Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

April 15, 2007

Brown lost 2bn selling UK's goldRobert Winnett and Holly Watt GORDON BROWN is to face questions in parliament after revelations that he disregarded advice from the Bank of England before he sold off more than half the countrys gold reserves at the bottom of the market.

Insiders involved in the decision have broken ranks after an 18-month battle in which the Treasury has blocked attempts by The Sunday Times to make public the official advice received by Brown before he sold the gold.

Gordon Brown was never one for listening to advice.
I and many others advised him where to go many times and he never took any notice.

Brown defied Bank of England warning over his 6bn gold giveaway
By Jason Groves

Last updated at 8:52 AM on 1st April 2010

Comments (198) Add to My Stories Share Ex-Bank Governor Eddie George
Gordon Brown rode roughshod over resistance from the Bank of England to order the disastrous sell-off of Britain's gold reserves, secret papers have revealed.

Treasury documents released under Freedom of Information last night suggest that the Bank was reluctant to sign up to the sale of 395 tonnes of gold at rock-bottom prices in a series of auctions between 1999 and 2002.

A complete JOKER. (Gordon Brown)

I think Fred is trying to say his answer is YES , that Gordon Brown did make a ball's up over selling Gold and that Brown was one of the worst P M this country has ever had..

" I would think the opinion, of such a self opinionated individual as you seem
to be, is of little consequence to any one other than yourself."

Fred is calling ME a self opinionated individual , FRED ........ lol unbelievably.

The advice seemed to me, do not sell?

Of course Brown knows better.

aldwickk,

When I use the word opinionated, I used it with the following meaning in mind

Thinking too highly of or sticking obstinately to one's own opinion; conceited; dogmatic

Initially, I think my reasoning for forming my opinion of you, was due to one of your earlier postings, regarding the murder of Joanna Yeates, when I believe you suggested, or, I think more importantly, stated that Chris Jefferies was a pervert.

I doubted, at that time, that the opinion was based on any real knowledge of that individual, or any of his actions. (I may be wrong.)

I believe that Jefferies sued successfully a certain number of newspapers for making similar remarks.

I have not read any withdrawal by you of the remark.

-------------

To me, often the manner, in which you make your opinion known to others, is frequently deliberately offensive.

One is of course entitled to hold any opinion one wishes, on any subject, topic, or entity.

However, I think it is legitimate to question, disagree with, or oppose such beliefs, opinions or arguments when they are proclaimed.

Suggesting that the opinion of another person is fallacious, is not is unreasonable, but saying that a person who has a differing opinion to you, is a fool, moron, idiot etc. is in my opinion is deliberately pejorative.

Many a genius has had ideas, which have later been shown to have no validity, or to have carried out actions, which were shown to be foolish, but those individuals were certainly not fools.

The known actions and beliefs of an individual do not necessarily define that individual.

It is often wise to listen to those you may class as fools for sometimes they may point to the truth more clearly than the sage.

It seems to me many of your remarks lack humour and are deliberately pejorative about individuals.

-----------------------

I think, if you reread my own posted opinions, they are more often than not moderated by possibly, probably, or maybe etc..

Often, they are challenges to statements made as facts, when those facts are, or maybe false, or not established.

-------------------------------

Now to your statement of me being a political moron.

While I have done and said many things, which have been thought retrospectively, by myself and others as foolhardy, foolish and/or even stupid, not many who know me consider me to be stupid, or a fool.

Awkward, even bloody minded, sometimes features in their opinions of me.

I may challenge, question and sometimes bait in my postings, but I am a political atheist, although my leaning are to the left, as I think many more of the left policies and ideals will lead to a more harmonious and fairer society.

When posting, the challenges which I make of other peoples stances are often made of my own positioning.

Questions are easy to ask, answers are often revealing and informative, but can be more difficult to find.

Hence the use of abuse by some.

========

I am critical of this governments policies, which seem to me to the policies made by, or given birth to, by yesterdays men and are not coherent.

The leadership, which the tory party has at the present time, seems to be made up of hollow men and women who are more interested in protecting themselves and their positions from an future culpability, than formulating actions which are needed in the present economic situation.

=======================

I will respond to the gold question later.

Back to my chicken!

A post which I feel is well worthy of some support there, Fred.

Sorry Exec, have to disagree. IMHO Fred is a Welsh Twat and a Knobhead, with his head up his arse regards to everything that comes out of his fetid gob! Not to put to fine a point on it.

For Aids.

Right or left.
===========

Estimated figures for gold selloffs under G Brown have varied from 2.5 billion to 7 billion..

(Depending of times and by whom, the estimates have been made.)

====

Not sure how this will compare with the actions of the present government, especially as our economic guru.

(Made a typing error and that came out as comic guru. Hope, that it was not a Freudian Slip.)

George Osborne is supposed to have said in January 2009 :-

Printing money is the last resort of desperate governments when all other policies have failed

But, subsequent the to the economic slowdown, partially due to lack of confidence in present governments strategies the tune has changed.

----

Let us hope the belated QE bailout of 75 billion which is being printed via the Bank of England under Osbornes and Camerons is not as he first thought.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/news/quantitative_easing

------------------------------------------
Chancellor George Osborne supports QE programme

7 October 2011
Chancellor George Osborne backs the Bank of England's decision to pump 75bn into Britain's ailing economy.
------------------------------
7 October 2011
Chancellor says second round of quantitative easing will ensure UK can ride out "worsening global debt storm"
====================================================

Right or wrong next:

The reasons for the selloff of gold appear complex to me and unlike you I have difficulty in understanding all those complexities, the decisions made, the actions taken.

The morality of an amoral market, at the time of the selloff seems to me to me to be questionable.

======

However, the article below, seems to me to be a more reasonable appraisal
of those events, than is generally provided by some of the right wing media for possible political favour:-

You will have to refer to source for explanatory charts etc..

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/02/24/why-tories-are-deluding-themselves-over-browns-gold-sell-off/
-------------

Why Tories are deluding themselves over Browns gold sell-off


by Giles Wilkes

February 24, 2010 at 11:45 am

If the Tories had won the 2001 election, would Britains fiscal position been in any better shape? Spending would have been less, but we might have had huge tax cuts instead, a bigger housing boom Or, instead, if they had cut the deficit, would rates have been lower, the housing boom even more out of control?

Only the truly idiotic would think that Brown bringing in the FSA somehow led to the financial crisis. But you still read it from time to time.

However, one piece of counterfactual history is SO easy that the Right can seldom resist bringing it out against Brown, and that is the Decision to Sell the Gold.

Leading from this Times article , Tim Montgomerie at ConHome can barely contain his gloating on the subject (hat tip LeftOutside).

But I think LOs attempt at a defence continued on here on LibCon does not go far enough.

Sure, the money was invested so the loss was smaller. More important is to bear in mind the record of abject failure that Brown had inherited, and was trying to rectify when he ordered that decision.

First, gold earns nothing. In fact, storing it costs money, though I will leave that fact out for my calculations.

Two, since 1979 the price went downhill or sideways therefore losing money compared to any other assets during a great boom for all things from 1982 1998.

Three, gold is normally regarded as an inflation hedge. It keeps its value (caveat: see graph above!). So when things look inflationary, or the value of nominal financial assets looks under pressure (see 2007-9) it rises in value.

Four: the point of central bank reserves is to have something you can sell that has external value. It cant be your domestic currency because you have as much of that as you need. Liquid currency from trusted foreigners will do as well. Like $s.

Five, in 1979, for the first time since the 1920s, there arrived a British government with an absolute intention to kill inflation if necessary by crunching unemployment, high rates and all that. Really determined.

Therefore Geoffrey Howe could have known with great certainty that from Britains point of view gold was going to become less valuable. He might have also thought: if I want to demonstrate my commitment to low inflation (because high inflation has so many temptations), then getting rid of any inflation hedges whatsoever would be a good idea. It would show people I put my money where my mouth is. In fact, a bit like what Brown did.

So. Why didnt Howe sell? And how much did it cost us that he didnt?
I have done the calculations. Really simplifying: the scenarios are (1) 650 tonnes of gold held from 1979 to 2008; (2) What happened: 650 tonnes held, then 400 of those tonnes sold and presumed to be invested in $s at T-bill rates; (3) If Howe had taken the action Brown did and sold 400 tonnes in 1979.

Here is the result I get: To put the figures into context: at about $12bn, in 1979 the 650 tonnes of gold were worth about 3% of Britains GDP. By 1998, they were worth $6bn or so, which would have been worth about 0.4% of GDP at the time ($1.6trn). Had Howe sold 400 tonnes, they would have been worth $28bn, or about 1.75% of GDP. That is a lot to foresake, because of fetish with gold.

Browns current mistake has cost perhaps $7bn by my calculations, to the end of 2008. As someone who used to work in spreadbetting, I find hindsight trading hugely irritating, so taking it far beyond the years he sold it annoys me immensely. Still, lets round it up to $10bn to take the recent uprush into account. By my estimations, that is about 0.4% of GDP. There are far bigger mistakes to make.

I think holding onto 600 tonnes of expensive inflation-hedge while actively trying to kill inflation was a costly mistake of the Conservatives.

Browns error on the other hand looked good for 2-3 years, has cost far less, and at least had the virtue of reason on its side. It is, after all, a barbarous relic and a fixation with gold has cost mankind greatly at crucial times in the past.

Coupled with Georges u-turn on QE is good to see Liam Fox holding an enquiry into his own actions,

To me, it is a little like the Mafia picking the Judge and Jury.

After the above and Cruella and the catflap debacle Dave should show his authority.

Perhaps, he is.

Ps.

Perhaps, Clarke for PM.


8-)

Chris, I think you should climb off the fence and just say how you feel ;)

ptholden - Absolutely, I try to be succinct at all times:O)

Fred

" sticking obstinately to one's own opinion; conceited; " Yes , Fred that's sound's like you .

Out of all the article's criticising Brown selling our Gold , you managed after a long intensive search to find one to suit you argument , well done.

Fred you wrote :
regarding the murder of Joanna Yeates, when I believe you suggested, or, I think more importantly, stated that Chris Jefferies was a pervert.

I doubted, at that time, that the opinion was based on any real knowledge of that individual, or any of his actions. (I may be wrong.)

I believe that Jefferies sued successfully a certain number of newspapers for making similar remarks.

I have not read any withdrawal by you of the remark.


Leading National newspaper's printed that based on information among other sources a couple who rented a flat in his house. I don't know what he sued the papers for but I don't think it was just that , but more likely implying that he left his teaching post for improper conduct.

I was only basing my opinion on what I and ten's of thousand's other's reader's read and heard.

" I have not read any withdrawal by you of the remark." He won his case against the newspapers concerned.

So are you saying all those reader's who were mislead and lied to should withdraw any remark's spoken and printed ?

Aids,

I am not aware of what ten's of thousand's other's reader's read and heard.
However, I would suggest it reasonable for you to obtain information or opinions from more reliable sources and to be critical of the information when you obtain it before broadcasting.

There is such a thing, other than for the gullible, of evaluation of the "facts" as "given". Herding oneself with others does reduce ones responsibility of what you broadcast to others.

Personally, I would be ashamed of myself, if I had stated such an opinion based on the seemingly scant knowledge you had, and then stating it in the manner you did.

I still think that Amanda Knox is guilty. Did you see the TV coverage of her at the airport leaving for home laughing and smiling ? and the difference when she thanked everyone for their support in her home town, what a actress. I may be wrong but its my gut feeling

Re: post 12587

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean neither more nor less.'

Aids,

Once again, you are entitled to your opinion.

At her age and on being released after 3-4 years in captivity, I can imagine her happiness and that of her seemingly very supportive family.

The decision was based on a court re-evaluation of evidence and having done so, it pronounced her not guilty.

The conclusions, derived by the prosecution from DNA evidence at the time of her prosecution, seemed to many as dubious.

There were many other features of the prosecution's case, which seemed dubious to many, who were not emotionally involved in the case.

MightyMicro

Are you saying Fred is a Dumpty ?