.

$US1 trillion coin debt solution gains currency (http://www.smh.com.au/business/world-business/us1-trillion-coin-debt-solution-gains-currency-20130108-2cdn4.html)

So QE has failed and we go to the next phase of fiscal silliness. It is suggested that to mint a $1 trillion coin would do no economic harm. How is this any different to printing $1 trillion iextra n $100 bills and using it to pay the government's bills.

International markets would react by decreasing the value of US currency. If that is what the US government wants then it has mechanisms to do this

I already raised that silliness days ago.

Really, didn't see it, must have been lost amid the other silliness. Seriously, is this a prank

Nadler thinks this is the Weimar Republic

Well it is beginning to look that way, tell you what, corner the market on wheelbarrows, there will be a big demand for carrying your money around

Paul Krugman is on board.

That would be the same 'economist' who claimed we could fix the economy by preparing for an invasion from ET .

That would be the same 'economist' who claimed we could fix the economy by preparing for an invasion from ET .

That's the one, the guy who turned down the Treasury job even though he wasn't offered the position (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/krugman-passes-treasury-secretary-job-wasnt-offered-it-anyway_694067.html).

I guess aluminum foil coins are out of the question.

Hello:

I don't know what you're complaining about.. Although it's bit slower, we're doing the EXACT the same thing with our paper money.

excon

Hello:

I dunno what you're complaining about.. Although it's bit slower, we're doing the EXACT the same thing with our paper money.

excon

Who isn't complaining about it? Oh I know, the poorest who don't have a clue that all this "quantitative easing" hurts them disproportionately and who just may think that taxing the rich is going to make things all better, even though the rich are going to pass those costs on to them making their cost of living even higher. Maybe they can get some government tortillas to help out if there's anything left of the corn crop (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/science/earth/in-fields-and-markets-guatemalans-feel-squeeze-of-biofuel-demand.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&) after wasting it on ethanol.

I guess aluminum foil coins are out of the question.

The first innovative idea, I knew you had it in you Tom

The first innovative idea, I knew you had it in you Tom

And they double as hats.

Here's my version of your new trillion dollar coin...

Make your own here (http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/01/send_slate_your_design_for_the_economy_saving_1_tr illion_platinum_coin.html).

And they double as hats.

Yes that's why Tom had the idea

Yes that's why Tom had the idea

I know.

I know.

Here are some newly minted coins

]

Perhaps in 10 years time a wheelbarrow of them will buy a loaf of bread

Perhaps in 10 years time a wheelbarrow of them will buy a loaf of bread

Do you think we will have to wait that long

I've been thinking about this coin thing and the government wants to raise cash, right, after all it bled $260 Billion in the last month. The traditional way is to sell Bonds but with low yield they are not attractive, and a $1 trillion coin is, well, passee, no individual could own it. However, what if it were to mint a million $1 million coins and sell them. There are many who could afford a $1 million coin and for the superrich perhaps a $100 million or even a $1 billion coin on application, There may even be an international market for it

Devaluing the currency is a stupid idea . It has led to the current economy.

But Tom it is going to happen whether you like it or not. The result of QE is devaluation of your currency. Every time you put more money in circulation you devalue the currency, basic economics. What you need is rampant inflation so you can afford your debt. If you want to be competitive internationally you need your currency to be at a lower value so your goods are cheaper. It might mean you pay more for imports, but much of that is cheap, not because your curency is strong, but because their currency is under valued. We survived our currency being 50% of the value it is today, and that was just a few years ago

You have to face the facts, these are different days, made different by rampant corporate greed, and your place in the world has changed

We need to take a haircut. Sequestration would be a good start. But we have an idiot in the White House who just selected water carrier for Treasury . By the way ;you would need a platinum coin the size of New Jersey to make it a trillion dollars . QE is criminally irresponsible ;but even Argentina would not have concocted such a hair brain scheme as a trillion dollar coin ;or handing out IOUs ,or any other scheme that Harry Reid and Schmuck Schumer can concoct.

That's it Tom, do an Argentina and repudiate the national debt, turn yourself into a banana republic. As one banana repulic to another, welcome to the club. We also do a nice line in mangos

Neither Treasury nor Federal Reserve believes its legal to use platinum coins to avoid debt-limit increase, Treasury spokesman says.
Treasury nixes $1 trillion platinum coin - CSMonitor.com (http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Donald-Marron/2013/0112/Treasury-nixes-1-trillion-platinum-coin)
Duhh... unless someone can show me where in the Constitution the President has the power to mint currency. ( see Art 1 Sec 8... the enumerated powers of CONGRESS )

Hello again, Mr. Constitution, tom:

So, you LOVE the Constitution when it says that Obama can't print money... But, it's FINE with you that the Republicans are threatening an UNCONSTITUTIONAL default on our debt.

Makes NO sense to me.

excon

They are not threatening to default. There is plenty of revenue to do debt service. Don't give me the canard about the 14th amendment. Section 4 was about Union debt and the purpose was to separate it from any debt the Confederacy had incurred; or the possibility that new Southern Senators and Congressmen would try to block the payment of that debt. What that clause really means for today is that a failure to raise the debt ceiling does not and cannot put America's current creditors at risk. So long as this government exists, those creditors must be paid.

Further ;sec 5 makes it clear that the Executive has no role in the enforcement of ANY of the provisions in the amendment... how often has that clause been violated over the years ?

Hello tom:


Don't give me the canard about the 14th amendment.
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.You cal it a canard. I call it law.

Excon

No one is questioning the debt... and not extending the debt limit doesn't mean that the debt can't be paid. Treasury has to pay the creditors 1st and then any other expenses with what's left. Like I said ,there is plenty of revenue(as the Dems like to call taxes ) collected to easily pay off the debt... What you libs worry about is funding your precious discretionary expenses.

Ball's in your court . I already said I'm comfortable with shut down, sequestion or the recommendations of Simpson-Bowles... the bipartisan recommendations from the PRESIDENT'S own COMMISSION on budget balancing . Why Emperor Zero didn't pick Democrat Erskine Bowles for Treasury instead of the pea brain Jack Lew is beyond me.

Hello again, tom:


I'm comfortable with shut down,We SHUT it down because we can't PAY what we OWE to keep it operating. That's a DEFAULT. You can call it a rose, but it's a DEFAULT.

Why ANYONE would want the country to default and cost the nation BILLIONS, is BEYOND me.. The only people who would do that love their party MORE than their country.

Excon

We SHUT it down because we can't PAY what we OWE to keep it operating. That's a DEFAULT. You can call it a rose, but it's a DEFAULT.

Why ANYONE would want the country to default and cost the nation BILLIONS, is BEYOND me.. The only people who would do that love their party MORE than their country.


Nonsense . There were shutdowns in both Reagan and Clintoon's terms and not once did we have a sovereign default .

Edit... Go HAWKS !

So you are happy to have a Greece on both sides of the Atlantic and I thought the US was too big to fail.

I'm sick and tired of socialist Keynesian solutions that don't work.

We are all tired of solutions that don't work Tom, but reality would have it rabid capitalism doesn't work either. Look at what it produced; slavery, depression, business failure, unemployment, inflation

Slavery was not a product of capitalism .The rest your critique is part of the business cycle and poor government intervention (inflation) .

We are all tired of solutions that don't work Tom, but reality would have it rabid capitalism doesn't work either. look at what it produced; slavery, depression, business failure, unemployment, inflation

Capitalism produced slavery? I think slavery predated capitalism by at least a couple of millennia.

Hello again,

Wait. WHAT?? You're not saying that slave holders weren't capitalists, are you?? That they didn't buy and sell slaves for PROFIT?? I think you are!

WOWSER!

excon

Actually as Steve says slavery predates most modern economic models. European slave trade was the product of merchantilism . Capitalism actually pays workers... or did you forget that it was the capitalist North that whipped the slave South ?

Hello again, tom:

Man, oh man... Obfuscate as much as you can, but you DON'T fool me... Capitalism is as OLD as MY people.

Besides, capitalism doesn't pay or NOT pay workers.. Capitalism is NOT business. You seem to DENY that factory owners, who MAY be capitalistic, are FINE with slave labor, and slave wages. But, you don't fool me.

excon

YOUR people had slaves.

Capitalism has been dominant in the Western world since the end of mercantilism. It was fostered by the Reformation, which sanctioned hard work and frugality, and by the rise of industry during the Industrial Revolution, especially the English textile industry (16th–18th centuries). Unlike earlier systems, capitalism used the excess of production over consumption to enlarge productive capacity rather than investing it in economically unproductive enterprises such as palaces or cathedrals. The strong national states of the mercantilist era provided the social conditions, such as uniform monetary systems and legal codes, necessary for the rise of capitalism. The ideology of classical capitalism was expressed in Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations (1776), and Smith's free-market theories were widely adopted in the 19th century.
Capitalism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism)

Hello again, tom:

Oh, well then.. I've been mistaken.. The southern slave owners were WONDERFUL people.

excon

I did not say they were . The plantation owners and the poor whites despised the social mobility associated with capitalism . The rich planter class were at best paternalistic and at their worst sadistic. The poor white liked the system because no matter how poor they were ;they were still a class about the slave. But make no mistake ;antebellum South was not a capitalist economy . The plantation property owner had a prebourgeois mentality. Oh they liked their wealth good enough ;but it was not as important to them as how slaveholdings elevated their social clout. What was more important to slaveowners was membership in the ruling class.

Hello again, tom:

You've always known more stuff like that than me.

Anyway, the pres said he ain't going to raise squat, and he ain't going to negotiate.. We're Going to default if it's up to you guys - and it is. I'm sorry, I mean shut down - but just a little bit - ain't nothing to get upset over.

I think the Tea Party will be blamed and will be sent packing. Course, I COULD be wrong.. I was wrong back '02.

excon

slavery was not a product of capitalism .The rest your critique is part of the business cycle and poor government intervention (inflation) .

Hold on there, inflation is the result of government, no, Tom, inflation is the result of greed, when supply is poor, prices increase, government doesn't control supply. You sound as though you think government has a role and all this time you have been telling us government should have no pole

Hold on there, inflation is the result of government, no, Tom, inflation is the result of greed, when supply is poor, prices increase, government doesn't control supply. You sound as though you think government has a role and all this time you have been telling us government should have no pole

But government controls the money supply which has a profound affect on the price of goods...

But government policy often creates bubbles. Yes I say government should not have a role . I didn't say that the US government hasn't played a role. All you need to do is see how government policy created a housing bubble here.

Tom government didn't create mortgage backed securities, corporate greed fueled the sale of these worthless securities around the world, why? Because the banks wanted to get the junk off their balance sheet, to lie about their true position.

The role of government is regulation and facilitation. Nothing wrong with government promoting home ownership, but it is the banks who took advantage of the situation and created a bubble by failing to make proper prudential arrangements

Bs ,you conveniently overlook the role of Fannie Mae in this .you conveniently overlook the role of government in pressuring the financial institutions to issue sub prime loans.

Hello again, tom:


you conveniently overlook the role of government in pressuring the financial institutions to issue sub prime loans.Oh, that's right... We're reminded that Barney Frank TOLD the banks to LOSE all their money, and they promptly DID.

Bwa, ha ha ha ha..

Excon

Umm yeah... the Government sweetened the pot by saying that they would guarantee any loans banks made while trying to provide "Affordable Housing". Frank ,Dodd ,former HUD boss Andrew Cuomo and others were directly involved . Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were instructed to cover bad loans.

There was an additional 'incentive' in banks trying to avoid potential discrimination lawsuits from community activists like Barack Obama who was the lawyer in a landmark case against Citibank. And how did that work out ? Well ,Citi reduced it's lending standards and there were 186 new home owners... well except only 19 of them today still own their homes with clean credit ratings.

Under the terms and the threats banks made loans to everyone, and then sold the mortgages to the Feds, who had promised to buy them.After all ;under those terms ,the only real risk to the banks was in not making loans, and having the Government come after them.
It completely changed the dynamics of the market . It no longer mattered that the loans were no good because there was no risk in losing money from foreclosure now that the Government institutions were guaranteeing the loans. The dynamics changed to volume of loans ,not the quality of the loans. Make no mistake . The whole problem was in the government interventions in the market.

Hello again, tom:


The whole problem was in the government interventions in the market.Nahhh. The market was REDLINING neighborhoods. Black people could NOT get loans no matter HOW qualified they were. Who, if NOT the government, would protect these people FROM that kind of blatant discrimination?

To right wingers, that meant that Barney Frank TOLD the banks to LOSE all their money, so they DID...

Tom, my friend, SOMETIMES I'm amazed at your recall of history... And, SOMETIMES I'm amazed at your INABILITY to recall history. This is one of those times.

Excon

I recall redlining as the excuse used in Obama's lawsuit . The fact remains that issuing subprime mortgages as a remedy for redlining was fundamentally flawed . Ask those 167 former homeowners how that worked out for them . The government nearly took down the economy in their attempt at their perception of fairness. If you told me that someone who was qualified under good loan practices was being denied a mortgage because of race then you would have a point. If you tell me that mortgage standards had to be reduced to the point that there was a good chance to default. Then the issue isn't race ;it's a wealth issue.

Race is always and issue, lack of wealth is always an issue. Affirmative action in various forms, good or bad took place because these factors are always an issue. You don't have public housing over there so a government initiative was necessary, that it was mismanaged in so many forms is perhaps to be expected, that it was exploited for profit was reprehensible

You don't have public housing over there so a government initiative was necessary,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_8_(housing)

Hello again, tom:


The fact remains that issuing subprime mortgages as a remedy for redlining was fundamentally flawed .IF it WAS a fact, I'd agree. But, it isn't.. The law required banks to CONSIDER applications from previously red lined neighborhoods... NOT give loans to ANYBODY who asks that would NEVER be paid back, resulting in the bank LOSING all its money.

I SAY that tongue in cheek, but your argument is EXACTLY that... You say the banks had no choice BUT to lose all their money.. It's LUDICROUS on its face - yet you stick with it.

The fact is, they issued sub prime loans to ANYBODY, because they didn't CARE about default. They didn't care because they UNLOADED 'em just as soon as they got 'em, making jillions in the process, and sticking some other sucker with the bad loans..

But, you have YOUR view of history, and I have the truth.

Come on. If I ran a bank, and Barney Frank passed a law that was absolutely, positively, guaranteed to bankrupt my bank, I'd close up shop and open a haberdashery..

Excon

The fact is, they issued sub prime loans to ANYBODY, because they didn't CARE about default. They didn't care because they UNLOADED 'em just as soon as they got 'em, making jillions in the process, and sticking some other sucker with the bad loans..

No kidding... they unloaded them to the government institution that was mandated to overwrite these loans... Fannie and Freddie.

But you are wrong . Had Citi and the other banks not issued sub prime loans after the Obama lawsuit ,the lawsuits would've continued .

Hello again, tom:


Had Citi and the other banks not issued sub prime loans after the Obama lawsuit ,the lawsuits would've continued .Ok, I stand corrected... Barney Frank didn't make the banks LOSE all their money, it was Obama..

Okee doakee...

You're SOOO stuck on that right wing garbage that you can't see how utterly RIDICULOUS it sounds.
they unloaded them to the government institution that was mandated to overwrite these loans... Fannie and Freddie Nahhh.. MOST of 'em were bundled into packages and sold on the secondary market to the WORLD.

You didn't know that?? Or does KNOWING that conflict with the right wing argument.

Excon

And your left wing Democrat apologist argument sounds more absurd . Subprime mortgages were imposed on Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and all the other mortgage lenders in order to create more “fairness” and allow everyone to have “the right” to own a home whether they could actually afford to do so or not. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were “Government Sponsored Enterprises,”(GSEs) .Fannie and Freddie began bundling together thousands of riskier and ever riskier mortgages into giant mortgage backed securities to advance Democrat policies, large investment houses continued to gobble them up. After all, this was an arm of the United States Government... and the United States Government ALWAYS pays its debts.

Of course Bush tried to reform Fannie and Freddie in an attempt to make them more accountable .


WASHINGTON, Sept. 10— The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html)

... in fact , he tried 17 times .
Democrats Were Wrong on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - Michael Barone (usnews.com) (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/barone/2008/10/06/democrats-were-wrong-on-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac)

.....in fact , he tried 17 times .
Democrats Were Wrong on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - Michael Barone (usnews.com) (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/barone/2008/10/06/democrats-were-wrong-on-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac)

Yeah, that's just Fox News propaganda.

cMnSp4qEXNM

I believe Barney Frank said they were "fundamentally sound" right before saying something about less affordable housing being available if Congress did something to rein them in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_8_(housing)

Hi Tom what is the point of a link that leads nowhere?

and your left wing Democrat apologist argument sounds more absurd . Subprime mortgages were imposed on Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and all the other mortgage lenders in order to create more “fairness” and allow everyone to have “the right” to own a home whether they could actually afford to do so or not. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were “Government Sponsored Enterprises,”(GSEs) .Fannie and Freddie began bundling together thousands of riskier and ever riskier mortgages into giant mortgage backed securities to advance Democrat policies, large investment houses continued to gobble them up. After all, this was an arm of the United States Government .... and the United States Government ALWAYS pays its debts.

If this were so how come the US government didn't have all the liability, but no, these securities were marketted around the world as prime investments so that the financial crisis experienced by the US became global when their bubble burst. Tom, even my local city council as caught in it losing millions, why on Earth would they be investing in the US mortgage market if a bunch of shonks hadn't sold them a bill of goods with an AAA rating.
Did the US government pay that debt?

Hi Tom what is the point of a link that leads nowhere?

Ask Wikipedia.

Section 8 (housing) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_8_%28housing%29)

Ask Wikipedia.

Section 8 (housing) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_8_%28housing%29)

Rental assistance is not public housing

Oh you want those old failed projects of the 1960s .I get it .

Just curious where did all that money everybody lost go?

I know when I lost money on the deal. When the government decided to bail out their favorite banks.

Just curious where did all that money everybody lost go?

It went into the pockets of the shonks

I know when I lost money on the deal. When the government decided to bail out their favorite banks.

My bail out would have been at 15%, compounded daily, but then Europe and the rest of the world would have fallen off the earth. But then jailing CEO's, and bankers along with the ratings agencies would have been a national holiday.

My bail out would have been at 15%, compounded daily, but then Europe and the rest of the world would have fallen off the earth. But then jailing CEO's, and bankers along with the ratings agencies would have been a national holiday.

If there was malfeasance or fraud then there should be legal action taken . I'm not the one who thinks the banks are too big to fail and need protection.

We could at least search them thoroughly first make sure we get the loot they stole back before we jail 'em.

if there was malfeasance or fraud then there should be legal action taken . I'm not the one who thinks the banks are too big to fail and need protection.

What planet do you live on? Prosecution only happens when they can compile a clear case and when a deal isn't done, some civil class action has been successful in recovering damages so there must have been evidence of "malfeasance or fraud", but did they contravene the criminal code, it all passed through too many hands

I am speaking the way it should be not the system the statist have devised .

I don't accept that Tom, I think you were expressing the niaive view that justice will be done

Believe what you will

The money game is rigged and manipulated by capitalists, for capitalists.

The money game is rigged and manipulated by capitalists, for capitalists.

Well obviously they are not going to do it for socialists