Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Thad]

I can't tell if that's stupid support (look how much it would take to pay off all our debt!) or a stupid counterargument (actually minting that hypothetical coin is implausible, because the value of a coin is exactly that of its component minerals!).

I think it's just people trying to make sure proponents of a trillion-dollar coin aren't the stupidest human beings in the discussion.

[Brentai]

Basically it's been 153 years and the Democrats still haven't learned to watch what they say around literalists.

[Thad]

...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.

[Mongrel]

So apparently one of the most fundamental underpinnings of the European austerity program is based on an "error" in math (the economic multiplier for funds spent by governments was halved in the projections).

[Mazian]

So apparently one of the most fundamental underpinnings of the European austerity program is based on an "error" in math (the economic multiplier for funds spent by governments was halved in the projections).

Even better, changing that multiplier flips the net outcome from positive to negative.  The, um, money quote:

They estimate that for European austerity measures started in 2010, the multiplier was significantly greater than one, meaning economic output shrank by more than one euro for each euro in deficit reduction.

"Hey, our entire program has had the exact opposite effect from what we wanted.  Oops."

[Royal☭]

Oh really, austerity is destructive? What's amazing is not this conclusion, but that the IMF is admitting it.

[Brentai]

Granted that they're not exactly looking any of the people they've "accidentally" destroyed right in the eye and apologizing, but it's still a relief to see a glimmering spotlight of rationality there.

[Mongrel]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. OH WSJ.

Hands up, who here can spot the problem(s) with this infographic?

[Büge]

 

I haven't the foggiest.

[Mongrel]

I'd also like to add that I find the outfit on the retired guy to be especially hilarious.

[Classic]

Is it how infographic is making it look like old Baron Rupert cares about the interests of women and non-white people?

[Ted Belmont]

I think it may have something to do with how the lowest income on that chart is $180,000/yr, and that's the retired couple.

[Ocksi]

Also, it's still the black family.

[Royal☭]

I know what's wrong. If you look at the Married Couple, the father has black hair and the mother is a brunette yet all four of their children have blonde hair. The single mother is quite vividly blonde, yet somehow manages to make $260,000.  Someone has been selling her kids.

[Brentai]

They all seem to be very upset about their lot in life.

[Royal☭]

You'd be looking so down, too, if Obama was punishing your success with a marginal tax increase! I mean, hell, that married rich couple is seeing their actual tax burden go up by 3%.  3%! With that money, they could have created one whole, slightly better than poverty job. Or a yacht. Probably a yacht, actually.


Man, reading that infographic is just making me angrier. To all of those people these tax increases constitute anywhere from 25%-110% of my yearly annual income.

[Mongrel]

The scariest comment I saw was "Those numbers are per-decade, right?"

[François]

any one of these families could afford my entire yearly livelihood on their investment income alone, two of them twice over or more

hahahahahaaaaaa~

[Royal☭]

The scariest comment I saw was "Those numbers are per-decade, right?"

Even the retired couple is making more than me per decade...

[Classic]

The scariest comment I saw was "Those numbers are per-decade, right?"

Scary in that they were trying to rationalize those crazy numbers? Or that people might be rationalizing this infographic as a sign of an across-the-board tax increase?

Seriously, if I actually read that article any more than I already have, or worse, read the comments I might literally angry myself to death or injury.