[econjack]

The Hunt reference and their actions have nothing to do with the current forces on gold and silver. They were trying to corner the market on silver and, even with their deep pockets, it failed. They were seeking a monopoly on silver. Currently, the demand for gold and silver exceeds the supply and market forces are driving it up. There’s a huge difference. I fail to see the economic relevance of your argument of taxes cause the rise on metal prices.

[T Ruth]

The point of the Hunt reference is that it takes only one market participant to drive up the market price. So the implicit question for today's situation is: is it only a few market participants who are driving the price rise? My hypothesis is that those who have stolen billions of dollars from the U.S. government are willing to trade any amount of their stolen money for gold.

If this is the case, then if the supply of looted money is cut off, the price-inelastic demand will abate. Maybe that's right; maybe not. Freeper comments -- crowd wisdom -- may throw light on the matter.

I did not suggest that taxes cause the rise in metal prices.

[delta7]

Important to note the Hunts used mostly paper future contracts. They ran it up with paper, much like the banks ran it down with paper contracts ( for decades).