If you were in search of some light weekend reading, we've got just the thing (click for pdf): The debt ceiling remains puzzling to a lot of people, and the paper offers background about its historical roots along with a brief summary of the times it was raised since the start of the past decade. Not everyone agrees and paper does offer a few justifications for it, but we still think that the continued existence of the ceiling is a national embarrassment. But it's there, and because it wasn't dealt with as part of the fiscal cliff negotiations, we're about to witness another round of insufferable and train-wreck-potential negotiations. Meanwhile, the idea for a trillion dollar coin is getting a lot more attention than it did in 2011, though we're not on board with the push to get it taken seriously. At least not yet. But we'll link to some of the arguments here and let our readers hash it out. If you want to start with background, try Joe Weisenthal, Josh Barro, and Matt Yglesias. These three are in favour. Opposing the idea, primarily on legal grounds, are Kevin Drum and John Carney. The arguments in favour are more compelling than the gimmicky nature of the idea would suggest. One argument is simply that the logistics aren't very difficult, and could be managed in a way assures it didn't become inflationary. Another is that however crazy it seems, a government default would be much worse. The first three links above do a good job of explaining how it would work. And although obvious, it's also worth emphasising here that nobody really wants either default or a Trillion Dollar Coin. The Republicans, for all their bluster, don't want the country to actually default on its obligations. What they want are the concessions that they hope to get from the President by threatening default. Similarly, proponents of the Trillion Dollar Coin idea happily acknowledge that it's nuts. They just think that if the Republicans can take the reckless approach of threatening default - an approach that was unprecedented until, well, until the Republicans set the precedent in 2011 - then fighting back with an absurd threat of their own is fair game. But this is also why we're having trouble forming an opinion of our own: we're just not any kind of expert on political negotiating tactics, which is what this seems to be about. And there are too many open questions and moving parts here that we just don't understand very well. One is about the legality of the idea, which is at least questionable (more on which below). Another is whether pushing an idea of dubious legality as a negotiating ploy is a good idea for a President or Treasury Secretary; especially if, as our colleague Robin Harding notes, it happens to be an idea of dubious legality that clearly goes against the will of Congress. What if it completely backfires? Most people outside of policy and economic circles won't understand the mechanics (and it's hard to blame them), and meanwhile the headlines will inevitably make it sound like Obama and Geithner came up with it while smoking something fierce in the Rose Garden. Pictures of Austin Powers doing the little-finger-to-the-mouth. This is the president who called for the country to put aside childish things, and now dude is ordering up a shiny coin and calling it a trillion bucks? For all we know, the perceived silliness of it could lead to its being quickly dismissed and the negotiating position of the President actually diminished. The debt ceiling, regrettably, doesn't have a name that reflects its absurdities. It's also a thing that already exists and can't be undone without another act of Congress. Again, regrettably, but don't these messaging problems matter? That's obviously not to say that default is preferable to looking silly, but it just seems that if the President is going to risk such a spectacle, it should probably be his very last option. So we're gonna cowardly plead ignorance here, admit that we're making this up as we go along and just cop out - no, we don't have a better idea, but neither are we sold on this one just yet. Anyways, here's Joe Weisenthal: Is it silly? Of course it is. But what's sillier is a rich nation having a debate on whether it will pay what it owes, which is what the debt ceiling fight is all about. So in the face of such silliness, this unfortunately may be required. And here's Josh Barro: Joe Weisenthal got this right this morning: Hitting the debt ceiling isn't an option. It's no way to run the country, and Republicans know that. So, a debt-ceiling increase shouldn't count as a "concession," and it's nutty for Obama to have to give substantive policy ground to get one. Monetizing deficits through direct presidential control of the currency, in lieu of borrowing, is also no way to run a country. It's silly, and it's perfectly legal. Agreeing not to do so is therefore the ideal "concession" for Obama to offer in return for Republicans agreeing to end the threat of a debt-default crisis. On the other side, Kevin Drum: I would just like to point out, once again, that this is ridiculous. During the very short floor debate on [the amendment authorising the Treasury department to mint platinum coins] it was repeatedly referred to as a "technical correction," and that's obviously what was intended. Oklahoma Rep. Frank Lucas described it this way: Also contained in the bill is a clarifying section inserting the word ""platinum"" inadvertently dropped when Congress authorized production of platinum and platinum bullion coins a few years ago....This is a small bill, but important to the mint and important to coin collectors. It has no cost implications whatsoever. No particular restrictions were placed on the design or issuance of platinum coins, but this paragraph was plainly intended to apply to bullion and commemorative issues for coin collectors. That's all. There is, apparently, a widespread belief that courts will uphold a literal, hypertechnical reading of legislative language regardless of its obvious intent, but I'm quite certain this isn't true. Courts are expected to rule based on the most sensible interpretation of a law, not its most tortured possible construction. I don't think there's even a remote chance that any court in the country would uphold a Treasury reading of this law that used it as a pretense for minting a $1 trillion coin. I am, obviously, not a lawyer. So if someone with actual legal training in the appropriate area of the law says I'm wrong, then I guess I'm wrong. But I'm not much afraid of that happening. This whole notion is the kind of thing that Herman Cain would come up with. It's time to stop treating it seriously. And John Carney: The platinum coin solution seems to me to be at least arguably authorized by statute. But that statute seems to represent an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority. Given this very plausible ground for finding the $1 trillion platinum coin maneuver unconstitutional, it would be extremely unwise for the Treasury Department to pin its hopes on avoiding a fight over the debt ceiling on its platinum mint. Robin's twitter feed brings some quality snark, and our favourite single response to the idea came back in 2011, from Jon Chait: I actually feel like this plan could, in addition to rescuing the economy, provide the spark our film industry requires. I could sit here for ten minutes and rattle off a half-dozen great film concepts based on this story. Bank caper: a dashing Clooney-esque figure assembles a team to steal the trillion dollar coin. Comedy: a bumbling assistant Treasury Secretary played by Jack Black accidentally picks up the trillion dollar coin and spends it on a Mountain Dew, sending the entire government into a mad scramble for the coin before the world economy collapses. Noir: Regular person somehow acquires the coin, and is slowly twisted. Action: Super-villain plots to destroy the coin and bring the economy to its knees, from which he stands to profit due to a nefariously brilliant hedge he has prepared. Maybe we'll call him "Eric Cantor."