Friday, January 4, 2013

Kevin Drum — No, a $1 Trillion Platinum Coin is Not Legal


Dissent rising.
I am, obviously, not a lawyer. So if someone with actual legal training in the appropriate area of the law says I'm wrong, then I guess I'm wrong. But I'm not much afraid of that happening. This whole notion is the kind of thing that Herman Cain would come up with. It's time to stop treating it seriously.
Mother Jones
No, a $1 Trillion Platinum Coin is Not Legal
Kevin Drum

14 comments:

Matt Franko said...

I'd bet that Kevin Drum is a libertarian.... rsp,

Adam1 said...

I do believe that Beowolf has pointed out that even if someone wanted to challenge the use on these grounds that there is probably no one with legal standing to actually challenge it in court.

mike norman said...

And this from Warren Mosler:

"The process to determine the 'specs' of the coin, U.S. Mint Public Affairs Specialist Genevieve Billia warns, must be 'determined by legislation,' creating the potential for another congressional impasse…in other words congress can vote it down. Next idea.

paul meli said...

Still, this is just another example of self-imposed constraints…there are no real financial limits…no mathematical ones either…so Congress creates arbitrary ones that keep it from achieving prosperity and fairness for it's constituents.

This is a combination of moronism and eternal fear of the boogie man.

JK said...

So the problem isn't that a $1 trillion coin could be minted and deposited, but that Congress stands in the way?

I agree with Paul then. Just another voluntary (legal) constraint.

On second thought, could Obama and the Treasury secreatry go ahead with it regardless? What would likely happen if they tried?

I saw a comment recently that basically said all Obama has to do is threaten to go around around Congress using the PC or Constituional authority, and the threat alone should be enough. Who knows though… gotta be prepared to call a bluff.

Broll The American said...

If anything it shows how ridiculous and arbitrary the nominal number of the debt actually is. Wouldn't the idea of creating the coin and depositing with the Fed bring with it the notion that the Fed could at some point want to sell it back to the treasury for $1 Trillion? It would still be a liability of the Treasury to produce funds of sufficient quantity if demanded.
Why not just let any debt of the government held at the Fed be retired? Tear up the bonds.

Clonal said...

Mike,

The Congress has already passed the law, that leaves the denomination of platinum coins to the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury. See 31 USC § 5112 - Denominations, specifications, and design of coins

Quote:
(k) The Secretary may mint and issue platinum bullion coins and proof platinum coins in accordance with such specifications, designs, varieties, quantities, denominations, and inscriptions as the Secretary, in the Secretary’s discretion, may prescribe from time to time.

All the other coins have these things specified by Congress, except for Dollar Coins. There also, there is a loophole - no weight, or thickness is mentioned. But nothing is stated as to who makes the decision on those matters.

However, the Platinum coin part of the law is very specific as to who has the responsibility. It is very likely that Billia was talking of non platinum coins. In that case, she would indeed be correct.

Kevin Fathi said...

Ask beowulf.

mike norman said...

Thanks, Clonal. Will tell Warren.

Matt Franko said...

Mike,

Heard CNBCs Griffith preview a hit about 3:50 pm but missed it here on my XM... so it seems like it is going viral...

CNBC: clueless!

rsp,

Bob Roddis said...

Some people suggest that Mugabe's face be put on the coin, but I think it should be Mike Norman's portrait with the inscription "In Funny Money We Trust".

http://www.glenstephens.com/June09-Zimbabwe%20100%20Trillion%20banknote.jpg

Bob said...

I had more purchasing power in 1974 when I graduated from a merchant academy and started work in the work force. How did this happen? The same entry grade salary at 35 k per year than is now 65 K per yr.
Difference now versus than, 10x's more expensive to get the same education, and food and energy eat into more available funds. Unless you take big risks and use credit to increase your debt you will lose. This is not sound. The people on food stamps and who lost thier jobs suffer due to the fiat system, IMO since there is no cop on the block there is no hope to save it. Enjoy the party while it lasts. Remember the sales job on the american dream, you can have it to if you work and play by the rules. Well you have to be asleep to believe it. If the people understand what interest debt ponzi scheme has been played on them since 1913 there will be blood in the streets.

Unknown said...

We should mint a hundred trillion dollar coin and put Bob Roddis' face on it.

paul meli said...

"I had more purchasing power in 1974 when I graduated from a merchant academy and started work in the work force." - Bob

You had more purchasing power then than you do now because the pie got much, much bigger but your slice didn't.

If you are one of the people that worships the rich you got what you deserved.

I'm in the same boat as you but the fact is my quality of life (in terms of toys) is much higher than it was then.