U.S. Government Interferes In Stock Market

Posted on Friday, September 09 at 06:19 by Ed Deak
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 It also can be found at the GATA Internet site here: http://www.gata.org/SprottReportTheVisibleHand.pdf Copyright © 2005 Business Wire. Translate this page (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Information Clearing House endorsed or sponsored by the originator.) Join our Daily News Headlines Email Digest Fill out your emailaddress to receive our newsletter! SubscribeUnsubscribe Powered by YourMailinglistProvider.com Information Clearing House Daily News Headlines Digest HOME COPYRIGHT NOTICE

Note: http://www.sprott.com/p... http://www.gata.org/Spr...

Contributed By



Article Rating

 (0 votes) 

Options




Comments

  1. Fri Sep 09, 2005 3:13 pm
    > The new report relies largely on reports of news organizations and the essays and research papers of economics academics

    Oh. Propoganda news organizations such as CBC? Dipsy economic academics such as Ed Deak?

    Sprott Asset Management Inc. (SAM) is a private independent fund company that, in 2004, became a member of the Alternative Investment Management Association (AIMA) Canada.

    So a report from a Canadian investment company, scare-mongering against the US stock market, just might benefit from steering the frightened Canadisns into the SAM system, eh?

    No, no conflict of interest or potential corruption there.

  2. by hoopoe
    Sat Sep 10, 2005 12:55 am
    Read Ravi Batra's new book. He has detailed Greenspan's effort to repeated bail out investors to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. Is an Harvard economics professor independent enough for you, and hey he's American to boot. Happy reading.

  3. by RPW
    Sat Sep 10, 2005 3:56 pm
    Of course the US government "interferes" with the stock market! Until, like the separation of chruch and state, the separation of the state and economy can be achieved, those who run for public office will always seek to benefit themselves and their cronies. It cannot be anything else.

    ---
    RickW

  4. Sat Sep 10, 2005 4:33 pm
    I think, the main problem here is that certain special interest sectors claim that they are "the economy", which is not true, of course. Business, at any level is not the economy, neither are unions, or government agencies. The economy is the combination of all and when either sector gains the upper hand and becomes dominant, the others will suffer. This, ultimately leads to dictatorship and breakdown, as it happened in the case of the Soviets and countless other economies in history that self destructed because their leaders lost sight of the overall picture.

    The government's role should be to act as overseers that no sector becomes dominant and starts ruling the others. This used to be included in the now forgotten laws that prevented corporations from becoming too big to control and many were forced to break up. Not that they did, as in the case of AT&T, but at least the effort was there.

    In Canada's case, and also in the USA, I would say the best balance was reached in the first 25-30 years after WW2, when under the Keynesian theory, the standard of living increased by 47%, according to US figures, but has become stagnant and shrank since the introduction of the neoclassical economic theory, elevating corporations, especially multinationals, into dictatorial position over life and death. This is the best recipe for societal suicide, but dictated by the market economy theory, even if it leads to disaster.

    Of course, many politicians jump on the bandwagon for donations to their parties in the first place, and for lucrative directorships later. I'd sooner give retired politicians high pensions and forbid them to take any corporate positions for the rest of their lives. It would be far more effective and a better deal for society on the long run.

    I've never owned any outside stocks and have only invested in my own small businesses. As far I'm, concerned the stock and money markets, and especially the futures, could and should be closed tomorrow, as they're nothing more than parasites on the backs of the human race.

    Ed Deak, Big Lake, BC.

  5. Sat Sep 10, 2005 11:55 pm
    > I've never owned any outside stocks

    Oh. So you pridefully speak from a vast body of ignorance, eh Zaunius?

    Answer me this: if you'd put $2000US in Apple stock in 1982, how much would it be worth now?

    If you can figure out the answer to that, then:

    Why would that kind of return be bad? Apple is not exactly an evil, warmongering company. They make quality products that people can use. They keep reinventing themselves.

    Well, since it is American, maybe that's all it takes in your book to be against it.

    Me, I'm glad to be looking at the wonders of the capitalist market system, in terms of the extra $$$$$$$$$$$$$ in my accounts.

  6. by RPW
    Sun Sep 11, 2005 1:25 am
    David Suzuki:<br />
    "No one asks the important questions, such as what is an economy for, how much is enough, is it providing what people really need."<br />
    <a href="http://www.americanscientist.org/template/InterviewTypeDetail/assetid/29529">http://www.americanscientist.org/template/InterviewTypeDetail/assetid/29529</a><p>---<br>RickW

  7. by RPW
    Sun Sep 11, 2005 1:33 am
    <blockquote>As far I'm, concerned the stock and money markets, and especially the futures, could and should be closed tomorrow</blockquote> <p>The stock market, especially the futures market, is nothing more than a government-snactioned Ponzi Scheme.</p> <pre><code>http://www.sec.gov/answers/ponzi.htm</code></pre> <p>---<br>RickW

  8. by mk
    Sun Sep 11, 2005 1:35 pm
    "> I've never owned any outside stocks

    Oh. So you pridefully speak from a vast body of ignorance, eh Zaunius? "

    Perhaps Ed is simply following the first rule of stock market investment: do not invest that which you cannot afford to lose. Ed seems to be a pretty prudent investor and business operator in what might best be called the "productive" economy. I have seldom seen such people, even extremely wealthy ones, own much in stocks.

    So, who the heck are you? I mean, I can entirely understand a willingness to defend the stock market as a mechanism for raising investment, and as a mechanism allowing liquid investment by others (including average folks). This financial mechanism has been around for ages and is unlikely to go anywhere anytime soon. The instruments can be used just a judiciously as they can be used maliciously or speculatively, and you cannot eliminate speculator-predators from the business world by simply eliminating the stock market. That would be like trying to eliminate burglars by banning locks.

    But jeez, if you like the stock market and financial world so much, why do you rush to the defense of the American gov't when evidence of imprudent market-rigging is presented?! You should be the most disturbed by this, not the least, since you appear to have an interest which may be subject to un-free-market manipulation. (and sorry if you are not the same Anon who posted the first message above--your tone is the same, and that is the one I'm aiming at)

    How 'bout I speculate a bit here: if it was the Clinton administration accused of doing same, you'd be calling for heads on platters. Were it to accuse Canada, those vile socialists would be at it again. A lesser country? Invasion - time for the "hidden fist of McDonnel Douglas"!

    You might buy and hold stocks here and there. Have you ever sat market-side and watched one government or big institutional investor run roughshod over another, to punish a political decision? Lots of "casualties", not all from the speculator ranks (but mostly).

    As for the substance of the original article--well duh. I remember watching Japan dump a whole whack of U.S. 30 year T-bonds to make a point of some sort. That was just a day in the markets. Things are changing a bit--at least for the little guys like e-traders there appear to be intraday margin calls being enforced. Still no hard-fast rules about shorting an entire country though.

  9. Mon Sep 12, 2005 4:55 am
    <p>Ed,</p> <blockquote>In Canad’s case, and also in the USA, I would say the best balance was reached in the first 25-30 years after WW2, when under the Keynesian theory, the standard of living increased by 47%, according to US figures …</blockquote> <p>perhaps one important factor in the increase of the North American standard of living during this time was that our industrial competition in Europe and Japan had been bombed out during the war?</p><p>---<br>Shatter your ideals upon the rock of Truth.<br />
    <br />
    — The Divine Symphony, by Inayat Khan<br />



view comments in forum


You need to be a member and be logged into the site, to comment on stories.




Your Voice

To post to the site, just sign up for a free membership/user account and then hit submit. Posts in English or French are welcome. You can email any other suggestions or comments on site content to the site editor. (Please note that Vive le Canada does not necessarily endorse the opinions or comments posted on the site.)

canadian bloggers | canadian news