There's a villain to the gold crash story

The reason gold fell so far.

The sudden and completely unexpected collapse of gold – down 13.7 per cent in the blink of an eye – was a huge market intrusion or manipulation, or major fiddle, into an overall rising bullion market - but by whom?

The spin was already craftily fed into the ether, along with the price: the fingered culprit was little lowly Cyprus, everyone’s favourite kicking-boy at the moment, as it was forced by the so-called rescuing Troika – the IMF, the EU and its ECB - to sell off its minimal gold hoard of just a piffling €400 million, and in effect send it to Germany.

The Troika isn’t interested in saving the Cypriot economy and its banks’ depositors, you see, but is only out to save the euro and its over-grandiose ambitions for the now over-stretched eurozone. The truth about gold, however, was completely different, and contained menacing overtones for the future of the world economy.

The real villain

So, stand up the real villain: it’s Ben Bernanke, of course! Yes, Helicopter Ben, you have been unmasked as the central banker at the Fed who’s slowly losing his clothes, and now Spear’s will rapidly remove your fig-leaf of a great deception – to reveal a major market manipulation.

And we will attempt to formulate the thinking behind you actions, which isn’t difficult, as we have seen through your QE failing game. Spear’s can see the consequences that so frightened you, that led to your breaking yet another sacred central banking rule: never to manipulate markets with public money.

Even your predecessor Sir Alan Greenspan - unwisely knighted in the UK for his services to (irony of ironies) financial stability - wisely disavowed any Fed interference with the booming dotcom markets of his day, which eventually crashed: but Greenspan didn’t see it as within the Fed’s charter to interfere with stock or bullion markets, or for that matter, to have a QE policy driven by unemployment.

Fake money

Now Bernanke is upholding his own failing and unproven strategy of flooding the economy with printed – or rather fake – money. He may have avoided a wholesale banking collapse, and supported the ongoing bonuses of those who broke the bank back in 2009.

His further attempts to avoid Global Depression II, however, are just stepping-stones to the ultimate disaster, the very result he so earnestly wished to avoid. His concern is that he will fail to prove his monetarist theory that the 1930s Great Depression was caused only by a serious lack of liquidity... for which his simplistic solution is just to print more of the bloody stuff, and throw some of it out of his helicopter over Iowa or wherever else isn’t on the map.

This is Bernanke’s answer to the unanswerable question, but QE doesn’t add one iota to aggregate demand. His QE3+ printing programme, which currently spews out $85.0 billion into the US economy every month, does nothing whatsoever, unfortunately, to increase consumer demand; and demand is what the world economy actually needs to get back to anything recognisable as Growth, as we once knew it.

Why gold tanked

What Bernanke did, on Friday, 12 April, was hit the market with 500 tonnes of naked shorts, knocking $73 off an ounce of gold. That adds up to 16 million ounces, worth $24,800,000,000, producing a loss for the seller(s) of $1,168,000,000: this begs the question of who has $25 trn of walking-around money in his hip pocket, and can afford to drop $1.2 bn on the street?

Answer: only the Fed, which can print money until the cows come home.

But what if it goes wrong? It’s an enormous and uncharted risk that Bernanke is taking, so why did he take it? Obviously, he wants to keep gold at around $1,400 per ounce, but why? Because the fall in value of the dollar against gold is caused by his QE3+ programme, which is designed to reduce unemployment by over one per cent, to seven per cent, but not to weaken the dollar and send import costs up, and lose control of interest rates. Hmm. It all sounds pretty rum.

Bernanke’s actions are the flipside of other central bank actions: Venezuela has repatriated its gold; Germany is doing the same, but the US only agreed to hand it over a seven-year period. So Bernanke now wants the price down, as he is committed to QE3+ until the US economy achieves lift-off.

The economy, however, is still patchy and not yet anywhere near take-off speed, so he daren’t let interest rates rise while he is printing money like a maniac, or he thinks his recovery will falter and fail.

It’s not difficult to see all this nonsense ending up as a nasty mess in the field at the end of the runway... with inflation and slump, slumpflation in a word, and banking and derivative collapses also found at the scene. What price gold then?

Stephen Hill is a businessman who has been published on classical economics and on European philology and philosophy. Read more by Stephen Hill

This article first appeared on Spear's.

Gold! Photograph: Getty Images

This is a story from the team at Spears magazine.

GETTY
Show Hide image

Cabinet audit: what does the appointment of Andrea Leadsom as Environment Secretary mean for policy?

The political and policy-based implications of the new Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

A little over a week into Andrea Leadsom’s new role as Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), and senior industry figures are already questioning her credentials. A growing list of campaigners have called for her resignation, and even the Cabinet Office implied that her department's responsibilities will be downgraded.

So far, so bad.

The appointment would appear to be something of a consolation prize, coming just days after Leadsom pulled out of the Conservative leadership race and allowed Theresa May to enter No 10 unopposed.

Yet while Leadsom may have been able to twist the truth on her CV in the City, no amount of tampering will improve the agriculture-related side to her record: one barely exists. In fact, recent statements made on the subject have only added to her reputation for vacuous opinion: “It would make so much more sense if those with the big fields do the sheep, and those with the hill farms do the butterflies,” she told an audience assembled for a referendum debate. No matter the livelihoods of thousands of the UK’s hilltop sheep farmers, then? No need for butterflies outside of national parks?

Normally such a lack of experience is unsurprising. The department has gained a reputation as something of a ministerial backwater; a useful place to send problematic colleagues for some sobering time-out.

But these are not normal times.

As Brexit negotiations unfold, Defra will be central to establishing new, domestic policies for UK food and farming; sectors worth around £108bn to the economy and responsible for employing one in eight of the population.

In this context, Leadsom’s appointment seems, at best, a misguided attempt to make the architects of Brexit either live up to their promises or be seen to fail in the attempt.

At worst, May might actually think she is a good fit for the job. Leadsom’s one, water-tight credential – her commitment to opposing restraints on industry – certainly has its upsides for a Prime Minister in need of an alternative to the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP); a policy responsible for around 40 per cent the entire EU budget.

Why not leave such a daunting task in the hands of someone with an instinct for “abolishing” subsidies  thus freeing up money to spend elsewhere?

As with most things to do with the EU, CAP has some major cons and some equally compelling pros. Take the fact that 80 per cent of CAP aid is paid out to the richest 25 per cent of farmers (most of whom are either landed gentry or vast, industrialised, mega-farmers). But then offset this against the provision of vital lifelines for some of the UK’s most conscientious, local and insecure of food producers.

The NFU told the New Statesman that there are many issues in need of urgent attention; from an improved Basic Payment Scheme, to guarantees for agri-environment funding, and a commitment to the 25-year TB eradication strategy. But that they also hope, above all, “that Mrs Leadsom will champion British food and farming. Our industry has a great story to tell”.

The construction of a new domestic agricultural policy is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for Britain to truly decide where its priorities for food and environment lie, as well as to which kind of farmers (as well as which countries) it wants to delegate their delivery.

In the context of so much uncertainty and such great opportunity, Leadsom has a tough job ahead of her. And no amount of “speaking as a mother” will change that.

India Bourke is the New Statesman's editorial assistant.