GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION IN STOCK MARKET IS DETAILED BY NEW REPORTS, GTA SAYS
Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee
Submitted by Charleston Voice
Sep. 9, 2005
MANCHESTER, Conn.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Sept. 6, 2005--A major Canadian financial management firm that a year ago published a compilation of evidence of central bank manipulation of the gold price has just done the same in regard to the U.S. stock market and has reached a similar conclusion.
The new report is titled "Move Over, Adam Smith: The Visible Hand of Uncle Sam," and has been published by Sprott Asset Management of Toronto. It was written by the firm's president, John P. Embry, and his assistant, Andrew Hepburn, and concludes that the U.S. government has intervened to support the stock market so many times that "what apparently started as a stopgap measure may have morphed into a serious moral hazard situation, with market manipulation an endemic feature of the U.S. stock market."
The new report relies largely on reports of news organizations and the essays and research papers of economics academics that, as might be expected, have not been well-publicized in the United States. But some of these reports have been circulated by the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee over the years.
The Sprott report does not maintain that the government should never intervene in the stock market; it recognizes that certain emergencies may argue strongly for temporary intervention, such as the 1987 stock market crash and the terrorist attacks of September 2001. But, the Sprott report notes, frequent surreptitious intervention, conducted through intermediaries, the government's favored financial houses in New York, gives those intermediaries enormous advantages over ordinary investors. Frequent intervention, the Sprott report adds also makes it impossible to distinguish between national emergencies and political expediency.
The Sprott report concludes:
"Given the available information, we do not believe there can be any doubt that the U.S. government has intervened to support the stock market. Too much credible information exists to deny this. Yet virtually no one ever mentions government intervention publicly, preferring instead to pretend as if such activities have never taken place and never would.
"It is time that market participants, the media and, most of all, the government acknowledge what should be blatantly obvious to anyone who reviews the public record on the matter: These markets have been interfered with on numerous occasions. Our primary concern is that what apparently started as a stopgap measure may have morphed into a serious moral hazard situation, with market manipulation an endemic feature of the U.S. stock market.
"We have not taken a position on the wisdom of intervention in this paper, largely because exceptional circumstances could argue for it. In many respects, for instance, the apparent rescue after the 1987 crash and the planned intervention in the wake of September 11 were very defensible. Administered in extremely small doses and with the most stringent safeguards and transparency, market stabilization could be justified.
"But a policy enacted in secret and knowingly withheld from the body politic has created a huge disconnect between those knowledgeable about such activities and the majority of the public, who have no clue whatsoever.
"There can be no doubt that the firms responsible for implementing government interventions enjoy an enviable position unavailable to other investors. Whether they have been indemnified against potential losses or simply made privy to non-public government policy, the major Wall Street firms evidently responsible for preventing plunges no longer must compete on anywhere near a level playing field. It is most unfair that the immensely powerful have been further ensconced in their perched positions and thus effectively insulated from the competitive market forces ostensibly present in our society.
"In addition to creating a privileged class, the manipulation also has little democratic legitimacy in the sense that the citizenry has not given its consent. This has tangible ramifications. By not informing the public, successive U.S. administrations have employed a dangerous policy response that is subject to the worst possible abuse. In this regard, the line between national necessity and political expediency has no doubt been perilously blurred.
"We can only urge people to see what the evidence indicates and debate what is and ought to be a very contentious matter. The time for such a public discussion is long overdue."
The Sprott report can be found in Adobe Acrobat format at the Sprott Internet site here: http://www.sprott.com/pdf/pressrelease/TheVisibleHand.pdf
Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee
Chris Powell, 860-646-0500
Back to Consumers' Home Page