The World of Central Banker Asset Price Manipulation

 In this article, I will discuss why the price equilibrium point of the  supply and demand chart taught in all business school classrooms,  including in graduate level MBA programs, is one of the greatest lies  ever taught as bankers execute a high level of price control and asset  price manipulation in global markets for gold, oil and various  agricultural commodities. Since there are literally thousands of  commodities to choose from, I have chosen to discuss the burgeoning Age  of Delusion and banker-executed asset price manipulation schemes with  five commodities only: Gold, Oil, Food, Money and Education. Let’s start  with gold. 

Gold Price Suppression Schemes Galore? 

 Gold is perhaps the top commodity, other than currencies, targeted by  bankers for asset price manipulation. By official International Monetary  Fund (IMF) reports, the United States is supposedly the largest holder  of gold reserves in the world, at 8,133 tonnes. I say “supposedly”,  because the Federal Reserve has not allowed the US’s reported gold  reserves to be confirmed by an independent third-party audit since  January 20, 1953. Thus, nobody really knows how much physical gold the  US owns, except those that blindly accept the government’s word as the  truth, which is always a shaky proposition. There are many additional  reasons why the official US gold reserve tonnage remains in doubt  besides a lack of confirmation of this IMF reported number by an  independent, third party investigator in more than 66-years. During the  66-year period since the last audit, leaked US Central Bank documents uncovered by GATA  have confirmed numerous speculations that the Federal Reserve has  dumped US gold reserves in the form of Central Bank swaps and/or through  lease arrangements with global bullion banks to drive gold prices down,  even though US Central Bankers always deny engaging in gold swaps  despite the admission of Central Banker asset price manipulation on  official documents. Just how much of this gold may have disappeared from  US bank vaults to achieve the suppression of gold prices for the two  decades between 1980 and 2000 is anyone’s guess, as is the amount of  gold tonnage involved in gold swaps and leases executed by Central  Bankers between 1980 and today. Today, due to massive fraud executed in  gold futures markets in London and New York, dumping physical gold into  markets to drive gold prices down is no longer necessary. 

 Of course, the true numbers of US gold reserves are not the only numbers  brought into question. It seems that many Central Bankers, no matter  their nationality, have a propensity to lie. In April, 2009, Chinese  Central Bankers announced that its sovereign level of gold reserves were  twice its prior “officially reported number” of the past five  years, revealing that they had lied about the gold data they reported to  the world for five years. And in June 2010, Saudi Arabia followed suit  when the House of Saud announced that, due to an “accounting error”  its gold reserves had, like China, more than doubled overnight. If  anyone believes that China and Saudi Arabai really disclosed the true  amount of their gold reserves to the world, respectively in 2009 and  2010, or in any of their updated numbers since then, please allow me to  dispel this gullible notion with the following quote from former US  Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Alan Blinder: “The last duty of a central banker is to tell the public the truth.” 

 So it’s not just China and the US’s reported gold reserve numbers that I  question, but I question the validity of gold reserve numbers from  every key Central Banker in the world. Back in 2012, I posed the  question, “Ask the Bundesbank of Germany if they can prove they have  custody of their reserves in their own country and you will likely not  receive a straight answer to this relatively simple question either.” Of  course, since then, German Central Bankers requested the repatriation  of a large chunk of their gold stored by US Central Bankers at the New  York Federal Reserve. Though such a request should be fulfilled in  months, requiring only the time to ship gold from the US to Germany,  this process took US Central Bankers years to fulfill, which led to much  speculation about the whereabouts of Germany’s gold.  When the Germans  received their requested gold, it allegedly was not the same gold bars  they had originally stored with the US Central Bankers, which fueled  further speculation of what happened to their original gold. In  addition, there was no specific documentable proof provided by the  German Central Bankers regarding the amount of gold repatriated from US  Central Bankers, so I still doubt the Bundesbank’s officially reported  gold tonnage along with their reported tonnage still held in New York,  in Paris (at the Bank of France) and in London (at the Bank of England). 

 As I explained in the previous paragraphs, there is obvious fraud  regarding reported data of existing global gold supply. But what about  the demand side of the physical gold equation? At a CFTC hearing in  April, 2010, in a well-covered story, Jeffrey Christian of CPM Group  confirmed that what is loosely called the London “physical market” trades up to a hundred times more paper gold  than there is physical metal supply to back those trades. So even  demand numbers in the gold market have been proven to have little  integrity, as the physical gold demand market has been severely  compromised and rendered inefficient in influencing gold prices when  competing with the fraud of banker asset price manipulation executed in  the paper gold futures markets. In courses in my skwealthacademy, I  provide data that illustrates that even Jeffery Christian’s revelation  that shocked many people is a massive underestimation of the level of  fraud that happens globally in paper gold futures markets and in the  Loco London markets. The not-so-invisible hand of banker fraud is  clearly at play in heavily determining and setting an artificially  fraudulent price of gold. If physical gold demand ever overwhelms the  fraudulent global banking cartel asset price manipulation mechanism for  gold, gold prices will explode higher in a manner that will shock many  moving forward beyond mid-2019 and in years beyond. Finally, many of the  same asset price manipulation schemes that bankers have utilized  against gold have also been utilized against silver, though I am not  going to broach that subject here. 

Oil — Is it Even a Scarce Resource?

 With oil, I believe that the banking/oil cartel utilizes the same  perceived and artificially low supply scam as the diamond cartel to  effectively create asset price manipulation and deliberate wild  fluctuations in oil prices that they can capitalize on to amass great  fortunes. Over my investment career, I have written both articles  declaring my belief for the peak oil theory as well as articles in which  I rejected the peak oil theory after becoming privy to additional  knowledge of which I had previously been unaware. As I have stated  numerous times before in the hundreds of articles I have publicly  posted, only a fool remains steadfast to an opinion in the face of  growing conflicting evidence while an intellect will adjust his or her  opinion. I am aware of the reported figures about dwindling production  in Mexico’s Cantarell oil field, the second largest in the world, from a  peak of 2.1M barrels per day in 2009 to only 134k barrels per day by  2017. However, oil production has since been replaced in Mexico by the  Ku-Maloob-Zaap oil field, which produced 810,000 barrels of oil per day  in 2017, and this oil field is located just northwest of the Cantarell  field, perhaps providing more credence to the renewable resource theory.  I am additionally aware of rapidly dwindling oil production numbers for  global oil production numbers and the claims of the House of Saud that  they must develop alternate energy sources due to dwindling oil  resources in their nation, and yes, I am aware that the predominant  number of people on planet Earth believe in the Peak Oil Theory. But  should the concept of challenging a “universal truth” that we have been  told, even instructed to believe, ever be considered ludicrous,  especially when credible opposition evidence exists? I will present  facts of an alternative theory regarding the renewable resource theory  that merits consideration.  

 When there is a belief as widely accepted as the Peak Oil Theory, one  must always question the source of this belief. I have written many blog  articles over the past decade that have explored the fact that  virtually all key economic indicator statistics produced by governments  are blatantly false and manipulated to manufacture confidence in  economies that are far shakier than the narrative presented to a  nation’s citizens, I have branched out to explore other widely held  beliefs due to the reasonable deduction that if governments consistently  lie about national economic statistics, then they must also lie about  other key information as well. Why do governments produce economic lies?  Because they have a better chance of maintaining power if they can  successfully con us into believing the “rosy” economic lies they  produce. Why does the diamond cartel produce phony global diamond supply  statistics every year that enables them to maintain very high diamond  prices every year? Because producing phony supply statistics allows the  diamond cartel to manipulate asset prices in the global diamond market  by effectively changing public perception of diamonds as a “rare” gem to  charge artificially high prices. In other words, the producers of these  lies are also the greatest beneficiaries of these lies. So who benefits  from the production of phony oil supply statistics, higher manipulated  asset prices and a fear of peak oil if indeed the oil data is phony? The  answer, of course, is the oil cartel and bankers. And if supply and  demand actually dictates prices of global commodities as we are falsely  taught in academic classrooms, if global oil production has been in  steady decline, combined with growing demand from China that has increased global oil demand by nearly 20% in the last ten years,  why have oil prices dropped so much? Of course, the answer is that  global oil production has not been in steady decline in the last decade,  or even in the last two decades, even though peak oil theory told us  that global oil production would peak and decline from the early 1970s.  In fact, global oil production has increased steadily for three decades  from slightly less than 54M barrels a day in 1985 to about 80M barrels a day by 2015. 

 Understanding the shadowy world of bankers requires one to think like a  detective in pursuit of a criminal. Identify a motive for why supply  numbers for various key commodities are falsely manufactured and you  will find the likely culprit behind these manufactured numbers. If asset  price manipulation of a commodity causes its price to rapidly surge or  rapidly fall, despite no significant changes in global production,  supply and demand of that commodity, seek a motive that drives this  behavior. The motive can always be found by following the trail of  money. I already have explained numerous times on my blog, the banker  lies about the fundamentals of stock markets and the real determinants  of stock price behavior. I have also revealed banker lies about the real  determinants of gold and silver prices. Knowing this, why would we  believe that bankers would tell us the truth about the real determinants  of the price of a barrel of oil? 

 When oil incredibly soared from $51.20 on January 17, 2007 to $147.20 a  barrel in 7 months, then incredibly crashed to $35.35 a barrel just 5  months later, and then rapidly soared to $81.19 a barrel just 10 months  later, I challenge anyone to produce figures of changing supply and  demand, and production and consumption determinants than can logically  explain these massive swings in price over such a condensed period of  time. Of course, the textbook academic, business school explanation for  these wild swings in price was not asset price manipulation, but that  enormous global demand caused oil prices to soar in 2007, a crashing  economy in 2008 caused a nosedive in prices in 2008, and economic  recovery caused soaring prices once again in 2010. I contend that this  academic answer is rubbish and does not even come close to reality. In  my opinion, the real answer, which is supported by analysis of trading  volumes of oil future contracts during this time, was that Wall Street  bankers artificially manipulated asset prices and engineered massive  volatility in oil prices by manipulating oil futures markets to create a  significant portion, if not the majority portion of these wild swings  in prices, even though “official studies” only attributed a  nominal amount, perhaps 10% to 30%, of these wild fluctuations to  speculation. In fact, a major factor for the spike price to $147 a  barrel in 2007 was alleged to have been an artificially engineered short squeeze by Goldman Sachs bankers against a massive short positions in oil held by Semgroup Holdings,  a position of which they were privy, due to prior access of Semgroup’s  complete financials in an earlier private placement deal in which they  were involved.  Global oil prices, like global gold prices, are majority  determined by trading in paper futures markets. With gold, the  deception about price setting mechanisms and manipulated asset prices  are amped up to levels that exceed the deception in setting oil prices,  so it is no wonder that many people still believe that gold prices for  the most part are set by a handful of bankers in the AM and PM London  daily gold price fix, when the reality is that the largest movements in  gold prices are effected in futures markets. So it is not the producers  of oil, nor increasing or collapsing global demand, that caused oil  prices to rollercoaster from $50 to $150 to $35 back up to $80 a barrel,  and it was not individual speculators that produced the wild swings in  supply and demand estimates that created these rollercoaster rides.  Rather it was the cartel of bankers that control paper commodity markets  that manipulated asset prices by controlling the supply and demand of  oil futures contracts that deliberately and artificially created these  wild swings in price. 

 When I first started discussing the enormous fraud in the pricing  mechanism and the manipulated asset prices of gold markets in 2006, I  was one of the very first people in the world to regularly publicly blog  about this topic as others that understood the truth were too afraid to  write about it for fear of being labeled a “conspiracy theorist” and  having their careers derailed. Back in 2006, mainstream gold and silver  banking analysts used to regularly ridicule me for my beliefs,  especially whenever I publicly blogged about my beliefs about banker  executed price suppression schemes in the gold and silver markets. Back  then, my beliefs were grounded in my own research as well as the very  substantial mountain of evidence provided by GATA  that had not yet made its way into the general consciousness of the  mainstream public. Today, public beliefs about gold price suppression  schemes have flipped 180 degrees. Given the admissions of outright gold  price manipulation in court by Barclays, Deutsche Bank and Merrill Lynch  bankers, in 2019, deniers of gold price suppression schemes are the  ones viewed as naïve and gullible. I believe the same realizations will  eventually happen with all commodities, not just gold. Has anyone else  noticed that when oil prices are skyrocketing, peak oil theories are  widely discussed as the instigator for higher oil prices, even though  the global supply and demand figures during these times don’t fit a peak  oil narrative? However, during times when bankers decide to move the  price of oil much lower, peak oil theory almost never factors into the  discussions of dropping oil prices. In more recent years from 2008 to  2018, most oil prices were  engineered by bankers in oil futures markets to fulfill political  agendas of Western governments, especially to inflict maximum pain upon  the economies of oil-dependent nations viewed as “enemies” of the United  States and NATO. 

 “Proposing that we know for certain that the process to form oil takes  millions of years seems far more absurd to me than the alternate theory  of abiotic oil, in which scientific evidence supports that the carbon  found in the building blocks of oil are not formed from the  decomposition of fossilized dinosaur remains.” 

 F. William Engdahl, an economic researcher, historian and freelance journalist for some 35 years, states,   “The whole peak oil theory rests on the idea that oil is a fossil fuel, which is accepted as religious dogma by almost every geology department in most of the [academic] world. The problem is, oil is not a fossil fuel, it’s not from the detritus of dead dinosaurs or from algae from under the ocean or bird fossils or whatever fossils you want to take. It’s not a biological product.”   If this is true, then what is oil? There is another theory about oil’s  origins that very few people are aware of called the abiotic theory of  oil that actually has a lot more scientific credibility than the much  more speculative “fossil fuel” theory of oil. The fossil fuel theory of  oil, the basis of the limited resource oil narrative, has about as much  credible scientific evidence supporting it as does the Big Bang Theory.  The Big Bang Theory may be correct, but there is not indisputable facts  that support it as many believe. Most scientists that support the Big  Bang Theory suffer from massive confirmation bias, only citing  scientific evidence in support of the theory while ignoring all  scientific evidence that brings the theory into question. Though I have  read numerous articles of why many scientists do not believe in the Big  Bang Theory, here is a link to just one.  This article is just a reference for those people that are not aware  that many scientists have presented a lot of credible evidence that  disputes the Big Bang Theory. However, I haven’t researched all the  scientific evidence cited in this article that disputes the Big Bang  Theory, so you will have to research this on your own, which is a good  exercise to undertake to sharpen one’s critical thinking skills. In any  event, to return to the topic at hand, Mr. Giora Proskurowski, a  scientist with the School of Oceanography at the University of  Washington in Seattle,  headed a study that produced some very  interesting conclusions that dispute the fossil fuel theory of oil. Oil,  Proskurowski stated, may actually be a natural product that the Earth’s  mantle constantly generates and whose source may be living organisms as  small as plankton rather than decaying ancient forests and dead  dinosaurs. The advocates of this alternative abiotic theory of oil  production believe that oil seeps up through bedrock cracks and is  deposited, rather than originated, in sedimentary rock as the fossil  fuel theory of oil presupposes.  

 As proof of the increasing credibility of the abiotic theory of oil  production, scientists point to the Lost City, a hypothermal field 2,100  feet below sea level located along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge at the center  of the Atlantic Ocean noted for its strange 90 to 200 foot white towers  that bubble from its vents. In 2003 and 2005, Mr. Proskurowski and his  team descended in a submarine to collect samples of the liquid that  bubbles up from the Lost City sea vents. Upon analysis, Proskurowski and  his team discovered that the liquid contained natural gas and the  building blocks for oil, hydrocarbons. However, the hydrocarbons from  the Lost City sea vents contained abiotic carbon-13 isotopes. They found  no evidence of carbon-12, the carbon isotope typically associated with  biological origin. Proskurowski and his team postulated that the  hydrocarbons found in the Lost City sea vents were formed from the  mantle of the Earth through an abiotic process of Fischer-Tropsch (FTT) reactions, and not from biological material that had settled on the ocean floor.  

 During the German Nazi regime, Nazi scientists developed FTT processes  that could produce synthetic oil from coal and contributed to the  world’s understanding of an abiotic process of oil production.  Proskurowski also discovered that the methane in Lost City contained no  carbon-14, which also lent enormous credence to the hypothesis that the  carbon source for the hydrocarbons of the Lost City vents came from  within the earth’s mantle, far away from organisms that might have had  contact with the global carbon cycle near the earth’s surface. In other  words, the Lost City vents contained organic material formed by  inorganic processes, the exact antithesis of how the fossil fuel theory  postulates that oil is formed. Before Proskurowski’s study, Cornell  University physicist Thomas Gold had argued in his book “The Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels” that micro-organisms found in oil were possibly produced in the mantle of the earth. 

 Again, as I stated before, before one can ever trust information that is  so widely accepted, one has to find its source. The problem today is  that the vast majority of us never question the source even though the  source of very disputable claims often has multiple ulterior motives for  producing a consensus around a widely distributed narrative. As a  consequence of this intellectual inertia, we have all become extremely  prone to blindly and very dangerously accepting any information as fact  as long as it is printed in a “credible newspaper” or it is spoken on a “credible television news station.” In 1956, M. King Hubbert coined the term “peak oil”.  In 1975 Hubbert himself predicted global oil production would start  declining by the 1970s and a worldwide crisis in oil by 1999 or 2000.  Even though this did not occur, this failure did not discredit the peak  oil theory. 

 Of course, the question that immediately surfaces is this. Why would the  banking cartel want us to believe that oil is a fossil fuel if it is  not? Here is the answer. If bankers could successfully sell the world  the idea that oil was a byproduct of a process that involved hundreds of  thousands or millions of years of anaerobic decomposition of buried  dead organisms, then it would become infinitely easier to sell the world  on the idea of peak oil and manipulate the price of oil. It is  extremely difficult to manipulate the price of a commodity if everyone  believes that its supply is abundant. So let’s step back for a second,  take a deep breath and consider the logical arguments for and against  the fossil fuel theory of oil production and for and against the abiotic  theory of oil production. The fossil fuel theory proposes that the  process to form oil takes not decades, not centuries, but MILLIONS of  years through the decomposition of fossilized remains.  

 Proposing that we know for certain that the process to form oil takes millions of years seems far more absurd to me than the alternate theory of abiotic oil, where scientific evidence supports that the carbon found in the building blocks of oil are not formed from the decomposition of fossilized remains. 

 In regard to oil, F. William Engdahl continues, “It’s a controlled market – this is not a free market! Energy is probably the most controlled market in the world, food being second.” However,  with this point, I respectfully disagree with Mr. Engdahl. In my  opinion, money is the most controlled market in the world, with food and  energy tied for second. When considering the possibility that the  banking cartel has created a lie about real oil supply and is  responsible for a potentially fake fossil fuel theory, my thoughts  inevitably led me to questions regarding the US war with Iraq. In fact,  the Bush administration’s invention of WMDs (Weapons of Mass  Destruction) to justify military intervention almost seems to validate  the Peak Oil theory. After all, why would America need to capture  strategic control over the Middle East’s oil supply if oil were not a  scarce resource but replenished quite abundantly by an abiotic process? I  struggled with this question until I asked myself the following two  questions, two questions that should always be asked before accepting  the validity of any theory propagated by an authoritative source:  

 (1) Who is the source of this information? and  

 (2) If the information is a lie, who benefits from the lie?  

 To answer question #1, most people already know that the Peak Oil Theory  originated with M. King Hubbert. But can most people answer the  question, “Who was M. King Hubbert?” M. King Hubbert was a geoscientist  who worked at the Shell research lab in Houston, Texas. His biography is  as follows:  

 “M.King Hubbert worked as an assistant geologist for the Amerada Petroleum Company for two years while pursuing his Ph.D., additionally teaching geophysics at Columbia University. He also served as a senior analyst at the Board of Economic Warfare. He joined the Shell Oil Company in 1943, retiring from that firm in 1964. After he retired from Shell, he became a senior research geophysicist for the United States Geological Survey until his retirement in 1976. He also held positions as a professor of geology and geophysics at Stanford University from 1963 to 1968, and as a professor at UC Berkeley from 1973 to 1976.”  

 Years ago, I produced a video series about the principles of ideological subversion  that emphasized the essential role of academics and school in the  widespread acceptance of false ideas into the mainstream belief system.  Hubbert certainly fits the bill as he was granted numerous opportunities  to spread his Peak Oil theories to the masses through his  professorships at top US universities at Columbia, Stanford and UC  Berkeley. In fact, Hubbert’s various tenures at top-ranked US  universities resembles the same strategy of how top Latin American  students were given scholarships to study economics at the University of  Chicago to then return to their home countries and serve as advocates  for the economic principles that would benefit Western nations (as well  documented by historian and author Naomi Klein in her book The Shock Doctrine.)  After Hubbert’s death, Matt Simmons, a Houston oil banker and  decades-long friend of former US Vice President Dick Cheney, was able to  leverage Hubbert’s peak oil theory to crystallize a global belief in  the limited global supply of oil before he eventually turned  whistleblower on British Petroleum during the BP Gulf of Mexico oil  disaster, and was discredited himself before dying under questionable  circumstances in 2010. Simmons was George W. Bush’s energy adviser, a  member of the National Petroleum Council and also a member of the  secretive, powerful foreign policy influencer, the Council on Foreign  Relations (or CFR, of which disgraced pedophile Jeffrey Epstein was also  a member. I suggest you dig deep into this issue to connect the dots).  

 Thus, we’ve established that the oil industry and bankers were the  source of the Peak Oil theory as well as the impetus behind propelling  the theory into prominent global attention. In regard to question #2,  who benefited the most from the Peak Oil theory and the War in Iraq?  Again, the top beneficiaries of the Peak Oil theory and the War in Iraq  were, and still are, oil producers and bankers. Why are bankers at the  top of the list of beneficiaries of the war, you ask? It’s a simple  equation. US Central Bankers created money to funded government war  appropriation expenditures to wage war in Iraq. In turn, the American  government must pay interest on the money these trillions of dollars.  The greater the level of war appropriations, the greater the profits  earned by Central Bankers on the interest they charge on debt generated  by the war. Control a nation’s debt and you gain control over the  nation’s government. 

 As I’ve only researched the abiotic theory a little over a month for  this article, I am certainly not an expert on this theory. However, I  think I’ve raised enough questions that should raise reasonable doubts  regarding the possibility that bankers might be providing false oil  supply numbers and false oil origin theories to manipulate the price of  oil for personal gain. With that thought in mind, let’s turn our  attention to agriculture.  

Food & Money — the Two Commodities Bankers Use to Induce Mass Subservience  

 The world’s food staples, such as rice, corn, wheat and soybeans, is  another arena in which banker manipulated asset prices overwhelm the  price setting mechanisms of the physical commodity world.  Numerous  agricultural commodity prices soared at the end of 2007, collapsed in  2008 and 2009, and soared again in 2010, yet another example of a time  in which Central Bankers executed massive asset price manipulation.  In  April, 2010, the media reported that “As rice prices soar[ed] toward $1,000 a ton, governments across Asia brac[ed] for possible unrest as the region’s staple food bec[ame] less affordable and less available.” Paul Risley, the United Nations World Food Program’s spokesman in Asia, reported that some of the 28 million “poorest of the poor”  it fed could go hungry because the agency couldn’t afford to buy many  of the world’s staple grains. In 2010, corn, the staple food of Central  America and Mexico, also soared in price, and the US Department of  Agriculture, revised its forecast for the US corn crop yield downwards  by 12.6 million tonnes, or 3.9%, to 321.7 million tonnes. According to  CBH Group’s wheat trading manager, Chris Brown, the USDA’s revision was  the largest monthly revision for corn crop supplies ever at that time. “Never before has the USDA moved the corn yield down by such an amount,”  Mr. Brown said. Since the start of 2013, many of these core global food  staples have plunged in price back down to 2008 to 2009 price lows. The  question for 2019 is if we could now see a repeat of soaring  agricultural commodity prices that happened from 2010 to 2012 all over  again? Unfortunately, the Central Banker fiat currency wars in which  Central Bankers have created a race to the bottom in purchasing power of  dozens of fiat currencies, including the four major global currencies,  makes a repeat of 2010 to 2012 with soaring food staple prices very  likely again. In fact, of rice, corn, wheat and soybeans, I think that  one of these commodities is particularly primed to soar in price in the  future, which I will discuss in my patron only podcasts next month in August, 2019.   

Finish reading this article at http://maalamalama.com/wordpress/2019/07/31/the-world-of-central-banker-asset-price-manipulation/