by Outcast_Searcher » Mon 07 Jan 2013, 14:39:21
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheAntiDoomer', 'I') don't think you understand how it works. Minting a trillion dollar coin and raising the debt celing 1 trillion is the same thing. Which is why obama should do it.
Sorry, Anti, but I have to go with Tanada on this one.
They are NOT the same thing. And IMO, the difference is NOT just semantics.
Raising the debt ceiling is legally authorizing more US debt (and as a result, more future spending). It is capitol hill officially authorizing a policy. (Borrow to make ends meet).
When the US issues debt, (at least so far) it is issuing a legal document (treasury paper) that it promises its full faith and credit (whatever that should be worth) - to pay it back in "real" US dollars, plus the promised interest on the treasury paper (bonds, bills, or notes).
Now, the implication is that less inflation, the holder of the paper will actually be paid back in kind for what they lend.
....
Now, if we cross the rubicon and say that funny coins, funny hats, or (as I saw on one post in the original link) Obama's soiled boxers are worth (say) $1 trillion dollars -- as I said, we're more or less admitting that the game is up. That we're not even going to TRY to back our dollar with valid assets representing "full faith and credit", or a credible intent to pay.
Now you and I may not believe much in the current value of the full faith and credit today (just like gold bugs and dollar detractors of all stripes). But to me, such games would be a whole different kettle of fish. Like openly admitting that now we're out of ideas and just making this stuff up.
...
The history of booms and busts in major economies is proof positive that psychology has a huge impact on the economy, especially in the short run. Do we REALLY want to inject this kind of nonsense into the equation, when we want and need to borrow a LOT of money from the global community while we supposedly get our act together? This would clearly detract from the confidence of lenders, as it sends a very bad signal.
As stupid as it is, having the discussions and brinksmanship at the debt ceiling is at least a mechanism to FORCE free spending congresspeople on both sides of the aisle to openly defend their free spending ways, and tell their lenders how they intend to pay the new debts we're going to incur. Whatever your political stripe -- if you believe in property values and that we have a duty to repay the debt, I don't see how that disclosure can be a bad thing.
Minting "magic" coins and saying "just trust me" is a game for kids. We need serious adults in the room.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.