3 ms·

Why a coin? It has to be a note because the coin+platinum could be a PR nightmare as people would do the math and realize that the amount of platinum in the coi

by GDC7 5y ago

Why a coin? It has to be a note because the coin+platinum could be a PR nightmare as people would do the math and realize that the amount of platinum in the coin is not worth 1 trillion dollars. I know that even for small coinage the value we assign to them is arbitrary, but for the public it doesn't matter because it's just change. If they want to use this solution they need to print a 1 trillion note, that would be in line with the arbitrarily assigned value to the smaller denomination notes.

thatguy0900 5y ago
When was the last time we used coinage that was actually worth its face value? Seems meaningless to me
- GDC7 5y ago
  As I said there is a difference between 1$ and 1 trillion. People don't question the face value of 1$ given the fact that it's cheap change.
  - Ancapistani 5y ago
    Our current coins in regular circulation are basically worthless in terms of metal content. On the other hand, US Mint-produced $50 gold eagles contain ~$1,800 of gold. Political opinions aside, it seems obvious to me that the value of the metal content of US coinage is unrelated to the face value.
    - GDC7 5y ago
      Nobody cares about 1$ coins, people would care about a 1T$ coin.
    - JadeNB 5y ago
      > Our current coins in regular circulation are basically worthless in terms of metal content. On the other hand, US Mint-produced $50 gold eagles contain ~$1,800 of gold. That sounded so ludicrous that I thought you must be mistaken or exaggerating, but, as with all things currency-related, I think it's impossible to out-absurd the reality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Gold_Eagle#Value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Gold_Eagle#Value
acadapter 5y ago
The laws that allow a platinum coin of arbitrary nominal value have already been created. Paper money, and all other coin metals, have their denominations defined. It's basically a bureaucratic loophole.
- zinekeller 5y ago
  This is correct. Minting a platinum coin with any and unlimited value is already set in law just after the Great Depression, so the executive branch can do it alone. Anything else, including creating a new denomination in notepaper or other metals (or its alloys), needs the involvement of the legislature (power of the purse, power to... legislate), which right now... is in a deadlock. I won't be shocked if this coin has been stamped there would be a court challenge, especially in terms of the said law's constitutionality. (Edited because despite having "Depression" in my mind I still typed "Recession". The law was from the last century, not this century.)
  - jonnycomputer 5y ago
    Congress has delegated lots of its powers to the executive's bureaucratic apparatus, so I'm not sure why this would be any different.
    - zinekeller 5y ago
      I mean, controversial but (ultimately confirmed) constitutional laws has a tendency to be challenged anyway, especially when the person who disagrees is in the government. This is not specific to this law, but instead just a general commentary on who brings cases to the court. Specifically to this case though, they might argue it's violating the so-called "power of the purse", which constitutionally is solely given to the Houses. I'm not sure if it will be enough (given common-law precedent), but I won't be shocked if someone will use this argument.
      - ceejayoz 5y ago
        > Specifically to this case though, they might argue it's violating the so-called "power of the purse", which constitutionally is solely given to the Houses. Unlikely to work. The Appropriations Clause gives Congress control over spending; the debt ceiling only affects money that's already spent per Congressional appropriation.
ceejayoz 5y ago
No one expects a $100 bill to be made out of $100 worth of paper, nor 100x the paper of a $1 bill.

by GDC7 5y ago

thatguy0900 5y ago

When was the last time we used coinage that was actually worth its face value? Seems meaningless to me

GDC7 5y ago
As I said there is a difference between 1$ and 1 trillion. People don't question the face value of 1$ given the fact that it's cheap change.
- Ancapistani 5y ago
  Our current coins in regular circulation are basically worthless in terms of metal content. On the other hand, US Mint-produced $50 gold eagles contain ~$1,800 of gold. Political opinions aside, it seems obvious to me that the value of the metal content of US coinage is unrelated to the face value.
  - GDC7 5y ago
    Nobody cares about 1$ coins, people would care about a 1T$ coin.
  - JadeNB 5y ago
    > Our current coins in regular circulation are basically worthless in terms of metal content. On the other hand, US Mint-produced $50 gold eagles contain ~$1,800 of gold. That sounded so ludicrous that I thought you must be mistaken or exaggerating, but, as with all things currency-related, I think it's impossible to out-absurd the reality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Gold_Eagle#Value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Gold_Eagle#Value

acadapter 5y ago

The laws that allow a platinum coin of arbitrary nominal value have already been created. Paper money, and all other coin metals, have their denominations defined. It's basically a bureaucratic loophole.

zinekeller 5y ago
This is correct. Minting a platinum coin with any and unlimited value is already set in law just after the Great Depression, so the executive branch can do it alone. Anything else, including creating a new denomination in notepaper or other metals (or its alloys), needs the involvement of the legislature (power of the purse, power to... legislate), which right now... is in a deadlock. I won't be shocked if this coin has been stamped there would be a court challenge, especially in terms of the said law's constitutionality. (Edited because despite having "Depression" in my mind I still typed "Recession". The law was from the last century, not this century.)
- jonnycomputer 5y ago
  Congress has delegated lots of its powers to the executive's bureaucratic apparatus, so I'm not sure why this would be any different.
  - zinekeller 5y ago
    I mean, controversial but (ultimately confirmed) constitutional laws has a tendency to be challenged anyway, especially when the person who disagrees is in the government. This is not specific to this law, but instead just a general commentary on who brings cases to the court. Specifically to this case though, they might argue it's violating the so-called "power of the purse", which constitutionally is solely given to the Houses. I'm not sure if it will be enough (given common-law precedent), but I won't be shocked if someone will use this argument.
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      > Specifically to this case though, they might argue it's violating the so-called "power of the purse", which constitutionally is solely given to the Houses. Unlikely to work. The Appropriations Clause gives Congress control over spending; the debt ceiling only affects money that's already spent per Congressional appropriation.

ceejayoz 5y ago

No one expects a $100 bill to be made out of $100 worth of paper, nor 100x the paper of a $1 bill.