Sinclair: Gold Confiscation Not A Possibility

pmbug

Your Host
Administrator
Messages
7,398
Reaction score
3
Points
193
Location
Texas
Emphasis added by me:
Jim Sinclair said:
...
There was much to be gained by gold confiscation in the 1930s because we were on a gold standard. Without taking you into complicated explanations, please accept the true fact that gold in the 1930s was the only instruments of QE. It is not now nor will it be again in the future. There may be more to gain by a significant price of gold in the new reserve currency. There is no reason except some sort of fear of revenge to consider confiscation of gold, gold shares or the gold ETFs now. Those that worry so much about this do not really understand what gold was under a gold standard.

Why was energy not confiscated at $145 crude? Why not confiscate Apple at $750? Confiscation is NOT going to occur, nor will the gold bullion or gold share profits be confiscated via punitive taxation. It serves no monetary purpose and just might injure the efforts for a new reserve currency that is sure to come.
...
http://www.jsmineset.com/2012/11/24/gold-confiscation-not-a-possibility/

I beleive the bolded part is a direct reference to the Basel III rules.
 

dontdeBasemebro

Moderator
Messages
494
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I can't say that I would trust the bank to hold anything, 100ft of water weighs a lot more than a vault door, but Jim's reasoning seems reasonable. I'm much more worried about them confiscating retirement accounts by hook (flat out nationalization) or by crook (increasing the taxes on them). There is a ton of money in the 401ks and IRAs and they don't need to open any vaults to get at it. They could be gone when we wake up tomorrow.
 
Top