It may be that the Progresssives have a secret mine from which they can get enough metal to produce a giant coin………

I doubt it, but I can not prove it is not so.

And it would explain why they “only” suggest a one TRILLION Dollar coin (not a 16 trillion coin to pay off the national debt) – they have enough metal (from their secret mine) to produce a one trillion Dollar coin, but not to produce a 16 trillion Dollar coin.

So I have been unfair to them – and apologise.

Antoine.

Agreed.

Which is why, of course, Texas has asked for the physical return of its gold reserves.

Other States should also make preperations for a post United States situation – just in case.

As Joe Weisenthal of Business Insider points out, the biggest fallacy about the trillion-dollar coin is that it will be massively inflationary. It won’t be. If the government quickly spent $1 trillion, that might be inflationary. But the coin wouldn’t pay for new spending.

Weisenthal misunderstands the problem here: the coin damages the Fed’s balance sheet. This coin will be a non-marketable asset in its reserve, limiting its ability to engage in market operations.

For example, the Fed may want to reduce the value of the USD on forex markets in future. Before, it would sell US govt bonds and buy forex bonds to do this. Now, since it no longer has the US bonds, it has to issue its own.

Alisa, have you lost your cents? Or just one of them?

They will attempt many more tricks until we are completely Fed up, you can bank on that. But I doubt any will be as entertaining as this one. The future tactics will be even bolder abrogations of the Constition, but will lack entertainment value and be undisguised blunt thuggery.

On Friday the Democratic leadership of the Senate — Majority Leader Harry Reid, Assistant Majority Leader Richard Durbin, Conference Chair Charles Schumer, and Conference Secretary Patty Murray — wrote to President Obama urging him to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling in the event that Republicans either block such an increase or attempt to pass one “as part of unbalanced or unreasonable legislation.”

It is doubtful that the evangel of Libertarianism can bring on new experimentation or return to the format of former times with respect to the uses made of the mechanisms of governments. While it is, of course, part of that evangel, it is altogether likely that only the recognition and understanding of the “costs” of those uses, and the impact of those “costs” will blunt those public desires and demands for governmental organizations whose mechanisms can be used for specific objectives in their particular interests. Those “costs” like those objectives fall upon the ideologies, the economics and the social structures impacted by political action. Some of those “costs” are beginning to become more widely apparent, with the displacement of religions, religious practices and religious influences on human conduct and interactions; more currently, the economic factors are being seen for what they are in reality though they may not be fully understood; the changes in social structures resulting from regulation of human relations through political activities have not yet been felt strongly or widely enough.