Currently there is a $300 million statutory "ceiling" on the law authorizing the Tsy to issue Greenbacks, ie paper currency not subject to the debt ceiling. If we removed the $300 million ceiling and say "as many notes as Tsy Sec deemed appropriate", it could print a quintillion.
Just like the Tsy Sec could issue a quintillion dollars worth of Treasury Securities if/when the debt ceiling was suspended, as it has been for most of the past 8 years in between brief reauthorization-and-resuspension periods. The coin is no different, Preston just hates fiat.
The ompt thing about coinage act is that it has never specified a quantitative limit on amount of coins, or their face value, that can be minted. There has never been a "ceiling" like w other instruments, only denominational limits which the platinum provision doesnt have at all
This is why Mint Director Dihel who wrote the law in q said upon hearing about #MintTheCoin that it was clearly consistent w the legislative language & history of mint. Preston was a securities lawyer for a bit before going into crypto, he doesnt know shit about public finance.
Indeed, not only doesn't he know shit about the legalities of public finance, he's a libertarian whose views about public spending are closer to quackery than a serious voice in policymaking circles. It's like asking Judy Shelton's opinion and being surprised it's crankish.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Easy to dismiss this as a one off, a bad apple, even a sign of the need to tighten up around the edges. But it's deeper, there's a more fundamental legitimacy crisis at play around the technocratic presumptions of central bank dominance and this feeds right into it.
Because reality is that before you can even begin to contemplate the kind of ethics violation that Clarida did, you have to be in a certain economic class where that kind of temptation exists. I dont know many elementary school teachers with investment portfolios like Clarida.
"Even the advocates of a strict literal construction of the phrase, 'to coin money & regulate the value thereof,' while insisting that it defines the material to be coined as metal, are compelled to concede to Congress large discretion in all other particulars.
The Constitution does not ordain what metals may be coined, or prescribe that the legal value of the metals, when coined, shall correspond at all with their intrinsic value in the market.
... More than once in our history has the regulation been changed without any denial of
the power of Congress to change it, and it seems to have been left to Congress to determine alike what metal shall be coined, its purity, and how far its statutory value, as money, shall correspond, from time to time, with the market value of the same metal as bullion."
Youre still just displaying your ignorance. The Tsy "printing" this quantity of money doesn't do anything unless Congress actually directs it to be spent, and if Congress directs the Tsy to spend it doesn't matter whether it's via issuing tsys or coins the economic effect is same
Obviously it would be a stupid idea to try to spend 30,000x GDP in one go, which is why no one is saying Congress should do that. But that has literally nothing to do with minting the coin unless you dont understand public finance like Preston.
And of course, if Preston wants to argue to the court that there is presently a limit on the amount of Reserves or Federal Reserve Notes that can be created, or the amount of Treasury Securities the Tsy can issue when debt ceiling is suspended, or amount of pennies to stamp etc
Obviously the debt ceiling is stupid and should be abandoned. But as so many centrists and moderates love to point out in other contexts, sometimes political realities prevent the best-possible outcome so you have to consider what you *can* do with the power you have.
And in this instance, what is very clear is that threatening a government default or shutdown if the debt ceiling is not suspended or increased in time is *not* the only choice available to the Biden administration, it's just the only one they want to acknowledge and entertain.
"If the facts and the law aren't on your side, bang on the table"
But for real, this framing is so tiresome. The real battle isnt Crypto vs Big Finance, its whether we want the future of digital payments to be defined by Big Finance 2.0 or the public via democratic alternatives.
I've been plenty skeptical of the crypto community, but I was skeptical of traditional finance first. Hence advocating for public banking, fedaccounts for all, publicly-issued, privacy-respecting eCash, etc. Accusing everyone who is crypto-skeptical of promoting the status quo
is just a lazy way of trying to make this a battle between the future and the past, when in reality we're living through a frontier moment where the question is whether we want Deadwood-style grifting to be the norm, or to build real public infrastructure that works for all.
Sound finance socialists dont like it, but it seems obvious to me that in this era, at least, at any given time/for any given center/left coalition, there is more support for progressive spending than can be 1:1 offset by the progressives taxes supported by the same coalition.
The reason why we dont always see this manifest in the kind of progressive deficit politics it implies would be optimal is, of course, that some of that same coalition prioritizes concerns about limiting deficits & reducing the national debt over progressive spending commitments.
For people wanting to improve political prospects for more progressive spending, that leaves two options: 1) build consensus support for higher taxes, or 2) weaken opposition to deficits/national debt.
Obviously, support for higher taxes & rejection of deficit/debt phobia is