Forget Bitcoins, let's talk Trillion Dollar Platinum coins

No, not really. The debt ceiling crises are games of constitutional chicken, not just political chicken. In order to play these little games Congress essentially abdicates its most central constitutional responsibilities - managing some working budget and borrowing if necessary, per Article I - and - irrespective of its Reconstruction context - it explicit violates Section 4 of the 14th Amendment.

Unfortunately the President can't impeach Congress.

Right. If that were their only goal, they would have done so by now.

They would give a crap if the games actually had an impact on their lives.

The GOP is just putting on a show for the few of us watching. When faced with potential backlash from middle class tax hikes (a relatively minor catastrophe), ~220 Republicans ultimately voted to make a deal with Obama. Something similar will happen with the debt ceiling. Just like every other time.

Really? Because I only remember one other time they held the economy hostage using the debt ceiling, and "the Republicans ultimately backed down and sided with Obama" is not how I'd describe the outcome of that one.

Who said anything about backing down and siding with Obama? Every other time, they made a deal with Obama that managed to slightly irritate both sides. Expect another slightly irritating deal.

Incidentally, I recently read that Congressional Reps spend four hours each day on the phone with donors. How many times do you think donors say, "Yeah, let's go ahead and roll the dice on the debt ceiling!"

And you don't think using the economy as a pawn to negotiate some "irritating deal" never mind them blatantly and purposefully not doing their job isn't completely irresponsible in the extreme? Anyone who does this sort of thing should be politically strung up they're endangering the country at large.

Maybe, but I'm not convinced that the debt ceiling was the main motivation for Obama. I think that he really did want to reduce spending, without drastic changes to Medicare or SS. He didn't get everything he wanted, but I suspect he preferred the deal he made to the status quo - hence his opposition to a clean short term extension of the debt limit.

Pretty sure his opposition is based on wanting to stop this insane behaviour and not just kick the can a few months down the road and have this shit happen all over again. There shouldn't be any deals around this Congress sets the budget but then denies funding it, it's fucking idiotic and is dangerous to the country. The time to have the budget talks is when they're setting the budget, not when the bill comes.

Maybe. On the other hand, he had the opportunity to settle the debt limit issue with some smaller deals, but reportedly wanted to hold out for a bigger "grand bargain". All which is to say that the GOP wasn't exactly twisting Obama's arm when it came to spending cuts, and they probably knew it. If the GOP were truly as reckless as they pretend to be, they would have demanded something impossible (e.g. repeal of Obamacare) as their price for the debt limit increase.

There was only one other time, and it ended with absolutely no solution to the problem (of the Republicans being willing and able to continue to use the debt ceiling to hold the country hostage over anything they want) and the creation of a massive arbitrary problem in the fiscal cliff. It was not a "slightly irritating deal."

Let's put it this way. Apart from compelling us to constantly tune in to their latest drama (CAN'T ... LOOK ... AWAY!!), how has the Republican House actually changed anyone's life so far? There are only a few ways, and by my reckoning the worst is the payroll tax cut expiration. That's slightly irritating, but quite minor compared to the real damage caused by, say, the Wisconsin and Ohio state legislatures.

That's the impact on the economy of this debt ceiling nonsense. By which I mean, that's what happens when they just talk about not raising the debt ceiling. Actually not raising it would be an absolute disaster, but just threatening to do so is pretty disastrous in its own, and bear in mind that the supposed "solution" to that disaster was to voluntarily create another disaster and re-face the original disaster again a little later.

Those graphs show no long term impact. And the short term effect is confined to the period of debate. Which is sort of my point. The main thing the house GOP has accomplished is to attract attention to their dramatic posturing. They have not been very effective in actually advancing their agenda.

As a nation, we need to collectively stop staring.

Sure, what's half a million jobs here or there? The reason the effects stopped was that the crisis was averted for the time being. Big whoop; we're in for more of the same every couple years if someone doesn't man up and end it once and for all, with plenty of stupid concessions in between. I don't honestly give a shit if their platform doesn't literally say the words "destroy the US economy." They've decided to use the threat of destroying the US economy to further their aims, and if they don't make much progress toward those ends it's cold comfort when the means they use are incredibly damaging in and of themselves.

Hmmm. Let's look more closely at that correlation...



OMG, the GOP threats have retroactively wiped out summer hiring! That's serious mojo!

magnet is it really your contention that the 2011 debt ceiling debate didn't have any economic impact?

What point are you trying to make here? I mean specifically, not "nothing Congress does matters."

Considering the wealth disparity in the US I'd say the GOP has done an excellent job of destroying the economy.

They also fucked me over by not renewing that other tax credit for $400 ($800 for families) from a few years back.

Also, i can skip gambling because weeeeeee look at the markets go up and down like crazy as the republicans play with my 401k and Roth ira value while trolling Obama.

Here's your daily dose of left-leaning satirical comedian trading blows with left-leaning economist. The timeline itself:

1. Paul Krugman posts on his blog that the trillion dollar coin is a "silly but benign" idea that should be favoured over letting the Republicans "force America into default"
2. Jon Stewart does a dismissive piece on the trillion dollar coin
3. Krugman writes on his blog that Stewart was being lazy and unprofessional
4. Krugman does an interview with ABC where he says Stewart is ruining his brand by resorting to “I don’t know nothing, but those people look dumb to me” routines
5. Stewart does a piece on Krugman's response, implies Krugman is ruining his brand by backing the coin idea and says that the above characterisation is Stewart's brand, among other things
6. Krugman briefly calls Stewart lazy again, and accuses him of not being able to take what he dishes out

Are you not entertained? As much as I like Stewart I don't think he comes out of this one on top.

With a few exceptions, Stewart is at his weakest when he hides behind his "it's just comedy" shield.

While talking about this in the past, Stewart has said something along the lines of "...even though it's comedy, it all has to be rigorously fact-checked because if the basis of the joke is wrong then it stops being funny." He was right. For example, compare this embarrassing error to the job Colbert did with the Colbert SuperPAC; despite being a very complicated issue, Colbert was able to get on top of the conceptual stuff, explain it to his audience in terms that made sense without oversimplifying it, and also make it simultaneously funny and terrifying. Tut tut, John.

No. My contention is that the impact was small.

My point is that the House GOP threat is overstated. They are posturing now but will ultimately increase the debt limit, and they won't gain a whole lot in the process.

The first piece Stewart did, he really didn't go into any details just a quick stupid joke.
So Krugman "scolds" him for that?
Is it Stewart's job to explain policy, is that the only show Dems have, the only counter to FOX's propaganda?

I think maybe Jon Stewart knows more about economics than Krugman is willing to admit!

Yeah, that's annoying too. I think the payroll tax cut expiration is a little bit worse, though.

Maybe you should just give up gambling. Market volatility has been pretty low for the last year by historical standards. And the last time it spiked was a couple of weeks after the debt limit was increased.

And in this chart you can see a massive drop in value during 2011. Compare it to the debt talks and the USA rating drop. funny enough, that's the only major below zero percent section for the two year time period.

http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/z?s=^GSPC&t=2y&q=l&l=on&z=l&c=^GSPC&a=v&p=s&lang=en-US&region=US

Investing is risky, so the best bet is to regularly put money in indeed funds of stocks and bonds...a big chunk of which is usually the sp500. Investing is risky enough without needless, gop created 15 percent drops.

The "massive drop" began on Aug 3, 2011. That's the day after the debt limit was raised.

It's a good thing correlation is not causation, or someone could use these charts to argue against raising the debt limit...

That's because before the debt ceiling bullshit, everyone assumed the Republicans were just grandstanding and that life would go on as usual. The Republicans trading a gun to the head of the US's economy for more ammo and a time bomb was not a pleasant revelation, to say the least.

REPORTED