AEIdeas

The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (262 comments)

  1. …Soetoro-Obama uses any method…legal or otherwise…to implement his will on a people NOT his own…on a country NOT his own. Again…and as been stated many times: Barack Hussein Obama was born in Coast Province General Hospitial, 04 August 1961; 7:24 pm; Dr. James O.W. Angawa delivering; Mombasa, British Protectorate of Kenya…and since only one parent was a US citizen…he is in violation of Article II, Section I of US Constitution; and of US Code Title 8; Chapter 12; Sub-Chapter 3; Part I; Section 1401; Clause D. Soetoro is NOT an American citizen.

    1. Clifford, you’re a nutcase.

      1. Did you have a RATIONAL criticism of those claims?

        I ask because your amateur psychoanalysis was the opposite of persuasive; your rhetorical BS only makes sense if you cannot address the claim, argument or evidence

        1. Tom, welcome to what I call the “Clifford Club”. Or should I say “KKKlub”…

          1. Your personal attacks and baseless insinuations ALSO aren’t at all persuasive; you are doing that because you can’t explain in straight language and plain words why you think someone is mistaken.

            That means your games are evidence that you are the one making a mistake, because you can’t back up your claims with either argument or evidence.

            In other words; is personal BS all you have? If so, you have bupkis.

          2. Is that you, K-K-K-Ken? :)

          3. He did persuaded me. You are a nutcase Tom.

          4. If you’re persuaded by indefensible personal attacks, then we can be sure you have nothing valid to say.

            No, seriously; there is a correct process for deciding which conclusions are trustworthy, and when you use the wrong process, nobody needs to worry that ignoring your BS might be a mistake.

            Don’t forget to repeat your amateur psychoanalysis the next time you want to convince everyone that you can’t think straight, k thx, bi!

    2. Since Sen. Ted Cruz claims “natural-born citizenship” status merely from being born in Canada of a mother from Delaware and a father from Cuba, this argument isn’t even valid anymore. Boom.

      1. Now that is a rational criticism that the birthers can’t dismiss!

        Well done, sir!

    3. It might seem incredible that a man can ascend to the presidency without being a U.S. citizen, but from what I’ve seen of the complicity of the press in their failure to criticize the disasters of this presidency, I’m willing to believe that it can be done. The fact that not one court in the land has had the courage to listen to the facts of the so -called birthers, to let them argue their case once and for all, is scary. If the truth is as transparent as Obama and his Obamabots say it is, then they should welcome the showdown. Ultimately the truth will come out, whether it be his birthplace, Benghazigate, Fast and Furious, the president’s culpability will be established. The history books will be written by people who cherish the truth, not by those who wish the truth to be the fairy tale that they hold so dear.

    4. Julian Westwood

      Mr. Paiva:

      Upon reading your unquestionably fallible assertion concerning the birthplace of President Barack Obama, I felt incumbent to rebut and express my extreme displeasure at such an absurd claim.

      First, it has been proven on several ocassions, mind you, that President Obama was indeed born in the state of Hawaii. At the time of his birth, both his biological mother and father were present. It was not until some time soon after Obama’s birth that his father left the home to pursue personal goals.

      Second, what does his birthplace really have to do with his performance as the president of the United States. In your outrageous claim, you seemed to suggest that a “native-born” United States’ citizen would make a better president than someone allegedly conceived outside its boundaries. If President Obama were born outside the United States, I still would support him as the leader of this country before I would personages like Mitt Romney, John McCain, Sara Palin, and other “conservative” politicians who have no sensitivity to the plight of the American people or the knowledge to bring this country back to circumstances analogous to those experienced in much better times.

      Although I will admit that I do sincerely respect your right to believe whatever you do; however, I must also say that I CANNOT bear to restrain myself from denouncing people like you whose “facts” have no sound basis whatsoever.

      Cordially Submitted,

      Julian Westwood

      1. Obama claimed in the bio that accompanied his first book that he was born in Kenya. He allowed this claim to persist for over a decade, only refuting it when it became useful to do so. The man is a liar. Dissembling is his most despicable trait, doing so continuously, throughout his entire career. And your claims to “insensitivity” are based upon the demagoguery of the Democratic supported press. Your “facts” that make Romney, et al, insensitive come from the very mouths of the liars that put Obama in office. The left likes to point to polls saying that the Republicans are evil, but those polls are the result of the the successful campaign of defamation promoted by the Democratic Party. I hold no cordial feelings for you Julian, because you are a fool, like most Obamabots.

      2. Your “facts”s about Obama are not facts, Julian, but a story, nay, a fairy tale from Obama himself, one that has been proven to have many holes in it. Even the “facts” in Obama’s autobiography portray him as a radial and drug taker. A rational society would question the wisdom of someone who took cocaine and hung out with Marxists and other radicals, but we have low information voters like you to rely on for our presidents, don’t we?

  2. there must be trillion of legal dollars.suggest we make any green dollars over 20 nor useble after 30 days and tto be exchanged for red paper dollars.

  3. I completely disagree with the statement “effects on the currency market and inflation are unclear, to say the least.”

    The guaranteed result is hyperinflation. It has happened in many economies throughout history and I must admit am surprised it has not yet hit the United States.

    1. It’s because the dollar is the reserve currency for most of the world, which allows the US to export most of its inflation. Once India, China, et al decide to cash out, that inflation will come home to roost like you can’t believe. Expect it to start this year

      1. “It’s because the dollar is the reserve currency for most of the world, which allows the US to export most of its inflation.”

        With floating currencies, this shouldn’t happen. Countries who peg or fix their exchange rate are usually taking care of powerful domestic political constituents.

        “Once India, China, et al decide to cash out, that inflation will come home to roost like you can’t believe. Expect it to start this year”

        Hmmm…don’t bet your shirt. A lot of hedge fund managers have been burned by Japanese govt bonds over the last two decades.

        1. With floating currencies…what, exactly shouldn’t happen? Slowing the hyperinflation down doesn’t change what it does, the perverse incentives it creates.

          Hyperinflationary pressures include competition with the rate of debasement; part of the reason it happens is because of the incentives facing the people in charge of the interest rates and credit markets.

          Indeed, the more people realize we are playing Old Maid, the quicker the game plays out; the quicker people want to get out of dollars. Runs on banks aren’t caused by, but rather result in, irrational decisions.

          China and India are getting out of dollars. Slowly (because they don’t want to upset the game before they’ve gotten their value for their USD), and not drawing attention to it, but they are doing it.

          As they spend more of our dollars here, and hold less dollars there, those dollars have only one place to accumulate.

          The inflation we’ve been seeing (QE1, QE2, skipping the legislative budget requirement, etc etc etc) has been largely cancelled by the deflation inherent in trillions in real estate notes going “poof” over the last 7 years.

          Maybe we dodged the bullet, right? – though deflation is a non-optional part of the reckoning, we like to keep it less catastrophic, or at least pretend we have more control over it than keynsian AKA marco economic theory actually gives.

          Problem with that ‘balance’ however, is that many and massive government agencies have become addicted to the extra dollars because of ratcheting hiring practices, unsustainable contracts and simply skipping the budget process altogether. They won’t be able to pull back.

          Inflation is not neutral.

          1. “The inflation we’ve been seeing (QE1, QE2, skipping the legislative budget requirement, etc etc etc) has been largely cancelled by the deflation inherent in trillions in real estate notes going “poof” over the last 7 years.”

            OK, so you basically get it. Except that you don’t…?

          2. Except that I do get it, as my ability to support my claims with argument and evidence indicates. What’s your excuse?

            If you get it, why have you, once again, slapped yourself in the face by presenting unsupported personal insinuations, instead of explaining your thinking, the way people who know what they are talking about do routinely?

            The crux of the disagreement between Austrian School and Keynes is this; Austrians recognize that inflation is not neutral.

            I note that you haven’t taken issue with that claim, suggesting either that you agree, and thus qualify as Austrian School, or you are simply one of the smarter Keynsians, and have accepted that your ‘economic theory’ is in fact theology, and have wisely decided to stop trying to defend the indefensible.

            Or do you adhere to Chicago School, despite the fact that Milton Friedman repudiated his own theory two years before his death and told the world he supported Austrian School?

          3. Tom, I live and work outside the USA and have for many years now and from the outside looking in, I can verify that China in particular is assetizing their dollars. How are they doing this? By purchasing property, companies and any other “hard assets” they can get their hands on. While it is happening all over SE Asia, where you see it most is in Africa.

            Despite your detractors, I for one think you have a solid and realistic grasp on what is happening and what is likely to happen in the next 5-10 years.

            Sooner or later this house of cards (along with the even more unstable house of cards in Europe) has to tumble.

            As I keep telling my kids, one day you will wake up and find that you are speaking Mandarin- as your first language. And China won’t have to fire a shot. They will, being the outstanding businessmen and women they are, simply buy America out….. Or foreclose on our debt….

            Keep up the good work, Tom….

          4. Thanks for the props!

            I’ve got a few friends here and there who tell me things ;-)

            The culture of the Chinese is very strong, and it’s showing, and working. China led civilization for thousands of years. The last 150 years are somewhat of an anomaly in history. And the endgame is still wide open. B.Rutan and Sir Branson and JPL are seeing to that.

            Most chinese immigrants do it right; they keep their dick in their pants till they’re married, they learn some kind of useful skill, often high-end skills like surgery or electrical design, they work and save and educate their kids. It’s too bad they trashed their demographics, but that is easily dealt with and has lots of side-benefits; males leave and interbreed.

            If only their home country could grow out of it’s totalitarianism the same way it grew out of the communism…I look forward to the day Hong Kong fulfills its destiny as cuckoo egg.

          5. PS: Tom, are you keeping an eye on what Abe and his Finance Minister, Taro Aso in Japan are doing? The Yen is back up to ~87/dollar.

            I think what we are seeing is the first major shot having been fired in the “War on Currencies”. For those who have yet to do so, now is a good time to pick up Rickard’s 2011 book “Currency Wars”.

            This can only result in a race to the bottom…… Buckle up, boys and girls, the ride is about to get mighty rough…

    2. “The guaranteed result is hyperinflation. It has happened in many economies throughout history and I must admit am surprised it has not yet hit the United States.”

      You’re surprised b/c you don’t understand the dynamics involved. Better to learn a bit more before you hold forth such strong opinions on the subject. Google 7DIF.

      1. Nice propaganda piece.

        The question is whether fiat currency.

        Your site assumes ‘yes.’

        Not. Good. Enough.

        1. Propaganda? My site? You truly are pathetic. And clueless. Passionate, but pathetic and clueless. Best of luck with that.

          1. Yes, the main page for the notion you suggested was a propaganda piece. If you didn’t read it, that might explain your ignorance of its nature.

            Maybe it isn’t your site, but as your repetition of the suggestion to multiple people makes you appear to be advertizing, you’ll just have to accept ownership of that notion here.

            You call me pathetic and clueless? Upon what grounds?

            Or were you lashing out upon no grounds whatsoever because I debunked your bullshi+ and pointed out how you dropped the ball?

  4. the debt ceiling is to pay for monies already spent……like disaters…..not future spendings

  5. oops…..disasters….i don’t want hear about the sp mistake

  6. James Norman

    Why not just write the word “Kabillion” on the back of a napkin. Its the same thing. Its just more fake money printed out of thin air and more proof that we need to bind our goverment to a Gold Standard and end this maddens that will lead to the destruction of our dollar.

    1. Agree about addressing the currency crisis, but there are actually better things to use as a standard.

      The best choice would probably be a Kilowatt-hour standard, because electrical power would make such a great form of money.

      1. “Agree about addressing the currency crisis,”

        What crisis? Do you ever look at exchange rates?

        1. The crisis first described by Cicero, c.100ad; debasement of the currency favors debtors and punishes creditors, so more go into debt, creating a live-for-today attitude that destroys civilization by undermining the cultural attitudes and practices that support our successful city-building language-using life-style.

          We are currently a capital-consuming (read; tool- and book-burning) culture. CF Karl Popper for his ‘three worlds’ interpretation of human nature, and on why that cannot last. We will either stop and reverse it, or extinct ourselves, which will also stop it.

          Debasement-caused inflation-inspired massive public and private debt produces the ‘moral decay’ first described by Cicero; a ‘live-for-today’ attitude among many large swaths of the population.

          Even without meaning to, it gets into the popular culture, and even more adopt it.

          That incentive also applies to the public treasury, and when the debasement is symbolic (using fiat currency and central-banking) instead of physical (the Romans clipped coins to produce their inflation), it’s even easier to go that route, so of course they all do. Currency-markets are currently the only thing keeping them ‘honest,’ but the average schmoe is just getting ripped off, and they know it.

          The currency-debasement functions as a hidden-hence-dishonest tax that enables all sorts of venturesome spending, including foreign occupations, unwinnable wars on abstract ideas (terrorism, drugs, poverty), social-engineering by the would-be breeders of men on a massive scale, domestic giveaways, and massive interest payments they can rig to disappear, via central banking, instead of paying with honest money. “Saving” GM proved what the bondholders can expect from now on, speaking of ‘moral decay;’ don’t save or invest unless you’re stupid.

          Cicero explain all of this over 1500 years ago, and the Austrian School has been revealed, by their long record of predicting exactly the kind of mal-investments we’ve seen in the last 40 years (which, BTW, is the only span of time that humanity did not have a global gold standard), to be clearly correct on the critical and distinctive point;

          “Inflation is not neutral.”

          1. OK…so your empirical evidence is a Cicero narrative and the Austrian school? Why not tie one hand behind your back too?

            There is some truth to both–inflation harms creditors, for example, just as deflation harms debtors (and ultimately many creditors). Maybe Lew R and Murray R’s acolytes removed that section from the latest editions of Mises own writings though, eh?

          2. No, Cicero et al made the predictions. Our unfolding currency crisis is the evidence. Get it? Theory -> predictions. Historicalunfolding of events = facts and evidence that might support or deny the prediction.

            You have noticed that Von Mises’ and Hayek’s predictions about the long-term effects of central banking and inflationary monetary policy have come true and are coming true, right?

            I see you are still pretending to be informative, making reference to later parts of “Human Action,” perhaps? But as you didn’t actually saying anything specific, or definite, or that might lead to someone learning something, or that might prove to be a mistake on your part after all, which means you couldn’t have been informative.

            Hint; information is always surprising, by definition. A Keynsian dupe ‘defending’ the theory with personal BS and lame insinuations doesn’t surprise anyone, because that is all they’ve ever had, other than the trust of politicians (which says worlds, as well).

            If you have a point that is relevant to the question, pregnant leading questions only indicate that you can’t actually back it up with logic or evidence.

            Sticking to the claims, argument and evidence means presenting your claim, not merely insinuating that you MIGHT have one.

            “F”

      2. Richard Bell

        A kilowatt-hour of electricity standard looks good at first blush, but falls apart once you realize that energy storage technology is not there. Also, electricity is a commodity that fluctuates in price. If there was a storage technology that lost less energy, as a percentage, than a checking account loses money to banking fees, a kilowatt-hour based currency cannot happen

        1. Energy storage technology certainly is there. What you overlook is that using a KWhr (as opposed to the popularly obscure Joule or erg) is in fact an ENERGY standard, and energy gathering, sorting, storing and redeploying is approximately the definition of life.

          The particular unit is approximately arbitrary, as is the particular form anyone decides to ‘save’ with. KWhrs are something almost everyone is familiar with, from their electric bill. And all energy storage can be compared to any other with a simple calculation that most people can do.

          Most of what we do as life-forms is store energy, and our civilization has massive energy-storage capacity. Everything from bombs to water towers qualify, not even talking about the high tech stuff. Indeed, that massive amount of on-hand available energy would, under an energy-standard, become our financial system’s ‘reserve currency,’ which would make accounting for our actual needs as life forms far easier, and all of our markets far stabler…and prices more accurate, and therefore useful.

          That ease of accounting could easily be a primary major advantage, as good as getting the grids linked.

          The stability of money would be the icing, but people are famous for doing the right thing for the wrong reason.

          The major source of instability in the price (or more relevantly, the value) of electricity is the daily cycle of demand peaks and troughs.

          If we built 1300 miles of electrical grid, we could pass those cycles all the way around the world, almost immediately balancing them out.

          We do the same thing to some degree now with markets and overflow plants. If we accounted in electricity, the balancing would be automatic and immediate, stabilizing the price / demand with not particular effort on anyone’s part.

          Once connected those overflow plants could be recycled, or turned on to make money 24/7. Hence the option for a 4-fold increase in total production.

          There would be an early incentive to inflate electrical power and generate electricity…which you can read as “human power” because it gets used for our needs and desires.

          Because the increase in the money supply would always equal the increase in our ability to do things, there would rarely be any general price inflation.

          Put another way, an energy standard indication of inflation would in fact tell us how much energy to make or use…maybe that’s what it’s for.

    2. “Why not just write the word “Kabillion” on the back of a napkin. Its the same thing. Its just more fake money printed out of thin air and more proof that we need to bind our goverment to a Gold Standard and end this maddens that will lead to the destruction of our dollar.”

      If unemployment was running high under a gold or other precious metals standard, it often indicated an undersupply of the metal(s) that formed the base of the financial system.

      With an inconvertible currency, govt deficits play the role that mining and minting do under a PM standard. So to claim that there are too many USDs (or excessive USG budget deficits) when underemployment is still in the high teens is a bit of a stretch. And if you were right, inflation and inflation expectations wouldn’t look anything like they currently do.

      1. Bob Cipnic

        “If unemployment was running high under a gold or other precious metals standard, it often indicated an undersupply of the metal(s) that formed the base of the financial system. ” Doesn’t it seem absurd that, in the modern age, billions of peoples’ lives should depend on how much of some shiny rocks we dig from the ground ? We’re reproducing faster than any amount of mining could keep up with – but maybe a starving populace is the ultimate goal of the “return to a gold standard crowd”.

    3. Genius! Thank you for adding practical thought to this discussion. Although I find the argument regarding the production of the KaJallion dollar tissue to also have merit, the kabillion dollar napkin might be more realistic. The debates will rage for lifetimes!

  7. Steve Erbach

    The trillion-dollar platinum coin possibility first surfaced in the blogs a year ago (http://my.firedoglake.com/beowulf/2011/01/03/coin-seigniorage-and-the-irrelevance-of-the-debt-limit/) and created a flurry of commentaries in other economics blogs. The concept is called “coin seignorage” or “seigniorage” and has a basis in law (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5136). It’s based on the profit made by the Treasury on the sale of coins having a certain face value versus the cost of minting those coins. Bizarre, but there it is enshrined in federal law.

  8. Come on…does it really matter? The debt ceiling…platinum trillion dollar coins… monopoly money… somebody is printing it and people are using it… and when it gets down to the heart of the matter… it’s all worthless… or worth the same. What really matters is when people realize that they’ve been duped into believing that they have to have stuff they don’t need so that they end up spending those printed dollars they don’t have. What drives up inflation is the incessant need to purchase worthless stuff at ridiculous prices… the more they consume of this worthless off shore crap that companies keep shoveling down their palates the more inflation everyone will have because as a whole we are not producing and only consuming which sends our dollars off shore… that’s what causes inflation… and huge debts. I chuckle when I read posts from people knowing that they are bitching on one hand and over consuming on the other hand. I read one post here where the person said we should just write a “kabillion” on a napkin… that was totally right on… as it doesn’t matter in the bigger scheme of things as it’s all just worthless paper. If you want to make change, stop inflation, help the economy, or whatever it has to do with finances, just quit buying into over consumption as a way to fuel your guilt trip about whatever you feel uncomfortable about. I have found that people have the ability to spend well outside their means to support the facade of a lifestyle that they don’t really want or need. Seriously… do you really need a $500 pair of shoes, a $250.00 dinner, a $ 50,000 car, or even a room full of worthless crap from the dollar store… or is someone telling you that this is what you need to feel good about who you are. Get a clue… consume less, spend wisely, and save for a rainy day… if people did this then everyone would have the things they want, rather than the things they think they need… and government wouldn’t need to worry about fiscal cliffs, debt ceilings, or trillion dollar coins.

    1. “What drives up inflation is the incessant need to purchase worthless stuff at ridiculous prices… the more they consume of this worthless off shore crap that companies keep shoveling down their palates the more inflation everyone will have because as a whole we are not producing and only consuming which sends our dollars off shore… that’s what causes inflation”

      Absolutely false. Inflation is not caused by consuming, it is caused by increasing the money supply, either by issuing credit or printing promissory notes AKA dollars.

      I recommend Thomas Sowell’s “Basic Economics – A Citizen’s Guide To The Economy”

      1. yea keep reading the worthless crap they want you to read and we’ll keep getting the same results we always get. If we didn’t consume all the crap there would be no need to keep issuing money and credit…which is pretty much the only way most people can keep consuming. Without the credit the consumption of worthless crap will cease and without a steady supply of purchasing the worthless crap there would be no reason to keep inflating prices… or issuing more currency… just basic economic common sense… i suggest you read less of the hyperbole crap manufactured to make you think like the main stream and really look at it from a common sense layman’s point of view.

        1. I know, Sowell is such a bum.

          1. Plus, broad-brush moralizing generalizations (‘pretty much the only way people can…’) are so much more fulfilling than knowing what you’re talking about.

      2. “Inflation is not caused by consuming, it is caused by increasing the money supply, either by issuing credit or printing promissory notes AKA dollars.”

        That’s an extreme oversimplification. If ‘money supply’ runs short of ‘money demand,’ it’s deflationary. If you disagree with that, then you also have to accept the (nonsensical) assertion that, during the classical or other gold-standard eras, every productive mine was inflationary-?

        P.S. I’ve read most of Sowell’s work. He’s a smart guy, but (a) like anyone, he’s wrong about some things, and (b) like Paul Krugman or Dean Baker, he knows where his bread is buttered. Critically honest pundits tend to have a hard time making a living.

        1. “That’s an extreme oversimplification. If ‘money supply’ runs short of ‘money demand,’ it’s deflationary. ”

          We can speak instead about the subsidized and price-fixed credit markets, and how such attempts at management always backfire on the Machiavellians such power creates.

          That’s another perfectly good framework in which to continue the discussion about your major oversight regarding the illusion of neutral inflation, so go right ahead;

          Explain why price-fixing interest doesn’t cause the same kinds of shortages and gluts in credit that price-fixing causes in every other aspect of the economy?

          Do you even know what a price is? What prices are for, what they do and provide for us?

        2. “P.S. I’ve read most of Sowell’s work. He’s a smart guy, but (a) like anyone, he’s wrong about some things,”

          But you can’t actually name any of them? Or you can’t identify anything wrong regarding the discussion?

          ” and (b) like Paul Krugman or Dean Baker, he knows where his bread is buttered. Critically honest pundits tend to have a hard time making a living.”

          More personal insinuations offered as a pathetic substitute for describing the reasons for what you think? I’m curious what, exactly, you think Sowell is a ‘pundit’ for. Or don’t you bother to think past stage zero in your ‘critique?’

          You’re a real piece of work; you let me know when you grow some integrity and/or honest curiosity, and decide to back up some of your claims, k thx, bi!

          1. Tom you sound like an economics professor. I remember many of those same questions from my professors over the years. It’s just like anything in life. If you can’t back it up with facts, then you have no argument.

            By the way, I agree with you.

          2. Oh, I’m sure it’s just your concern with facts that leads you to agree with Austrian Economics ;-)

            I like economics, but I actually teach math, chemistry, physics etc.

    2. “when it gets down to the heart of the matter… it’s all worthless”

      Send me yours then.

      Quick thought experiment: how many people here, if they saw a $20 bill lying on the sidewalk, would ignore it?

    3. “Get a clue… consume less, spend wisely, and save for a rainy day”

      Fine advice, but where do the USDs you want people to save come from?

      If the monopoly provider of something keeps it off the market, we call it hoarding. We should use the same term when the USG “saves” USDs. The federal govt must run optimally sized deficits (and/or the Fed must pay optimal interest on reserves), just as gold mines once had to produce a sufficient quantity of gold every year.

      If the ‘cut the federal spending’ folks had been alive in the 19th century, they would have outlawed gold mining!

      1. Gold has many uses other than simply as money.

        It just happens to also have several great features, when seeking a good form of money.

        1. What does that have to do with my comment-?

          1. You’ve drawn an equivalence between hard assets and paper.

            It was a false equivalence, because assets and money is distinct from currency, and in critical and important ways when talking about fiat currency.

            ‘Saving’ can also take other forms besides cash, which contradicts your assumption about the OP, as well.

            It’s a shame that you keep supporting valid points (there is no point for the government to save) with untrue statements (paper is as good as hard assets), because you’re probably making a lot of people distrust ideas that they should be OK with.

  9. The debt ceiling can ONLY be altered by Congress and if the President dictates it, it can simply be ignored as that is not under his authority. Send that edict to the courts and the courts would then rule that under the constitution, Congress and not the president may raise the debt ceiling. You do not need to overide anything, just send it to the judicial branch.

  10. It is obvious that President Jackson and Kennedy were correct. Going off of the gold standard is anti-american. I fear that there is no way back. The whole ecconomic system will have to likely collapse before we can fix this issue.

    1. Yeah, great idea. Instead of relying on politicians for growth we will be beholden to gold miners. Get ready for a century of no growth.

      1. You’ve put the cart before the horse; growth is largely a function of price and legal stability, which a dollar standard would provide. Keeping the government accounting honest (which is the point of such standards) would far outweigh what little power any particular standard would grant to any particular sector of the economy. If you are really worried about it, stump for a electrical Kilowatt-hour standard instead, because anyone can create electricity.

        In any case, “gold miners” cannot stop people from being productive, and it is productivity, not the money supply, that determines whether the REAL economy grows.

        I recommend Thomas Sowell’s “Basic Economics – A Citizen’s Guide To The Economy.”

        1. “In any case, “gold miners” cannot stop people from being productive”

          If the nominal or conversion price of gold gets far out of whack with its real value (mines producing either too much or too little relative to demand), a gold standard would absolutely undermine productivity (and employment, income, etc). It happened at times in the 19th and 20th century. A gold standard is absolutely not the panacea a lot of people believe it would be. (And from an ecological perspective, the less we mine, the better.)

          1. How, exactly, do you measure the ‘real’ value of gold, when it is fixed to the dollar?

            Further, actual gold-mining (as opposed to mining asteroids, which would be a game-changer for gold) is a tiny proportion of the total gold on hand, so such effects are quite limited in pure principle; it can’t get very far out of whack.

            I don’t believe anyone said a gold standard is a ‘panacea'; nobody expects it to solve ALL the world’s problems.

            If articulating a ‘panacea’ IS your standard, why don’t you tell me what could (let alone would) solve all the world’s problems, and for reference, here are those that the gold standard (or any reliable and stable physical standard) certainly could and almost certainly would resolve; Massive inflation, moral decay, massive public and private debt, capital consumption, massive instability in capital markets, venturesome wars, domestic meddling by people who don’t know crap, hidden direct taxation on savings, disincentives for saving and investing, dishonest government accounting practices.

            I realize that list isn’t ALL the world’s problems, the way a ‘panacea’ requires, but if you think something would do a better job of addressing the currency crisis, I am quite ready to hear about it, even if it might not solve ALL the world’s problems as you’ve insinuated you are currently seeking. Good luck with that, by the way.

            Finally, if you’re honestly concerned about the fluctuations in the market due to monopolistic action in a small industry like gold mining, then we can talk instead about using the electric Kilowatt-hour standard first proposed in the 1950s, instead, because anyone can create electricity. Linking the worlds electrical grids would also increase our electricity production by about a factor of 4, which would happen sooner if we started measuring money in energy.

            It’s having a _standard_ that matters.

            Gold just happens to have a good reputation going back thousands of years.

      2. “Yeah, great idea. Instead of relying on politicians for growth we will be beholden to gold miners. Get ready for a century of no growth.”

        I share the sentiment, but a gold standard could work, as long as the nominal price of gold can be periodically reset to its estimated real value. Of course that would just add an unnecessary layer to existing fiscal/monetary policies (e.g., interest-rate targeting), so a return to gold becomes something of a non-starter, as most economists have recognized for a good 30 years plus.

    2. Not the system; the dollar.

      The dollar collapse would probably be, overall, a good thing right now – it would emasculate the power of the intrusive federal government, and enough people have stocked up on gold, silver, food, etc., that we could get by on barter and hard money during the transition back to a real economy.

      Oh, a lot of people would have to get jobs, and might throw tantrums, and the feds would have to fire tons of people, and many pensions would be destroyed…but a real economy would quickly make up for those losses, and accommodate the millions of jobless, once the burden of The Leviathan was removed.

    3. “It is obvious that President Jackson and Kennedy were correct. Going off of the gold standard is anti-american.”

      So they both said a gold standard is pro-American, and alternatives or anti-American? Empirically, what is it about our current monetary system that is ‘anti-American’?

      “I fear that there is no way back.”

      From what? And on what empirical basis?

      “The whole ecconomic system will have to likely collapse before we can fix this issue.”

      Again…on what empirical evidence are you basing such extreme pessimism?

  11. GodsmotivePhillip

    That something this absurd actually has serious discussion shows how low education has collapsed in this country.

  12. “stick to the claims, argument, and evidence”

    Good advice. Give it a try.

    1. Turning tables is a denial tactic. Why don’t you try taking responsibility for your BS, instead, so you can get back to supporting your claims. Note that “nuh-uh, you’re doing it” isn’t sticking to the claims, argument, or evidence.

      Did you expect me to suddenly think someone else dropped the ball, despite the audit-trail proving you did?

      You keep pursuing rhetorical BS…because you’re winning an argument?

      No, that is what people do when they lose an argument.

  13. Eric Zuesse

    This entry falsifies in an important way. It alleges that option #3, “The Constitutional Option” of the 14th Amendment, would (and I shall correct Chris Krueger’s grammar here) “set up two tranches of Treasuries: those that are not subject to a legal challenge (issued under the old debt ceiling), and treasuries that are subject to a legal challenge, which would likely trade at a discount.”

    That’s not the way it would work: Both “tranches” would be subject to the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment; there would not be two separate “tranches,” but only Treasuries, all of which are subject to the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government, irrespective of their dates of issue.

    There would not be some Treasuries that are devoid of this Constitutional provision, and others that are subject to it. All would be subject to the Supreme Court’s interpretation of this Constitutional provision.

    Perhaps this manufactured “problem” with the 14th-Amendment approach was concocted for a motive: to encourage Obama to employ the trillion-dollar-coin approach, which would be far weaker. Here is why it would be weaker:

    USC Sec 5112 starts with sub-section “(a) The Secretary of the Treasury may mint and issue only the following coins,” and then describes sub-sub-sections 1 through 12, none of which allow for what is subsequently said in sub-section “(k) The Secretary may mint and issue platinum bullion coins and proof platinum coins in accordance with such specifications, designs, quantities, denominations, and inscriptions as the Secretary, in the Secretary’s discretion, may prescribe.”

    Consequently, if Obama endorsed the trillion-dollar-coin approach, could not the Republicans then file suit to charge illegality when Geithner actually tried using sub-section (k)?

    Obama would have better chance of winning by citing the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: “the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, … shall not be questioned.” But conservatives, such as AEI, want Republicans to win this battle, so they concoct false “problems” with the 14th-Amendment approach, in order to get him to lose.

  14. This design is steller! You obviously know how to keep a reader amused.
    Between your wit and your videos, I was almost moved to start my own blog (well,
    almost…HaHa!) Excellent job. I really enjoyed what you had to say,
    and more than that, how you presented it. Too cool!

  15. Can you really get a few trillion dollars out of a platinum coin anyway? I mean, platinum is expensive, but how big would these coins have to be? This whole talk is rather silly in my opinion.

    1. “how big would these coins have to be?”

      Is there five cents worth of nickel in a nickel coin? Twenty dollars worth of ink and paper in a 20-dollar bill? It simply has to contain platinum according to existing law regarding commemorative coins. The denomination is whatever Treasury states it is.

      1. And functionally, minting trillions of dollars could have economic effects similar to a massive tax cut. Not sure why so many on the right are opposed.

  16. You raise a good point, Arturo, but I think most people would be more concerned about possible inflationary economic consequences over the possible benefits of a massive tax cut. I do think this is a valid idea that we should look into and study more in depth.

  17. I hate to see what our kids will live through.

    1. We can make kids’ and grandkids’ lives a lot better by understanding that deficit/debt fetishes are causing severe underinvestment. What the hell happened to all the old wingnut supply siders? All about root canal economics now. Damn shame.

  18. Minting trillion dollar coins? That is one of the more comical ideas I have ever heard. Can you say Weimar Republic?

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:

Scholar

Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Open
Refine Content