![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/images/sp_en_6.gif)
Conversation with AI whether the Hunt Brothers hated america.
What if the government did not get involved and the Hunts were successful, does that change who hates America more?
If the U.S. government had not intervened and the Hunt Brothers had successfully cornered the silver market, the economic and political consequences could have been severe—potentially reshaping perceptions of whether their actions were "anti-American." Here’s how it might change the analysis:
Scenario: Hunts Succeed, No Government Intervention
Hyperinflation in Silver Prices
Silver could have skyrocketed to $100+/oz or higher, disrupting industries (electronics, photography, jewelry) that relied on it.
A commodities crisis might have triggered panic in other markets (gold, oil, etc.), destabilizing the dollar.
Bankruptcies & Economic Fallout
Companies needing silver for production would face massive cost spikes, leading to layoffs and shutdowns.
Banks exposed to Hunts’ leverage (they borrowed heavily) could collapse, causing a financial crisis.
Dollar Collapse Risk
If investors lost faith in the dollar and rushed into precious metals, the Fed might have had to hike rates drastically, causing a recession.
Foreign holders of dollars (e.g., oil-producing states) could dump the currency, accelerating a 1970s-style currency crisis.
Political Backlash
The public would blame the Hunts for economic pain, possibly branding them as greedy manipulators who harmed the nation.
Congress might later pass draconian financial laws to prevent future speculation.
Would This Make the Hunts "Hate America" More Than the Left?
Under this scenario, the Hunts’ unchecked actions would have caused far greater economic harm than they did historically. But does that mean they hated America more than left-wing policies do (per MAGA)?
Arguments That the Hunts Would Be Worse
Direct Economic Sabotage: Their success would have intentionally (even if for profit) destabilized the U.S. economy in a measurable way.
Unlike Ideological Opposition: The Left’s policies (per conservatives) are debatable in their harm—some argue they help the poor, others say they hurt growth. The Hunts’ damage would be undeniable.
National Security Risk: A silver-driven financial meltdown could weaken the U.S. globally at the height of the Cold War—arguably more damaging than domestic policy disputes.
Arguments That the Left Is Still Worse (Per MAGA)
Systemic vs. One-Time Harm: The Hunts’ damage would eventually stabilize; left-wing policies could permanently alter America’s economic and cultural fabric.
Ideological Motivations Matter: The Left (in this view) wants to transform America away from its founding principles, whereas the Hunts just wanted money.
Long-Term Damage: Inflation, debt, and social division from progressive policies could last decades, whereas the Hunts’ crisis would pass.
Key Difference: Intent vs. Outcome
The Hunts were not ideologically anti-American—they were reckless capitalists.
The Left (as framed by conservatives) seeks to redefine America—making their impact more existential, even if less immediately catastrophic.
Final Verdict
If the Hunts succeeded, they would have objectively done more short-term economic harm than any modern left-wing policy.
But in MAGA’s eyes, the Left’s vision for America is still the greater threat because it challenges the nation’s core identity.
Irony: The Hunts’ free-market extremism could have done more immediate damage than leftist policies, yet the Right still sees the Left as the larger threat because ideological change outlasts financial crises.
Would this make the Hunts "unpatriotic"? Yes, in hindsight—but not because they hated America, but because their greed disproportionately harmed it. Meanwhile, the Left’s policies are debated as either harmful or necessary progress, depending on who you ask.
Would have the Hunt brothers if successful made America not great again?
The Hunt Brothers' success in cornering the silver market could have significantly harmed America's economy in the short-to-medium term, but whether it would have made America "not great again" depends on how we define "greatness" and the long-term repercussions.
How a Hunt Brothers Victory Might Have Undermined American Greatness
Immediate Economic Chaos
Hyperinflation in Commodities: Silver prices would have spiraled out of control, disrupting industries like electronics, photography, and jewelry.
Banking & Financial Crisis: The Hunts were heavily leveraged; if silver crashed later (as bubbles do), banks that financed them could have collapsed.
Dollar Instability: A rush into precious metals could have weakened the dollar, forcing extreme Fed rate hikes and triggering a recession.
Global Perception of U.S. Markets
Loss of Trust: If regulators failed to stop the manipulation, global investors might have seen U.S. markets as rigged or unstable, hurting Wall Street’s credibility.
Cold War Vulnerability: In the late 1970s/early '80s, economic turmoil could have emboldened the USSR, making America look weak.
Political Fallout & Regulatory Overreaction
Public Anger: If everyday Americans suffered (e.g., job losses from industrial disruptions), Congress might have passed draconian financial laws, stifling markets.
Populist Backlash: A crisis caused by ultra-wealthy speculators could have fueled anti-capitalist sentiment, accelerating left-wing policies.
Would America Have Become "Not Great Again"?
Short-Term (1980s): Yes—economic instability, inflation, and a potential recession would have made the U.S. look weak at a critical time (post-Vietnam, Iran hostage crisis).
Long-Term (Beyond the 1980s): Probably not. The U.S. economy has historically recovered from financial crises (1929, 2008). Over time, markets would have adjusted, and new regulations would have stabilized things.
Comparison to Modern Left-Wing Policies (MAGA Perspective)
The Hunts' damage would have been acute but fixable—like a heart attack that requires surgery but heals.
The Left’s policies (per conservatives) are seen as a slow, chronic illness—changing America’s economic and cultural foundations permanently.
Final Answer
If the Hunts had succeeded, they would have temporarily made America "not great" by causing a financial crisis and global embarrassment. But unlike systemic ideological shifts (which MAGA warns about), their damage would likely have been reversible.
Ironically, their free-market extremism could have done more immediate harm than leftist policies—but conservatives would still argue the Left poses the deeper long-term threat to America’s identity.
Would have the Soviets used that as a way to say the USSR is stronger and more successful than America, thus the collapse of communism may have not happened. It would have given aid and comfort to the enemy Soviet Union.
You're absolutely right to consider the geopolitical implications. If the Hunt Brothers had successfully cornered the silver market and triggered a U.S. financial crisis in the late 1970s/early 1980s, the Soviet Union would have exploited it ruthlessly for propaganda—potentially delaying (though not necessarily preventing) the collapse of communism. Here’s how it might have played out:
How a Hunt-Induced Crisis Could Have Aided the USSR
Propaganda Victory
The Soviets would have hammered the narrative that capitalism was inherently unstable, pointing to the Hunts as proof that greedy speculators could crash the U.S. economy.
State media would contrast this with the USSR’s "planned economy" (ignoring its own stagnation), claiming socialism avoided such chaos.
Cold War Momentum Shift
A weakened dollar and U.S. recession could have forced defense spending cuts, emboldening Soviet adventures (e.g., more aggressive moves in Afghanistan, Central America).
America’s global credibility would have taken a hit, making it harder to rally allies against Soviet expansion.
Delaying the Collapse of Communism?
The USSR’s demise was inevitable due to structural flaws (economic inefficiency, corruption, Afghan war drain). But a U.S. crisis might have:
Bought time for reforms (like a earlier, more controlled "Gorbachev-style" transition).
Boosted morale in the Eastern Bloc, slowing dissent (e.g., Solidarity in Poland might have faced harsher crackdowns if the West looked feeble).
"Aid and Comfort" to the Enemy
The Hunts’ actions would have objectively helped Soviet morale, even if unintentionally.
Hardliners in the Kremlin could have argued, "See? The West is crumbling—we must hold firm!"
Why Communism Might Have Survived (a Little) Longer
Psychological Effect: The 1980s U.S. revival (Reagan’s boom, tech innovation, military buildup) demoralized the USSR. A Hunt-caused crisis could have blunted that momentum.
Oil Prices & Leverage: If the U.S. economy stumbled, oil demand might have dropped, hurting Soviet oil-export revenues—but a weaker dollar could have offset this by raising nominal prices.
Delayed Western Confidence: Without a strong 1980s rebound, America might have pursued détente longer, easing pressure on the USSR.
But Would It Have Saved Communism? Probably Not.
The USSR’s problems were terminal:
Economic: Central planning couldn’t compete with tech-driven capitalism.
Political: Glasnost/perestroika were desperate Hail Marys, not signs of strength.
Military Overstretch: Afghanistan was a quagmire regardless of U.S. crises.
The Hunts’ crisis would have been a temporary setback for America, not a collapse. The USSR still lacked the dynamism to outlast the West.
Final Verdict
Yes, the Hunts’ success would have been a gift to Soviet propaganda, potentially prolonging the Cold War by 5–10 years—but not preventing communism’s eventual collapse. The USSR was doomed by its own rot; America’s resilience (even after shocks like 2008) suggests it would have recovered.
Irony: The Hunts, who saw themselves as libertarian capitalists, might have accidentally aided Marxism-Leninism—making them, in a twisted way, more damaging to U.S. interests than 2020s leftists in this specific historical context.
Reply With Quote