Your implication is that rather than independently evaluate the facts as best you can, you, instead, decide whom to trust. Apparently, you believe the sources with a vested interest in keeping the price of gold down over those who have a vested interest in moving the price up. So a 119 page report, containing substantial research on the GATA site, can just be dismissed, unread.
As someone with no axe to grind, I feel the weight of evidence is on the side of manipulation. But I will look at the opposite side. Can you point me to ANY source that supports the unfettered market theory? Or are we supposed to just take it for granted because that side just ignores the allegation. I guess those accused of manipulation recognize that their power, clout, prestige, and special privilege will protect them. They expect that their silence, alone, says, to the believing public "How can anyone think we would even consider manipulating the markets". If they were forced to say it overtly, it might sound more like OJ's lament ("How can anybody think that I would harm Nicole!!!")
I'm sorry you're not able to understand the concept of "pecuniary interest."
Apparently, you believe the sources with a vested interest in keeping the price of gold down over those who have a vested interest in moving the price up.
No, I don't believe either side. But the fact that you opted for a personal attack indicates that (a) you have a vested interest in the price of gold moving up and (b) you don't have a solid argument to make.
So a 119 page report, containing substantial research on the GATA site, can just be dismissed, unread.
I will gladly read it and comment on it. However, you must agree to pay my independent consulting fee. That fee is $150 an hour, with an 80-hour minimum billing period. (I have things to do and a finite amount of time to do them in; you must make it worth my while up front. If you're right, then you're going to make an [expletive deleted] fortune Real Soon Now, and the consulting fee would be pocket change.)
As someone with no axe to grind,
Bravo Sierra-your personal attack demonstrates otherwise.
I feel the weight of evidence is on the side of manipulation.
Ah, you "feel" this to be true. Not that you "THINK" it to be true. Interesting choice of words.
But I will look at the opposite side. Can you point me to ANY source that supports the unfettered market theory?
You are making a positive assertion. The burden of proof is on you. All I've seen from you is arm-waving, not solid evidence.
Or are we supposed to just take it for granted because that side just ignores the allegation.
No. If you're saying there is manipulation, then you are VOLUNTARILY taking on the burden of proving the existence of said manipulation.
I guess those accused of manipulation recognize that their power, clout, prestige, and special privilege will protect them.
???????
They expect that their silence, alone, says, to the believing public "How can anyone think we would even consider manipulating the markets".
One more time, for possible penetration into your brain: you are making the affirmative case, you are assuming the burden of proof.