I am not a conspiracy theorist. I am a Gandhian. I believe that by nature the highest priority of all people is the common good, as they each understand it.
I believe the universe is an indivisible whole: no one has found the beginning, end, or edge of it or a second place to put anything. If so, by nature all the parts, including us, are giving priority to the common good of the one and only whole. When we each mature to where this is done as a self-conscious choice, throughout all of history this has been called "moral behavior."
However, our beliefs can be all over the map. The result is that our secondary intentions and behavior will reflect our beliefs. This is what Mahatma Gandhi figured out.
He coined the word satyagraha in Hindi for it which he defined as "the natural force of truth." Sadly, it got translated into English as "non-violence." There is an opposite of non-violence: violence. There is not an opposite to "the natural force of truth." At times, Gandhi supported Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru's use of the army.
The natural force of truth in human behavior is when we see everyone's primary intention as good, as he or she sees it. We are not born with wisdom. We mature through layers of maturity and hopefully reach wisdom early in our lives.
Therefore, when mature and relating with another we primarily relate with their primary good intention which is always to participate in doing good, not our judgments of their beliefs, secondary intentions, or behavior. By nature, we each perceive our primary intentions as good: we actually are part of that one indivisible whole which is why our mature self-conscious choice is moral behavior. This can result in us sooner rather than later primarily cooperating for the common good - our true self-interest - instead of remaining stuck in conflict. This is love in action. This is the very personal skill Gandhi was trying to teach us.
So what does this have to do with the price of gold?
When people decide that what is best is to not disrupt the existing system, they give that priority. Nearly all involved in the wider Wall Street community see it as best to not move anything forward that could be disruptive the current system continuing to operate well. Therefore, their primary intention is good. Their belief is that they should not participate in anything that would disrupt the operation of the current system.
Being aware of this natural and primary cooperative behavior, often unconsciously executed, allows one to see things happening that others do not notice. If Gandhi's oneness worldview is accurate - and, I might add, the moral worldview of all the greats we respect throughout history, then we are all primarily cooperating whether or not we are aware of it.
Therefore, ask yourself this question, "If you were the Federal Reserve Bank of the USA and you wanted to make sure inflation did not occur while you were printing and putting into the economy each month $85 billion to stimulate more employment, would you want the price of gold to go up or down? A rise in the price of gold is one of the main ways we all conclude that inflation is coming. This would end the ability of the Fed to continue with this approach to stimulating the economy: it would have to stop putting these billions into the economy and raise interest rates to control inflation, its other responsibility.
The amount of gold in existence cannot be increased or decreased at will. It has for as long as we can all remember been considered a safe store of value. Therefore, it is very important to the Fed that the price of gold not go up while it is trying to rescue the economy. In fact, it is essential.
So, when gold became close to a major support area on the charts, wouldn't you, if you were Ben Bernanke, the Fed chairman, be tempted to find a way to encourage some institution to put in a bunch of sell orders to force it through that support so it would trigger tons of stops? If investors do not instantly provide more capital, this would necessitate the margin guys to liquidate their positions without them having a choice. This is a temptation too easy to grab! So common sense tells me that the Fed was the primary, but certainly not the active agent, behind the millions of shares suddenly sold that caused the dramatic run down of gold prices.
However, it would not be "good" or "right" for any of us to talk about this possibility. That would disrupt what the Fed is trying to do which is judged to be a good thing by nearly all intimately involved with this situation. So when asked to provide an explanation, a different one is given. Here is what I just read in the April 16 5 Minute Forecaster financial newsletter I receive each day:
"Gold bullion prices have been subjected to a cleverly orchestrated bear raid," suggests another fund manager, the Tocqueville Gold Fund's John Hathaway.
"Selling of paper Comex contracts on Friday, April 12, and Monday, April 15, totaled 1 million contracts, exceeding global annual gold production by 12%. The attack succeeded when the technical support in the low $1,500s per ounce easily gave way and led to waves of forced selling.
"The volume is without precedent and has all the characteristics of a panic liquidation driven by naked short selling. There is no way to know where or when the liquidation will end, but it will inevitably do so, probably sooner, rather than later."
The appropriate public explanation we can all get behind is "a panic liquidation driven by naked short selling." But the information by who is not available. My common sense tells me it was a movement by agents working for the Federal Reserve Bank to take advantage of the flood of short selling that would automatically occur if the price of gold broke through major support on the charts.
Do I have any proof to support this thesis? None. But I was also not born yesterday. Especially in the face of the fact that demand for gold is soaring: the sale of American Eagle gold coins are already 17 times higher than last April, India and China are gobbling up gold and can't get supply, last year the central banks around the world bought the most gold since 1964, and wholesale dealers such as Tulving, www.tulving.com, reported that 29% of its bars and coin bullion categories are sold out and have almost no silver coins in stock.
Why, then, am I sharing this possibility with you? I believe in openness and transparency in the process of giving priority to a genuine search for the next stage in our maturation as a species. I also agree with something else Gandhi was fond of saying. Immature politicians tell you what you want to hear. Mature politicians take responsibility for telling you the truth in a way that has you say, "Thank you." I am sharing with you what I think is probably true because I think it is important that we cooperate for the common good of us all, not the common good of some of us.
We are ready to graduate into a more mature form of capitalism, what I call common good capitalism. This is where we freely choose to give priority to the common good of us all, not ourselves or some of us. Thus, this builds on individual freedom. It is also the mature human behavior described above.
Right now the dominant belief is an immature one: we believe life is a contradiction. We believe cooperation is fundamental inside our skins but competition is fundamental outside our skins. Nearly all religions, philosophies, sciences, and psychologies believe life is not a contradiction: while all different they each have a description of reality where all the parts fit together into a cooperative and rational whole. In other words, their process assumes cooperation (oneness) is fundamental in nature while many still believe competition (separate parts) is fundamental in nature.
Ultimately, I do not believe maturation can be stopped. Therefore, at some point we will all notice this and begin giving priority to cooperating for the common good. This means that the leaders of our multinational corporations will publicly admit that they are primarily cooperating and only secondarily competing. They will then openly and publicly begin primarily cooperating with their competitors for the common good and secondarily competing while fully doing both.
Multinational corporations are the most powerful organizations on the planet and, as I described in my last editorial, they are rapidly moving in the direction of being number one or two in each of their product areas or getting out of them: a monopoly is illegal but a duopoly is legal. By the way, this is something else that it is not good for us to talk about even though today it is the highest priority of all major corporations.
When their leaders reach this higher level of personal maturity, they will end their rush to the bottom of low wages and poor community and environmental behavior and lead the planet in our rise from the bottom in these areas. It will not cost them a penny relative to one another: all competitors will agree to honor the new standards they freely choose. So the additional costs will be the same for all competitors. This will not be collusion for self-interest that is illegal; this will be cooperation for the common good which is legal and encouraged, labeled "agreeing on standards" in our corporate community.
They will much prefer doing this as an adult-adult relationship with each other rather than participating in the parent-child pattern where governments tell them the rules they must follow. Eventually, of course, it will be they who move wise legislation for the common good through governments to support the agreements they make among themselves and in partnership with all relevant non-profits. Here freely chosen mature behavior in the private sector is taking the lead. This is how I think we would all like our lives in groups and societies to operate.
This will be one of the best things that can happen for the common good of us all. It begins by being open and honest about the cooperation that is already primary, such as what I believe is our current cooperation to keep the price of gold low or going lower. At one level of maturity, this is, indeed, a good thing to do; at a higher layer of maturity, it is time for us to be freely choosing together to move into common good capitalism. That means making a distinction between what is best for a few, our nation or our shareholders, and moving into self-consciously, actively, and wisely giving priority to what is best for the common good of us all.