I really shouldn’t post about this casually, without going back and providing citations and kind of reconstructing the whole debate over the trillion dollar coin and how it unfolded and what kinds of arguments people were making. But, I’m lazy and I want to say something.
I thought the whole argument in favor of the coin was dumb politically, highly dubious legally, and counterproductive strategically. But there was something visceral about it that bothered me, too.
Even if we stipulate that the worth of money is arbitrary and that we can (and do) print money without it being connected in any way to an actual increase in wealth or value, the argument that we could just create a few trillion dollars out of thin air was highly corrosive. I saw a lot of arguments that the whole debate offered an opportunity to teach people that we didn’t have to make any budget cuts now or ever. We could just print enough money that we’d be able to cover our debts and not have to make any sacrifices whatsoever.
The problem with that, even if it is true, is that it immediately opens up the question why I (or you) should pay taxes for anything ever. We set this whole debate up as a matter of the rich not paying their fair share, but why should they pay more? Why not just mint trillion dollar coins? Even if there is some illusion involved in monetary policy, don’t we have to maintain that illusion if we’re going to have any argument for any kind of shared responsibility at all?
I understand that the debate took place in a wider context and that it was mainly a response to a manufactured crisis over the debt ceiling. As an alternative to default, the trillion dollar coin makes some sense.
But I still sensed in my bones that this argument that we could just print our way out of any budget imbalance was one of the strongest ways to undermine any sense of shared ownership of our society. And, also, too, it was the best (and only) way to make Rand Paul our next president.
