What is the difference between defaulting on nat. debt, and trillion $ coins?
One is advocated by Austrian's like Rothbard, the other by Keyensians like Krugman,
I see little real difference between these two approaches. Both are essentially repudiating the debt, but one method uses some legal loophole to try and pretend it's not. Both actions would have a similar effect on the nations credit worthyness in the eyes of our creditors.
Thoughts?
"No matter how noble you try to make it, your good intentions will not compensate for the mistakes that people make; that want to run our lives and run the economy, and reject the principles of private property and making up our own decisions for ourselves." - Ron Paul
bump
"No matter how noble you try to make it, your good intentions will not compensate for the mistakes that people make; that want to run our lives and run the economy, and reject the principles of private property and making up our own decisions for ourselves." - Ron Paul
LOL...it's a good question. Maybe politicians don't have a problem with defaulting on the value of the dollar, because the constituents (the American public) doesn't have the lobbying prowess that t-bills have? Many banks have lots of t-bills and depend on t-bill contracts...I'm sure they're pulling Obama's puppet strings behind the scenes on this issue.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote