A nobel laureate is talking about this because macroeconomics and monetary theory both have significant theoretical aspects to them and this is an intriguing theoretical possibility.
A nobel laureate is talking about this because macroeconomics and monetary theory both have significant theoretical aspects to them and this is an intriguing theoretical possibility.
What does that even mean? As far as I can tell, the recent viral discussion began in the economics blogosphere as judged by my thread talking about this a month ago. Krugman is talking about it because other people in his field are too- so what? Whenever someone talks about it, they in turn make it more popular too. I don't know what you are trying to suggest here, but if you follow the macro/monetary blogosphere you would know that they talk about interesting theoretical possibilities such as this on their blogs all the time- take it from someone who pretty actively follows that niche of the blogosphere.
I do disagree. Just because it isn't going to happen (which everyone knows), does not mean it is not worth discussing. New ideas can emerge from such discussions, knowledge can be furthered, etc. Why block your mind from thinking about the improbable or impossible? We wouldn't get very far if history's intellectuals weren't bold enough to question and think beyond the status quo.
I have seen only one mention of this issue outside of this forum.
An article in a journal...this does not mean it is non-existent, as I do not follow economics closely.
I do however pay attention to general news....and it is unmentioned. Thus, I find it a relatively "out there" concept.
I don't think it's productive or even particularly imaginative. As economic speculation, it's of no import whether money printing is achieved by a loophole or otherwise, so economic theory isn't what this is about, it's a speculative discussion of law at its root. But law is the not an abstraction, it doesn't do any good to talk about the fanciful loopholes you can come up with if you just unilaterally apply a creative interpretation of a statute, as if nobody would question it. No knowledge is furthered by bandying about ideas like this. The statute doesn't permit this interpretation, no judge would ever let this fly. It's patently absurd to use a commemorative coin statute to print a trillion dollars, or anything more than an average run of commemorative coins. Taking a interpretation of the statute that is absurd on its face is not an interesting speculation on economics, it is a demonstration that the person doing the speculating doesn't really understand how law works.
It is all over the econ blogosphere from Matt Yglesias to NakedCap to Krugman and on and on.
Just because it is "out there" does not make it a conspiracy though. Out side the box thinking is often quite beneficial in the long run. While this idea might be impossible and should be impossible, it could lead to other ideas that might not be so impossible and perhaps should be more possible.
Not a very creative or imaginative person are you? I think the people discussing this are fine when it comes to understanding how the law works, I think the issue lies in you not understanding how new ideas come about and are innovated. And at the least, I don't know why this bothers you so much considering it is their time and their websites (or jobs).
The link in the OP is not a good representation of the discussion over this overall. I don't know if the author was trying to be subtly funny (what with the who should we put on it) or just didn't grasp the real discussion going on, but that article is just a weird piece on abcnews.
Discussion seems to be shifting in recent days to some people being more serious about using such coins but not to pay off the debt, just to temporarily avert the debt ceiling. They see it as using an absurd loophole to avert an absurd political stance (not raising the debt ceiling). It's not going to happen. I'd like to think they are a little tongue-in-cheek about it; I think they are.
I really don't appreciate the personal attacks in direct contravention of forum rules.
I disagree. It is not a serious idea, it is no more worth discussing than an absurd idea from "Through the Looking Glass." It is not helpful to discuss absurdities. You're free to disagree, of course, but not only do I see no value in it, you have failed to state what is valuable about it aside from vague suggestions that it is "creative" or some such. This is not sufficient, in my view.
This is precisely what I was referring to earlier. I would also like to think that this is merely a tongue in cheek idea, and not all proposed legislation is to be taken seriously, but this idea is being discussed with an absurd level of seriousness. This speaks very poorly of our political class that such an idea has any traction at all.
Well I apologize for saying you were wrong on saying those discussions were taking place seriously. But in their defense they view it as an absurd solution to an absurd political stance that the GOP is currently taking.
That wasn't meant to be a personal attack.
We will have to agree to disagree. I don't think there is any critical thought that has 0 function. Some of the world's greatest ideas and innovations have been the result of mistakes, goofing off, and speculating about fantasy.
How is it in any way useful or constructive to imply that my opinions stem from a lack of creativity or imagination on my part?
Maybe so. I don't think this is a bad topic for blog posts and parlor conversation. I found it an interesting topic at one point. But hearing this discussed on NPR and on the floor of Congress is rather upsetting.
Similar threads
