The mind of a Liberal

cashmcall

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2012
Messages
1,594
Moral Obligation Coupons
Paul Krugman

Don’t like the platinum coin option? Here’s a functionally equivalent alternative: have the Treasury sell pieces of paper labeled “moral obligation coupons”, which declare the intention of the government to redeem these coupons at face value in one year.
It should be clearly stated on the coupons that the government has no, repeat no, legal obligation to pay anything at all; you see, they’re not debt, and therefore don’t count against the debt limit. But that shouldn’t keep them from having substantial market value. Consider, for example, the fact that the government has no legal responsibility for guaranteeing the debt of Fannie and Freddie; nonetheless, it is widely believed that there is an implicit guarantee (because there is!), and this is very much reflected in the price of that debt.
So the government should have no trouble raising a lot of money by selling MOCs. It’s true that if they’re sold on the open market, they would probably sell at a substantial discount from face value, so this would in effect be high-interest-rate financing. But that’s better than either default or giving in to blackmail.
And maybe the coupons wouldn’t have to be sold on the open market; why not just have the Fed buy them? Bear in mind that the Fed doesn’t always buy safe assets; it’s buying a lot of mortgage-backed securities (from Fannie and Freddie; see above), and during the worst of the financial crisis it bought lots of commercial paper. So why not slightly speculative pieces of paper sold by the Treasury?
Again, while this may all seem kind of dodgy, it’s important to realize that unless the president does something like this he will be forced to do something illegal: namely, fail to spend money that, by act of Congress, he is legally obliged to spend. Fancy footwork is by far a better alternative; and if it enrages Mitch McConnell, well, that’s just an extra bonus.
 
Werbung:
What I want to know is...Has he consulted a psychiatrist yet? I ask this because only an idiot or somebody with severe mental health issues would think anybody would give money for a “moral obligation coupon” for which the buyer has no legal recourse for redeeming if the government decides not to honor, and we know that Mr. Krugman can’t be an idiot because the Nobel Prize committee said so, (and Enron would never have hired an idiot to be an advisor.)These people are nuts...
 
liberal_brain.gif
 
What I want to know is...Has he consulted a psychiatrist yet? I ask this because only an idiot or somebody with severe mental health issues would think anybody would give money for a “moral obligation coupon” for which the buyer has no legal recourse for redeeming if the government decides not to honor, and we know that Mr. Krugman can’t be an idiot because the Nobel Prize committee said so, (and Enron would never have hired an idiot to be an advisor.)These people are nuts...
That kind of sarcasm is unlike him but you should understand Paul is being sarcastic!! Don't take it seriously. This paragraph from the his article is missing from your post:

Paul Krugman said:
If there is a legal problem even with selling these coupons, there are still alternatives, such as paying suppliers with these coupons and then having the Fed buy them. The mechanics really don’t matter; as long as we’re in a liquidity trap, printing money, printing conventional debt securities, or printing funny money with no legal standing that nonetheless lets the government pay its bills are all equivalent.
It shows that Paul is talking about funny money and taking it to extremes. He is blaming the Obama administration!
 
That kind of sarcasm is unlike him but you should understand Paul is being sarcastic!! Don't take it seriously. This paragraph from the his article is missing from your post:


It shows that Paul is talking about funny money and taking it to extremes. He is blaming the Obama administration!

No, I saw that part..To date, most of the idiots hopping on this particular bandwagon have been low-level blogger types. Now they have Paul Krugman talking about it.. which could drum up some support...

Now if the President were to take up the idiotic suggestion gaining traction online to skirt the Congressional debt-ceiling debate by having the Treasury mint a $1 trillion coin, What American (if an American) would be memorialized as the richest Face on earth?
 
Werbung:
That kind of sarcasm is unlike him but you should understand Paul is being sarcastic!! Don't take it seriously. This paragraph from the his article is missing from your post:


It shows that Paul is talking about funny money and taking it to extremes. He is blaming the Obama administration![/quote
It doesn't even matter if $1 trillion in funny money isn't inflationary (as Krugman weirdly claims). What matters is that there's no upper limit; under Krugman's theory the SecTreas could print a $1 septillion coin if he wanted to. Nobody is going to invest a substantial sum in debt when the value of that debt is literally dependent on the whim of a single political appointee.
 
Back
Top