"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."
Another:
"There is no question as to the power of the Congress to regulate the value of money -- that is, to establish a monetary system, and thus to determine the currency of the country....Public law gives to...coinage a value which does not attach as a mere consequence of
intrinsic value. Their quality as legal tender is an attribute of law aside from their bullion value.
They bear therefore the impress of sovereign power which fixes value and authorizes their use in exchange."
Third one:
"Federal law recognizes two types of legal tender in the US: “US coins” and “Federal reserve notes.” The Tsy Dept physically creates both.
However, while the Tsy Dept determines the supply of US coins, the Board [of Governors of the Fed] controls the supply of notes.
The Board [of Governors of the Fed], like the U.S. Mint, is an agency of the United States. That the Board, unlike the Mint, is not also a bureau of the Treasury Department is of no legal significance here "
If you guessed SCOTUS, SCOTUS, and the 2nd Circuit, you'd be correct.
A special statutory shoutout to 31 USC 5112(k), the platinum coin provision behind #MintTheCoin. As Mint Director Diehl, who co-drafted the law, noted, "When we passed this law in 1996, it was with full knowledge that it was unprecedented in the history of US coinage"
Relatedly, while 31 USC 5112(k) is core of #MintTheCoin, other related laws are important too: 31 USC 5111(a) for ex, provides:
"The Sec of Tsy...shall mint & issue coins described in S. 5112 of this title in amounts the Sec.'y decides are necessary to meet the needs of the US"
So remember kids, next time someone on the bird app or irl tells you that #MintTheCoin would require a thousand tons of platinum, or that the Treasury has not and cannot exercise discretion over coinage, remember they dont know what theyre talking about
<3 <3 <3
• • •
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.
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
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
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