IGX

Next up, unicorns for every man, woman and child in the America.

“Although the Treasury can't just create money out of thin air to pay its bills, there is a technicality in the law that says the Treasury has special discretion to create platinum coins of any denomination, and the thinking is that [Secretary of the Treasury] Tim Geithner could make the coin and walk it over to the Federal Reserve and deposit it in the Treasury's bank account.”

http://rt.com/usa/news/trillion-dollar-debt-coin-353/

this doesn't look like the onion but it has to be.

sanchezero wrote:this doesn't look like the onion but it has to be.

Nope, true story.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5112

Unlikely.

Turdacious wrote:Unlikely.

God, you're an idiot. The coin doesn't need to be worth it's weight in platinum. It is going to be made out of platinum and denominated at $1 trillion. The whole point of the article was that platinum is the one precious metal that the treasury can use to mint coins with no congressional oversight (which is required for gold, silver, copper, and paper). The actual price of platinum has no bearing on this whatsoever.

I think I've told you this before but please, for the good of the country, don't ever step inside a voting booth.

The fact that anyone thinks this is a good idea is scary.

The beast must be fed. If the Politicians and bureaucrats can't tax it or borrow it. Might as well devalue the dollar and tax us indirectly.

I got America's good idea over here.

Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:

Turdacious wrote:Unlikely.

God, you're an idiot. The coin doesn't need to be worth it's weight in platinum. It is going to be made out of platinum and denominated at $1 trillion. The whole point of the article was that platinum is the one precious metal that the treasury can use to mint coins with no congressional oversight (which is required for gold, silver, copper, and paper). The actual price of platinum has no bearing on this whatsoever.

I think I've told you this before but please, for the good of the country, don't ever step inside a voting booth.

Maybe you can explain it to me than. Please explain the level of real oversight that Congress has over the Fed. Please also explain how the Fed's use of an expensive metal (which would effectively increase demand) would be a good consequence for industrial users of platinum.

Turdacious wrote:

Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:

Turdacious wrote:Unlikely.

God, you're an idiot. The coin doesn't need to be worth it's weight in platinum. It is going to be made out of platinum and denominated at $1 trillion. The whole point of the article was that platinum is the one precious metal that the treasury can use to mint coins with no congressional oversight (which is required for gold, silver, copper, and paper). The actual price of platinum has no bearing on this whatsoever.

I think I've told you this before but please, for the good of the country, don't ever step inside a voting booth.

Maybe you can explain it to me than. Please explain the level of real oversight that Congress has over the Fed. Please also explain how the Fed's use of an expensive metal (which would effectively increase demand) would be a good consequence for industrial users of platinum.

The TREASURY is regulated and the TREASURY is the entity that will be minting coins, not the Fed. I would assume that congress is the regulator of the Treasury but it may be some executive branch entity.

Since you're still not grasping the concept, here's a few quotes from the article which I'm now convinced you didn't read:

There are limits on how much paper money the U.S. can circulate and rules that govern coinage on gold, silver and copper...
there is a technicality in the law that says the Treasury has special discretion to create platinum coins of any denomination...
Tim Geithner could make the coin and walk it over to the Federal Reserve and deposit it in the Treasury's bank account...

The plan is to mint a single coin for X trillion dollars (or say, 16 coins for $1 TR each) and deposit it (them) in their bank account at the Fed. This wouldn't require enough platinum to cause a price increase because the coin DOESN'T NEED TO BE WORTH IT'S WEIGHT IN PLATINUM; there would be no consequences for industrial users.

For the record I'm not defending this course of action. Where's Pinky on this?

Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:The TREASURY is regulated and the TREASURY is the entity that will be minting coins, not the Fed.

Monetary expansion to that scale (what the article suggests) would have a significant effect on the money supply, which is primarily Fed territory.

Fuzzy Dunlop wrote: I would assume that congress is the regulator of the Treasury but it may be some executive branch entity.

You would assume incorrectly. Congress has little real regulatory ability over the Treasury other than confirming certain appointments and their budget. The Treasury is an executive branch entity, which is something you should have learned in high school civics class. By your logic, since you're mistaken on two points in a row, you should brand yourself an idiot and remove yourself from the gene pool. Note that I'm not being self righteous about this you humorless twit.

Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:Where's Pinky on this?

Our resident genius is appealing to authority. Pathetic.

the only platinum mining in the u.s. is done near nye. montana. i have been underground there and have had a chunk of platinum ore from that mine on my desk for about 25 years.

being a patriot i'm willing to sell my platinum to the treasury dept for $100 billion, thereby saving the gov't $900 billion.

Stop trying to change the argument.

Your position has been about the price of platinum. First, you posted a historical price chart for platinum and implied that it was "unlikely" that the Treasury could mint a few trillion dollar coins, presumably because it would be too expensive (hence the price chart). Then, you thought minting a few coins would cause an impact on prices for industrial users. You were wrong on both points and showed that you were unable to comprehend the idea that a coin could be denominated for a value greater than it's actual material value.

Then you tried to pick apart a statement I made regarding the congressional oversight of the Treasury and incorrectly thought I had stated that the Fed was regulated by congress. Though this is immaterial to the argument at hand, it appears to be the United States Code that grants the Treasury the power to mint platinum coins in any denominations. It follows that congress also limits the denominations of coins in other metals. Not being a lawyer I'm not sure if this is a result of 1) not expressly granting those powers or 2) if somewhere the US Code expressly limits denominations.

31 USC 5112 wrote:(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.

When I made the statement "I'm not defending this", I was looking for Pinky to weigh in on the actual results of taking this action. I'm not sure that it's as cut and dry as rampant inflation would follow. I certainly don't need any help making you look stupid.

I'm not trying to cast myself as any authority. I was just pointing out that you are dumb if you thought the price of platinum had anything to do with this debate, which you did. Twit.

Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:Stop trying to change the argument.

Your position has been about the price of platinum. First, you posted a historical price chart for platinum and implied that it was "unlikely" that the Treasury could mint a few trillion dollar coins, presumably because it would be too expensive (hence the price chart). Then, you thought minting a few coins would cause an impact on prices for industrial users. You were wrong on both points and showed that you were unable to comprehend the idea that a coin could be denominated for a value greater than it's actual material value.

Then you tried to pick apart a statement I made regarding the congressional oversight of the Treasury and incorrectly thought I had stated that the Fed was regulated by congress.

No. I simply posted a chart based on the excerpt that Terry posted, assuming that Treasury would mint coins in a more normal fashion (ie. lower denominations at larger scale). The supply of platinum is limited, prices are volatile, and a relatively modest increase in demand would likely have a significant impact on price.

Your statement that:

a coin could be denominated for a value greater than it's actual material value

is absolute nonsense-- unless a nation is on certain types of metallic standard (i.e. gold, silver, etc...) it would be a rare situation where this would be true. It isn't true in the US, and I neither believed nor implied that it was. FWIW, this is pretty much money supply 101 stuff.

The broader argument, which I provided later (in the context of demonstrating that you don't know what you're talking about), is that monetary expansion/contraction is primarily a Fed issue. We can continue this discussion later, perhaps when you've managed to untwist your panties.

Turdacious wrote: Your statement that:

a coin could be denominated for a value greater than it's actual material value

is absolute nonsense--

How is this nonsense? You seem to have misread.

Now, you're backtracking and changing your story. You claim that you thought they would mint a bunch of smaller denomination coins even though the article is titled "Obama to pay US debt with trillion-dollar coins?", bull.

The price of platinum has nothing to do with this.

I'm not arguing with you on whether or not it is the Fed that typically handles monetary policy.

"I didn't read the article" was honest. Your selective quoting is pathetic.