Seigniorage Hack Could Resolve Debt Limit Crisis

UltraOne writes "With the US Senate voting to table the Boehner debt limit bill, the US is only a few days away from running out of cash to pay for all its obligations. Slate is reporting on a fascinating legal hack that could come in handy, described by blogger 'beowulf' back in January 2011. Seigniorage is the extra value added when a government mints a coin with a face value greater than the value of the precious metal contained in the coin. The statute governing the minting of coins contains a section (31 USC 5112(k) ) that authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to mint and issue platinum coins in any denomination or quantity. To keep the government from running out of money, Timothy Geithner could order a $5 trillion platinum coin struck and deposited at the Federal Reserve. The money could then be used to fund Federal Government operations (blog post contains legal details)."

Comments

Inflation

[CrimsonAvenger]

Can you say it?

Do this, and you make it clear to everyone in the world that we're willing to devalue their bonds/dollar investments to near zero just whenever we feel like it...

Re:Inflation

[hedwards]

Not quite, it would only increase inflation if it hit the economy. The effect of having a $5tn coin to borrow against would be more or less identical to issuing another $5tn in bonds. This is just a loophole of sorts the effect on the economy would be mostly the same, although it probably would make the price of platinum spike if they actually went through with trying to mint a $5tn coin.

Re:Inflation

[TheLink]

The difference between other countries creating money and the US Gov doing this is: Petroleum, electronics, grains (wheat), sugar and zillions of other stuff are bought and sold in US dollars.

When Zimbabwe prints Zimbabwe dollars the rest of the world laughs at Zimbabwe. When the USA prints US dollars, most of the world is living in USA's Zimbabwe, so they shouldn't be laughing...

The other thing: the USA has already created trillions of dollars: http://www.google.com/search?q=trillions+federal+reserve

Just because they call them loans doesn't mean the money isn't created out of thin air. After all when the Federal Reserve loans out those trillions where do the minus figures appear? Under whose bank account?

Lastly, if the US is going to create trillions, the US citizens better insist that the US Gov actually builds and does some stuff for them with the money.... Before the rest of the world realizes the US dollar is not worth quite as much ;).

p.s. it's not convincing to say it doesn't cause inflation when you create the money and it doesn't "enter the system". If the money doesn't actually do anything, then there was no need to create it right? The fact that you need to create it means it is doing something.

Re:Inflation

[shentino]

We devalued our currency when we spent more than we brought in.

This hack only makes public what the politicians already know.

Re:Inflation

[Skreems]

Unless spending faster than GDP on infrastructure actually stimulates faster GDP growth in coming years.

Also because as much as you may like to simplify things, a country does not equal your household in terms of finances. Unless you can print money (legally) the analogy is completely useless.

Re:Inflation

[Scubaraf]

Unless you never circulate the coin and melt it down once the debt level falls below that of the debt ceiling.

The point is that the debt ceiling is a made up limit. Most countries don't have one.

Increasing this arbitrary limit does not let us spend more money - it allows us to BORROW more money in order to pay for those things that we already bought!

In other words, the fight we're having over the debt ceiling now should have taken place over the BUDGET. That's were the spending decisions take place. By not raising the debt ceiling now, all we are saying is that we won't pay back the money we HAVE ALREADY SPENT. That sends a bad message to those that might lend us money in the future - raising our rates - and actually makes us SPEND MORE MONEY in the future to service our debt.

If you want to reduce the deficit, fix the budget (more revenues, less spending). Don't shoot yourself in the foot as a punishment for already having spent more money that you have in the hopes that it will force you to budget better next time.

Re:Inflation

[Anthony Mouse]

A temporary measure at best ... as the bonds are paid off money gets destroyed again. Newly minted money inflates the money supply irreversibly.

But that's the thing. The bonds never get paid off.

As a factual matter, issuing bonds actually causes more inflation than printing money. Because financial institutions use bonds and cash basically interchangeably, but bonds collect interest. What that means is that if you print a trillion dollars today, it causes a trillion dollars worth of assets to be created on paper today, and that trillion dollars sticks around indefinitely. If you issue a trillion dollars worth of bonds, a trillion dollars worth of assets is created on paper, but when the bonds mature you have to pay back the money with interest. The bonds are never paid with tax money because that would be economically catastrophic -- it would require raising taxes while cutting spending, which is the recipe for a depression. (This is especially so once the interest payments become a nontrivial fraction of the economy and no dent can be made in the principal without first applying substantial tax revenues to the interest.) So maturing bonds are always paid by just issuing more bonds. $1T worth of paper assets turns into $1.2T, then the $1.2T turns into $1.5T and so on. All those extra bonds sit in banks as reserve the same way cash does, which allows banks to make more loans and produce more inflation.

Ironically, the only way to eliminate the debt without the aforementioned economic catastrophe is to ultimately print money to pay the bonds. And then you end up printing the principal plus the interest, instead of getting out ahead of it and just printing the principal on day one.

Re:Inflation

[slashqwerty]

The federal budget has been growing faster than national GDP. End of fucking argument.

The entire foundation of your argument is wrong.

Federal spending as percent of GDP

$X is the GDP, $Y is federal spending. No matter where $X and $Y start, eventually $Y overtakes $X

As someone else pointed out, $X is the sum of many things plus $Y, so no matter how much $Y grows it will never exceed $X.

The Democrats and Republicans in congress are putting forth proposals to save 1-2 trillion dollars over the next decade which would continue to leave us with massive deficits over the next ten years. We would be a lot closer to balancing the budget if we would pull the military out of Iraq and Afgananistan, end the Bush tax cuts, and stop bailing out big companies.

Bad Idea

[RingDev]

If the government is doing something profitable, they shouldn't be doing it. With all likelihood, if something is profitable, a guided free market should be able to manage it much more efficiently.

The government's duty is to perform services that are by their very nature not profitable. Public schools, police, fire, national defense, etc... it there isn't a profitable model that can provide these services at the level we expect, the it is up to the government to suplement or perform those services.

If the government is turning a profit, it's either doing something wrong, or doing something that someone else should be doing instead.

-Rick

Re:Artificial crisis

[MightyMartian]

So the logical point to draw the line in the sand is during a period of high economic uncertainty, with a major currency (the Euro) in potential trouble, and with the US reporting shitty economic figures as it is? Are you under the delusion that doing it now will make America stronger, that it will aid the economy? If it's such a good fucking idea to default, why have stocks shed billions of dollars, why are rating agencies freaking out and why is the rest of the fucking planet begging Congress to get it's shit together?

You know, sometimes populist political movements really are not all that intelligent. Sometimes they're lead by people who are either fucking morons or are willing to do maximum damage to retain and grow their power. The Tea Party is not a sane political movement, as guys like Boehner are beginning to find out. The Tea Party is a political cancer, a political apocalyptic cult that idealizes a form of government that hasn't existed in any measure in the United States since Lincoln was elected.