[HN Gopher] I Got the Fed to Release Its 2011 "Treasury Default"... ___________________________________________________________________ I Got the Fed to Release Its 2011 "Treasury Default" Playbook Author : e63f67dd-065b Score : 100 points Date : 2023-11-07 19:04 UTC (3 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.crisesnotes.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.crisesnotes.com) | e63f67dd-065b wrote: | The memo itself can be found here: | https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/FOMC2011... | function_seven wrote: | For those more knowledgeable than me: | | How would it play out if the Treasury decided to ignore the debt- | ceiling outright, and continue to service the national debt? | Imagine a policy that says, "In accordance with the Fourteenth | Amendment, we will continue to pay bondholders their due monies" | or something like that. | | I don't think the 14th amendment gives the Treasury that power, | but that's not what I'm asking. Imagine they decide to interpret | it that way. The Supreme Court rules against them. They ignore | the Court and continue to pay. | | What happens then? | | I guess what I'm getting at is: what is worse, a Constitutional | Crisis? Or a default on our debt? To me it seems like the better | outcome would be to ignore the Court altogether on this issue. | | (I'm sure I'm making naive assumptions in this questions. Let me | know!) | User23 wrote: | The answer is already in the submission. They | would gladly facilitate an option the Treasury pursues in its | role as fiscal agent, since they can always claim that it was | the Treasury's decision and they had no other option as fiscal | agent (which happens to be true). | | The end result is the Federal Reserve would be forced to follow | its unwritten 0th commandment: maintain the integrity of the | payments system. As a consequence of that imperative it would | be operationally forced to continue to ensure Treasury auctions | and payments continued to go through. Presumably accounting | gimmicks would be employed to avoid "technically" exceeding the | debt ceiling, like simply allowing Treasury to overdraw. But at | the end of the day there would be no constitutional crisis. At | least not a forced one. Of course we shouldn't underestimate | the power of stupidity so it can't be ruled out entirely. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _it would be operationally forced to continue to ensure | Treasury auctions and payments continued to go through_ | | The Fed can't buy debt directly from the Treasury [1]. | | [1] https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_12851.htm | candiddevmike wrote: | Capital will never let either scenario occur. It's all just | theatre. The US will never default on debt, it's a convenient | negotiation tactic to waterdown more progressive legislation. | Just like how there's always 1-2 democrats that just can't get | behind progressive legislation. | function_seven wrote: | Yeah, I'm asking a hypothetical to see where it goes. Lots of | things that would "never happen" seem to be happening, so I | wouldn't be too sure of it. | | So, Treasury decides to punch through the debt ceiling. What | happens next? | joelthelion wrote: | > Capital will never let either scenario occur. It's all just | theatre. The US will never default on debt, it's a convenient | negotiation tactic | | That's true until it isn't. I hope you're right, but I worry | that you're probably overestimating our politicians. They're | not all playing 5D poker. Some are just plain stupid. | Eji1700 wrote: | Yep. Maybe when this started it was theater, but more and | more i'm wondering if we've got enough idiots who think | they stand to gain from something like this. It won't be | some shadowy cabal of actors trying to overthrow things, | it'll just be a bunch of headline hunting lunatics who | can't think past the next hour. | ryandrake wrote: | Yea it would be great if it was just stupidity, but we | have elected officials actively working to sabotage and | undermine the government and economy. | | Our system of checks and balances didn't really account | for what happens when a sizable minority in government | are bent in destroying it. | friend_and_foe wrote: | The US will absolutely default on it's debt eventually. | | The debt ceiling debates every year are certainly theater | though. | topspin wrote: | The US can supply whatever amount of money is necessary to | service any conceivable amount of debt. The US absolutely | will debase its currency into toilet paper, but default is | not a certitude. | | And it's not theater. When these debates occur the | legislature is forcing the executive to face taking | extraordinary steps. That's leverage used to negotiate | budget deals. | immibis wrote: | The Federal Reserve can choose to print the money the | Government spent. They're not the same entity and they | don't have the same goals. If the Government spent the | money and the Federal Reserve doesn't want to print it, | that's uncharted territory. | topspin wrote: | > that's uncharted territory | | Thus, the "extraordinary steps" I mentioned. Some have | argued the executive has the authority to do any | conceivable thing necessary to ensure that the "validity | of the public debt ... shall not be questioned," to | include ordering the Fed to honor Treasury overdrafts. | | Another extraordinary step by the Treasury would be | minting legal tender and depositing it with the Fed. The | so called "trillion dollar coin" scheme. | | At the end of the day they'll do what they have to do. | This story makes it very clear that the Fed is not | interested in becoming the political target over US | default, so don't imagine they're going to take some | heroic stand. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _include ordering the Fed to honor Treasury overdrafts_ | | The Treasury hasn't come close to proposing over | drafting. It would sell Treasuries and then have cash. If | that became problematic, it would mint. The Fed cannot, | by law, lend money to the Treasury. It can't even | purchase Treasuries from them directly. | function_seven wrote: | Then mint it instead? | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trillion-dollar_coin | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _If the Government spent the money and the Federal | Reserve doesn 't want to print it_ | | What does this mean? Even if a Treasury auction fails, | the Treasury has the power to mint currency. It could | literally just deposit paper representing the $200bn of | gold at Fort Knox and have money in its Fed account. | immibis wrote: | Also uncharted territory. So far, that's never been | tried. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _Also uncharted territory. So far, that 's never been | tried._ | | Minting is more precedented than the Fed. Functionally | doing this is trivial. It's legally asserting the | supremacy of the 14th Amendment over the Public Debt | Acts. | rufus_foreman wrote: | >> The US will never default on debt | | The US has defaulted on its debt several times. | | For example FDR defaulted on the debt when he refused to pay | back bonds denominated in gold with their face value and | instead paid them back in devalued currency. The Supreme | Court ruled that he had acted unconstitutionally, but also | did not force the government to pay back the full value as | FDR had said he would ignore such a ruling. | sanderjd wrote: | This is why the Supreme Court wouldn't rule against this. It's | a game of chicken, but it's very important to the Court to | never make a decision that simply can't be executed by the | elected branches. And the individual human beings on the Court | know this and enough of them would find some rationalization | they could live with to avoid such a ruling. | function_seven wrote: | I think you're right. If I'm sitting on the court, I might | accept whatever flimsy loophole the Executive Branch | provides, and say, "Congress is free to clarify their | intentions at any time to resolve this impasse". | | Now the ball is in the House's court. Are they going to vote | to _positively_ default? (Rather than passively not act | before some deadline, like how they do it now?) I bet not. | fnordpiglet wrote: | Given the 14th amendment exists and its purpose was in fact | to assure the treasury would always pay its debts and the | constitution overrides any law, it wouldn't be a very | flimsy loophole to say congress would need to clarify | possible up to and including an amendment. The debt ceiling | isn't specifically about paying debts but about authorizing | new borrowing. So while the treasury may not be able to | legally issue debt to pay existing debt, it would be | required to pay debt. This is of course the starve the | beast goal of the debt ceiling to force spending cuts to | pay the debt by making the debt payment so vast that the | federal government would become a shadow of itself in that | eventuality. However since the law has never been contested | it's not clear it would work. | | But the treasury of course has many other ways of paying | debts, including simply issuing currency. Even if the 14th | amendment doesn't invalidate the debt ceiling, the treasury | still must pay the debts, and doesn't have to do so by | cutting spending. It would however be more orderly and | strictly better for everyone if the 14th amendment did | invalidate the debt ceiling in a situation that questioned | the treasuries ability to make whole debts without | resorting to disruptive measures. | immibis wrote: | The 14th amendment doesn't say the Treasury must always | pay its debts. It says everyone has to act as if the | Treasury will always pay its debts. It could default | tomorrow, and you'd be constitutionally required to | accept T-bills at face value anyway. | jjeaff wrote: | "The validity of the public debt of the United States, | authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment | of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing | insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned." | | It is strangely worded, but I think it could be | interpreted to also mean that the government shall not do | anything that would call the validity of the debt into | question. | | It doesn't really make sense to pass an amendment that | tries to mandate the perception of the validity of the | debt. if the government stops honoring it, then the | invisible hand of the market will consider it invalid. | immibis wrote: | That would be a reach. The non-reaching interpretation is | the face value one: the validity of the public debt ... | shall not be questioned. It's hardly the most anti-market | law around - the US has farm subsidies, and some | countries even have price controls. | eli wrote: | I don't think that's a reach. There's a credible argument | that it _compels_ the President to continue to service | debts | SilasX wrote: | On my latest re-reading of it in your comment, it sounds | more like it's saying, "shut up, you lost, the measures | taken to suppress your rebellion are valid, move the frak | on". | dragonwriter wrote: | > I think you're right. If I'm sitting on the court, I | might accept whatever flimsy loophole the Executive Branch | provides, and say, "Congress is free to clarify their | intentions at any time to resolve this impasse". | | See, that's why you aren't on the Court. | | What the kind of people that actually get put on the Court | would mostly due to allow the action without endorsing its | legality would be: | | (1) Be sticklers about standing and other threshold issues | (ripeness, mootness, etc, but standing is the big and most | useful one here); almost no litigant other than Congress | acting as a whole will have the kind of particularized | injury to allege that would give them standing to challenge | _paying_ the debt (an actual creditor might have standing | the other way, but that 's not the scenario we're concerned | with.) | | (2) If you _really_ can't kick the case for standing or | other threshold issues (well, first, _amateur_ , but...) | then invoke the "political question doctrine" to avoid it | anyway. | xwdv wrote: | If there's anything I've learned in the past decade is that | way, way too much of our government relies on people in power | being rational actors with good intentions. | | If they wanted to raise hell they could simply make the worst | decision and there's nothing that can be done about it. | sanderjd wrote: | Governments, like societies in general, are just | aggregations of human beings. No facade of legalisms can | ever fully overcome that fundamental truism. | omginternets wrote: | I've always thought of it as an attempt to engineer peer- | pressure. Build institutions that recruit like-minded | people in the hopes that when faced with tremendous | pressure, the group can force individuals to fall in line | around a predetermined principle. | HDThoreaun wrote: | The justices put a ton of effort into maintaining the courts | legitimacy. A large part of that is not making decisions that | the vast majority of the country disagrees with, even if | there's no real legal reason to do so. I think this would be | one of those situations. | eli wrote: | Some of the justices seem to care somewhat about what people | think of them. Some don't seem to care much at all. In | general I don't agree that the court puts that much effort | into appearing legitimate. | callalex wrote: | If the Supreme Court cared at all about appearing legitimate, | they would have made the effort to remove Justice Thomas, who | keeps taking outright bribes in order to influence his | decisions, and the public is completely aware of it with | documented proof. | Eji1700 wrote: | You have very different definitions of "the public" and I | promise you that yours is a hell of a lot smaller. | | People who are aware of who Justice Thomas even IS would | still be a vastly smaller circle than the number of people | who would be affected and have very strong opinions on a US | default (although not until it happens). | niceice wrote: | Missing context: | | Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has been friends with | Dallas billionaire Harlan Crow for 27 years. Crow said that | he and his wife have been friends with Thomas and his wife | Ginni since 1996. | | Is there proof they were bribes as opposed to the innocent | explanation that they are just family friends, and it's not | unusual for billionaires to offer a free ride to their non- | billionaire friends on vacation? | HDThoreaun wrote: | Thomas joined the court in 1991, so I'm not sure that the | 1996 friendship date helps him much. | kurthr wrote: | Giving and forgiving a $200k loan, buying his mom's house | (while still allowing her to live there free for over a | decade), and paying for his kids private schooling while | you have cases in front of a justice has the appearance | of impropriety. | bugglebeetle wrote: | This seems so far from the present-day reality that I don't | know where to begin. Thomas is demonstrably taking bribes. | Kavanaugh had a large amount of debt he claimed was from | "baseball tickets" that just magically disappeared. Cony- | Barrett is part of a cult. Meanwhile, the court is making | wildly unpopular decisions left and right and openly states | no one can hold them to account for anything they do or say, | on or off the bench. They have zero legitimacy. | HDThoreaun wrote: | The public plainly does not care about the bribes. Their | decisions have been unpopular, but not wildly so. The | courts approval rating is sitting at 40% which is probably | fine. The issue is when it starts approaching single | digits. | PeterisP wrote: | For starters, the supreme court would not do anything until | (unless!) someone challenges the treasury ruling, and there | would inevitably be some nontrivial time gap between the two | sentences in your scenario of "Imagine they decide to interpret | it that way. The Supreme Court rules against them." during | which they would pay out the funds. | | But after a binding ruling is issued, I'd assume there would be | personal sanctions, liability and likely criminal charges | against any individuals involved in defying that decision. | eli wrote: | That seems like a dodge. There is always someone willing to | challenge anything the federal government does. It would be | entirely up to the Court how quickly they'd want to hear the | case. It could be immediate if they want. | ndriscoll wrote: | > I'd assume there would be personal sanctions, liability and | likely criminal charges against any individuals involved in | defying that decision. | | The president would almost certainly not want to take | responsibility for the resulting economic implosion, and | would order the executive to ignore the court ruling. Then it | comes down to a mix of loyalties and individuals' beliefs | around what would cause the least damage. | | It's far more likely that a ruling like that would be the end | of the court's power. | ProjectArcturis wrote: | Yes, in practice a ruling like this might remind everyone | that there is no clause in the Constitution giving the | Supreme Court the power to review the other branches' | actions. They grabbed that power themselves in Marbury v | Madison. | wolverine876 wrote: | > But after a binding ruling is issued, I'd assume there | would be personal sanctions, liability and likely criminal | charges against any individuals involved in defying that | decision. | | That's not accurate: | | Power in the US government is of course separated between the | legislative, executive, and judicial branches, and each has | checks and balances on the other two. | | One check the executive has on the judicial is to ignore its | rulings. The executive can't do it all the time, obviously, | and afaik the US also generally embraces 'judicial | supremacy', the idea that the judicial branch generally gets | the last word. Also, I don't recall the judiciary sanctioning | indiviuals in the executive branch, but I could be wrong | [Edit: of course I'm wrong, see below]. I would guess they've | never sanctioned a president. | | Perhaps the most famous use of this power was in Worcester v. | Georgia; when his favored side lost the case, President | Andrew Jackson reputedly said, "[Chief Justice] John Marshall | has made his decision; now let him enforce it." (Inspiring | rhetoric, but it led eventually to Native Americans having | their land stolen and many being marched to their deaths.) | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _I don 't recall the judiciary sanctioning indiviuals in | the executive branch_ | | Every time someone in the executive has been held in | contempt of court in relation to (but usually exceeding) | their official duties, the judiciary sanctioned individuals | in the executive branch. | | That said, the President could pardon everyone involved. | wolverine876 wrote: | That's right. Somehow I wasn't thinking of it. | tonyarkles wrote: | Presumably "contempt of court" would apply here, which could | definitely be applied to the individuals running the bank. | eli wrote: | So would the President's pardon power | bbsm_777 wrote: | I think the Supreme Court might rule that the new debt issued | when the debt ceiling was exceeded was not valid. The most | likely way this could happen is if a new administration refused | to pay the obligations due on bonds issued in excess to | government appropriations. Typically the 14th amendment would | actually be seen as requiring the payment of this debt, but if | someone challenged the non-payment the Supreme Court could rule | the debt was not issued in compliance with law. | jfengel wrote: | There is an additional player, the Federal Reserve. The | Treasury can write a check, but that check is to be drawn | against an account in an actual bank -- ordinary commercial | banks. Those banks have to follow the rules of banking and | can't just honor checks because they're the government. | | So in the scenario you describe, the Treasury writes checks, | and they bounce. That would be... bad. | | The Treasury would have to collude with the Fed. Something | like, the Treasury sells some bonds to the Fed, and the Fed | buys them, putting the money into the Fed account. That's | illegal, because Congress didn't authorize it, and they try to | put the Treasury secretary in jail. | | The Supreme Court says "We have no idea what's going on, this | is up to you jackasses. Go legislate something." A whole bunch | of stuff happens, but it all comes down to DC in flames and the | country gives up. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _Treasury can write a check, but that check is to be drawn | against an account in an actual bank -- ordinary commercial | banks_ | | The Treasury banks with commercial banks, but it also has an | account at Fed. That said, banks aren't legally obligated to | accept its cheques. | | > _an additional player, the Federal Reserve_ | | That's what this memo describes [1]. In essence, the Fed says | it will defer to the Treasury on whether debt is legally | issued. | | > _Treasury sells some bonds to the Fed_ | | The Fed can't do that [2]. What they can do is announce to | the market that they won't treat post-ceiling debt | differently from pre-ceiling debt. That's what this memo | says. | | It may not be able to continue doing that if _e.g._ SCOTUS | rules Treasury exceeded its authority. But at that point, the | Treasury could start testing its minting power. | | In summary, the Fed isn't a player in the legal part of this | game. | | [1] https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/FOMC2 | 011... | | [2] https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_12851.htm | function_seven wrote: | This is a piece I was missing in my hypothesizing. It didn't | even occur to me that Treasury needs the Fed in order to | transact in this way. | | I kept thinking about the Fed doing maneuvers as "one | possible path", and the Treasury doing maneuvers as "another | path", but they're kinda the same. | | Thanks. | dragonwriter wrote: | > The Treasury can write a check, | | Why write a check? | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trillion-dollar_coin | pdonis wrote: | _> How would it play out if the Treasury decided to ignore the | debt-ceiling outright, and continue to service the national | debt?_ | | As the article notes, the Treasury already does things to | circumvent the debt ceiling, and nobody cares. The article is | just discussing further things that the Fed could do to help | the Treasury circumvent the debt ceiling if necessary. | | In other words, I don't think the debt ceiling issue will ever | trigger a Constitutional crisis. (Unless, of course, you think, | not unreasonably, that all this circumventing of laws passed by | Congress already _is_ such a crisis, but that 's a whole other | discussion.) | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _article is just discussing further things that the Fed | could do to help the Treasury circumvent the debt ceiling if | necessary_ | | Not even that. The Fed is saying they'll defer to the | Treasury on whether debt is legally issued. (Presumably, | until SCOTUS rules on it.) | pdonis wrote: | _> The Fed is saying they 'll defer to the Treasury on | whether debt is legally issued._ | | Yes, while the Fed continues to do various things behind | the scenes to make sure that the Treasury can plausibly | claim that the debt _is_ legally issued. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _while the Fed continues to do various things behind | the scenes to make sure that the Treasury can plausibly | claim that the debt is legally issued_ | | What are you hinting at? The Fed doesn't decide on | whether debt is legally issued. It also cannot overrule | Treasury absent a court order. It's saying that, absent | court advice, if the Treasury issues debt it will treat | it like any other. There is nothing behind the scenes | they need to do beyond announcing they'll treat them | equivalently. | kaonashi wrote: | sounds like an eminently responsible response to potential | political sabotage of the economy | PKop wrote: | But it certainly doesn't sound like democracy | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _it certainly doesn 't sound like democracy_ | | The Constitution is a democratically-formed device, and the | Constitution contains the 14th Amendment. | PKop wrote: | What does this have to do with the Federal Reserve | subverting the will of elected representatives? If we're | talking about the 14th amendment, we're not talking about | the Fed sua sponte-ing some action. | pdonis wrote: | _> the Federal Reserve subverting the will of elected | representatives?_ | | It isn't. The Federal Reserve Act, passed by Congress and | signed by the President in 1913, allows the Fed to do all | the things it does. | eli wrote: | Neither does the debt ceiling, especially when it can be | obstructed by a small minority. | hospitalJail wrote: | Literally someone is going to be 'too big to fail' and cause this | to happen. | | We all know how to catch this falling knife, the problem is that | you basically uproot the Rule of Law to do it. After that you are | going to have a disgruntled population angry that someone didn't | have to play by the rules and we picked up the pieces. | | We get some Band-Aid legislation that says 'this will never | happen again'. Sometimes it does happen again. | immibis wrote: | It's going to happen again. The government already made a lot | of entities that are too big to fail. | dools wrote: | As Mosler has maintained for many years "Government Checks Don't | Bounce" | | https://moslereconomics.com/mandatory-readings/innocent-frau... | socketcluster wrote: | So basically they've been printing money and giving it to | institutions who serviced reckless people who took on debts that | they could not afford and did not repay. Guess who ended up | paying for that? Every decent person who did the right thing; tax | payers, salary earners (through devaluation of their salary | contracts via inflation), those who did pay back their debts. | | Then you wonder how all these reckless people ended up in | positions of power. | MuffinFlavored wrote: | What purpose does calling this out gain? What changes after | you've made this statement? | NoraCodes wrote: | This isn't the standard to which comments on this website are | held, generally; why does this one bother you? | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _they 've been printing money and giving it to institutions_ | | Who is "they"? The Treasury? ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-11-07 23:00 UTC)