Authored by Peter Reagan,
The internet loves a reset.
A “reset” takes an impossibly complicated subject and boils it down to a date, a decision and one big red button.
China’s recent gold market announcements launched a veritable cottage industry of dire warnings and hysterical predictions.
Over the past few weeks, my feeds have been absolutely flooded with claims that China’s brought back the gold standard. And that Beijing built a machine designed to “collapse the dollar.” Some warned that July 24 would mark “the end of gold trading” – somehow eliminating manipulation and revealing gold’s “real” price.
(One popular video managed to make nearly all those claims at once!)
Listen: I understand why people are getting worked up.
China is the world’s top gold-mining nation. In 2023, China surpassed India to become the world’s #1 gold-buying nation (and its consumption substantially exceeds domestic mining). Its central bank, the People’s Bank of China or PBoC has been steadily adding to its official gold reserves for the last 20 consecutive months.
Now China and Hong Kong are building new vaults, clearing systems and delivery connections around the precious metal.
That sounds significant because it is significant.
But let’s not get ahead of ourselves.
This isn’t a gold standard. It is not a ban on paper gold.
And there is no evidence that China flipped a switch that will suddenly “reset” gold’s global price.
As is often the case in real life, the real story is more complicated.
I think it’s important though, because I expect it will have a much bigger impact over the long run…
China is building more than a bigger vaultLet’s begin with what actually happened.
On July 7, Hong Kong began trial operations of a new central clearing and settlement system for gold.
Clearing and settlement are two of those phrases that make most people’s eyes glaze over. In plain English, the new system is designed to help institutions complete gold transactions more efficiently – matching buyers and sellers, transferring payments and confirming who owns what.
Hong Kong also launched the first phase of a new “Delivery Connect” program with the Shanghai Gold Exchange. This is intended to make it easier to settle cross-border gold transactions and move physical metal between the two markets.
Meanwhile, Hong Kong wants to expand its gold storage capacity to more than 2,000 metric tons within three years. That would be roughly 10 times its current reported capacity.
Officials describe the goal as building a complete gold ecosystem incorporating trading, clearing, storage, delivery, insurance and logistics.
Think of it this way:
Owning a large pile of gold is one thing.
Building the roads, warehouses, scales, security systems and payment networks required to move that gold is something else entirely.
China has already accumulated substantial quantities of physical gold. Now it is developing more of the infrastructure needed to make that gold useful across institutions and borders.
That does not make the yuan a gold-backed currency.
But it could make gold easier to hold, trade and deliver within a financial system centered more closely on China and the yuan.
China’s banks are closing one retail doorThe second development is what gave rise to the July 24 “China reset” story.
Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, or ICBC, announced that it would stop acting as an intermediary for individual customers trading precious-metals contracts through the Shanghai Gold Exchange after end-of-day settlement on Friday, July 24.
ICBC’s notice covered several kinds of contracts.
Some represented spot gold products eligible for physical delivery. Others were deferred-delivery contracts that allowed customers to use leverage – controlling a larger gold position with a smaller amount of money.
ICBC advised customers with existing positions to sell, close their trades or arrange physical delivery before the service was shut down. Other major Chinese banks have announced similar withdrawals from individual Shanghai Gold Exchange trading, although not all of them used the same deadline.
For example, China Construction Bank announced a similar July 24 closure and warned that remaining inventories or positions could subsequently be sold or forcibly closed. (They’d already raised collateral requirements on precious metals contracts to 120%.)
The banks’ stated reason was risk management.
That makes sense in light of gold’s extraordinary volatility this year. Gold climbed to an intraday high near $5,600 in January before briefly retreating below $4,000 in June. Chinese banks responded by tightening trading requirements, with some collateral requirements reportedly reaching as high as 140%.
In other words, a customer had to deposit more collateral than the value of the position itself! At the same time, CME Group’s COMEX requires a 40% margin for gold futures.
At that point, the appeal of offering the service presumably became rather difficult for the banks to justify.
This was not a nationwide prohibition on gold ownership. Chinese citizens can still own physical gold, buy bars and coins and use other non-leveraged gold products.
Nor did China shut down the Shanghai Gold Exchange.
A more accurate description would be:
China is not closing the gold vault. Its largest banks are closing part of the speculative trading counter attached to the vault.
That is noteworthy. But it is not a monetary reset.
Here’s what China did not doChina did not restore the gold standard.
Under a traditional gold standard, a nation defines its currency in terms of a specific quantity of gold and promises conversion between the two. China made no such promise.
The yuan is not redeemable for a fixed weight of gold. Beijing has not announced that every yuan will be backed by gold reserves. Nor has it limited its ability to create more currency according to the amount of gold in its vaults.
China also did not ban futures or derivatives trading.
In fact, Hong Kong is doing nearly the opposite.
As part of its effort to become a larger gold-trading hub, Hong Kong has revived gold futures denominated in both U.S. dollars and “offshore yuan,” with physical delivery services available through participating institutions. The goal of all these changes? To strengthen Hong Kong as an offshore yuan center and a regional gold-trading, clearing and reserve hub – not to make the yuan convertible into gold.
China isn’t systematically eliminating paper gold. It looks more like they’re reducing access to certain volatile, bank-operated retail products – meanwhile, expanding institutional gold trading, clearing, delivery and storage.
Those two policies are not necessarily contradictory.
Beijing may want gold to play a larger strategic role without encouraging ordinary households to make highly leveraged short-term bets on its price.
That is a far more plausible explanation than the idea that China secretly scheduled the destruction of the global monetary system for a Friday afternoon in July.
Why people are paying attention anywayThe hype may be overblown, but it did not appear out of thin air.
China occupies a unique position in the gold market.
It is the world’s largest gold producer, accounting for roughly 10% of global mine output in recent years. It is also the largest consumer – which means the nation uses more gold than it produces and must import substantial quantities to meet domestic demand.
Chinese gold demand is also changing.
In 2025, purchases of bars and coins rose more than 35% to approximately 504 metric tons. For the first time, Chinese demand for investment bars and coins exceeded demand for gold jewelry. Domestic mine production reached approximately 381 metric tons.
Then there is China’s central bank.
The People’s Bank of China reported adding approximately 15 metric tons of gold in June, its largest monthly increase since October 2023. That extended its reported purchasing streak to 20 consecutive months and brought official holdings to approximately 2,346 metric tons.
Put the pieces together:
China mines lots of gold.
Chinese households and institutions buy gold.
China imports additional gold.
The PBoC accumulates gold.
Hong Kong is expanding gold storage.
New systems are being built to clear, settle and deliver gold across borders.
That is not a gold standard. But neither is it meaningless.
China is building a financial neighborhood in which physical gold is easier to store, trade and use – while reducing reliance on institutions and payment systems outside its control.
We have discussed before why central banks increasingly regard physical gold as a vital reserve asset in a world of rising government debt, geopolitical friction and currency uncertainty.
China’s latest moves fit that broader pattern.
Could China reshape gold’s global price?This is where we have to be especially careful.
Gold does not have one market or one price-making machine.
Its global price emerges from a complicated network of physical bars, wholesale spot transactions, futures contracts, currency movements, central-bank activity and buying by households and institutions around the world.
London and New York remain enormously influential. Shanghai has become increasingly important. Prices move between these markets through arbitrage – traders responding whenever gold becomes meaningfully cheaper in one location than another.
A popular argument says futures trading creates an artificial gold price because vastly more contracts trade than physical bars change hands.
There is a grain of truth here.
Leverage allows traders to control large positions without paying the full value upfront. During extreme market moves, margin calls and forced liquidations can amplify price swings. Recent metals volatility has offered plenty of examples of speculative activity accelerating both rallies and selloffs.
But it would be a mistake to conclude that all futures trading is fake or that eliminating it would automatically reveal gold’s “true” price.
Futures also provide liquidity and help buyers and sellers discover prices. Research on China’s own gold market has found that futures trading has historically played a significant role in price discovery. The World Gold Council likewise notes that futures concentrate trading activity, add liquidity and contribute to the process by which new information becomes reflected in prices.
Less leverage may reduce forced selling and speculative excess. In fact, the Bank of International Settlements claims that leverage and margin-triggered liquidations amplified the abrupt reversal in gold’s price back in January.
It can also mean fewer buyers and sellers, thinner trading and greater volatility.
So I would not claim that China’s bank closures will automatically produce a more honest gold price – especially because those closures affect only certain retail trading channels, while Hong Kong is simultaneously expanding other forms of futures trading.
The potentially more important development is the growth of physical infrastructure.
If more gold is stored in Hong Kong…
And if more trades result in physical delivery…
And if Delivery Connect attracts substantial cross-border activity…
And if Asian institutions increasingly use those systems rather than merely referencing prices established elsewhere…
…then physical demand from China and the rest of Asia could exert more direct influence over gold’s global price.
That would not happen on one deadline.
It would happen gradually, transaction by transaction. Gold bar by gold bar.
What to watch nextThe best way to judge China’s gold ambitions is not to watch social media predictions or stare at gold’s price on the morning after July 24.
Watch what China actually builds.
Does Hong Kong’s storage capacity begin moving toward its 2,000-ton goal?
How much gold passes through the new clearing system?
Do international banks, central banks and large commercial buyers use Delivery Connect?
Do Hong Kong’s new gold contracts attract enough trading to become meaningful?
Does more gold move into allocated storage and physical settlement rather than remaining merely a contractual promise?
Those numbers will tell us whether China has created a genuine alternative gold center – or merely another ambitious financial project that never attracts sufficient use.
Infrastructure matters. But infrastructure must be used.
An empty highway does not reshape trade simply because someone poured the concrete.
Only physical gold is gold itselfAlthough China did not launch a gold-backed currency, ban derivatives or reset the global price of gold, its recent decisions illustrate something I discuss frequently:
Physical gold and a financial claim tied to gold are not the same thing.
A futures contract is an agreement.
It has rules, expiration dates, collateral requirements and counterparties. The exchange can change its terms. A bank can increase margin requirements. A financial institution can decide it no longer wants to sell a product.
That does not make every contract fraudulent or useless. These instruments serve legitimate commercial purposes (as well as speculation). It simply means the contract is not the gold itself.
ICBC customers discovered that distinction firsthand. Their bank-operated access to the Shanghai Gold Exchange existed only as long as the bank chose to provide it. When the bank changed its policy, customers had to sell, close their positions or take delivery.
The rules around a promise can change.
An ounce of physical gold remains an ounce of physical gold.
That does not mean physical gold’s price cannot fall. Gold experienced a severe decline this year, and anyone who says its price moves in only one direction is ignoring history.
Nor do I know whether China’s new systems will push gold higher next week, next year or at all. Anyone promising a dramatic price explosion because of a single deadline is selling certainty that does not exist.
Here is what we do know:
China is investing serious resources in the storage, clearing and delivery of physical gold. Its central bank continues to accumulate the metal. At the same time, some of its largest banks are effectively outlawing leveraged retail speculation on gold’s price.
China is not abandoning paper markets entirely. But it is making physical gold bullion a larger and more important part of its financial system.
For Americans concerned about their long-term savings, that distinction is worth understanding. Because there is a big difference between owning an asset and owning a promise based on the price of an asset.
China isn’t about to reset gold’s price on July 24.
Instead, what it’s really doing is reminding the world what gold actually is. They’re reminding everyone who’s forgotten why physical gold matters.
Tyler Durden Thu, 07/30/2026 - 15:25Authored by James Rickards via DailyReckoning.com,
Can Marxism offer a framework for understanding artificial intelligence (AI) and the tech bros behind it?
This is not to suggest that Marxism is a viable economic system or a practical alternative to capitalism. It’s not. But Karl Marx was a heterodox economist before he became an ideologue, and some of his ideas are powerful tools for understanding economics, even if his overall program was a failure.
Let’s use some of those tools to understand the rise of AI oligarchs and the future of AI.
We begin with Marx’s main idea: the abolition of private property. How do tech bros feel about private property? They steal it. If you can simply take private property, then it’s not private. Marx would approve.
The AI gang does this by scraping vast amounts of internet content for use in training their large language models (LLMs). That material includes copyrighted books, magazine articles, academic papers, images, music and countless other forms of intellectual property (IP).
Do tech bros pay royalties? Do they pay licensing fees? Sometimes, but often they don’t. They take what they want like internet pirates, or the Bolsheviks after the Russian Revolution in 1917.
In fact, AI models have used my nine books in their training sets. Google, Apple, Microsoft, OpenAI and Meta have paid me nothing. Anthropic offered to pay me $37,000 for some (not all) of my books. I accepted the offer, but I still haven’t received the payment. Maybe I’ll call my lawyer about that before their IPO.
The point is that much of the AI crowd behaves no differently than the imperialists of the 19th and early 20th centuries, who exploited land, resources and human capital, including slavery, while paying little or nothing in return.
V. I. Lenin called imperialism “the highest stage of capitalism.” But Lenin never met a tech bro. They put imperialists to shame.
YOU Are Paying for the BoomMarx’s theory was based on the idea that the owners of the means of production (capitalists) used labor but did not pay workers a fair share of the surplus created by the production process. There are a lot of flaws in this theory.
But the tech bros have a better idea: Get rid of human labor completely.
AI allows companies to pay some workers less because a growing share of productivity comes from software rather than labor. More to the point, AI is eliminating certain jobs entirely, as seen in layoffs among software developers and in industries such as healthcare and customer service that are increasingly using AI to perform repetitive or administrative tasks.
In the AI world, capitalists don’t just take more than their share; they take the entire buffet table. The tech bros’ solution to mass unemployment is guaranteed basic income, a handout. This ignores the dignity of the individual, which is achieved largely through productive work.
Other examples of taking public assets for private use include massive demands placed on the electric grid to power hyperscale data centers. Towns and counties around the country could face higher electric bills as hyperscalers compete with residents and businesses for available electricity.
It’s another case of extracting wealth from everyday Americans to feed the AI beast.
Even that’s not enough. AI applications are being crammed into our laptops, tablets and smartphones whether we know it or not and whether we like it or not. This is forcing manufacturers to build more powerful devices, which can increase costs for consumers while requiring additional processing power to handle AI features.
Many of these AI features operate by default, even if users never intentionally engage with them. That means you may be using AI without realizing it.
Never mind that AI output can be inaccurate and, at times, dangerous. The problem is compounded as AI-generated content increasingly circulates online and becomes part of future training data. Meanwhile, many AI features collect large amounts of user data from the devices they run on.
Individual AI users also provide fresh inputs to LLMs through prompts, interactions and, in some cases, data collected from their devices. AI operators are hungry for this kind of information because they have already consumed vast amounts of publicly available internet content, while the quality of that content continues to deteriorate as more AI-generated material floods the web.
Are you getting paid for information that may be collected from your device? Do you even know it’s happening? Almost certainly not. This is just another form of digital extraction that enriches the tech bros while helping fuel trillion-dollar valuations.
In addition to authors, artists, local communities and everyday Americans, the AI mafia is also feeding off the government. Subsidies include streamlined permitting for massive data centers, tax incentives and abatements in many jurisdictions, favorable regulatory treatment in some areas and enormous government contracts.
There are costs associated with all of these government benefits, but they are not borne by the AI companies themselves.
They’re borne by everyday citizens in the form of taxes, higher electricity rates, reduced quality of life as data centers reshape small communities and the risk that increasingly capable AI systems could create serious disruptions in sectors such as banking, telecommunications and healthcare if they malfunction or are misused.
The Extraction Economy… And New RevolutionariesThe Chinese are no better. The success of Chinese AI models such as DeepSeek and Moonshot has been aided by their ability to build on advances made by leading U.S. AI labs. It’s a case of one group of pirates raiding another group of pirates.
Both thrive on information they did not create, but the Chinese have become especially adept at turning those advances into low-cost competitors.
This predatory behavior can be likened to imperialism or piracy. The technical economic term for it is externality. That means the profits and benefits of extracting information are kept by AI firms, while many of the costs are pushed onto the public.
It’s no different than a gold mine that keeps the gold but dumps the cyanide used in refining into public waterways. The miner gets the gold and the public gets poisoned. The fact that AI is digital does not make the behavior any more acceptable from a social perspective.
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of Silicon Valley’s extractive culture is that many CEOs are not only aware of it; they thrive on it. They have perfected the art of turning their own customers into unwilling guinea pigs. A culture of short-termism, disdain for the public and pure greed keeps the extraction racket going.
If there’s one ray of sunshine, it’s that some members of Gen Z appear to be turning their backs on AI, autonomous agents and endless screen time.
There’s growing fatigue with the amount of time people spend online, along with increasing concern about the pervasive nature of AI. This shift also reflects widespread frustration that much AI output is bland, repetitive or simply wrong.
Some Gen Zers are doing something that now seems almost radical: They’re reading books.
There are many reasons why the AI bubble could burst, but the Gen Z revolt may be one of the least appreciated and most unexpected.
Tyler Durden Thu, 07/30/2026 - 14:45