Skip to main content

View Diary: Wake Up Progressives: The Bad Guys Are Trying To Steal the Trillion Dollar Coin for the 1% (34 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  TDC:Numismatic Neverland. You neglect legalistic (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    argument in opposition which has the support of EVERYONE but MMT theorists. Our economy is not a thought experiment to be explored outside of academia. Central Bank Independence cannot be overrun by such foolishness as PCS.
    Question, what asset back this coin? As others have pointed out, at least QE is not creating money, rather it is backed by an asset known as federal reserve notes and the power of the federal taxing authority.

    "If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost." Winston Churchill

    by Kvetchnrelease on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 07:18:48 AM PST

    •  I meant support legalistic argument which everyone (0+ / 0-)

      Rejects except MMT proponents. Sorry, only one cup of coffee this am.

      "If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost." Winston Churchill

      by Kvetchnrelease on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 07:22:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  There is no difference between a (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dustin Mineau, Calgacus

      federal reserve note and a coin on deposit at the fed.

      They are fungible.

      Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning. -- Clarence Day

      by hestal on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 07:41:23 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Asset backed?! (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Satya1, bunnygirl60, Calgacus, katiec

      QE is backed by Federal Reserve Notes?  And what exactly do you think federal reserve notes are backed by?  QE is the exact same thing as a TDC.  They are all backed by the power of the state to impose and collect a tax.

      Our Dime: Understanding the Federal Budget

      by Dustin Mineau on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 07:41:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  See Philip Diehl's comments (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Satya1, offgrid

      On Blog's related to the PCS

      Diehl was also the Chief of Staff to Senator Lloyd Bentson of TX

      From The Razor’s Edge, John Carney and The Trillion Dollar Coin

      From Philip Diehl, Mint director who wrote the platinum coin law:

      The claim that minting a trillion dollar platinum coin is unconstitutional was no basis whatsoever. Congress has given Treasury broad discretion in minting coins since the founding of the republic, and its power to do so is rooted in the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8). Moreover, the accounting treatment of the coin would be identical to other coins produced by the Mint–no different from a quarter.

      Here’s a brief on the subject:

      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

      A similar comment was posted at PragCap
    •  And why should we have central bank (0+ / 0-)


      I don't think it's gone so well lately.

      And as Dustin said....   fed reserve notes are backed by the same stuff as a coin would be:  The real economy.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site