''Financial Sense Newshour'' interviews Sprott''s Embry and Central Fund''s Spicer

Section:

10:45a ET Saturday, October 4, 2003

Dear Friend of GATA and Gold:

GATA Chairman Bill Murphy, attending the Calgary
Resource Investment Conference, just sent the
dispatch below to subscribers at LeMetropoleCafe.com,
and given the disturbing action in the gold and silver
markets on Friday, he probably would not object to
sharing it with you.

CHRIS POWELL, Secretary/Treasurer
Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee Inc.

* * *

Saturday, October 4, 2003

LeMetropole Cafe Members:

The late Reuters report about the real jobs picture
is mindboggling. If you ever had any doubt the U.S.
financial markets are rigged, especially the gold
market, this late-Friday input about the true state of
the job picture in the United States ought to put an
end to it for you.

Once the gold price was destroyed in a mission-
accomplished maneuver, the truth was let out
about the labor picture. Hail the Orwellians. Long
live corporate fascism.

Our financial markets have become a sham to
protect the interests of the elitists.

I have to finish preparing for my presentation here
in Calgary. I plan to tear into the crooks.

-- MIDAS

Data revision confirms weak U.S. jobs picture

Friday, October 3, 2:47p ET

WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 (Reuters) -- A warning by the U.S.
Labor Department that it expects to revise down past
employment data pours cold water on the view of some
economists who believed the jobs market had been
improving for some time, analysts said on Friday.

Statisticians at the Labor Department said they expect to
revise down U.S. payroll employment by about 145,000
for the March 2003 reference month -- effectively showing
even greater weakness in the sluggish labor market than
previously thought.

The downward adjustment surprised Wall Street, which had
been rife with speculation this week that Labor would adjust
the figures up, bringing payrolls more in line with another
survey which has shown a recent improvement in the job
market.

"The expectation was that this revision would be positive,
that we would be looking at a number in excess of 300,000,"
said Anthony Chan, chief economist at Banc One
Investment Advisors.

An upward revision would have brought the so-called
establishment survey, a poll of businesses that has shown
a loss of 1.0 million jobs since the recession ended in
November 2001, more in line with a smaller household
survey of employment which has shown a 1.4 million job
gain.

Both surveys are part of the department's closely
watched monthly employment report. Markets tend to focus
on the payrolls count from the establishment survey, while
the unemployment rate is derived from the household survey.

The discrepancy between the two surveys has been a hot
topic of late, even though veteran economists believe much
of the discrepancy can be explained away by differences
between the methods used in the two surveys and monthly
volatility.

Chan, who believes the larger establishment survey provides
a more accurate picture of the job market, said the downward
revision douses the argument that Labor was underestimating
the job recovery with its establishment survey.

"That gives more credence to the view that the weakness
in the establishment non-farm payrolls is real," Chan said.

James Glassman, senior U.S. economist at J.P. Morgan
Chase Securities in New York, said the revision is equivalent
to about 12,000 fewer jobs a month than originally thought in
the March 2002 to March 2003 period.

"Whichever survey you look at, employment has been pretty
flat in the last two years, and there is no mystery why -- the
economy has not grown" fast enough," said Glassman.

Like many economists, he argues the discrepancies between
the two surveys can be largely explained by the different
methods used. Unlike the establishment survey, the household
survey includes farm workers, the self-employed, unpaid family
workers, private household workers, and people on unpaid leave
among the employed, possibly boosting its count.

"When you make adjustments to compare apples to apples,
the differences between the two surveys are really quite small,"
Glassman said.

The so-called "benchmark revision" is an annual exercise
by the Labor Department, designed to adjust historical data
using more exact records that have come in since the
preliminary results were released.

The benchmark change will be instituted when a final
measure of the revision is revealed in February. In the
past, it had taken the department until June to make
the changes.

Labor said the 0.1 percent adjustment this year was
small by historical standards, with benchmark revisions
averaging 0.3 percent in the past 10 years.