Ok, but there is something in this reasoning, which doen not work in my opinion.

Rickards presents this confiscation as a contingency plan/Plan B meant to subsequently establish a new world reserve currency system backed by 40% gold. Two questions:

1) Those that see their gold confiscated will be paid in that new world currency (or any other currency that can be exchanged against it) for the hard assets (gold) they involuntarily transfered to the US. First thing they would try to do is buy back that gold. If that wouldn't be accepted, which surely would be the case, what would the backing by gold be worth?

2) Even with a 40% backing in gold, part of the new currency would rely on confidence. Which non US country would trust a currency issued by a country that just before let its currency, the US dollar (which was serving as the world's reserve currency), devalue against all other currencies due to nefast fiscal policy? And what confidence can you have in a country that confiscates the assets of others just like that. In other words I see a tremendous confidence issue there.

I believe this confiscation part of the story simply would do more harm than good. On top of it, the unilateralism that speaks from his ideas, scares me.