Ezra Klein Chooses Fear Mongering the Big Coin, I Choose Ending Austerity!

By Joe Firestone
(H/t to Lambert Strether for the title!)

Here’s a commentary on Ezra Klein’s recent diatribe against Platinum Coin Seigniorage (PCS).

But there’s nothing benign about the platinum coin. It is a breakdown in the American system of governance, a symbol that we have become a banana republic. And perhaps we have. But the platinum coin is not the first cousin of cleanly raising the debt ceiling. It is the first cousin of defaulting on our debts. As with true default, it proves to the financial markets that we can no longer be trusted to manage our economic affairs predictably and rationally. It’s evidence that American politics has transitioned from dysfunctional to broken and that all manner of once-ludicrous outcomes have muscled their way into the realm of possibility. As with default, it will mean our borrowing costs rise and financial markets gradually lose trust in our system, though perhaps not with the disruptive panic that default would bring.

Name calling, labeling, and fear mongering aside, does Ezra understand the first thing about PCS? Does he know that if a $60 T coin were minted, and the Treasury General Account (TGA) filled with $60 T in electronic credits, the US would be able to just say goodbye to the international markets? If we were paying off the national debt as it fell due, we would not only not be defaulting, but would be paying all our creditors on time and in full, and without benefit of further debt instrument issuance. Nor would we care whether the markets trusted us or not; since we would not be borrowing money from them for the foreseeable future. So, how could our borrowing costs rise?

And, as far as predictability is concerned, what would then be predictable is that we would be paying all our obligations to everyone whether Wall Streeters, denizens of the global markets, pensioners, Medicare, and Medicaid recipients, and everyone else we have obligations too without anyone getting the short end of the stick. Now, I’d like to see that kind of predictability from this Government, without any drama, histrionics, deficit terrorism, or whining about how our moral character is too weak to endure the Washington Post’s favorite meme, “shared sacrifice.”

The argument against minting the platinum coin is simply this: It makes it harder to solve the actual problem facing our country. That problem is not the debt ceiling, per se, though it manifests itself most dangerously through the debt ceiling. It’s a Republican Party that has grown extreme enough to persuade itself that stratagems like threatening default are reasonable. It’s that our two-party political system breaks down when one of the two parties comes unmoored. Minting the coin doesn’t so much solve that problem as surrender to it.

Well, Ezra, that’s your notion of the worst problem we face. My notion of a problem is that our national debt is hopelessly misconstrued by people, and that its existence is being used by radical “free market” extremists who want to sharply cut the social safety net, and who also want to block the passage of other Government programs that would benefit most Americans. So, I want to get rid of “the national debt” as a political issue. The best way to do that is to get rid of that national debt. That can be done by using PCS, and in a way that will not drive the economy into depression, or working people into even deeper poverty.

The platinum coin is an attempt to delay a reckoning that we unfortunately need to have. It takes a debate that will properly focus on the GOP’s reckless threat to force the United States into default and refocuses it on a seemingly absurd power grab by the executive branch. It is of no solace that many of the intuitive arguments against the platinum coin can be calmly rebutted. It’s the wrong debate to be having.

Only your version of the platinum coin. You clearly have in mind the Trillion Dollar Coin (TDC) PCS option. I agree that it would only delay a reckoning, and that a debate over its legality is not the debate to have. But a $60 T coin, would eliminate the debt ceiling as a factor, make the debate about getting rid of austerity irrelevant, and also make it impossible to use any of following to oppose progressive legislation:

— “The Government is running out of money.” (Not with a $60 T coin in the bank.

— “The Government can only raise money to spend by taxing and borrowing” (Not with PCS)

— “We can’t keep adding debt to our national credit card.” (We won’t be using any of the money on the credit card.)

— “We need to cut Government spending and make do with no more money.” (Only if more spending would definitely cause inflation.)

— “if the Government borrows more money, then the bond markets will raise our interest rates.” (The Government won’t be borrowing anymore.)

— “If we continue to issue more debt, our main creditors: the Chinese, the Japanese, and our oil suppliers, may cease to buy our debt, making it impossible for us to raise money through borrowing which, in turn, would force us into radical austerity, or perhaps even into insolvency, which would then be followed by radical austerity and repudiation of our national obligations.” (Again, the Government won’t be borrowing anymore, so who cares if they no longer want to buy our debt)

— “Our grandchildren must have the burden of repaying our national debt.” (There won’t be any debt or any burden.)

— “Now, the final step – a critical step – in winning the future is to make sure we aren’t buried under a mountain of debt.” (Again, no debt; either mountain or molehill.)

— “Our government spends more than it takes in. That is not sustainable. Every day, families sacrifice to live within their means. They deserve a government that does the same.”  (But it is sustainable. If we use PCS, then we can have gaps between taxes and spending every year.)

— “We need to cut entitlements like Social Security and Medicare, because we are running out of money and they are not fiscally sustainable.” (But they are with PCS, because we won’t be running out of money!)

— “If we make the hard choices now to rein in our deficits, we can make the investments we need to win the future.” (Given PCS, what we do now about deficits has nothing to do with our capability to make the investments we will need)

— “We need to reduce our deficits to be fiscally sustainable.” (Deficits have nothing to do with fiscal sustainability in the sense of continued capability to spend, which will be very plain to people if $60 Trillion is sitting in the TGA.)

— “We face a crushing burden of debt. The debt will soon eclipse our entire economy, and grow to catastrophic levels in the years ahead.“ (Can’t say that if most of the debt is about to be paid off.)

— “Our debt is out of control. What was a fiscal challenge is now a fiscal crisis. We cannot deny it; instead we must, as Americans, confront it responsibly.” (PCS can confront it responsibly, but the bipartisan horror just enacted can’t.)

— “We believe the days of business as usual must come to an end. We hold to a couple of simple convictions: Endless borrowing is not a strategy; spending cuts have to come first.” (Right! So let’s stop borrowing and use PCS.)

— “Everyone knows that the U.S. budget is being devoured by entitlements. Everyone also knows that of the Big Three – Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security – Social Security is the most solvable. . . . “  (The budget can be  as big as we need it to be with PCS.)

— “The Social Security Trust fund is a fiction, a mere bookkeeping device.. . . There is no free lunch. There is nothing in the lockbox.” (There will be if we pay back the trust fund through PPCS.)

— “There is a deficit/debt reduction problem for the Federal Government that is not self-imposed.” (What’s the problem? We can’t run out of money with PCS!)

— “The Federal Government is like a household and that since households sacrifice to live within their means, Government ought to do that too.” (What nonsense! As PPCS shows very well; the Government is not like a household. Households can’t create unlimited funds through PCS; but the Federal Government can.)

— “The only way to tackle our deficit is to cut excessive spending wherever we find it.” (It’s always good to cut spending that’s not in the public interest. But if spending is having good results, and we’re using PCS, then there’s no reason to cut it, whether taxes cover the spending or not.)

— “We should also find a bipartisan solution to strengthen Social Security for future generations.” (With PCS, we can easily strengthen SS by extending benefits, and we don’t need to do it through a bipartisan Rube Goldberg contraption.

— “The United States is in danger of becoming the next Greece or Ireland.” (Even without PCS it can’t become Greece or Ireland, only the next Japan. But with PCS it can become the United States again.)

— “Fiscal Responsibility means stabilizing and then reducing the debt-to-GDP ratio and achieving a Federal Government surplus” (With PCS, the debt-to-GDP ratio will be stabilized and reduced, but no “surplus,” in the sense of more tax revenue than spending, will ever be necessary for revenue purposes.)

Ezra goes on to say that using the Platinum Coin will trigger a debate within the Republican Party, that will strengthen its worst factions, because its extremists will be able to argue against:

. . . a wild, unprecedented, inflationary power grab by an overreaching president. Making matters more difficult, it will become impossible for more cautious Republicans to break ranks. It’s one thing to argue, as many are already doing, that inducing default risks destroying the Republican Party for a generation. It’s another to abet such a blatantly unconstitutional, dangerous move from the executive branch.

Well, it’s not blatantly unconstitutional at all Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe thinks it’s legal. Yale Law Professor Jack Balkin thinks it’s legal. The lawyer who came up with the idea, beowulf (Carlos Mucha), thinks it’s legal. Philip Diehl, former Director of the US Mint thinks it’s legal. And, I, a Ph.D. political scientist with some background in Constitutional Law, also think it’s legal.

Even Ezra says it’s legal earlier in this very column. So, who are the Republicans to label it “blatantly unconstitutional”? What evidence would they have that it’s “blatantly illegal? If the President uses it he will have legal opinions supporting its legality. In addition, the plain language of the law says it’s legal. Arguments that it’s not are more complex and detailed than the plain language of the law. So, how will this play in the court of public opinion?

Ezra goes on to suggest that using the coin won’t end the conflict; but will cause the Republicans to work even harder and in a united fashion to get what they want. Well, isn’t that too bad, they’re just going to work harder at being even more nasty, so the rest of us shouldn’t do anything that will get them really ticked off. What kind of advice is that, the advice of a columnist who works for a newspaper with a deficit hawk editorial director, and a financial deal with the world’s most prominent deficit hawk: Peter G. Peterson?

Can’t you just picture it? Ezra gets called into a meeting with Fred Hiatt who asks him whether he can’t do anything to dampen this platinum coin wave that everyone is riding, and Ezra replying says: well, maybe I can write something that will make people very, very afraid of the tea partiers fomenting a new American Revolution.

Of course, Ezra may be right about a big coin making Republicans even more determined to destroy the US economy than they are now. Things could happen that way; but if a very high face value coin, like a $60 T coin, is minted; then the mere presence of the $60 T in the Treasury General Account (TGA), and its use to pay down debt, will change the political context, and make Republican propaganda look much more fanciful, than it does in an imagination that assumes the political context and the future won’t be changed by minting a big enough coin and using it to fill the public purse.

So, Ezra, notice what happens to the memes Iisted above. They’re just not going to work anymore, if a $60 T coin gets used. If the Republicans remain stiff-necked, what justification would they then have for austerity? Now, they have the debt, and no apparent means of paying it off except lowering spending and raising taxes. But what would they have after that coined filled the public purse? The answer is ZIP!

It is likelier that the platinum coin would drive the Republican Party towards a much more dangerous and enduring standoff. If Republicans never permitted another debt increase, would we just keep minting platinum coins? Would the Federal Reserve abet the strategy and work to hold down inflation, effectively putting itself in the middle of a titanic political fight? Would the market eventually begin to panic because American governance has entered into unknown territory?

If the Administration minted a $60 T coin, then it would probably never have to mint one again, since the first one would lead people to understand that the world won’t come to an end if Treasury can print money to fill the public purse to spend Congressional appropriations. Would the Fed help hold down inflation? Of course, it’s their mandate. It’s not about politics. They’d have to act that way. If they didn’t; there’d be immediate talk of folding them into Treasury! Finally, minting and using a $60 T coin to pay for debt and deficit spending won’t be inflationary.

There are two ways to truly resolve the debt-ceiling standoff. One is that the Republican Party needs to break, proving to itself and to the country that the adults remain in charge. The other is that America is pushed into default and voters — and the world — reckon with what we’ve become, and what needs to be done about it. Sadly, there’s no easy way out. It’s heads America wins, tails America loses.

Well, rule out the platinum coin, and sure, these may be one’s only two choices. But Ezra hasn’t shown that using a really BIG coin would elicit real problems, other than getting the Republicans and the right wing really, really, mad (maybe they won’t have lunch with him anymore), and there are compelling arguments suggesting the contrary. So, I think that Ezra’s gone off the deep end in this column, especially when you consider the cost of default to people, and also the cost of the austerity alternative. Both default-induced austerity; and major party-induced austerity by compromise are both utterly unacceptable.

We must find a third way! Ezra can’t just assume that there is no way out of his Hobson’s choice. He and we need to consider game-changing PCS before condemning the nation to default.

29 Responses to Ezra Klein Chooses Fear Mongering the Big Coin, I Choose Ending Austerity!

  1. Essentially the platinum coin would be a promissory note.

    All fiat money essentially consists of promissory notes printed on paper; Treasury Bills, Federal reserve notes etc.

    In the case of the platinum coin, the promise is stamped into metal, which is in fact safer and more durable.

    • Exactly. Yet another indictment of the MSM punditry’s complete ignorance of modern money.

    • Mark Robertson

      You are correct Frank, except the coins and promissory notes are not money. Actual money consists of digital values in computerized bank ledgers. Coins and promissory notes are simply claims to a portion of that digital value. That is why the government is able to create money out of nothing, on keyboards. Banks create loan money the same way. Hence the U.S. government does not need or use federal tax revenue. Moreover the “Social Security Trust Fund” is an accounting fiction. The government continually creates SS money and distributes it electronically via direct deposit.

      The PCS threatens to reveal all this to the public, which terrifies people like Ezra Klein.

      • If one wants to be that picky about it, digital values on computerized bank ledgers are no more money than are coins and promissory notes. They are all just physical representations of money, which is not a thing, but a relationship. Phrases like “accounting fiction” are misleading, because debt, money, relationships are not fictional. They are just not physical things, which have no superior claim to “reality” than they do. IMHO, people go on too much about keyboards and electronics. They are nothing new, just positions of beads on an electronic abacus, and there is imho real, practical and theoretical reasons to prefer “printing money” – as Abba Lerner did.

      • Allow me to respectfully disagree slightly with the following:
        “… except the coins and promissory notes are not money. Actual money consists of digital values in computerized bank ledgers. Coins and promissory notes are simply claims to a portion of that digital value.”

        What do you mean by that? What is your definition of money by which a coin or a bank note fails the test? The “money thing”, whatever it is – when referring to state money – is some sort of IOU denominated in the government’s unit of account. These money things may not all be equal (see MMP #15 – Pyramid of Liabilities), but in the case of the government’s IOU, Federal Reserve notes (dollar bills) are the physical manifestation of the “most real” money there is – a government IOU denominated in the government’s unit of account – a note that can only be issued based on the actual presence of reserves (keystrokes). To draw a distinction between that and “less real” money, a check from your employer is a private IOU denominated in the government’s unit of account. When you deposit the check at your bank (assuming different from your employer), your employer’s bank will have to have to go through settlement processes with your bank that ultimately may end up with reserves (keystrokes) being transferred between their respective accounts at the Fed (depending on each bank’s reserve position – over/under). This ensures that your bank has enough reserves (government IOU’s) available to guarantee the value of your deposit account.

        That is why the government is able to create money out of nothing, on keyboards. Banks create loan money the same way.

        The government creates money out of nothing by virtue of being the sovereign, monopoly issuer. The dollar (in the case of the US) is the government’s unit of account. If the government does not create new dollars out of nothing, then how else would these dollars get created, and by whom?
        Banks extend credit, and that process ultimately creates government denominated IOU’s (assets/liabilities). Since these dollar denominated assets are guaranteed to some degree by the Fed (central bank), private banks have accounts at the Fed where reserves are added/drained to ensure that banks meet their reserve requirements.

        I’ll agree with you that the PCS frightens the mainstream pundits because it does expose the reality of modern money. In an ideal world, people would understand what money is from a (neo) Chartalist point of view, and we would not even need PCS per se, but until that jolly day, I’d gladly have TheCoin serve as a useful conduit to better understanding of our fiat currency.

        • Marley, you say ‘The government creates money out of nothing by virtue of being the sovereign, monopoly issuer. The dollar (in the case of the US) is the government’s unit of account. If the government does not create new dollars out of nothing, then how else would these dollars get created, and by whom?”

          In the case of the US this is not quite correct. It is in fact the banker owned Federal Reserve, who creates the money out of thin air and then lends it to the US Treasury at interest. Federal Reserve notes are the US government’s unit of account. The US money supply was privatized when the Federal Reserve came into being in 1913.

  2. I really do fear for the power of thought of some people, those who are driven by greed to become enormously wealthy, yet seem not to like the idea of PCS. What a target! $60T sitting in an account that has to be spent (OK, over a period, but its there), it is there for business to take if Congress can be persuaded to agree to the expenditure. Why should they not be persuaded, federal money spent into their home state, to benefit their voters; the chances of re-election will surely rise. The lobbyists will have a field day. Why fight against such an opportunity? The 99% will not be subservient to the FIRE sector, but there will be no shortage of business opportunities for all. People will be happier, and happy contented people spend money. So, what’s not to like about the idea of a $60T coin? Unless you get pleasure from seeing the US population as wage slaves, working (if possible) to scrape a miserable existence, in poverty, being unable to afford the education and health care needed for your family. If you want that, emigrate.

  3. Frank and Marley – – –

    Please explain. What does the platinum coin promise?

    • The platinum coin would promise to pay the bearer, the stated value on the face of the coin. That would be another piece of paper stating exactly the same promise.

      I seem to recall that English banknotes issued by the Bank of England say ” I promise to pay the bearer the sum of X pounds .”

    • The truer answer is that a platinum coin is (represents) a promise that the promissor/debtor (the US government) will allow the holder/creditor to pay a Trillion dollars worth of taxes with it &/or buy a trillion dollars worth of land, aircraft carriers, bombers etc from the US. Or lower-priced stuff, like paperweights, gold if we still had a gold standard, or regulators and senators. And/or pay off that much in loans that the US government has made to the platinum coin holder. That’s what drives the value of the platinum coin to everybody else in the world, so you could get a trillion dollars of oil from the Sheiks of Araby too.

  4. It must be fun to get paid to pitch a hissy fit in print. It’s probably even more fun to pop a hot air balloon.

  5. And why o why do “we the people” need to prove anything to the financial markets at all! How many more financial market meltdowns need to occur before “we the people” realize that capitalist finance is the problem and not the solution? Or are “we the people” forever wedded to the mantra that “there’s nothing wrong with capitalism that can’t be fixed with more capitalism!”

    In other news, anyone noticed the heat in Australia??????

  6. With an out-of-control kleptocracy likely to plunge the world back into even more severe recessions during the course of this century if nothing changes a $60 trillion coin sounds like small beer for all the bailing out that will need to be done.

  7. How interesting. For the likes of Ezra Klein, bone-crushing austerity leading to falling living standards and ever-widening inequality is not a banana republic.

  8. While I wouldn’t really mind creating such a coin (though I would suggest that it will probably lead to higher inflation later on, precisely because of lobbying; though I’m not sure I care all that much about inflation so long as incomes are adjusted similarly), one issue it would cause/exacerbate is the problem of finding places to stash one’s money in that generate yield. This inability to save ‘safely’ has been one of the main drivers of the bubble in home values/southern European lending, and removing from play the largest deposit box in existence will likely cause problems/anxiety on behalf of investors and pension funds and the like.

  9. Dave Updegraff

    Ezra is correct in at least once sense: malicious incompetence in government. When operating under the illusion that they are budget-constrained, not only can they not meet those imaginary constraints but they fail to meet them in spectacularly bad and wasteful ways: wars & corruption. Just because MMT can demonstrate that no sane, rational government could default or horribly sabotage its own economy with fiat money by no means implies that _our_ congress would not. Can’t you imagine what Boener et.al. would do with a $60T balance? What do you really think the odds are that societal infrastructure projects would even make the top 10? It may well be that restrictions — even imagined ones — are the best of the available bad choices we have.

    • I think people need to grow up! Look, we’re in the middle of a period in which corruption is rampant in big business, the FIRE sector, the health insurance industry, the oil industry, you name it! Banksters Fraudsters! Crony Capitalism and control frauds! We’ve got it all! Now I know the Government is corrupt in Congress, in the higher levels of the Executive Branch, and in the Supreme Court. This isn’t the first time in American History things were this way either. Nevertheless, the Government is our only hope to defeat the evolution we’ve been experiencing toward globalizing plutocracy. So, we need to take back that Government, clean it up, and jail the members of the crime syndicates we call businesses these days One step toward taking it back is to revitalize fiscal policy once again; and, in turn, the HVPC can help us do that.

      So, we take it a step at a time. We get that done. Then we get things done for employment and health care (Medicare for All). Then we elect much better and more honest representatives than we have now. Then we jail the people we need to jail and remove the moral hazard. Then we get on with the rest of our work in rebuilding our society. To do that we’re going to need both big government and good government. We need to stop fooling around and face that reality.

  10. Last I heard, the Fed was purchasing 77% of new Treasury issues anyway, and with QE-Infinity on the policy for the foreseeable future, I don’t know why the markets would panic if new currency were suddenly being created by the treasury instead of the Fed. The Primary Dealers might be ticked-off, since they would have their middle-man position made unnecessary, but I don’t see why that should trouble the rest of us.

  11. The discussion for the minting of the coin is great for generating interest and discussion, but it is what can be described as a “fast” solution as opposed to something methodical and prosaic. The problem with a fast solution is that the banking and financial sectors have accumulated power and importance at the expense of the public. A monster (banks and finance) has been created, but if the monster is killed in one stroke, will that blade also scar the economy?

    With each economic dip or crisis, the Fed has usually put forward “loose” policies, which strengthened the banks and finance. I suggest consideration of a “slow” solution where each change is marked and measured. The Fed should continually gradually tighten in all areas where it can act to decrease lending and debt. Feed the monster less and make it go on a diet. Tightening Fed policies would be contracting by themselves. Obviously, the offset to “tight” policies would be positive money. That’s another discussion, but I think “fast” or “slow” is a good theoretical discussion.

    • “A monster (banks and finance) has been created, but if the monster is killed in one stroke, will that blade also scar the economy?”

      No!

      On your slow solution, you must be employed and well-covered by health insurance. Otherwise you would not be urging a slow solution. Look a slow solution is no solution. If you have a chance to kill the monster then you kill it while the killing is good. The political monster is the debt/deficit complex. We need to kill that as soon as we can. Urging caution is urging failure and defeat!

  12. “Finally, minting and using a $60 T coin to pay for debt and deficit spending won’t be inflationary.”

    I rather like the whole seigniorage idea. Any growing economy requires new money to monetize new production and transform dormant assets and the central gov’t is the monopoly supplier of money. It seems rather odd to me to require that a toll, in the form of interest, must be paid to bondholders every time someone wants to sell two widgets for the price of two rather than for the price of one. This causes a distribution of income issue that favours the consuming and investing demands of bondholders. But, still, real arguments against it need to be formulated and considered.

    Ok, money is moved from T-bill accounts to reserve accounts. Then what? Where does it go from there? Clearly, it won’t be spent buying Ford Focuses. If the people who owned those T-bills wanted Ford Foci, they would buy Ford Foci. What they want are highly secure financial assets. The Fed pays a small rate on reserve accounts, so anyone with a reserve account, banks and foreign gov’ts, can get that rate and keep owning a highly secure financial asset. Everyone else is stuck with cash earning 0%.

    So, where will they find another highly secure financial asset that pays more than 0%? A few possibilities…
    1. Foreign gov’t bonds – They’d need to sell US dollars to buy the foreign currency to buy these, potentially reducing the value of the dollar if foreigners are not eager increase their US dollar holdings.
    2. State, local, and big company corporate bonds – The result would be lower interest rates on these instruments, which might encourage such entities to borrow more, which could lead to more spending from these groups.
    3. Riskier assets like commodities, stocks, etc – Would the typical bondholder want to take on this much risk?
    4. Remaining outstanding T-bills – Even lower interest rates, bounded below by the Fed’s reserve rate.
    5. Other?

    The chief cost of seigniorage seems to be the loss of T-bills as a storage receptacle of choice for future savings and past savings as well if used to pay off federal debt.

  13. Pingback: Framing Platinum Coin Seigniorage: Part Two, Legal Objections - New Economic Perspectives

  14. Pingback: Framing Platinum Coin Seigniorage: Part Three, Political Objections - New Economic Perspectives

  15. Pingback: Framing Platinum Coin Seigniorage: Part Four, Political/Economic Objections - New Economic Perspectives

  16. Pingback: Framing Platinum Coin Seigniorage: Part Five, Institutional Objections - New Economic Perspectives

  17. Pingback: Framing Platinum Coin Seigniorage: Part Six, More Politlcal/Economic Objections - New Economic Perspectives

  18. Pingback: Stop “the Great Betrayal:” Kabuki Update | New Economic Perspectives