This a multi-faceted statement and I don't think the issues nor risks are as pat as Sinclair states. To parse:
1: "Confiscation is NOT going to occur" OK, I can accept that. This does NOT rule out the possibility that as of xx/yy/zz, per executive order # 12345, all openings of bank safety deposit boxes must be supervised by a Federal Marshall.
tin? Have we seen enough tin over the past few years so that we should not be surprised at redefinitons of same?
2: "..nor will the gold bullion profits [be confiscated via punitive taxation].." I do not believe this can be predicted! In fact, if you think about it, gold could be seriously DE-monetized from its quasi-monetary function by imposing severe taxes on sales of gold. Suppose the government imposed a $1000 per ounce tax on the sale of bullion and threw in some gobbledygook about Eagles and/or pre-1933 gold coins as collectibles. Let's just think about bullion: Credit Suisse or Perth Mint or APMEX or JM or Englehard bars. What then? Anyone who had (what they believed was) their gold stash in those forms would be faced with a serious issue. Let's say they bought their gold over a range of $450. - $1350. and are right now thinking they are sitting fairly pretty.
To get anything near spot price out their gold, they would have to engage in a tax-evasion transaction. But who would buy such gold anywhere market price? They, too, would be subject to the same conundrum upon sale. In other words, gold would be forced into black market status and the spot value would not be obtainable since transactions in same would be not illegal per se, but strongly implying illegal.
3: "...nor will (GLD profits) be confiscated via punitive taxation." << I can believe that, GLD is just stupid stock.
4: "It serves no monetary purpose and just might injure the efforts for a new reserve currency that is sure to come.
4: Heh. Sez you. (And I greatly respect Jim Sinclair) but neither he nor anyone else can accurately predict the future. That something today serves or does not serve any monetary purpose means utterly nothing. After all, we are probably going to be jacking tax rates to raise revenues when all prior experiences show that lowering rates is the thing that raises tax revs. But see, we do this out of "fairness". So it is not a given that "making monetary sense" will be the prevailing rule of logic or law. Maybe we're going to be forced to "play fair", but it will be the 0bama's definition of "fair".
