Koos Jansen
BullionStar Blogs
Koos Jansen
Posted on 5 Mar 2014 by

Interview Fabrice Drouin Ristori

Interview with Fabrice Drouin Ristori to get to know his views on economics, gold and where the global monetary system is heading.

 Fabrice Drouin Ristori

What is your background?

I am a French serial entrepreneur and investor. Prior to 2008 I developed companies in the internet sector and then, after selling one of these companies, I got interested in everything related to our monetary/financial system and decided to invest my funds in physical gold and silver. I have been analyzing and investing in the gold and silver markets since 2008 and I created Goldbroker.com in 2011.

What made you decide to start a gold shop/storage company?

Simply, as an investor myself I wanted to own physical gold and silver bars in my own name. No paper gold, no mutualized gold. I wanted to own physical bars outside the banking system.

I didn’t want to be exposed to any counter-party risks, so I decided to set up Goldbroker.com as an answer to these issues. Goldbroker.com enables investors to:

– Own real physical gold and silver bars, not paper gold

– Own those bars in their own name, without counter-party risks

– Store in their own name, so they can access the vault and even withdraw their bars

– Store outside the banking system

This is the investment solution I wanted for myself as an investor.

Where is your company based, where are the vaults based, and can any customer withdraw one’s gold at any time?

Goldbroker.com is based in Malta where we have our operational team. The vaults are located in Zurich, Switzerland, and soon in Singapore.

Our clients can go to Zurich anytime and withdraw their gold, even without the presence of any Goldbroker.com employee. This constitutes an absolute guarantee that they don’t own gold through our company, but directly in their own name.

Does your company handle unallocated accounts?

All the gold and silver bars are 100% allocated to each of our clients. We don’t provide mutualized gold either, since it would not be appropriate for taking possession of the bars in case of an emergency.

Are you more bullish on gold or silver? Do you think gold will be re-monetized?

I’m definitely more bullish on silver. I personally own a high proportion of my portfolio in physical silver. One just needs to have a look at the gold/silver ratio to realize that silver is way undervalued compared to gold. Besides, silver is the only asset in the world which price is 80% below its 1980’s price.

Silver combines investment and industrial demand as well and is consumed when used. So yes, I’m very bullish on silver.

I do think that we are moving back toward a re-monetization of gold. Like mankind has always done throughout History.

What we are witnessing is the end of a paper money experience which will materialize in a complete loss of confidence in everything not tangible.

I think this move toward a re-monetization of gold will be pushed as well by international trade. Trade dictates monetary reforms and soon the BRICS, oil and natural gas producers will stop accepting paper money in exchange for the commodity they sell and move toward a gold trade settlement system.

How will it be re-monetized? How will this process unfold, in what time frame?

Loss of confidence and international trade will require it.

I tend to think that we will see an international monetary reset at some point, and gold will be part of it. Again, gold will be used because of its monetary attributes, the most important of which is that gold is money without any counter-party risk.

A time frame is always hard to foresee as human decisions/behaviors are involved, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see it happening in the next five to ten years.

Do you think the price of gold is manipulated?

Manipulating the only form of money that has been used for thousands of years is the best way to protect a fiat monetary system. So you don’t need to be a genius to understand why gold would be manipulated, you just need to understand money and the huge power that the central banks have when printing unlimited amounts of money.

Gold and silver are manipulated. Chis Powell and Bill Murphy from the GATA camp have done a great job documenting this manipulation. For those who want to see they provide all the evidence.

People, investors and the mass media are slowly waking up to the fact that gold and silver are manipulated, but this manipulation scandal will be revealed in the coming years.

Gold price rigging is more and more becoming mainstream news and this article published by the Financial Times proves this.

How is it manipulated? In what market (NY, London)? With what instruments? (futures, gold leasing, unallocated accounts, options, forwards)

It’s manipulated through different instruments or techniques:

– Physical gold sales in the market, though this has stopped recently as central banks don’t want to sell/lease more physical gold or simply don’t have enough physical gold to continue playing this game.

– Re-hypothecation of gold: basically selling several times the same gold bar to different clients. Investors are exposed to this when they own unallocated gold bars.

– Selling of paper gold certificates to investors who think they own gold when they only own a piece of paper. This bypasses the massive demand from the physical market, limits the pressure on the physical market and creates an important virtual supply of gold. I think you can analyze the creation of certain gold ETFs in that perspective.

– Massive selling of future contracts when the market is the most illiquid on the COMEX.

As confidence in everything “paper” breaks down and physical gold supply disappears at these artificially low prices, the physical market will take over the paper market and it will put an end to the capacity to manipulate gold and silver.

You can’t manipulate reality forever.

Do you think the US is collaborating with other countries, like China (or even BIS), in gold price suppression?

I don’t think power is easily shared and you know the saying “Who owns the gold makes the rules”, so I don’t really see the US helping China get their hands on cheap physical gold thanks to the price suppression.

I think the manipulation’s first objective is to protect the dollar and the international fiat money system.

That said, I think Western central banks and the BIS, since they get their power from their capacity to issue money out of thin air, are collaborating in this gold price suppression.

Do you think Shanghai will take over the London Gold Market?

I think that China, Russia and all the big buyers of physical gold are helping the gold market move back to a physical determination of its price.

This trend toward direct physical possession of gold will destroy the LBMA (London gold market) and the COMEX in time, as they are highly leveraged and a lot of unallocation and re-hypothecation has been happening there.

On the COMEX market alone you have 112 paper gold claims for each ounce of physical gold available. Watch for cash settlements before any official default on physical gold delivery, which will happen as well in the coming years.

What China and Russia are doing by acquiring physical gold is very telling for any gold investor: if you don’t own physical gold you don’t own anything.

How will the monetary system look like in ten years?

I think physical gold will be central in the coming monetary system, with international trade settled in gold notes (convertible in physical gold), since nothing else will be accepted as a form of payment.

A global debt restructuring will be needed to begin the process.

We might experience first a reformed SDR basket, which will fail before moving to a new monetary system backed by gold. This should happen in the next ten years, probably before, but it will be heavily discussed between powerful countries, since redistribution of power towards Asia is at stake. The transition won’t be smooth.

Koos Jansen
E-mail Koos Jansen on:

  • Zhanglan

    On the COMEX market alone you have 112 paper gold claims for each ounce of physical gold available.

    This is a blatant falsehood, which I sense is founded not on ignorance, but on a cynical disregard for the truth in pursuit of a manipulative storyline

    Anyone who doubts this is welcome to refer not only to the NYMEX and CME Rule Books, but to contact me via Koos and I will be happy to provide a detailed breakdown using worked examples from December 13 and January 14 Gold and Silver delivery patterns

    In closing, I would note that those whose business is to sell retail bullion are often to be found claiming that Silver will outperform Gold, and that the Gold:Silver ratio is set to plummet. I would heartily recommend that anyone reading such a remark from such a source would be well advised to check the Bid – Offered spreads which that retailer offers for Gold and for Silver respectively. Again, anyone wish to receive a further detailed analysis of this is welcome to provide their email address to Koos, and if I may assume that he is happy to forward correspondence to me, then I will not hesitate to respond to it in intricate detail, with multiple current worked examples

    • Navigator

      Please enlighten us with the number of paper gold claims on physical according to your calculations. No reason to hide your number right?

      • Zhanglan

        1. Impossible to calculate on the basis of information published by COMEX

        2. Ignoring the potential for Gold to be introduced into COMEX to effect settlement via Eligible Inventory – as happened on 6 consecutive days in December 2013 – the Open Interest : Deliverable Gold ratio is currently around 5, indicating that – in theory – up to 20% of Open Interest could be delivered against (whereas in a typical delivery month only a fraction of 1% goes to physical delivery)

        3. It is important to bear in mind 2 facts: firstly, it is the Short position who ‘Stands’ i.e. makes the decision if and whether to deliver, not the Long (Buyer) who ‘stops’ the delivery Notice. It is not possible to force someone to deliver – or, rather, to default

        Secondly, although it is no longer considered to be the Front Month (and penal Initial Margin rates are applied), it is entirely possible and legitimate to trade the Delivery Month contract right up until 3 days before the end of the Delivery Month. In recent months there has been no evidence of a squeeze on Short positions (affecting the delivery month contracts but not the front month) although this certainly happened in COMEX Dec13 Copper. The market remains very much ‘open for business’ throughout the delivery month

        4. The missing link in the available information is the connection between Inventories (which record location and perhaps to some extent possession) of physical metal, and Ownership (of both the physical metal and the Short positions). These are fundamentally different legal constructs, and given the limitations and opacity of COMEX reporting (particularly its recording only of net movements of aggregated inventory) it is impossible to say at any moment in time whether the Shorts have access to any Gold, and much less whether they have any intention of going into physical delivery. To be frank, if they own Gold, then where is the problem with them delivering it, and if they never had any intention of delivering physical, then why on earth would it matter whether they owned any Gold or not?

        As a sidebar, I would strongly caution about trying to infer too much from COT reports, but that is another story.

        5. The mistake is to equate Registered inventory with “Dealer” or “House” accounts; there is no factual basis for this assumption – in fact, quite the contrary, and I can provide strong evidence to suggest that, far from meaning “Dealer”, what Registered Inventory actually represents is in fact “Not Owned By This Dealer, but held on behalf of someone else who has already taken ownership but not yet taken physical possession”

        The case in point is Brinks – with whom I have been in direct correspondence. Brinks do not trade for their own account, or for clients – in fact they are not accredited by COMEX as a Dealer and consequently do not appear in the Delivery Reports. Their status is that of an Approved Depositary, and for COMEX delivery purposes they have no Customers (only Dealers have Customers).

        In common with other Depositories, Brinks maintains Registered Inventory as well as Eligible Inventory; however, this cannot be “Dealer” Gold, because Brinks is not a Dealer. Similarly, settlements from Brinks’s Eligible Inventory – of which there are many – are not from Brink’s Customers – because from a COMEX delivery perspective they have no Customers (they are not a Dealer). In fact – and Brinks have confirmed this – NONE of Brink’s COMEX Inventory belongs to Brinks, but a substantial proportion of it is owned by other dealers (mostly the smaller ones and their Customers, but Bullion Banks too).

        There is no COMEX ‘shop’ where naughty Short positions can go to confess their sins and beg for physical Gold to settle their positions after they have been caught out. In fact, COMEX Registered Inventory could be either Zero or an almost infinitely large (in Gold terms) amount without it having any direct bearing on whether the Shorts either intend to or are able to Stand and go into physical delivery. It’s all total nonsense, and belies a gross and fundamental understanding of the mechanics of how Exchanges operate

        My closing thought: in mid-January the Open Interest : Registered Inventory (for all its worth) was around 112

        a. So what? COMEX didn’t collapse, and Gold is still far below where it was at the start of November 2013, Ukraine notwithstanding

        b. It’s not 112 now – and rarely is that high. Even if it were either relevant or significant, it’s still a blip

        c. The Gold Broker interviewed in this article is following a well-trodden path towards a sensational scare story intended to scare you on an emotional level more than it informs you on an intellectual level. This man’s business lies in selling you and I precious metals – what better ruse than to tell everyone that they are insanely scarce and are about to become unavailable? The Gold price is artificially low, the markets are manipulated and suppressed, COMEX is a total casino and a front operation, but just because the Government, the Banks and the Media are lying to you does not justify a bunch of retail Gold Dealers winding you up with factual untruths and lurid scare stories.

        Check these guys out – career background and length of experience – and you will typically find a bunch of lightweights with no extensive career background in the ,wholesale markets they profess to be experts in. You know who I am talking about – but maybe you’re not entirely familiar with the back story of the failed Financial Adviser whose most recent escapade was as an online Pension Broker, but who now has silver coins with his head on and a bad of loyal disciples hanging on his every word. If you want to be led by the nose, why not go for it? Maybe they are right. But my earnest advice is to do your homework and check the facts first.

        • Navigator

          To me it’s not some number pulled out of a hat of a ratio of registered to contracts. It’s the fact that huge quantities of virtual non-existent gold contracts are used to determine the price of a physical item and manipulate its price. Without this manipulation the price would certainly be much higher. China can consume or buy all the physical gold produced over a given time period, not even including the rest of the world demand and the price barely moves? Yes because those paper contracts dwarf world physical buying.

          • Banana Republic

            That is simply untrue. Typical daily COMEX gold volume is over around 100 – 180,000 contracts = 10 to 15 million oz. LBMA daily volume is around 17 million ounces, and to claim that the futures markets “dwarf” the spot market is patently absurd

            And, in passing, why is ‘manipulation’ supposedly only ever to the downside? There are clear and well-documented examples of orchestrated bear squeezes in the past, and whilst I have no doubt that players such as the IMF and Central Banks are very active, it would be foolish to believe that they are the only ones minded or capable to bully the market.

            You clearly have a preconceived notion and are intent in hammering a carefully selected subset of reality to fit into it. This is referred to as “confirmation bias” or, more colloquially, “having your head up your arse”

          • Navigator

            So you’re trying to tell me that 17 million ounces or roughly 500 tons a day are physically changing hands in a day. You’re delusional. It’s nothing more than paper claims changing ownership.

          • Banana Republic

            Well, let’s not get into name calling. What do you understand by a “paper claim”?

            Do you, for instance, consider a warehouse receipt or a COMEX Warehouse Warrant to be a “paper claim”? What about the contracts which professional investors have with their custodians? What about a debt instrument or promissory note convertible on demand into Gold? A GLD share held by an AP? How about a bailment of physical gold?
            Each of these represents a legally distinct arrangement, serves a particular purpose, and has different characteristics and consequences. Do you consider them all to be tools designed solely for devious intent, or “Financial WMD” or evidence of collusive manipulation?
            To be frank, I sense that you not only don’t have a joined-up answer to the above, but that you don’t especially care either : who needs facts when you’ve got an opinion, right? I wonder who formed yours for you

          • Navigator

            “This is referred to as “confirmation bias” or, more colloquially, “having your head up your arse”” This is not name calling to you?

            Facts are what I deal in. I am concerned with gold that actually exists in physical reality and not some paper claim whatever it may be. You tell me how 17 million real ounces of gold that you can touch with your hand are traded in a single day when the the Shanghai gold exchange delivers roughly 1/10 of that in a week and it is considered a record and close to worldwide mine production. 17 million ounces in a day is such a ridiculous figure that the onus is on you to prove to me that those 17 million ounces are real gold, not for me to prove they are not. real physical gold

            Your “facts” are are just part of your deception for something that does not exist.

          • Zhanglan

            “the onus is on you to prove to me that those 17 million ounces are real gold, not for me to prove they are not real physical gold

            “Group think is most prevalent in the conditioned mind, a phenomenon that
            is completely invisible to the group members who truly believe they are
            thinking independently.”


          • AK

            Why is manipulation only on the downside? Seriously?? Why do you think Gold is manipulated in first place? Gold is the anti-dollar and governments who live and grow by their ability to print money need to keep Gold prices in check as to mask the obvious devaluation that occurs the more money you print. The higher Gold rises the more obvious it becomes that the currency is losing its value. So, why on earth would you manipulate Gold to the upside?

        • AK

          Thanks for your insight on the dealings at the COMEX. Frankly, the Comex is no longer a significant player in the delivery market, it is nothing more than a paper casino that can easily be manipulated. It baffles me that the Comex is still used as price setting mechanism for the physical market because the paper and physical markets are two very different things.
          So despite Fabrice’s motivations and his apparent lack of understanding of the futures exchanges, I don’t think it invalidates everything else that he stated. That’s like saying, everything that comes out of KWN is garbage because of their ridiculous, sensationalistic headlines, which I’m sure the KWN guests have no say in. You have got to take everything with a grain of salt. There is a lot of truth in what Fabrice is saying and then there are some misstatements or exaggerations. Who doesn’t exaggerate from time to time?

    • rowingboat

      Incidentally Zhanglan, do you have your own blog or website or maybe you post somewhere else too? I almost missed your comments because I only just made it to the end of this one. Very rare to find someone in the gold space interested in the truth and prepared to take on such falsehoods, which get regurgitated again and again year after year.

    • Fabrice Drouin Ristori


      It’s a matter of some argument as to how much of the “eligible” gold stock is really going to be available. Maybe it would be fairer to construct the ratio as a matter of “eligible” and “registered,” on one side, and total contracts on the other.

      as for physical gold availability, of course gold can always be brought into the Comex system, though this takes some doing. Indeed, all the gold in the world is presumably
      available for purchase at the right price, but this doesn’t negate all informational value in the ratio of Comex-deposited gold to Comex contracts.

      Concerning “leverage” i wasn’t clear, i meant that few physical gold is available compare to the amount of paper gold contracts exchanged, that might not be the appropriate word i agree.

      Fabrice Drouin Ristori

      • Zhanglan

        My points, in order:

        1. COMEX Eligible Inventory is every bit as available for delivery as Registered; there may be misunderstanding, but there is no ‘argument’ – the NYMEX Rule Book Chapter 7 is explicitly clear on this point (and you have not taken me up on my offer to provide worked examples)

        2. The Open Interest : Registered Inventory ratio was not 112 as you stated, but 61. You have ignored this point entirely.

        3. The 112 figure was lifted without further analysis from another website, on which an article was written 6 weeks earlier, including a chart showing that 12 was an anomaly You have ignored this point entirely.

        4. The clear fact that Bid-Offer spreads on retail Silver Bullion are significantly wider than on Gold: You have ignored this point entirely. (Whether this is due to price gouging on the part of the Gold Brokers, or due to additional costs, the simple fact is that Silver is a Bad Deal for investors, because the price has to rise by at least twice the percentage increase in Gold before they can show a profit – far more if, as in the UK, VAT is applied to purchases of Silver Bullion)

        Frankly, I find your belated response not only woefully inadequate, but largely a confirmation of my supposition that “Fabrice Drouin Ristori is perhaps not an entirely credible or disinterested source of information

  • hambone

    Why since ’08 have “foreigners” been so keen to buy incredible quantities of
    US Treasury public debt ($4 T increase in notes/bonds..a 350% increase) while US
    domestic sources have decreased their holdings due to relatively unattractive
    yields? How did these countries function w/out massive holdings of US Treasury
    debt before ’08???

    Why now with the Fed tapering their QE would “foreigners” continue to hold
    their record positions and continue adding to them? Absent rising interest rates
    and/or QE, the only buyer available is “foreigners”…and luckily they don’t
    seemed concerned w/ a profit motive. The Fed/”foreigner” combo own 80% of all
    public outstanding note/bond debt. Simply another $2 T and the worlds largest,
    deepest, most liquid debt market will be entirely un-owned by America w/ ever
    more debt @ ever lower yields??? Curious the “world” ex-America would want ever
    more US debt in a world de-dollarizing as Yuan / Euro take on greater trading

    What do we attribute the deviation of “foreigners” viewing Treasury’s as an
    attractive asset vs. domestic sources who view them contrarily? Why are
    “foreigners” not worried by the relatively poor yields as US states and
    institutions are?

    Is there any reason this situation isn’t stable or sustainable?

    Is the transfer of such a large % of this mid / long term debt to “foreign”
    holders (55% and growing) in America’s interest? If not, in who’s interest? Qui

    This situation of murky ownership of bad assets is not just in America, it
    seems repeated in Japan, Spain, Italy, France, etc. etc.


    Increases in US Treasury debt “foreigners” have amassed (breakdown below)

    Jan ’00 – ’07 – Dec ’13

    $1 T —> $1.6 T —> $5.6 T (cumulative “foreign” held US Treasury

    25% —> 40% —> 55% (% of notes / bonds held by “foreigners”)

    1% —> 1% —> 25% (% Fed held notes / bonds…Fed primarily held Bills
    until ’08)

    74% —> 59% —> 20% (% domestically held notes / bonds)

    180% —> 130% —> 247% (% public vs. intra-gov debt)

    350% increase (public outstanding debt, $3.5 T to $12.4 T)

    250% increase (intra-gov debt, $2 T to $5 T)

    6.6% —> 5% —> 2.4% (net interest rate on debt)

    $300B -> $270B —> $223B (net interest paid on national debt)

    $9.2 T –> $13.7 T –> $16.1 T (GDP = 75% increase);

    $5.7 T –> $9 T –> $17.4 T (National debt = 305% increase

    • 59LesPaul

      The last time I looked, the Federal Reserve was buying most of the newly issued US Government debt. The Fed purchased $552 billion of US Government debt in 2013 while foreigners only purchased $221 billion. Of that US debt purchased by foreigners, over half or $118 billion was in fact purchased by Belgium or in other words purchased by the ECB. So we have the US Fed and ECB monetising the vast majority of US Government debt.


      So much for massive foreign demand for US Government debt.

      • hambone

        Mr. Paul – right you are in ’13 that QE ran well ahead of Treasury issuance so there was little left for “foreigners” to scoop up…but again these “foreigners” bought what remained rather than domestic buyers. Now that QE is winding down who will buy up the newly issued and all the rollover Treasury debt? Not domestic buyers @ anything near these rates…and if not the Fed via QE…the only source is “foreigners” which according to TIC own $5.5 T of treasury debt…now where they get the money with which to buy these negative real yielding assets is the question. Is it via swaps w/ the Fed? Is it done as a quid pro quo for gold or military protection or some other reason? I don’t know but I’m just attempting to show how ludicrous this “foreign” bid meme is…so we agree.

        The point is “foreigners” in the TIC report simply means from which country the Treasury was purchased…it says nothing about the nationality of the buyer or from what country the money came from…and to your point of pass through purchasers of Treasury debt…lookey here…

        BANKING CENTERS increases in Treasury holdings…

        ’00 —> ’07 —–> ’13

        “Carribean banking centers”

        $ 35 B —> $68 B —> $291 B

        Switzerland $18 B> $34 B —> $175 B

        HK $39 B —> $52 B —> $159 B

        Singapore $30 B-> $30 B —> $86 B

        Ireland $5 B —> $19 B —> $125 B

        Belgium $28 B –> $13 B —> $257 B

        Luxemburg $60 B –> $134 B

        TOTAL $160 B $1227 (767% increase)

  • 24 carat

    The $ 150 trillion Frankenstein pseudo-market of total financial activa is a potential sinkhole. Search youtube for sinkhole images.
    How can a world GDP of $ 75 trillion possibly serve $ 150 trillion market of financial activa !? W’re doomed to produce evermore UNPRODUCTIVE digits ad infinitum.
    One can hardly call this -control-.
    Debt creation is making the economic system dysfunctional. The fundaments of jobcreation are shifting like the tower of Pisa. Moving into physical gold is leaving the debt-driven system, growing upon the sinkhole. Volcano’s and sinkholes are not to be controlled. Building on an artificial economic-financial system is a priori increasingly unstable and finally always becoming totally dysfunctional.

    One cannot unfortunately -time- and -locate- a sinkhole event. We can only know WHY any debt-system becomes dysfunctional. Better to anticipate it properly.

  • Banana Republic

    Fabrice states that COMEX is “highly leveraged”: he clearly has no idea what he is talking about, and should stick to what he knows rather than sounding off for effect

    COMEX Gold futures are currently leveraged 15,15 : 1 calculated as follows:

    Apr 14 Future $1333 x 100 ounces = $133000
    Initial Margin requirement: = $8800
    Leverage = 1330/88 = 15,15

    Let’s put this in context: a year ago Gold was trading at $1600 and the Initial Margin requirement was only $7040, giving financial leverage of 22.73

    and, as Fabrice appears to be focused on the adequacy of COMEX inventories to meet physical deliveries, it is worth noting that, during the Delivery Month, leverage collapses to 1 : 1 (i.e. No Leverage at all – both the Buyer and the Seller need to be ‘good’ for the full value of their respective positions)

    So, come on then Fab ~ if leverage is an important consideration when assessing availability in (and, for that matter, the entire survivability) of the Gold futures market, is it not the case that COMEX is in far better shape in Mar 2014 than it was in Mar 2013?

    Surely, the only other possible conclusions are that either you consider us to be clueless idiots with a very tenuous grasp on market realities, or that you yourself are one.

    • Grumpy Dan

      1. “ Leverage can be created through options, futures, margin and other financial instruments. For example, say you have $1,000 to invest. This amount could be invested in 10 shares of Microsoft stock, but to increase leverage, you could invest the $1,000 in five options contracts. You would then control 500 shares instead of just 10.”

      Leverage: the use of various financial instruments or borrowed capital, such as margin, to increase the potential return of an investment.


      2. “When I use a word……… it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

      Alice through the Looking Glass Chapter 6

      This being a website dedicated to the analysis of precious metals, I take it we have decided to go with literary fiction rather than factual analysis on this one?


  • Zhanglan

    I apologise in advance for hi-jacking this particular thread; the following has not very much to do with Fabrice Drouin Ristori, but will I hope convey more useful and original insights than Koos’ interview did

    I don’t have a lot of time for Jesse – who is apparently a Canadian pharmacist, rather than an investment guru, and who often displays a religious streak that I personally feel uncomfortable with in an investment context

    However, this week I believe he may have hit paydirt, and I tip my hat to him for posting this quotation and the following video clip of Martin Luther King (of which I was previously unaware) http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.nl/2014/03/gold-daily-and-silver-weekly-charts_5.html

    “Plunderers of the world, when nothing remains on the lands to which they have laid waste by wanton thievery, they search out across the seas.

    The wealth of another region excites their greed; and if it is weak, their lust for power. Nothing from the rising to the setting of the sun is enough for them. Among all others only they are compelled to attack the poor as well as the rich.

    Robbery, rape, and slaughter they falsely call empire; and where they create a desolate wasteland, they call it peace.”

    Tacitus, Calgacus’ Speech from Agricola


    ‘You’re too arrogant! And if you don’t change your ways, I will rise up and break the backbone of your power, and I’ll place it in the hands of a nation that doesn’t even know my name’

    I am thinking US$ and China

    • In Gold We Trust

      I thought Harvey Organ was the pharmacist.

      • Zhanglan

        Don’t like him either: I knew there must be a reason, now I know why 🙂

Copyright Information: BullionStar permits you to copy and publicize blog posts or quotes and charts from blog posts provided that a link to the blog post's URL or to https://www.bullionstar.com is included in your introduction of the blog post together with the name BullionStar. The link must be target="_blank" without rel="nofollow". All other rights are reserved. BullionStar reserves the right to withdraw the permission to copy content for any or all websites at any time.