Why Sinclair Is Wrong About Gold Confiscation [ The following turned up in the Rick's Picks forum. However, it was unrelated to the discussion concerning White Gates Farm, and so I am reposting it below: 1) to give it greater visibility; and 2) because I share the author's skepticism that the gold price will achieve the stratospheric heights that Jim Sinclair has predicted (even if I am not so confident that government will not someday confiscate bullion or curtail its free exchange).  The author, who goes by the handle 'Doc,' blogs at silverdoctors.com RA ] Well, Thanksgiving is over and so if I may I would like to begin a new conversation on the issue of Gold demand and Central Banks. Jim Sinclair has recently stated in response to one of his readers that Gold confiscation is not an issue of concern; that it is an unlikely scenario. He has strong views on the subject. More specifically, he wrote: "There was much to be gained by gold confiscation in the 1930s because we were on a gold standard. Gold in the 1930s was the only instrument of QE. It is not now nor will it be again in the future. 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". I beg to differ. I think Jim's argument is