Bill Kristol tells GOP to come back to the table.

Bloo Driver wrote:

I like that we live in a country where such obviously unintended manipulation of economics and law is being paid attention to at all. The whole splitting hairs over definition thing works when you're trying to avoid telling your partner they've gained weight, but this is just stupid.

Edit: or, as the joke I made with a friend yesterday goes - "Welcome to Whose Money Is It Anyway? Where everything's made up and the debt doesn't matter."

The reason is obvious... The debt ceiling is even more stupid....

Please let it have Ted Kennedy's image on the front, and an acorn on the back.

goman wrote:

Hey all, remember when I posted about the trillion dollar coin year and a half ago during the last debt ceiling fiasco.. Man it is getting much more play in the mainstream media.

It is not inflationary, the ex head of the Mint who wrote the statute on platinum coins says it is legal, a Republican congressman wants to close the loophole.

#mintthecoin

http://pragcap.com/philip-diehl-form...

I’m the former Mint director and Treasury chief of staff who, with Rep. Mike Castle, wrote the platinum coin law and produced the original coin authorized by the law. Therefore, I’m in a unique position to address some confusion I’ve seen in the media about the $1 trillion platinum coin proposal.

* In minting the $1 trillion platinum coin, the Treasury Secretary would be exercising authority which Congress has granted routinely for more than 220 years. The Secretary’s authority is derived from an Act of Congress (in fact, a GOP Congress) under power expressly granted to Congress in the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8).

* What is unusual about the law (Sec. 5112 of title 31, United States Code) is that it gives the Secretary complete discretion regarding all specifications of the coin, including denominations.

* Moreover, the accounting treatment of the coin is identical to the treatment of all other coins. The Mint strikes the coin, ships it to the Fed, books $1 trillion, and transfers $1 trillion to the treasury’s general fund where it is available to finance government operations just like with proceeds of bond sales or additional tax revenues. The same applies for a quarter dollar.

* Once the debt limit is raised, the Fed ships the coin back to the Mint, the accounting treatment is reversed, and the coin is melted. The coin would never be “issued” or circulated and bonds would not be needed to back the coin.

* There are no negative macroeconomic effects. This works just like additional tax revenue or borrowing under a higher debt limit. In fact, when the debt limit is raised, Treasury would sell more bonds, the $1 trillion dollars would be taken off the books, and the coin would be melted.

* This does not raise the debt limit so it can’t be characterized as circumventing congressional authority over the debt limit. Rather, it delays when the debt limit is reached.

* This preserves congressional authority over the debt limit in a way that reliance on the 14th Amendment would not. It also avoids the protracted court battles the 14th Amendment option would entail and avoids another confrontation with the Roberts Court.

* Any court challenge is likely to be quickly dismissed since (1) authority to mint the coin is firmly rooted in law that itself is grounded in the expressed constitutional powers of Congress, (2) Treasury has routinely exercised this authority since the birth of the republic, and (3) the accounting treatment of the coin is entirely routine.

* Yes, this is an unintended consequence of the platinum coin bill, but how many other pieces of legislation have had unintended consequences? Most, I’d guess.

Philip N. Diehl
35th Director
United States Mint
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_N._Diehl

We should give the coin to our richest and therefore most trustworthy citizen for transport.

Nomad wrote:

This idea seems to be the cross of a government that wants to rule as it pleases and a government that is required to abide by the rules it's people have voted into existence. In a non democratic setting, there is no constraint on debt load.

http://monetaryrealism.com/tthe-razo...

1.Congress tells the Secretary (as supervisor of the IRS) how much to collect in tax receipts and (with somewhat less effort) in miscellaneous receipts.

2. Congress tells the Secretary as signatory of every single appropriation warrant how much money to transfer to federal agency sub-accounts (called “appropriation symbols” for some obscure reason).

3. Congress tells the Secretary he MAY borrow on the credit of the United State to fund expenditures but not for one penny more than the debt ceiling.

4. Congress tells the Secretary he SHALL mint coins such coins as he decides are necessary to meet the needs of the United States.

The logic behind the coin...

Nomad wrote:

In a non democratic setting, there is no constraint on debt load.

I'm not sure if I'm reading too much into that line, but if I imagine you think that it means countries which ate not democracies can pile up as much debt as they want with no repercussions, then I must disagree. Economists of all stripes tend to believe that no country can function well at all once the debt gets exceeds GDP. The US is a special case in debt because we managed to get the rest of the world to buy oil, and therefore most international trade, in dollars. Take out that advantage and we wouldn't be able to print fake money with impunity, and there are some economists and foreign policy folks in other countries looking to get that changed.

Our system is far too expensive given the results. I think I pay way too much overall for what I get in services.

You live in Ohio; your governor is working hard to make sure you keep paying those premiums. He believes that Ohio can't set up exchanges without paying more than it is now and charging consumers more, so he'll put that on the Feds, but in Massachusetts, the state-run Connector is now fiscally self-sustaining and consumers are saving money with it.

State's Rights for the win, eh?

Robear wrote:
Our system is far too expensive given the results. I think I pay way too much overall for what I get in services.

You live in Ohio; your governor is working hard to make sure you keep paying those premiums. He believes that Ohio can't set up exchanges without paying more than it is now and charging consumers more, so he'll put that on the Feds, but in Massachusetts, the state-run Connector is now fiscally self-sustaining and consumers are saving money with it.

State's Rights for the win, eh? :-)

I live in Ohio, where the governor is an idiot. I pay sales tax and income tax both. The state provides crappy services at nearly all levels.

Move. It's the capitalist thing to do.

bandit0013 wrote:
Robear wrote:
Our system is far too expensive given the results. I think I pay way too much overall for what I get in services.

You live in Ohio; your governor is working hard to make sure you keep paying those premiums. He believes that Ohio can't set up exchanges without paying more than it is now and charging consumers more, so he'll put that on the Feds, but in Massachusetts, the state-run Connector is now fiscally self-sustaining and consumers are saving money with it.

State's Rights for the win, eh? :-)

I live in Ohio, where the governor is an idiot. I pay sales tax and income tax both. The state provides crappy services at nearly all levels.

Yup.

Keithustus wrote:
Nomad wrote:

In a non democratic setting, there is no constraint on debt load.

I'm not sure if I'm reading too much into that line, but if I imagine you think that it means countries which ate not democracies can pile up as much debt as they want with no repercussions, then I must disagree. Economists of all stripes tend to believe that no country can function well at all once the debt gets exceeds GDP. The US is a special case in debt because we managed to get the rest of the world to buy oil, and therefore most international trade, in dollars. Take out that advantage and we wouldn't be able to print fake money with impunity, and there are some economists and foreign policy folks in other countries looking to get that changed.

I agree with that. I simply meant that a dictator has no debt ceiling placed on him by his country. He can simply borrow till his credit collapses.

Nomad wrote:
Keithustus wrote:
Nomad wrote:

In a non democratic setting, there is no constraint on debt load.

I'm not sure if I'm reading too much into that line, but if I imagine you think that it means countries which ate not democracies can pile up as much debt as they want with no repercussions, then I must disagree. Economists of all stripes tend to believe that no country can function well at all once the debt gets exceeds GDP. The US is a special case in debt because we managed to get the rest of the world to buy oil, and therefore most international trade, in dollars. Take out that advantage and we wouldn't be able to print fake money with impunity, and there are some economists and foreign policy folks in other countries looking to get that changed.

I agree with that. I simply meant that a dictator has no debt ceiling placed on him by his country. He can simply borrow till his credit collapses.

So can a democracy...

To be fair, Rome thrived and expanded much more under the Caesars than under the Senate.

There's a lot more to Rome than the notional form of government, though.

Robear wrote:

There's a lot more to Rome than the notional form of government, though. :-)

Oh no, all things are simply explained by boiling them down to a single sentence or phrase. Don't you watch Star Trek?

Silly hu-man Kirk, we have evolved beyond your silly need to possess guns. We have become guns!

KingGorilla wrote:

Oh no, all things are simply explained by boiling them down to a single sentence or phrase. Don't you watch Star Trek?

Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra. *nods sagely* (Or wings a dagger at you. One of those.)

Aetius and Theodoric at Chalons, when the Huns fell.

WHEN THE HUNS FELL!