In message , Tony Bryer
writes
On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 09:53:57 -0700 (PDT) Whisky-dave wrote :
No he didn't he sold our gold instead.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance...67/revealed-wh
y-gordon-brown-sold-britains-gold-at-a-knock-down-price/

He wasn't the only one:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-03-0...in-gold/351864

2In November 1997 the then [Australian] Treasurer, Peter Costello, [Liberal
= UK Conservative] shocked some people when he announced he'd signed off on
the sale of $2 billion worth of Australian bullion. On the day he announced
the sale the price was around $US306.00 an ounce. At the time, according to
Mr Costello, gold "no longer plays a significant role in the international
financial system ...

So here it was 1997 and Australia had sold two thirds of its gold assets in
a single day, and sold into a buyer's market. While the sale helped pay down
debts, the deal was to cost Australia billions of dollars in the long run.
But at the time people were lining up to congratulate the Treasurer."

If you want to run this argument, you can argue that whoever was Chancellor
in 1980 cost the UK billions by not flogging off all the UK's gold while it
was around $800 a ounce, then buying it back at half this price a few years
later. But as with all investments, it's obvious when to buy and when to
sell ... in hindsight.

Gold goes in cycles generally out of phase with share prices. Just look
what happened after the credit crunch. The fact that your Treasurer was
also a pillock along with thousands of your fellow countrymen doesn't
alter the argument.
--
bert