Jump to content

Talk:Trillion-dollar coin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Legislative history

[edit]

Per [1]: "1996— Subsec. (k). Pub. L. 104–208, §101(f) [title V, §524], added subsec. (k)." "2000—Subsec. (k). Pub. L. 106–445 substituted “platinum bullion coins” for “bullion”." --Milowent • hasspoken 17:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History of concept

[edit]
  • This December 2012 Daily Kos post details the history of the concept in great detail among blogs and early commenters [2], though I would not directly link it in article, it can be a good research source. There are some articles being published by non-lawyers questioning whether the concept is legal (i don't know) or feasible, without much apparent research.--Milowent • hasspoken 19:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Daily Kos is an extremely partisan source. I would strongly recommend against using it, as sources as partisan in nature as Kos ... well, are detrimental to the authority & credibility of wikipedia in general. --Kyanwan (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not only did Milowent not advocate using Daily Kos as a reference, he advocated against using it directly as a reference. Victor Victoria (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Kos is not The Daily Mail. It's as reliable as source as Jacobin (whereas Fox News has issues which have been much discussed). kencf0618 (talk) 21:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For a detailed history of the concept see here: http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2012/12/origin-and-early-history-of-platinum-coin-seigniorage-in-the-blogosphere.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.107.224.68 (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot tell what this article is about

[edit]

The word "trillion" is not in any of the legal excerpts. The article does not make clear what platinum or trillion has to do with anything. It is not clear from the article what the "loophole" is. Thank you. Fotoguzzi (talk) 03:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the sentiment. Nothing in the article explains what the debt ceiling crises were, or the mechanics of how the minting of the coin would solve the problem. DouglasHeld (talk) 12:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nor does should it, except in passing. The larger context of (currently) the 2013 United States debt-ceiling crisis is only the latest event in which the fabled $1T coin has been bruited as a solution. kencf0618 (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Single or multiple?

[edit]

The article seems to be about the coining of multiple trillion dollar coins, while most news media (examples: [3][4][5]) seem to refer to the coining of a single trillion dollar coin. Which is correct?--Auric talk 02:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neither, really. The terminology is sort of loose, since the use of a "trillion" denomination is arbitrary. Interesting there is some commentary about multiple lower denomination coins (20 billion or something) would be more palatable, though not sure its worth adding to the article yet.--Milowent • hasspoken 20:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You say "neither", I say "either". Since this is just a concept, as no actual coin exists, we should use the most prevalent term found in WP:RS. Should a coin actually come to existence, then it would have an official name, and that's how the article should be named. Victor Victoria (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Too funny of a joke

[edit]

I wish there was a way we could insert this joke into the article. Victor Victoria (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Enumerated Power

[edit]

There's no mention in the article about the Congress having the authority to do that under Enumerated powers. Has there been any mention of the "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures" clause in the media articles relating to this? WhiteDragon (talk) 15:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Its probably been mentioned, but only in the context of the very limited constraints put on the Treasury by Congress for platinum coins under the statute.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the mint can make a $1 coin and the Federal Reserve has to pay face value for it (even though it is not actually worth $1 in metal) They can do the same thing with a trillion dollar coin. It is in fact constitutional, if it were not, the $1 coins would not be worth $1. Coins are Debt Free money, Federal Reserve paper is Debt Money. 20:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.125.183 (talk)

Size and weight

[edit]

How much platinum would be needed to produce a bullion coin worth $1 trillion? Is there that much platinum in the world's stockpiles? User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is not enough platinum in the world to mint a coin with a metal value of $1 trillion; of course the coin's value is based on fiat, as with most U.S. coins. The platinum value could be insignificant.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what the volume would come out to, but 19.4 million kg would be enormous. Looking at the density of platinum, I think it comes out to about 416,990 cm3, if I calculated that correctly, but I could be way off. If I'm right, that's over 14.7 cubic feet. I'll defer to others who are better at figuring these things out, though. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 22:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The diameter is roughly the size of a school bus. If and when we have a valid citation for this aspect of this silliness, in it goes! kencf0618 (talk) 21:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This might be interesting to readers but it is ultimately trivia because with this particular idea it's all about the Seigniorage. That's why Krugman said yesterday that "Keynes’s description of the gold standard as a 'barbarous relic'... applies perfectly to this discussion." If the coin has to be exchangeable with or itself made out of a physical thing worth a trillion, the government would have to borrow another trillion to buy that physical thing, and if the government could do that it wouldn't need the coin in the first place.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This "Trillion Dollar Coin" monetary policy could be used alongside QE to allow the government to clear the balance sheet of the central bank. However, it does seem to go against the grain of other rules. For example it is against the law for a government to directly finance government spend by printing money. So instead the Fed prints money and buys government debt from the open market. The rule that coins must be made of platinum seems to infer that the value of the coin should be contained in the value of the platinum. Platinum is currently priced at about $55,000/kg. So a coin weighing about 18,000 metric tonnes would need to be minted. This would be a volume of 856 cubic metres or a platinum coin with dimensions 2m height and 23m diameter. This would be impossible as it would take 120 years of current world platinum production to produce just one coin. This is not really just trivia as the ruling about platinum coins was drawn up when the gold standard was still in operation and really goes along-side the gold standard.--Caparn (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

For the record, I did not insert the link to the Simpson's episode into the article. When I first moved the link into its own section (it was originally listed in the "See also" section), I specifically wrote that it would be fairly easy to challenge the connection between the Simpson's episode and the concept of the trillion dollar coin. The section was then removed because it of misleading implications the concept was in popular culture. I therefore relabeled the section as "similar concepts in popular culture", but that got deleted too.

I'm afraid I don't have any more tricks up my sleeves to try to save this, and that's unfortunate because the two are connected in the sense that they both use a ridiculously high denomination for money. Of course, the trillion dollar bill in the Simpson's episode was not about trying to go around the debt ceiling limit, and that's where the two concepts diverge. Victor Victoria (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dave Weigel also linked the episode to the coin[7], so its part of the discussion in some sense, now. At least its been referenced in legitimate news sources; the "see also" list should be not be an OR list of things editors want to say are related.--Milowent • hasspoken 21:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's all that's needed. I added it to the article. Victor Victoria (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Trillion $ Coin is DEBT FREE money, with no INTEREST!

[edit]

To understand what I'm talking you must understand that there is a difference between coins and cash for the Federal Reserve. Go to the Federal Reserve Website, here is a direct link http://www.federalreserve.gov/paymentsystems/coin_about.htm [8]

At the bottom of the page it says "The Federal Reserve buys coin from the Mint at face value" this is very different then how they create cash with interest. So instead of us borrowing money at interest from the Federal Reserve and having to pay it back at interest, the United States Government can create $16 trillion dollar coins completely wiping out the debt as well as the trillions in INTEREST that we owe! Can you understand what getting rid of Trillions in INTEREST ON DEBT would do for the USA!

One other key issue is that the Federal Reserve has NOT printed Trillions like they claim, there is only about $1.2 trillion in physical cash according to the Federal Reserves own numbers. http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/WCURCIR [9] and much of this is overseas. The banks have lent out trillions but they do not have the cash to back it up. If everyone withdrew cash from their bank accounts at the same time they would quickly run out of cash.

In short, the Trillion $ coins could eliminate the National Debt, and the Federal Reserve is forced to give the US Mint/Government the FACE VALUE of the coins!

Wall Street Journal as source of facts?

[edit]

Okay, Wall Street Journal says it's not gonna happen. Does this actually mean it's not gonna happen? As far as I know, WSJ is a mouthpiece of right-wing billionaires. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.249.184.151 (talk) 12:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

05:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Greetings, this talk page is for discussion of issues with the article, its not a forum. The concept is not one to eliminate the U.S. national debt by printing money, as that would be highly inflationary.--Milowent • hasspoken 05:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to Milowent the DEBT FREE MONEY point is a critical issue regarding the trillion dollar coin and must be discussed as its value is created by the US government and not the Federal Reserve. In short the Federal Reserve must give/pay Face Value for this coin created by the US Government. Eliminating debt & interest could be considered deflationary. Even if only 1 coin is made it would eliminate $1 trillion dollars worth of debt because IT IS NOT DEBT 20:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.125.183 (talk)

It depends on whether this is in their news section or on the editorial page. Generally their news section is quite good, neutral and would qualify as RS under Wikipedia policy. The same thing is not true of their editorial page.Volunteer Marek 21:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does not. Op-eds are reliable sources as per Wikipedia policy. kencf0618 (talk) 21:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OR in inflation risk section?

[edit]

Can someone explain to me the OR tags in the Inflation Risks section? Is the contention that someone is engaging in synth and drawing original conclusions from given sources (which is sort of hard to do with quotes, but I guess possible if they're taken out of context)? Or is someone simply just confused about what "original research" means in Wikipedia? We do not permit editors to engage in original research but of course we rely on sources which carry out original research. Volunteer Marek 21:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources cited in the article need to discuss the topic of the article. The sources Quantitative Easing Explained, "The fear of printing too much money", and "Fed Debated QE End in 2013 Amid Concern Over Total Assets" do not mention the trillion dollar coin, and thus using those sources in this article constitutes original research. — goethean 22:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, makes sense, though the proper tag in that case is [improper synthesis?].Volunteer Marek 22:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't make sense, because the Economist source which is cited (and there are other sources available) explicitly draws the connection saying "In economic terms the Fed's purchase would resemble 'quantitative easing' (QE)." If there wasn't a citation for the connection between the coin and QE, there would be SYNTH, but that isn't the case here. If a biography says that a subject is a Rockefeller Republican [citation #1] which refers to a faction of the United States Republican Party who hold moderate to liberal views similar to those of Nelson Rockefeller [citation #2], is that SYNTH unless citation #2 "mentions" the subject of the biography? No, because the connection is between the article subject and Rockefeller Republicanism, and that's cited, while an explanation of Rockefeller Republicanism does not draw a connection between the article subject and a third thing, it simply explains what Rockefeller Republicanism is. There are, unfortunately, some Wikipedians who seem to want to reduce Wikipedia to a collection of copyright violations, since going beyond that necessarily constitutes adding something that isn't explicitly "mentioned" in the sources. Before declaring that something is original research, ask yourself if an academic journal would consider it novel or would refuse to publish it on the grounds that it's an unoriginal statement of common knowledge. Just because an understanding of quantitative easing isn't common knowledge for the man in the street, that doesn't mean it's in any way original to economists. The only thing original here, besides Goethean's interpretation of what's original resarch, is equating the economics of the coin with quantitative easing, which is explicitly cited here. If there's original research here, you should be able to point out the uncited and dubious inference. If there is original research there was to be a A + B therefore C. Here, the "therefore C" which combines the A of the coin and the B of quantitative easing, is explicitly cited, and happens to be A = B. Going on to describe B is not involve any inferences; the inference has already been drawn.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm simply taking the Original Research policy at its word:
To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.
— goethean 01:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is the trillion dollar coin explicitly mentioned in the Economist article? if so, I think Brian has a pretty good case here that this isn't OR or SYNTH.Volunteer Marek 01:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't just explicitly mentioned, it's explicitly equated to QE in terms of its economic effect. The audience for this, however, is not mass market. Hence the elaboration of QE via a Fed source that is described as "An informative and accessible economic essay with a classroom application." Using the more "accessible" source to elaborate on the concept is the sort of "value added" that Wikipedia is expected to provide. The OR policy shouldn't be interpreted as demanding robotic development of an article but as requiring editors to not use the encyclopedia as a vehicle to advance their pet theory. The editor claiming OR claimed that "all sources must refer to topic of the article" which is not equivalent to what is quoted above. Note what immediately precedes that quote from the policy "...serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." What is that position? The fact is that the connection between QE and the coin is explicitly drawn by a reliable source here (and there are others available, if one wishes to challenge that particular source). If we take that quote from the policy and apply it unreasonably, then it is impossible to say that the sun is larger than the moon by citing a source that says the moon is of size N and a source that says the sun's size is many times N because the sources don't "directly" say that the sun is larger than the moon. There is nothing original, of course, about contending that the sun is larger than the moon, and there is similarly nothing original being claimed here. If there were, it should be possible to point out just what that original idea is. To look once more at the facts here, the first source says "In economic terms the Fed's purchase would resemble 'quantitative easing' (QE)" and the second source is titled "Quantitative Easing Explained." In my view, this sort of juxtaposition is exactly what Wikipedia needs more of!--Brian Dell (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The trillion dollar coin carried no inflation risk at this time, according to economists and finance experts that reviewed it. There was some initial idle and contrary speculation in the summer of 2011, but it dissipated when analyzed. This analysis was in done of the context of comparing it to QE and finding little inflation risk. So there is definitely misguided OR in the article currently. When I first wrote that section the sourcing supported the low inflation risk, now its meandering based on speculation.--Milowent • hasspoken 06:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, the current version says pretty much what you say ("coin carried no inflation risk"). So I'm still not seeing the OR.Volunteer Marek 07:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes to Inflation risks section

[edit]

DaRkJaWs has recently re-written this section, replacing several reliable sources with a link to a blog. DaRkJaWs argues it is a reliable source, but I am dubious. The new paragraph is less encyclopedic in its tone, and there also seems to be a conflict of interest (as admitted on my talk page). There also seem to be ownership issues. Any thoughts? IronGargoyle (talk) 21:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IronGargoyle, why don't you do a search for "trillion dollar coin" along with "joe Firestone" and you'll find at least 20 articles written on it. There is not a single person on this planet who has written more on the platinum coin than him. If you want more evidence of the inflationary effects, I can find more links that explains the process.
You really don't have a good reason to be "dubious" of its reliability. There's something called humility and it would be nice if you exhibited it when it comes to this discussion. Of course the article is less encyclopedic, it's a blog post and other than in the blogs there has been no extencded discussion of this in any academic paper (there are references to it but no big discussion talking just about the coin). Calling it a conflict of interest is nonsense to the nth degree...you don't go to a medical student to tell you all about economics. In this case the inflation content that you're defending to maintain is completely wrong and doesn't even talk about the inflationary effects of the COIN per say, it talks about QE, saying it's the same thing as that, WHICH IS COMPLETELY WRONG (EDIT: let me rephrase that. It's appropriate to say that the inflationary effects of the coin are the same as QE, but to explain the mechanics of the coin in the same way QE is explained is why that section had to be completely scrubbed. They are two completely different things). I'm ABD PHD student and it would be nice if you gave me the respect on this subject and leave it at that. If you want more sources, then you should have asked for that instead of reverting the content. You should be the one cited for inappropriate conduct here, not me.
There are no ownership issues. Beowulf found out about the coin but Joe Firestone was the one that has pushed it ever since then, but Beowulf was in our "community", so to speak. We don't ask for any credit, and Beowulf deserves the credit he's getting for finding out about it. DaRkJaWs (talk) 22:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Joe Firestone's blog seems to have a pretty distinct partisan slant (nor is it reviewed by any editors, editorial board, etc.). I would be much more comfortable with references from The Economist and a Federal Reserve Bank (which you have removed) than what you have sourced the paragraph to (the blog). If you have a better source however (which you seem to claim when you unhelpfully say I "should have asked for [them]"), please provide them by all means. I would like to assume good faith that you (almost) have some advanced degree (and maybe you shouldn't assume that I don't), but throwing around advanced degrees is not how Wikipedia works. It works on the use of verifiable and reliable sources while maintaining a neutral point of view. I don't think that blog serves any of those goals. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I'm ABD PHD student and it would be nice if you gave me the respect on this subject and leave it at that."
You know, DaRkJaWs, so am I but I do not expect special treatment because of this. I think you should exhibit some of the humility you advise others have. Arrogance won't win you support from other Editors and on Wikipedia, decisions are made by consensus not by who has the most initials behind their name. You have to persuade people of your argument, not attack and belittle those who disagree with you.
Your expertise is welcome here but leave the attitude at home when you are editing Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 12:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What we call science in the Social sciences, as opposed to the physical sciences, is never absolute. So anyone who writes about economics, philosophy, or talks politics in general, has a slant. You really don't want to start discussing "neutrality" with someone who has read and is a scholar in the Philosophy of Science as well as economics. Your argument against Firestone should concern whether he is an expert on this, whether his posts have appeared on anything more than his own blog, and what other "experts" have said and IF they have written extensively on this topic. I'm afraid you won't find any other experts, Joe and other Modern monetary theorists ARE the experts. The Federal Reserve bank has nothing to do with the coin. Again, as I told you before, what I deleted was talking about QE, not the coin. I deleted the entire thing because IT WASN'T EVEN TALKING ABOUT THE COIN (read it again and again and as many times as you have to so you can understand this critical point). The Economist is not an academic source, your comfort level with it is a bit perplexing and annoying to me personally. Why trust The Economist, who is not an authoritative source on the coin, over a PhD holder in Joe Firestone, who has had his posts on both Naked Capitalism and on New Economic Perspectives (the blog post of UMKC's economics department), and who to economists like myself IS the main source for articles about the coin? That makes no sense. You're trusting authority here instead of the facts. I agree that academic articles, books, and papers take precedence over blog posts or even institutions, but nothing has been written on it in academia. Now, if you or someone else finds information that debunks what I said from a source that has written more than once on the Coin, I am more than happy to discuss it and to accept changes to what was written. Otherwise, it should stay as it is.
So I'll lay out very succinctly why I deleted everything that was written before: QE is about monetary policy. The Coin has nothing to do with monetary policy. The post in question said the effects of the coin are the same as QE (which is actually true) but then went about discussing the mechanics of QE instead of the mechanics of the coin. I explained the mechanics very briefly in my own post, which is what you need if you want to talk about the effects of something. This you should find undeniable. DaRkJaWs (talk) 00:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wall Street Journal Source Behind Paywall

[edit]

The only source cited for the Fed and Treasury deciding not to mint the coin is an article behind a paywall. Can we get a better source than this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.10.48.203 (talk) 13:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not needful. Paywalls are moot. Check Wikipedia policy on reliable sources. Just because walled gardens exist doesn't mean we can't use them, savvy? kencf0618 (talk) 21:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Loans create deposits and deflationary

[edit]

The article is factually wrong about the banking system.. Bank loans create deposits and banks borrow from each other in the interbank market (banks with excess reserves lend to those without) or from the Fed at the penalty rate AFTER. Banks will not turn away creditworthy customers because they don't have enough deposits! The constraint is on capital. Paying off the nat debt will be deflationary as less interest income goes to bondholders. Ultimately the Treasury's balance at the Fed does not really matter. The US govt is the issuer of the currency and does not need to "save" in its own money as it can print as much as it likes. The whole reason we have this ridiculous "deficit" debate is there is a silly rule saying the treasury can't have an overdraft at the Fed. 90.217.167.67 (talk) 21:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Name vs Username

[edit]

Carlos Mucha is referred to extensively in the article by the username 'beowulf' rather than his given name. Is there an existing MoS reference I can check on this? It seems... unencyclopedic. PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is the MoS reference you’re looking for, “For people who are best known by a pseudonym, the legal name should usually appear first in the article, followed closely by the pseudonym.”. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography

For what it’s worth, Mr. Mucha prefers using his own name professionally and personally and is currently on his couch watching an episode of All Creatures Great and Small with his wife. :o)

I wasn’t aware this wiki page existed—- I just now followed a Twitter link— but if anyone has any questions they can tweet or DM me at @mucha_carlos — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C8:C002:84E0:70DE:76D3:92AB:CB46 (talk) 02:00, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Premium bonds

[edit]

The link to "Premium Bonds" goes to a page to a UK investment which just happens to have the same name as the "Premium Bond" concept that's been floated to deal with the US debt ceiling. It's actually a very different concept. Not sure what the best fix is - add a note to the "Premium Bonds" page that the name is used for two unrelated things? Change the link on the "trillion dollar coin" page to give more details about the US version of "Premium Bonds" (but that might be off-topic)? Just make the phrase not a link? (But then it would be tempting for someone to add it back.) 108.175.234.186 (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trillion-dollar_coin&oldid=1210759637"