I don't see that the date has any bearing - the argument was the same back then as it is now. The only thing that's changed is that silver has gone way up.

I`m sure it hasn`t had an effect on you ... especially if you weren`t holding silver or investing in the silver industry. Of course if there was suppression and you can't envision all of the implications, it may be hard for you to understand that there may have been others who were short squeezed. It may be that those who wanted to keep the price down held shares in pure play silvers mines (since approx. 38% of production is pure silver play and not by product) and a supressed price would eventually lead to a substantial price hike (unfairly profiting later) ... there are as many reason to suppress as corner the markets and the Hunts tried it. It just takes a little imagination. Given the life cycle of a mine is about 40 years ... who in their right mind would invest in a industrial material that you can't make money on mining (which could lead to shortages or artificially high prices) ... is that good for the public interest.

Given a relatively flat industrial demand and gold being the predominant precious metal for investment ... does a 400% increase in approx 3 years not seem a little unusual ... this is not a major commodity(although its uses are quite varied).

So again, I repeat: That's one hell of a suppression racket. Would someone please tell me where the price is SUPPOSED TO BE, in the absence of this scheme?

Who could know if the price would be if it was not supressed how many more pur silver rmines may have been built ... who knows the equilibrium price for a commodity when free market forces apply if it has indeed been suppressed. Its easy to ask questions that cant be answered ... how about answering why a few players (banks) short the futures of a commodity to the tune of +25% when they are non producers/industrial users ... why wouldn't a substantially smaller (than 25%) position limit make sense???

As for Butler, are there any serious people left who don't think he's a charlatan? I listened to all of the debates on FSN and AFAIC, Christian totally demolished the guy.

You may consider me a fool ... since I don't view him as a debater, I view him as an analyst (and by no means a charlatan) and after spending several hours of analyzing the same data he did (data provided by the CFTC) came to the same conclusion that there are questions that appear unresolved and for which no resolution has come.

Perhaps Bart Chilton may also think that Butler may have something ... as a commisioner of the CFTC .. he has made some rather strong comments about silver manipulation ... perhaps he should be called Bart Charlaton instead.

These sources/debaters you follow, have they provided answers about the inordinately high level of short contracts for non-producers or industrial users that far exceeds any other commodity. Could you share them with the board if you can even paraphrase them and give the full names so we can check out their comments directly.

Many mocked Peter Schiff, Nouriel Roubini, even now they mock Jim Rogers and others ... all of these people come under attack from an enormous number of people yet so many of their predictions are forgotten when the dust settles.

Looking forward to be enlightened so I can analyze for myself the sources of data and positions to which they subscribe.

Lets all find an answer together ... after all, none of us is as smart of all of us!

orgy