• 2 days PDVSA Booted From Caribbean Terminal Over Unpaid Bills
  • 2 days Russia Warns Ukraine Against Recovering Oil Off The Coast Of Crimea
  • 2 days Syrian Rebels Relinquish Control Of Major Gas Field
  • 2 days Schlumberger Warns Of Moderating Investment In North America
  • 2 days Oil Prices Set For Weekly Loss As Profit Taking Trumps Mideast Tensions
  • 2 days Energy Regulators Look To Guard Grid From Cyberattacks
  • 2 days Mexico Says OPEC Has Not Approached It For Deal Extension
  • 2 days New Video Game Targets Oil Infrastructure
  • 2 days Shell Restarts Bonny Light Exports
  • 3 days Russia’s Rosneft To Take Majority In Kurdish Oil Pipeline
  • 3 days Iraq Struggles To Replace Damaged Kirkuk Equipment As Output Falls
  • 3 days British Utility Companies Brace For Major Reforms
  • 3 days Montenegro A ‘Sweet Spot’ Of Untapped Oil, Gas In The Adriatic
  • 3 days Rosneft CEO: Rising U.S. Shale A Downside Risk To Oil Prices
  • 3 days Brazil Could Invite More Bids For Unsold Pre-Salt Oil Blocks
  • 3 days OPEC/Non-OPEC Seek Consensus On Deal Before Nov Summit
  • 3 days London Stock Exchange Boss Defends Push To Win Aramco IPO
  • 3 days Rosneft Signs $400M Deal With Kurdistan
  • 4 days Kinder Morgan Warns About Trans Mountain Delays
  • 4 days India, China, U.S., Complain Of Venezuelan Crude Oil Quality Issues
  • 4 days Kurdish Kirkuk-Ceyhan Crude Oil Flows Plunge To 225,000 Bpd
  • 4 days Russia, Saudis Team Up To Boost Fracking Tech
  • 4 days Conflicting News Spurs Doubt On Aramco IPO
  • 4 days Exxon Starts Production At New Refinery In Texas
  • 5 days Iraq Asks BP To Redevelop Kirkuk Oil Fields
  • 5 days Oil Prices Rise After U.S. API Reports Strong Crude Inventory Draw
  • 5 days Oil Gains Spur Growth In Canada’s Oil Cities
  • 5 days China To Take 5% Of Rosneft’s Output In New Deal
  • 5 days UAE Oil Giant Seeks Partnership For Possible IPO
  • 5 days Planting Trees Could Cut Emissions As Much As Quitting Oil
  • 5 days VW Fails To Secure Critical Commodity For EVs
  • 5 days Enbridge Pipeline Expansion Finally Approved
  • 5 days Iraqi Forces Seize Control Of North Oil Co Fields In Kirkuk
  • 5 days OPEC Oil Deal Compliance Falls To 86%
  • 6 days U.S. Oil Production To Increase in November As Rig Count Falls
  • 6 days Gazprom Neft Unhappy With OPEC-Russia Production Cut Deal
  • 6 days Disputed Venezuelan Vote Could Lead To More Sanctions, Clashes
  • 6 days EU Urges U.S. Congress To Protect Iran Nuclear Deal
  • 6 days Oil Rig Explosion In Louisiana Leaves 7 Injured, 1 Still Missing
  • 6 days Aramco Says No Plans To Shelve IPO

Why Obama May Mint a Trillion Dollar Platinum Coin

Why Obama May Mint a Trillion Dollar Platinum Coin

Here's one of the wilder suggestions floating around for what the President could do if Congress fails to raise the debt ceiling.

To explain the idea, let me begin with some basics on how the banking system functions. If some day you were to bring that jar of coins sitting on your dresser to deposit them in your bank account, the bank would credit your account with the amount of the deposit, and you could then use those funds to write checks.

Similarly, your bank may have an account with the Federal Reserve. If your bank brought some currency or coins in to deposit them with the Fed, the Fed would credit their account by that amount. These deposits with the Fed are known as reserves. A bank can use its reserves to pay for anything it wanted, for example, by instructing the Fed to transfer those reserves to some other bank in payment for an asset that the bank purchased.

The U.S. Treasury also has an account with the Fed. When you write a check to the IRS, your bank's account with the Fed is debited and the Treasury's account is credited. The Treasury can use those funds to buy anything it wants, by instructing the Fed to transfer those reserves back to some bank to whose customer the Treasury wishes to make a payment.

Although Congress has prescribed limits on the Treasury's ability to print currency or mint coins of copper, nickel, silver, or gold, the law specifically says (hat tip: Brad Plumer) that there are no restrictions on what kind of platinum coins might be issued:

The Secretary [of the Treasury] 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.

1 Trillion Platinum Coin
Artist's conception: this is not a real coin! Image created by Econbrowser.com.

This provision was intended to allow the Treasury to create special platinum coins for collectors, and American Platinum Eagle coins have been issued in denominations up to $100. So what if Secretary Geithner's discretion led him to mint a couple of trillion dollar American Platinum Eagles?

What would the Treasury do with a trillion dollar coin, you ask? Why, deposit it in their account with the Fed, of course. The Fed would then credit the Treasury's account with 1 trillion dollars. The Treasury could in turn then order the Fed to transfer those reserves to the accounts of any banks to whom the Treasury owes money. The result is that the Treasury's bills are all paid with money that would be newly created by the Fed.

Brad Plumer asked Joe Gagnon, an economist whom I respect, what he thought of the plan:

"I like it," says Joseph Gagnon of the Peterson Institute for International Economics. "There's nothing that's obviously economically problematic about it."

I think Joe says that in part because he finds (as do I) political posturing over the debt ceiling so ridiculous. Once Congress has specified a level of spending and a level of taxes, the amount the Treasury needs to borrow is completely determined by those two decisions. To pretend that there is some separate, third decision of whether to borrow money is simply political theater aimed at the most gullible of voters. Another reason for Joe's endorsement of the plan may be that he favors substantially more expansionary monetary policy, which direct monetization of a few trillion dollars worth of federal spending unquestionably would be.

But even if you grant those two arguments, there is nonetheless something very troubling from an institutional perspective about the proposal. It basically amounts to the assertion that the Treasury Secretary has the unilateral power at any time to monetize completely the entire U.S. debt. The Treasury could issue a dozen or so of these coins and then pay off the Treasury's debtors at maturity just by writing a check written on its resulting ginormous account with the Fed. The creation of this power is I suspect something that Joe and every other sensible economist would view with abhorrence.

The plan requires the Fed and courts to play along. The Fed would need to agree to credit the Treasury's account for the deposit of the coins. I doubt the Fed would voluntarily hand over complete control of the nation's money supply to the Treasury in this manner. And the courts would be asked to confirm that legislation originally intended to satisfy a small group of numismatists in fact ceded authority to the President to monetize the entire outstanding debt of the U.S. government.

It's a cute idea to address a valid current concern, perhaps. But there has to be a better way to solve this.

By. James Hamilton

Source: http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2012/12/trillion_dollar.html

Back to homepage

Leave a comment
  • Adam on December 13 2012 said:
    “The plan requires the Fed and courts to play along.”
    Actually both of these have been dealt with. Legally, it does not appear as if anyone would have legal standing in any court to sue the Treasury over such action. It does not prevent the FED from managing the money supply. The FED still retains the power to buy and sell existing Treasuries as well as tying up excess reserves within the banking system by paying interest on reserves.
  • John Wilkins on December 15 2012 said:
    This idea has been around a couple of years. I believe it first originated with economist Joe Firestone who has an interesting blog expanding on this concept:

    My only quibble with the piece above is where it says "If your bank brought some currency or coins in to deposit them with the Fed, the Fed would credit their account by that amount." That never happens. The coins and currency stay in the banks vault. The only physical transactions between the Treasury/Federal reserves is when a bank orders currency and coins. The Treasury delivers them and the bank pays for them with reserves - which is to say electronic "points". Even when the government spends - let's say they write me a $1000 check. I take the check to my bank. The bank marks up my bank account by $1000 with their electronic "points" and the Fed adds reserves in the same amount (in electronic "points") to the banks reserve account and deducts $1000 (in electronic points) from the Treasuries reserve account at the Fed. Likewise, when I pay taxes, my bank deducts the amount (in electronic "points") from my account, the Fed deducts the same amount of reserves (in electronic "points") from the banks reserve account, and the Fed adds a like amount in electronic "points" to the Treasury's reserve account at the Fed. If I cash a check at my bank, the cash comes out of the vault, which also reduces their reserves by the same amount. There is more than half our GDP cleared in electronic "points" every two weeks which completely dwarfs the amount of physical money transactions. When the government spends $100 billion it does it like this 1,000,000,000 which is ten computer strokes plus three strokes for commas and one that says "ENTER."

Leave a comment

Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News