Blog Post

Blogs review: The trillion-dollar platinum coin option to the debt ceiling

What’s at stake: What started as an arcane idea on a finance blog a couple of months ago – that the debt ceiling crisis could be averted by exploiting a legislation designed to govern the issuance of commemorative coins, which allows the Treasury to mint platinum coins, and only platinum coins, in any denomination – has moved center stage in the punditry debate and gone viral on Twitter under the hashtags #MintTheCoin and #StopTheCoin.

By: Date: April 20, 2013 Global Economics & Governance Tags & Topics

What’s at stake: What started as an arcane idea on a finance blog a couple of months ago – that the debt ceiling crisis could be averted by exploiting a legislation designed to govern the issuance of commemorative coins, which allows the Treasury to mint platinum coins, and only platinum coins, in any denomination – has moved center stage in the punditry debate and gone viral on Twitter under the hashtags #MintTheCoin and #StopTheCoin. The idea has gotten so much traction that U.S. Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) announced plans to introduce a bill to modify the current legislation on commemorative coins to prevent such a scheme and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney came under heavy fire during the daily news briefing to give the official position.

An absurd solution to an idiotic problem

Ezra Klein gives a refresher: to avoid running into the debt ceiling in the next couple of months, the Treasury secretary could exploit a legal loophole, create a platinum coin, assign it a value of $1 trillion or some other very high number, and deposit it at the Fed, thus enabling the government to carry out its previously promised tax and spending policies without broaching the legal cap on debt issuance.

Carlos Mucha – who first articulated this option in a 2010 comment on Brad DeLong’s blog according to history of the idea put together by Devin Smith – wrote that the Treasury isn’t authorized to just “print” money, the Federal Reserve Act gives that power to the Fed. However, the Coinage Act grants the Secretary of the Treasury rather broad coin seigniorage authority.

Interfluidity has the legal background: here’s the law, the relevant bit of which — subsection (k) — was originally added in 1996 then slightly modified in 2000.

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.”

Here is appropriations committee report from 1996, see p. 35; and legislative discussion of the 2000 modification.

Philip Diehl – the former Mint director and Treasury chief of staff wrote the platinum coin law – writes on the Wonkblog that writes that any court challenge is likely to be quickly dismissed since (1) authority to mint the coin is firmly rooted in law that itself is grounded in the expressed constitutional powers of Congress, (2) Treasury has routinely exercised this authority since the birth of the republic, and (3) the accounting treatment of the coin is entirely routine.

Laurence H. Tribe (HT Paul Krugman) – Professor of Law at Harvard University – thinks it makes no sense to think about this as some sort of “loophole” issue. Using the statute this way doesn’t entail exploiting a loophole; it entails just reading the plain language that Congress used. The statute clearly does authorize the issuance of trillion-dollar coins. First, the statute itself doesn’t set any limit on coin value. Second, other clauses of 31 USC §5112 do set such limits, but §5112(k) — dealing with platinum coins — does not. So expressio unius strengthens the inference that there isn’t any limit here. Of course, Congress probably didn’t have trillion-dollar coins in mind, but there’s no textual or other legal basis for importing this probable intention into the statute.

Implementing the idea

Greg Ip writes that coins are a liability of the Treasury, not a liability of the Fed, and are therefore not part of the monetary base. In fact, in economic terms, coins are analogous to perpetual, zero coupon Treasury bonds. The Treasury can issue coins to the public and use the proceeds to finance the budget, just as if it issued bonds.

Monetary Realism writes that if Treasury were to mint and then deposit a $ 1 trillion Platinum Coin at the Federal Reserve, its deposit account at the Fed would be credited with $ 1 trillion in new balances.

One option might be for Treasury to buy back Treasury debt now held by the Fed (assuming appropriate available supply from Fed inventory). That would drop utilization under the current debt ceiling by $ 1 trillion, allowing Treasury to “reload” on new Treasury issuance. This would allow Treasury to execute already authorized spending without the overhang of imminent debt ceiling “negotiations”. One disadvantage of that approach is that it constrains the Fed’s flexibility in using Treasury bond inventories to best advantage in a complex monetary policy environment. Those inventories would suddenly drop.

The other option is for Treasury to conduct already authorized spending from a now flush bank account balance at the Fed. Then, that money would gradually find its way into the deposit liability and reserve accounts of the banking system. The resulting gradual increase in bank reserve account balances is a form of quantitative easing. Instead of buying bonds, the Fed has bought the coin.

Philip Diehl – the former Mint director and Treasury chief of staff wrote the platinum coin law – writes on the Wonkblog that the accounting treatment of the coin is identical to the treatment of all other coins. The Mint strikes the coin, ships it to the Fed, books $1 trillion, and transfers $1 trillion to the Treasury’s general fund where it is available to finance government operations just like with proceeds of bond sales or additional tax revenues. Once the debt limit is raised, the Fed could ship the coin back to the Mint where the accounting treatment would be reversed and the coin melted. The coin would never be “issued” or circulated and bonds would not be needed to back the coin.

#MintTheCoin

Ryan Avent writes that the first oddity is the debt ceiling: it is possible for the government to pass spending and tax bills, which lead to an illegal amount of accumulated debt. Once the tax and spending choices are made, the resulting debt load is a fait accompli, a residual. Yet said elected officials have also seen fit to pass a law declaring that debt must fall below a specific limit. Mike Konczal writes that, technically, we’ve already breached the debt ceiling on December 31st, but Treasury has started extraordinary measures to juggle payments and borrow money.

Paul Krugman writes that Barack Obama will, after all, be faced with a choice between two alternatives: one that’s silly but benign, the other that’s equally silly but both vile and disastrous. The decision should be obvious. So if the 14th amendment solution — simply declaring that the debt ceiling is unconstitutional — isn’t workable, go with the coin.

Ryan Avent writes that the most compelling argument for the solution is that while it seems both risky and bonkers it is less risky and bonkers than a continued series of showdowns over the debt limit, any one of which might send America into recession or worse. Avent further notes that there is a proud history of presidents doing monetarily "crazy" things with generally salutary effects. The best examples are the decisions by Presidents Roosevelt and Nixon to suspend gold payments.

Mark Thoma writes that the key to winning the public battle is to make absolutely sure the public knows that it is only being done because the other side refuses to play fair, refuses to play by the explicit and implicit rules of political engagement. Putting John Boehner’s face on the coin, as Paul Krugman suggested, would certainly be a step in that direction.

#StopTheCoin

Felix Salmon writes that there’s a reason why the proponents of the platinum-coin approach are generally economists, or at least economically-minded. The idea makes gloriously elegant economic sense, and attempts to shoot it down on economic grounds generally fail miserably. You can try a legal tack instead, but that doesn’t work much better: the coin is as logically robust as it is constitutionally stupid. But this move would effectively mark the demise of the three-branch system of government, by allowing the executive branch to simply steamroller the rights and privileges of the legislative branch.

Kevin Drum wonders if this is really the road liberals want to go down. Do they really want to be on record endorsing the idea that if a president doesn’t get his way, he should simply twist the law like a pretzel and essentially do what he wants by fiat?

Ezra Klein writes that the interesting question is whether that would show up, either immediately or over time, in the form of higher borrowing costs. I suspect it would, even if not immediately, but this is the realm of guesswork.

Trading bad ideas

Josh Barro writes that Barack Obama should offer to sign a bill revoking his authority to issue platinum coins – so long as that bill also abolishes the debt ceiling. The executive branch will give up its unwarranted power to print if the legislative branch will give up its unwarranted restriction on borrowing to cover already appropriated obligations.

Mike Konczal writes that, instead of a trillion-dollar coin, what if the president said, "I have a constitutionally obligated responsibility to carry out the spending Congress has authorized. I have no legal authority to prioritize payments, and the process is too risky for us to try. Therefore I will mint a $20 billion coin each day until Congress raises the debt ceiling. That is just enough to make the payments Congress has required me to make." It takes the trillion out of the headline. The focus is back on day-to-day spending rather than higher-level arguments about whether or not the United States government can run out of money. With actual speechwriters, the pitch could make sense to the public.


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint. Anyone is free to republish and/or quote this post without prior consent. Please provide a full reference, clearly stating Bruegel and the relevant author as the source, and include a prominent hyperlink to the original post.

View comments
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Pia Hüttl

Inflation's comeback

What at stake: After years of deflationary pressures and anaemic economic performance, inflation seems to be on the rise again, both in the US and the euro area. Does this comeback mark a return to target? Will it be sustained, and what should central banks be thinking? These are among the questions raised in the blogosphere.

By: Pia Hüttl Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: February 13, 2017
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Silvia Merler

Is Germany a currency manipulator?

What’s at stake: the Financial Times reports that Peter Navarro, head of the US’s National Trade Council, has accused Germany of currency manipulation. He claims that the country uses a 'grossly undervalued' Euro to 'exploit' its trading partners. Angela Merkel replied that the Euro is managed by the European Central Bank, on which Germany does not exert influence. We review what the economic blogosphere thinks of this.

By: Silvia Merler Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: February 6, 2017
Read article More by this author

Blog Post

Silvia Merler

Climate change and financial markets

What’s at stake: Ever since the 2016 Paris Agreement to reduce emissions was signed, researchers have been looking at the impact that moves towards a low-carbon economy might have on financial markets and financial stability. We review these contributions here. 

By: Silvia Merler Topic: Energy & Climate, Finance & Financial Regulation Date: January 30, 2017
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Silvia Merler

Tariffs and the American poor

What’s at stake: much has been said and debated — during the US election and beyond — about the distributional impact of free trade on the disadvantaged. But what would be the distributional impact of a new protectionism instead?

By: Silvia Merler Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: January 23, 2017
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Silvia Merler

The economic effects of migration

What’s at stake: migration is currently a very hot topic in both the US and the EU. Immigration issues have come to the forefront due to the problem of rapidly ageing populations, the refugee crisis, and growing anti-immigration political rhetoric. But what do we know about the economic effects of migration?

By: Silvia Merler Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: January 16, 2017
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Silvia Merler

Compensating the “losers” of globalisation

What’s at stake: According to some, 2016’s political turmoil shows that the so-called “losers” of globalisation are striking back. There is, however, little agreement on how government should respond to this challenge.

By: Silvia Merler Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: January 9, 2017
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Silvia Merler

2016: The end

What’s at stake: 2016 is coming to an end. It will be remembered as an annus mirabilis and horribilis, at the same time. 2016 brought us some previously unthinkable political shocks, and admittedly took away some of our finest musicians. It also couldn’t help taking away Willy Wonka and Princess Leia, making this a much sadder Galaxy. This raises an obvious question: what are we in for, in 2017?

By: Silvia Merler Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: December 31, 2016
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Silvia Merler

The American dream

What’s at stake: historian James Truslow Adams, in his 1931 book The Epic of America, stated that the American dream is "that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement”. Few ideas have ever been as powerful as the “American Dream”, and many recent political events hinge on the fear that this “dream” may be dead. Meanwhile, researchers have been trying to measure the reality behind the dream.

By: Silvia Merler Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: December 19, 2016
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Silvia Merler

The political economy of macroprudential policy

What’s at stake: the emergence of renewed interest in macroprudential policy has characterised the aftermath of the great recession. There is not yet full agreement on what the tasks of macroprudential policy is or how it should be carried out, but there is a clear understanding that there is an important political economy dimension to it. We review some of the recent contribution on this.

By: Silvia Merler Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: December 12, 2016
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Pia Hüttl

Macroeconomics in the crossfire (again)

What’s at stake: After a first go at macroeconomics and its flaws a year ago, Paul Romer kicked off the debate again with a recent essay on how macroeconomics has gone backwards. The way that this debate, along with the debate of the role of economics in general, feeds into today's election woes, has also attracted attention in the blogosphere.

By: Pia Hüttl Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: December 5, 2016
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Silvia Merler

The Italian referendum

What’s at stake: on 4 December, Italy will hold a referendum on a proposed constitutional reform approved by Parliament in April. The reform, which was designed in tandem with a new electoral law, aims to overcome Italy’s “perfect bicameralism” by changing the structure and role of the Italian Senate. It also changes the distribution of competences between the state and regions. After the shocks of Brexit and the US election, polls are now drifting towards a defeat of the government’s position in Italy.

By: Silvia Merler Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: November 28, 2016
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Silvia Merler

Trumpocalypse now: first reactions

What’s at stake: this question should probably be re-formulated as “what’s NOT at stake?” On Tuesday 8 November, the US elected Donald Trump as its next President. Several aspects of Trump’s political and economic agenda appear extreme (we have previously focused on his stance on trade). After the initial shock, we review economists’ opinions on what has happened and what may happen. We will be coming back to this topic regularly.

By: Silvia Merler Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: November 21, 2016
Load more posts