...actually I'm reading on
Popehat that there is in fact a legal argument behind those silly-ass images:
Kevin Drum, a lonely lefty on this topic, pointed the way to the answer yesterday - the key is the meaning of "bullion coin" in the controversial language of the law:
(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.
People like Prof. Tribe are focusing on the Treasury Secretary's discretion in setting denominations without worrying that the phrase "bullion coin" might actually have meaning. Here we go, from the US Mint:
A bullion coin is a coin that is valued by its weight in a specific precious metal. Unlike commemorative or numismatic coins valued by limited mintage, rarity, condition and age, bullion coins are purchased by investors seeking a simple and tangible means to own and invest in the gold, silver, and platinum markets.
[...]
And lest anyone hope to hang their Trillion Dollar hat on the phrase "proof coin", that won't work either - a 'proof coin' in this context is an enhanced version of the bullion coin. From the Mint glossary:
Proof: a specially produced coin made from highly polished planchets and dies and often struck more than once to accent the design. Proof coins receive the highest quality strike possible and can be distinguished by their sharpness of detail and brilliant, mirror-like surface.
I'm not quite sure I follow that last part -- why "proof platinum coin" is not distinct from "platinum bullion coin", especially given the use of the word "or" in the law. But the bullion argument at least raises a legal technicality in an issue that is entirely BASED on legal technicalities.
I'm trying to reconcile the point that economists I generally respect, like
Krugman, actually think this is a good idea, with the notion that "Let's just authorize the one-time creation of a trillion-dollar denomination" not only sounds fantastically goddamn silly, it's also the plot of a Simpsons episode from 1998.
Now, Krugman at least acknowledges that it will make the Treasury Department "look silly", and seems to think that's preferable to failing to raise the debt ceiling. I guess I can see that, as far is it goes -- this is just one more political maneuver based on a technicality to do an end-run around a Congress that wants to drive the world economy into the ditch because Ayn Rand.
But I still can't goddamn believe this is a conversation people are actually having with a straight face.