based price ratio reveals the intentions and motivations of this crime syndicate. It wanted to simply “manage” (i.e. permanently suppress) the gold market, since gold is not merely the “money of nations”, it’s also the “money of the wealthy”. But the wealthiest-of-the-wealthy, the criminal proprietors of the One Bank chose to destroy the silver market, clearly a strategy of psychopaths.

 

 

It is a “psychopathic” strategy because it lacks any end-game. What do the banksters do after they have finished destroying this market (and sector)? The world needs silver. Final “destruction” of the market directly implies some sort of default event, at which point silver will be re-priced. The final point which needs to be made here, and question to be answered is: how will silver be re-priced?

 

 

The 10:1 physical ratio of the two metals (in above-ground stockpiles) implied by the nominal prices the banksters chose in the mid-1980’s no longer exists. It was shortly after that when the real destruction of silver stockpiles began, as demonstrated in a familiar chart.

 

If 10:1 was the actual supply ratio of the two metals, as of the mid-1980’s, this provides further ammunition for those commentators arguing that the actual above-ground ratio of the two metals is now roughly equal. In turn; this supplies much more emphatic support for the conclusions of a recent commentary: $1000/Oz For Silver (Today), A Starting Point.

 

 

The long-term, historic price ratio (15:1) mirrors the actual supply-ratio of the two metals in the Earth’s crust: 17:1. This means that humanity has always had an equal preference for the two metals, subject to their level of availability. When silver was available in 17:1 quantities; it was (historically) always priced that way.

 

 

Now, with existing stockpiles for the two metals roughly parallel today; this dictates parallel prices today. Indeed, with silver being so vitally important in numerous commercial/industrial applications; this strongly suggests that it should now be priced at some premium in relation to the price of gold.

 

 

It should be highly interesting to silver investors (in particular) and anyone interested in preserving their wealth (in general) that a $1,000/oz starting price for the price of silver – today – has been produced through two, totally separate avenues of analysis. Meanwhile, as just explained; the suicidal race-to-implosion by the banksters themselves in this market must be close to its ultimate, inevitable end, no matter what “secret stockpile” of silver they have amassed previously, or what crimes they commit in this market.

 

 

The re-pricing of silver is an imminent, inevitable event, one that the One Bank is pushing us towards, at an accelerating rate. The fact that such re-pricing must be a “radical” move higher in the current, phony price is simply a function of the extreme level of price-perversion in these markets – as evidenced by the difference between our legal price ratio between gold and silver, versus the (manipulated) market price ratio.

 

 

........Jeff Nielson for Sprott Money

 

 


Read Part I Here