>

It doesn't work like that. It would crash the dollar valuation on foreign exchanges and that would be even more fatal to US economy. This writer does not understand anything about economics.
We live in Groundhog Day: The Country.   Just repost the same news article once a year or so, only have to find/replace the names. >

At least ... I got you babe. >

Watch that first step…it’s a doozy >

This idea was first proposed in 2010 and more seriously considered in 2011/2012. The Treasury Department and Federal Reserve released a statement that stated, "Neither the Treasury Department nor the Federal Reserve believes that the law can or should be used to facilitate the production of platinum coins for the purpose of avoiding an increase in the debt limit."  
Including the Federal Reserve in significant because for the idea to work, the Federal Reserve would have to treat it as a legal way for the Treasury Department to create currency. If they don't believe it's legal, they would not credit the Treasury Department's deposit, making the coin worthless.   
For what it's worth, the provision for the Treasury Department to be able to issue platinum coins for any value was part of the a 1997 Omnibus bill, and written by Republican congressmen Mike Castle. He wanted to help coin collectors who couldn't afford the platinum coins at the time, so he wrote the part of the law that allows for the coins to be of any value, not thinking through with what that might entail. >


Including the Federal Reserve in significant because for the idea to work, the Federal Reserve would have to treat it as a legal way for the Treasury Department to create currency. If they don't believe it's legal, they would not credit the Treasury Department's deposit, making the coin worthless.

So the Fed legally doesnt have that power. The Treasury has power to mint a coin for any face value it likes & the Fed is required by law to accept that coin at face value provided it came from the Treasury. They just dont like the idea because it will destroy confidence in the dollar. >

Serious question...why would it destroy confidence in the dollar more than issuing treasury bonds, or doing quantitative easing? >

Treasury bonds are when the government takes on debt. The dollar is still worth the same we're just spending money that we borrowed. Quantitative easing is effectively sending money the other way. The government buys securities allowing banks to convert some of their assets into cash. In both cases, we're exchanging dollars for something of value. Minting a trillion dollar coin is effectively creating money from nothing. This reduces the value of the dollar. >

Yes but on a temporary basis. Money is printed to buy the securities and removed later when the securities are bought back. It does increase inflation somewhat by increasing the money supply, but we get market liquidity in exchange. That isn't to say that QE is a good thing or we should be doing it, but it isn't nearly as dangerous as printing money to pay off debts. >

We can live with the fear of a GOP-precipitated debt default for the next year if we want, in the hopes that cooler heads will prevail. Or, the president can end the danger once and for all and mint a magic trillion-dollar platinum coin, writes Jason Linkins. >

I still don't understand how the platinum coin is supposed to magically solve the problem...and I read the article. >

The treasury now has an additional trillion to satisfy debts. >

Ok… so one trillion down, 30 to go. >

It’s not about paying off the debt completely, which you actually really don’t want to do (there’s a certain amount of power you get and give when you lend or borrow money as a nation from other nations…they tend to really want their money) it’s about giving ourselves another year or so worth of gap. It’s like paying down your credit card so you can spend more on the card except instead of your limit being set by anything sensible like your income and credit score (which I realize is mostly non-sense) it’s just a number that exists for one side of the political isle to kick and scream about until they say “actually there’s no reason we can’t spend more” again >

what is the saying? if you owe the bank $100, it is your problem; if you owe the bank $1,000,000, it is the bank’s problem >

You mint the coin, put Trump’s orange visage on it and watch the Republicans twist themselves into knots to try to have it both ways >

Ugh.  Having his name attached to the Space Force is ridiculous enough. >

If we have to go wacky, let's at least make the coin of out of a wacky rare metal like rhodium or terbium. >

Make it out of gallium. It'll melt when you pick it up. >

Nah, save that one for Zimbabwe. >

Why not mint a 100 Trillion dollar coin and not worry about this BS again? >

Nobody can make change for a $100 Trillion coin. >

What's the exchange rate to the Triganic Pu? >


What's the exchange rate to the Triganic Pu?

8 Ningis. >

If I pocketed the trillion dollar coin, where can I take it to get change made? >

Go to any store and buy a soda, then watch as you bankrupt the company for change. >

I figured it out. I can buy an Amazon gift card and have it loaded at the register. >

Hostile Amazon takeover >

IANAL but the 14th Amendment clearly says

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

When Congress passed the spending bill, I would say they authorized the debt. The Treasury should just keep holding bond auctions and dare Congress or SCOTUS to stop them.
On one had I believe we'll find a way forward, on the other hand, I often question how much longer this country has. >

Simpsons did it. Just don't let the Cubans take a look at it. >

My last job before my retirement was terminated due to this type of  GOP budget game playing.  I worked for a small defense contracting division of a somewhat larger conglomerate.  With the government unstable due to continuing resolutions keeping it going for a few months instead of full year budgets it was difficult to get longer term contracts.  The massive defense contractors can survive that but smaller ones can’t.  My division had two layoffs due to the government’s budget game playing and I didn’t survive the second.  The division was shutdown a year or two later.  If you love massive corporate bureaucracies stiffing the government with no smaller companies able to compete then government budgeting instability is the way to accomplish that. >

Surely there are no downsides to exploiting an infinite money glitch. >

Minting the trillion-dollar coin wouldn't affect the money supply, so would there be any practical difference between minting the trillion-dollar coin, and just eliminating the idiotic debt ceiling altogether? >

Would spook the shit out of investors which is never good. >

"Who will think of the rich speculators!"? >

Dont get me wrong, Im all for a paradigm change I just dont think a trillion dollar coin is going to fix any problems. Also Im not wealthy but I do have a retirement and a home I would prefer if those things retained a value and again the unfortunate fact is this is our current system. 
So by all means change the system Im simply pointing out this changes nothing. >

home values are hyperinflated and need a massive correction. they've doubled in 3 years and are averaging almost 15% a year for the past decade. you already purchased your home for what you feel it was worth. there is no real upside for you to have your home continue to increase in value unless you plan on selling it or taking money out. >

Are they really hyperinflated if there is a shortage of housing? Population has gone up, there are only so many places that people want to live...demand will go up, right? >

You do realize that all inflation amounts to supply and demand, right? it's hyperinflated in a historical context. 100% in 3 years is much more than normal. 15% compounded yearly over a decade, which puts that decade at ~300% increase, is also much more than normal.
Demand for shelter goes up unless homelessness goes up. The current pricing of shelter means you need to make ~$100k a year to afford a shitty house, and you'll also need to not spend much on anything besides that house for about 30 years. It's unsustainable and would have collapsed by now except for cheap loans, fomo, and the fact that shelter is an essential human need.
I know in my city it seems like homelessness is up to a higher rate than it ever was before covid. If we want people to be able to afford shelter, we either need the homelessness rate to go up massively, which the fed is working on, but it may not be enough, or we need substantial new regulation on people and corporations owning multiple homes. I prefer to root for regulation on the wealthy buying up all of the property, but if the only realistic avenue for our country is a massive wave of homelessness then I root for that because something needs to happen to allow the middle class to afford shelter. 
It sounds dirty and bad to hope for millions of people to go homeless, but the guy I initially responded to is hoping for the same thing, only in softer speech. So, yeah, I hope a shit ton of people get foreclosed on. I hope banks are leveraged in a way where they feel the need to unwind assets instead of buy them up as people lose their homes, and I hope that more people are living on the streets because that is apparently the only avenue for affordable housing that our country can stomach. >

mint the coin >

Mint it for the sole reason I think a trillion dollar coin would be neat. >

Maybe they’ll make a heist movie about it. >

The political optics of “mint a coin to solve the debt problem” would fuel successful Republican campaigns for decades. Facts don’t actually matter here. >

Mr. Burns, I think we can trust the president of Cuba... >

Ok now give it back…. >

Trillion dollar coin you say? I see and other National Treasure heist happening.