The Treasury has announced that an as-yet-undetermined woman will be replacing Alexander Hamilton on the $10 bill in 2020. This is the first time since 1928 that the Treasury has changed the subject of the portraits on the front of any US paper money.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/alexander-hamilton-to-share-image-on-10-bill-with-a-woman-1434591472
Personally, I would have preferred Andrew Jackson to be bumped, but the $10 is next up for a redesign, apparently.
I would have bumped Washington, Jefferson, or Lincoln because they're also on coins. Of course, I also favor getting rid of both the penny and the $1 bill, so that wouldn't leave a lot of room for someone to replace Washington or Lincoln, and the $2 bill is so rarely seen it perhaps shouldn't count*, but if one assumes all the current denominations of both bills and coins are to remain in circulation, it seems to me it'd be more logical to replace someone whose face is also on another piece of money (Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln) than someone whose face isn't (Hamilton, Jackson, Grant, Franklin on bills; FDR, Kennedy, Sacagawea/presidents on coins).
*If you put the woman on the $2 bill, in practice it'd be sort of like putting Susan B. Anthony and Sacagawea on the $1 coin–a bit of an empty gesture because the money in question is so seldom used. I used a $1 coin a few weeks ago at the butcher shop (I'd gotten it in change from the candy machine at the office) and the guy wasn't expecting it and promptly dropped it on the floor.
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 18, 2015, 07:37:52 AM
it seems to me it'd be more logical to replace someone whose face is also on another piece of money (Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln) than someone whose face isn't (Hamilton, Jackson, Grant, Franklin on bills; FDR, Kennedy, Sacagawea/presidents on coins).
The only problem with that is Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln are kind of the big three in American history. I see what you're saying, but even I have trouble with that proposal. Especially with the penny going out.
Of the commonly used bills, the $10 is the 2nd least commonly used; even less common than the $100 bill. Only the $50 bill is printed less. So in a way it's still a slight, although not a empty gesture like the $2 bill.
http://www.moneyfactory.gov/resources/productionannual.html
May be the 2nd least commonly used, but it's still used a fair bit.
Hoo's comment gave me an idea...and something along the lines of what the UK, EU, and Canada have done: ditch the $1 and $2 bills and mint $1 and $2 coins for general circulation. Put Washington on one of the two, and use the other for a "rotating women in history" series, similar to recent $1 coins as well as the post-1999 quarter. I would do this in addition to putting a woman on the $10 and/or the $20.
Quote from: froggie on June 18, 2015, 09:39:48 AM
May be the 2nd least commonly used, but it's still used a fair bit.
Hoo's comment gave me an idea...and something along the lines of what the UK, EU, and Canada have done: ditch the $1 and $2 bills and mint $1 and $2 coins for general circulation. Put Washington on one of the two, and use the other for a "rotating women in history" series, similar to recent $1 coins as well as the post-1999 quarter. I would do this in addition to putting a woman on the $10 and/or the $20.
I've been saying to ditch the $1 bill since the Sacagawea coin came out. As for the $2 coin? Sure, but I see it as a $2 bill type situation. Kind of a novelty item
I don't like this, for several reasons:
-- Hamilton deserves to be on a bill, as an especially prominent Founding Father, who also laid the early foundations of our monetary and financial system, and also is one of the non-dead Presidents in the current lineup (Franklin on the $100 being the other). This point was made (including by conservative talking heads) when some people wanted to put Reagan on the $10 bill, and I agreed -- put Reagan on a bill at some point, but leave Hamilton alone on the $10.
-- It is thoroughly sexist to reserve a slot on the bills for women, rather than the next major historical figure in line, just for the sake of having a woman in the lineup. For whatever reasons (some of them unjust), women haven't had the same opportunities to make history than men, and I don't see any of the candidates in play (such as Harriet Tubman) as "next in line".
-- Why not Martin Luther King, Jr.? To my mind, he's clearly "next in line". FDR and Reagan would also be up there, as well as Teddy Roosevelt, all of them ahead of the proposed women's candidates.
History #1 - Of those currently on the "major" US money (coins except $, bills except $2), the least significant is clearly Grant. A corrupt and failed president, and a general who won using human wave tactics against out numbered and out supplied opponents. His inclusion on money is a vestage of northern Civil War triumptualism.
History #2 - Sacagawea on a coin is silly for multiple reasons. For one thing, no painting or even description of her exists. But mainly, she was not a citizen. Applying modern concepts, she was a Shoshone, a people not yet a part of any European or Euro-American concept. Her baby (also on the coin) would theoretically be a British subject. The whole idea that Europeans and Euro-Americans could "sell" and "purchase" Louisiana from one another and that this somehow made this place part of the USA is historically and politically simplistic. The region, like all parts of the USA became as such by acts of settlers and such, and not purchases of land by people who had no idea what the place even looked like.
History #3 - There is no woman whose political/military/financial contributions are even close to be worthy.
Practical - The continued use of $1 bills is wasteful and overly complex. The USA should have the same money mix as Canada with $1 and $2 coins.
Politics #1 - That the current administration would take down Hamilton, generally of a line of thought that would be Republican, rather than Jackson, founder of the democrat party, is not surprising.
Politics #2 - Nor is the PC pandering of replacing the founder of the US monetary system with someone who is little more than a footnote in history.
Politics #3 - There is nothing that says political or military figures have to be on money. The US used alagorical figures until the 20th centruy. Most European republics pre-Euro used acomplished people in other fields or alagorical figures. The English do as well, and mix them up every few years, as do the Australians and New Zealanders. The Euro doesn't have people at all. The Northern Irish have generic regular people. South Africa has animals.
Personally, why not change up the bills every 10 years or so? Maybe with broad catagories, such as "social reformer" on the 5; scientist/inventor/explorer on the 10, military figure on the 20, artist/author/poet on the 50 and political figure on the 100.
Quote from: froggie on June 18, 2015, 09:39:48 AM
May be the 2nd least commonly used, but it's still used a fair bit.
Hoo's comment gave me an idea...and something along the lines of what the UK, EU, and Canada have done: ditch the $1 and $2 bills and mint $1 and $2 coins for general circulation. Put Washington on one of the two, and use the other for a "rotating women in history" series, similar to recent $1 coins as well as the post-1999 quarter. I would do this in addition to putting a woman on the $10 and/or the $20.
I somewhat agree on the coins, although I think from a practical short-term standpoint dropping the $1 bill and ramping up production of the $2 bill instead would be less of an adjustment for people (given that many vending machines currently accept dollar coins as it is). The biggest adjustment, I think, when you go to Canada or Europe is remembering that your pocket change is actually a substantial bit of money and you shouldn't just throw it in a jar on the kitchen counter or whatever. I find it's routine to have €15 worth of coins in my pocket when I'm in Europe, for example. Not a fortune, but not chump change. Of course you adjust, but it can take a while if you're not used to it.
Use of the $1 bill is a huge waste of taxpayer money, though.
Edited to add: Forgot to mention....while it is unlikely ever to happen, I also like the idea of there being a denomination of banknote larger than $100. I found the €200 to be quite convenient due in part to it keeping my wallet slimmer. A $200 or $250 bill would acknowledge that $100 doesn't go nearly as far as it used to and would allow for moving someone from an existing note to make room for whomever they want to add (e.g., move Hamilton to the $200 so you can put Virgilia Hazard or whomever on the $10). I know it won't happen due to widespread use of credit/debit, easily-accessible ATMs, and a concern that large-denomination bills are used for money-laundering (the €500 is sometimes called the "gangster's note").
Quote from: SP Cook on June 18, 2015, 11:30:16 AM
History #1 - Of those currently on the "major" US money (coins except $, bills except $2), the least significant is clearly Grant. A corrupt and failed president, and a general who won using human wave tactics against out numbered and out supplied opponents. His inclusion on money is a vestage of northern Civil War triumptualism.
Grant used the tactics that would win a war in the industrial era. Civil War rifles were good enough to hold off the Napoleonic-era tactics of charge and cavalry. Grant adjusted to that and used numbers and seige, and he won.
Quote
History #2 - Sacagawea on a coin is silly for multiple reasons. For one thing, no painting or even description of her exists. But mainly, she was not a citizen. Applying modern concepts, she was a Shoshone, a people not yet a part of any European or Euro-American concept. Her baby (also on the coin) would theoretically be a British subject. The whole idea that Europeans and Euro-Americans could "sell" and "purchase" Louisiana from one another and that this somehow made this place part of the USA is historically and politically simplistic. The region, like all parts of the USA became as such by acts of settlers and such, and not purchases of land by people who had no idea what the place even looked like.
She gave invaluable help to explorers who she knew to be exploring on behalf of the USA.
Quote
History #3 - There is no woman whose political/military/financial contributions are even close to be worthy.
But, see your point Politics #3.
Quote
Practical - The continued use of $1 bills is wasteful and overly complex. The USA should have the same money mix as Canada with $1 and $2 coins.
Agreed.
Quote
Politics #1 - That the current administration would take down Hamilton, generally of a line of thought that would be Republican, rather than Jackson, founder of the democrat party, is not surprising.
Politics #2 - Nor is the PC pandering of replacing the founder of the US monetary system with someone who is little more than a footnote in history.
Politics #3 - There is nothing that says political or military figures have to be on money. The US used alagorical figures until the 20th centruy. Most European republics pre-Euro used acomplished people in other fields or alagorical figures. The English do as well, and mix them up every few years, as do the Australians and New Zealanders. The Euro doesn't have people at all. The Northern Irish have generic regular people. South Africa has animals.
Personally, why not change up the bills every 10 years or so? Maybe with broad catagories, such as "social reformer" on the 5; scientist/inventor/explorer on the 10, military figure on the 20, artist/author/poet on the 50 and political figure on the 100.
Yes, I'd like to see artists, musicians, playwrights, scientists. Instead we have the presidential dollar coins! Imagine... you, too, can get your face on a coin, even if you're a completely rotten president!
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 18, 2015, 07:37:52 AM
*If you put the woman on the $2 bill, in practice it'd be sort of like putting Susan B. Anthony and Sacagawea on the $1 coin–a bit of an empty gesture because the money in question is so seldom used. I used a $1 coin a few weeks ago at the butcher shop (I'd gotten it in change from the candy machine at the office) and the guy wasn't expecting it and promptly dropped it on the floor.
Putting SBA on the "Carter Quarter" small $1 coin wasn't an empty gesture when it was introduced in 1979. The government pushed it hard and wanted to replace the $1 bill with it, but the public wanted nothing to do with it and it was deemed a failure and the SBA dollar was cancelled after 1981. At the tail end of the 20th Century, the mint decided to give the small dollar coin another try so they came up with the Sac dollar coin They didn't have the dies ready in time so in 1999 they minted SBA dollars again for that one year, switching to the Sac dollar in 2000. One reason the "golden" small dollars like the Sac, the Native American dollars, and the presidential series have been failures is because the coins don't age well at all. If you have a brand new one (I have a 2007-S Sac PF69 Ultra Cameo graded by NGC that is stunning) they are attractive coins but when they have been in circulation, even for a short time, the mint luster disappears and the coins just look ugly. The other problem that has existed since 1979 is the similarity of the size of the quarter dollar and the small dollar. It's odd that the order of the currently minted US coins in size is dime, penny, nickel, quarter, dollar, and half dollar (yes, they still mint Kennedy halves for collectors only). The 10 cent piece being smaller than the one cent piece is unusual and I imagine foreigners being confused by the denominations and their sizes. I've heard rumblings about putting numerals on the reverse of coins instead of phrases in English like "quarter dollar" and "one dime" which is something I strongly disapprove of. It's just another meaningless PC gesture and would have no benefits for Americans but would coddle foreigners.
It is interesting that the reverse of the Eisenhower dollar and the SBA dollar are almost identical other than size.
Misleading thread title. The article states that Hamilton will share the bill with a woman.
Quote from: spooky on June 18, 2015, 02:22:04 PM
Misleading thread title. The article states that Hamilton will share the bill with a woman.
Which I have no problem with what-so-ever. Now, the question is, who? I like that debate better.
So now I know why somebody posted on FB that Chuck Norris should be on our currency.
I thought this (http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/06/15/caroline-criado-perez-and-the-death-of-western-civilization/) was a funny article about the leader of a similar campaign in Britain getting an pretty high honour (OBE).
The author's issue is, on top of the watering down of the honours system, was that the aim of her campaign was to get a woman on there not out of merit*, but because she's a woman as they are under represented on our money.
*which for Jane Austen, just like Elizabeth Fry who is on the current £5 notes (to be replaced by Churchill), has a strong case.
I disagree with changing the $10 bill. For one thing, Alex Hamilton deserves to be on the $10 and bumping him off would be a huge sign of disrespect towards him. The fact that they want to put "a woman" on the $10 reeks of PC bullshit. It is a form of discrimination because they said that they won't even consider putting a male on the $10. That, my friends, is sexist. Let's face it: most leaders and historical figures in the history of the USA were white men. It may be an inconvenient truth but it's reality. I can't think of a single woman that meets the criteria for bumping Hamilton from the bill.
I absolutely think Andrew Jackson should be taken off the $20 bill. He was a genocidal dictator who disobeyed a Supreme Court order and continuing the removal of Indians to Indian Territory. I live in Oklahoma and know a ton of Native Americans and I care very deeply about their plight. I used to work at a C-store and sometimes when the store wasn't busy and a customer paid with a $20, I would point at the portrait of Jackson and ask them if they knew who he was. Most of them didn't know (and many of these folks I talked to were Indians) so I told them he was the architect of the Trail of Tears and they were kind of surprised. My top two candidates to replace Jackson on the $20 are Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower. Yes, they were both Republicans, but the only thing they have in common with today's GOP is the name. Jackson should have never been put on the bill in the first place.
Why do we have to put politicians on our money? Why not put entertainers, humanitarians, or other types on them? How about Elvis Presley on the $10? Jimi Hendrix? Jim Morrison? Patsy Cline? Johnny Cash? They deserve to be honored but the government has to pat itself on the back every chance they get.
I absolutely think Ronald Reagan has as much business on our money as Andrew Jackson does. He was senile during much of his presidency, he ramped up the failed drug war, he sold arms to our arch enemy, Iran, to fund an uprising in Nicaragua to overthrow a democratically elected leader with a totalitarian dictator. He ruined the economy and we're still reeling from his policies. His "failed "trickle down economics" policy only made the rich richer and the poor and middle class poorer. He totally ignored AIDS when it was reaching plague-like proportions. He was a horrible president. It's funny that conservatives worship him when the reality is that he wouldn't be welcome in today's GOP He was too far to the left. Eisenhower and Barry Goldwater wouldn't be welcome in today's Republic Party either.
This is a moot point because besides the $1 and $2 bills, our paper money looks awful. The designs are simply terrible. The older pre-1995 (or whenever the first of the redesigned bills were introduced, I'm too lazy to look it up) were classy and handsome. When I see an old $20 bill I almost cry because they were so attractive compared to what we have now. They looked like true pieces of art while the new ones look like Monopoly money but less attractive.
As far as the coins go, I wish we would quit putting dead presidents on them and return to putting Liberty on them. The Liberty coins were sensual and beautiful and Liberty was always hot. Now we have atrocities like the current nickel with the engraving of Jefferson with a creepy look on his face that makes him look like a child molester. The shield penny isn't a bad design but they need to release a copper version for collectors. The FDR dime is venerable and shouldn't be changed. It is the oldest design currently in circulation. The whole state/national park/America the Beautiful quarter series are just boring and the presidential coin series bores me too. The Kennedy half, while not intended for circulation (NIFC) is a lovely coin but rarely seen. My favorite era in American coin design is 1921 to 1928. You had the venerable wheat penny, which has one of my favorite reverses of all time; the funky buffalo nickel, the lovely Mercury dime, the intricate standing Liberty quarter (which unfortunately, didn't age well and wore out very quickly), the sexy walking Liberty half, and the peace dollar with a beautiful rendition of Liberty on the obverse.
Quote from: bugo on June 18, 2015, 02:58:14 PM
I can't think of a single woman that meets the criteria for bumping Hamilton from the bill.
The article said
share the bill with a woman, not replace.
If they wanted to put someone new on a coin, here would be my top choices, in order:
Option 1: 2 or 2.50 dollar coin. (My idea for 2.50 is because gold $2.50 coins were historically used, while $2 coins never existed, although $2 as a new coin could also work.)
Option 2: Replace Jackson on the $20 bill. Jackson's actions were controversial.
Option 3: $200 bill, new denomination.
Option 4: New design on the $1 coin.
Quote from: bugo on June 18, 2015, 02:58:14 PM
I disagree with changing the $10 bill. For one thing, Alex Hamilton deserves to be on the $10 and bumping him off would be a huge sign of disrespect towards him. The fact that they want to put "a woman" on the $10 reeks of PC bullshit. It is a form of discrimination because they said that they won't even consider putting a male on the $10. That, my friends, is sexist. Let's face it: most leaders and historical figures in the history of the USA were white men. It may be an inconvenient truth but it's reality. I can't think of a single woman that meets the criteria for bumping Hamilton from the bill.
I absolutely think Andrew Jackson should be taken off the $20 bill. He was a genocidal dictator who disobeyed a Supreme Court order and continuing the removal of Indians to Indian Territory. I live in Oklahoma and know a ton of Native Americans and I care very deeply about their plight. I used to work at a C-store and sometimes when the store wasn't busy and a customer paid with a $20, I would point at the portrait of Jackson and ask them if they knew who he was. Most of them didn't know (and many of these folks I talked to were Indians) so I told them he was the architect of the Trail of Tears and they were kind of surprised. My top two candidates to replace Jackson on the $20 are Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower. Yes, they were both Republicans, but the only thing they have in common with today's GOP is the name. Jackson should have never been put on the bill in the first place.
Why do we have to put politicians on our money? Why not put entertainers, humanitarians, or other types on them? How about Elvis Presley on the $10? Jimi Hendrix? Jim Morrison? Patsy Cline? Johnny Cash? They deserve to be honored but the government has to pat itself on the back every chance they get.
I absolutely think Ronald Reagan has as much business on our money as Andrew Jackson does. He was senile during much of his presidency, he ramped up the failed drug war, he sold arms to our arch enemy, Iran, to fund an uprising in Nicaragua to overthrow a democratically elected leader with a totalitarian dictator. He ruined the economy and we're still reeling from his policies. His "failed "trickle down economics" policy only made the rich richer and the poor and middle class poorer. He totally ignored AIDS when it was reaching plague-like proportions. He was a horrible president. It's funny that conservatives worship him when the reality is that he wouldn't be welcome in today's GOP He was too far to the left. Eisenhower and Barry Goldwater wouldn't be welcome in today's Republic Party either.
This is a moot point because besides the $1 and $2 bills, our paper money looks awful. The designs are simply terrible. The older pre-1995 (or whenever the first of the redesigned bills were introduced, I'm too lazy to look it up) were classy and handsome. When I see an old $20 bill I almost cry because they were so attractive compared to what we have now. They looked like true pieces of art while the new ones look like Monopoly money but less attractive.
As far as the coins go, I wish we would quit putting dead presidents on them and return to putting Liberty on them. The Liberty coins were sensual and beautiful and Liberty was always hot. Now we have atrocities like the current nickel with the engraving of Jefferson with a creepy look on his face that makes him look like a child molester. The shield penny isn't a bad design but they need to release a copper version for collectors. The FDR dime is venerable and shouldn't be changed. It is the oldest design currently in circulation. The whole state/national park/America the Beautiful quarter series are just boring and the presidential coin series bores me too. The Kennedy half, while not intended for circulation (NIFC) is a lovely coin but rarely seen. My favorite era in American coin design is 1921 to 1928. You had the venerable wheat penny, which has one of my favorite reverses of all time; the funky buffalo nickel, the lovely Mercury dime, the intricate standing Liberty quarter (which unfortunately, didn't age well and wore out very quickly), the sexy walking Liberty half, and the peace dollar with a beautiful rendition of Liberty on the obverse.
You wrote a whole lot here, but yet you never backed up your opening statement. Going back to line #1:
QuoteI disagree with changing the $10 bill. For one thing, Alex Hamilton deserves to be on the $10
Why?
QuotePutting SBA on the "Carter Quarter" small $1 coin wasn't an empty gesture when it was introduced in 1979. The government pushed it hard and wanted to replace the $1 bill with it, but the public wanted nothing to do with it and it was deemed a failure and the SBA dollar was cancelled after 1981. At the tail end of the 20th Century, the mint decided to give the small dollar coin another try so they came up with the Sac dollar coin They didn't have the dies ready in time so in 1999 they minted SBA dollars again for that one year, switching to the Sac dollar in 2000.
Of course. I remember what a big deal that coin was at first even though I was a little kid. What I meant is that it turned into an empty gesture due to the coin being a flop.
I have a few 1999 SBAs somewhere. I remember in 1999 one of my colleagues was a know-it-all asshole who said I didn't know what I was talking about when I referred to a 1999 SBA. So the next day, in front of six other colleagues, I placed one in front of him. He didn't even act embarrassed or apologetic.
Quote from: bugo on June 18, 2015, 02:58:14 PM
I can't think of a single woman that meets the criteria for bumping Hamilton from the bill.
I'm not saying this is my viewpoint, because honestly I haven't done the research, but how about this as a conversation starting point: Susan B. Anthony, Harriet Tubman and Rosa Parks did more as individuals for the history of this country. I'm not discrediting Hamilton or his accomplishments, but he was one in a sea of Founding Fathers, doing what needed to be done to establish an independent country. If Hamilton didn't exist, someone in that group would have done his work. Could the same be said of those three women - if they didn't exist, would someone have done what they did? Perhaps, but didn't they act more as pioneers in their actions, lone warriors in the face of oppression and discrimination? Aren't their stories more in line with a traditional reading of the American Spirit?
Or look at it this way: in the condensed, Schoolhouse Rock type version of American history, who gets more play: Alexander Hamilton, or Tubman/Anthony/Parks? Or Eleanor Roosevelt?
All of that said, I'm all for starting from scratch. Figure out the denominations that we actually need/use, have multiple versions of each, use people from the arts, sciences, politics, military, etc.
Quote from: bugo on June 18, 2015, 02:58:14 PM
How about Elvis Presley on the $10? Jimi Hendrix? Jim Morrison? Patsy Cline? Johnny Cash? They deserve to be honored but the government has to pat itself on the back every chance they get.
If we're trying to pick a handful of "iconic" American musical figures, then for all their brilliance, Hendrix, Morrison and Cline's careers were all too short (and Hendrix and Morrison probably too tainted by drug use to pass muster. So was Elvis, but his icon and career transcends that while Hendrix and Morrison's careers are - fairly or not - defined by it.). Before you get there, you'd need Duke Ellington or Louis Armstrong; Gershwin; Irving Berlin; Stephen Foster; Aaron Copland; Miles Davis; etc.
From a listening standpoint I'd rather have Hendrix or the Doors, but from a iconography standpoint the Beach Boys or Bruce Springsteen probably rank higher.
Quote from: spooky on June 18, 2015, 02:22:04 PM
Misleading thread title. The article states that Hamilton will share the bill with a woman.
I don't think sharing paper money is appropriate, unless we use Mrs. Hamilton.
Quote from: kkt on June 18, 2015, 04:21:39 PM
Quote from: spooky on June 18, 2015, 02:22:04 PM
Misleading thread title. The article states that Hamilton will share the bill with a woman.
I don't think sharing paper money is appropriate, unless we use Mrs. Hamilton.
You mean Elizabeth Schuyler (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Schuyler_Hamilton)?
Could be a good choice.
I think that we should bump someone down to the 2 dollar bill, and have jefferson be on the 10. He deserves better than he has been given. Give hamilton the 50, grant the 2.
Quote from: DTComposer on June 18, 2015, 04:09:07 PM
If we're trying to pick a handful of "iconic" American musical figures, then for all their brilliance, Hendrix, Morrison and Cline's careers were all too short (and Hendrix and Morrison probably too tainted by drug use to pass muster. So was Elvis, but his icon and career transcends that while Hendrix and Morrison's careers are - fairly or not - defined by it.). Before you get there, you'd need Duke Ellington or Louis Armstrong; Gershwin; Irving Berlin; Stephen Foster; Aaron Copland; Miles Davis; etc.
From a listening standpoint I'd rather have Hendrix or the Doors, but from a iconography standpoint the Beach Boys or Bruce Springsteen probably rank higher.
I forgot to mention the father of the blues, Robert Johnson. He wasn't the first bluesman but he was the most important.
As far as being iconic, I think Hendrix and Morrison are more iconic than the Beach Boys and Springsteen. If you're going to put Springsteen on it you might as well put Billy Joel on it.
Quote from: SP Cook on June 18, 2015, 11:30:16 AM
History #2 - Sacagawea on a coin is silly for multiple reasons. For one thing, no painting or even description of her exists. But mainly, she was not a citizen. Applying modern concepts, she was a Shoshone, a people not yet a part of any European or Euro-American concept. Her baby (also on the coin) would theoretically be a British subject. The whole idea that Europeans and Euro-Americans could "sell" and "purchase" Louisiana from one another and that this somehow made this place part of the USA is historically and politically simplistic. The region, like all parts of the USA became as such by acts of settlers and such, and not purchases of land by people who had no idea what the place even looked like.
They should have used a more attractive woman for the Sac dollar. As I already said, I live in the former Indian Territory and there are some beautiful Native Americans that would have made far better subjects. From what I understand, the model they used wasn't even from the same tribe that Sac was in.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 18, 2015, 03:16:01 PM
You wrote a whole lot here, but yet you never backed up your opening statement. Going back to line #1:
QuoteI disagree with changing the $10 bill. For one thing, Alex Hamilton deserves to be on the $10
Why?
It is my opinion. Since when do you have to prove your opinion is correct? It's not a fact. If somebody had a better answer I might change my stance. I'm stubborn, but I'm open to changing my mind.
Quote from: bugo on June 18, 2015, 05:31:37 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on June 18, 2015, 04:09:07 PM
If we're trying to pick a handful of "iconic" American musical figures, then for all their brilliance, Hendrix, Morrison and Cline's careers were all too short (and Hendrix and Morrison probably too tainted by drug use to pass muster. So was Elvis, but his icon and career transcends that while Hendrix and Morrison's careers are - fairly or not - defined by it.). Before you get there, you'd need Duke Ellington or Louis Armstrong; Gershwin; Irving Berlin; Stephen Foster; Aaron Copland; Miles Davis; etc.
From a listening standpoint I'd rather have Hendrix or the Doors, but from a iconography standpoint the Beach Boys or Bruce Springsteen probably rank higher.
I forgot to mention the father of the blues, Robert Johnson. He wasn't the first bluesman but he was the most important.
As far as being iconic, I think Hendrix and Morrison are more iconic than the Beach Boys and Springsteen. If you're going to put Springsteen on it you might as well put Billy Joel on it.
Yeah, it starts to get subjective really fast. As I said, I'd listen to Hendrix and the Doors over the others any day of the week, but in terms of long-lasting cultural impact and representation of something uniquely and/or stereotypically "American," I think the Beach Boys would go first. Note that this is not necessarily a judgement on their musical talent nor an opinion on whether their music is "good."
The Beach Boys, as a representation of their sound and time, are head and shoulders above any of their contemporaries. Hendrix and Morrison, while arguably at the top of their heap, have much more competition, and the psychedelic/hard rock that they excelled at was being done just as well in England as in America.
My inclusion of Springsteen (who honestly I don't care all that much for) was from the concept that many of his people look at his song lyrics as representations of the American spirit and condition (both positive and negative).
Don't know why I didn't think of it (again, don't care for much of his music), but Michael Jackson is certainly one of the most iconic entertainers of the last 50 years, but again, too much external baggage to get onto currency.
FWIW, I don't think the dollar coin has (and did) fail because it was inherently unpopular; it failed largely because of bureaucratic politics. If the paper dollar had been withdrawn in the US, like the equivalent paper currency units were withdrawn in other countries, people would have adjusted, just as we've adjusted to thousands of other changes that a few people disliked at the time: glass bottles of soda giving way mostly to cans and plastic, self-checkouts, self-serve gas stations (except NJ and OR), etc. Besides which, I believe the mint figured out (or was told by the Canadians) a way to stop the golden coins from appearing tarnished in circulation and has been using it for several years now.
Was there a movement to remove Andrew Jackson from the $20 bill. The 7th president of the US (1829-37), he wasn't a good guy: he authorized the removal of almost every American Indian from east of the Mississippi to the Indian territories of the Great Plains (now the state of Oklahoma), which is considered "ethnic cleansing" by today's standards in international law. I thought there would be a woman on the $20 bill to replace Jackson's image.
Quote from: Mike D boy on June 18, 2015, 06:25:46 PM
Was there a movement to remove Andrew Jackson from the $20 bill. The 7th president of the US (1829-37), he wasn't a good guy: he authorized the removal of almost every American Indian from east of the Mississippi to the Indian territories of the Great Plains (now the state of Oklahoma), which is considered "ethnic cleansing" by today's standards in international law. I thought there would be a woman on the $20 bill to replace Jackson's image.
There is recently (and seemingly coincidentally) http://www.womenon20s.org/
Quote from: DTComposer on June 18, 2015, 06:29:00 PM
Quote from: Mike D boy on June 18, 2015, 06:25:46 PM
Was there a movement to remove Andrew Jackson from the $20 bill. The 7th president of the US (1829-37), he wasn't a good guy: he authorized the removal of almost every American Indian from east of the Mississippi to the Indian territories of the Great Plains (now the state of Oklahoma), which is considered "ethnic cleansing" by today's standards in international law. I thought there would be a woman on the $20 bill to replace Jackson's image.
There is recently (and seemingly coincidentally) http://www.womenon20s.org/
Thanx for the link, DT. :-) It appears Harriet Tubman will be on a future $20 bill under approval of the US Dept. of treasury, although a contest poll places Rosa Parks second place. We like to have a woman and an African-American featured on our nation's money. George Washington is on our quarters and dollar bills, while Abraham Lincoln is on our pennies (why do we still have them?) and $5 bills. Replacing them on one of our currency pieces isn't removing them from history, we're just including other important US historical figures, esp. women and minorities.
^The poll run by that site is not official and the Treasury has not approved its results. However, it was the impetus for the change on the $10; the Treasury was planning on changing the $10 next anyway, so they figured they may as well implement the woman-on-currency change at the same time as that scheduled redesign rather than waiting for the $20 redesign.
It will be interesting to see if the Treasury continues on this plan if the White House switches parties in 2016. Even if there is political will to cancel it, the process of drawing up the images, engraving the plates, etc. might be well underway and it might be too late to cancel it by then.
And, frankly, the backlash from cancelling a fairly benign PC move would be far greater than any benefit. I don't think the next president would easily be able to get away with undoing this.
I'm not sure whether or not I'm in favor of this, but I totally get the logic behind Obama making the announcement now from a "now it has to happen!" standpoint. He has more than enough time to announce the person who will be on the bill and get momentum going before he leaves office.
I vote for Eleanor Roosevelt for the 10. Her husband is on the 10 cent coin, having her on the 10 dollar would be fitting. She was a civil rights supporter, and was the first active first lady, probably one of the most active.
She'd be my pick too - she was an active political force, served her country in the UN, and used her brains and influence for good. I think, if the objective is to promote women through this, picking a relatively modern woman that young girls can aspire to is probably better, and Roosevelt fits that description better than Tubman.
Harriet Tubman, while amazing, is almost more of a legend at this point than a person anybody in this country can really relate to or understand. I wouldn't oppose her being the choice, but I wonder if having her on a coin would actually inspire today's women. Maybe bringing Harriet Tubman back into the national conversation through this process would do that, in which case that works.
What Rosa Parks did took a great amount of courage and bravery, but I just don't know that it rises to the level of being on money.
I am bummed to see Hamilton being bumped (or shared, whatever that means) from the $10, because he deserves to be on a bill far moreso than Jackson or Grant. I'd hope we one day see Ike on a bill- maybe he could replace Grant someday on the $50.
I'd like to see James Madison or James K Polk on some form of currency. I'd argue that Polk (who was responsible for acquiring most of the Western third of the US) and Madison are much more deserving of being on currency than Jackson (who was the architect of the Trail of Tears and the originator of the Spoils system, and whose presidency was so divisive that it was the foundation of the modern party system) and Grant (whose successes in the Civil War were modest compared to his incompetence and corruption as president)
Quote from: corco on June 18, 2015, 09:56:13 PM
I am bummed to see Hamilton being bumped (or shared, whatever that means) from the $10, because he deserves to be on a bill far moreso than Jackson or Grant. I'd hope we one day see Ike on a bill- maybe he could replace Grant someday on the $50.
I don't see how Hamilton remaining on the $10 bill in a diminished or "shared" role works. My hunch is that this is a face-saver not meant to be taken seriously. When it comes time to design the bill, the argument will be made that having two portraits on the bill doesn't work (creates too much visual clutter, for example), and so Hamilton will disappear entirely.
Hamilton could be moved over to either the $50 or (preferably) the $20 when those bills come up for their own redesigns. But he'd have to compete with MLK for one of those bills.
Easy enough to keep Hamilton on the $10 without cluttering things up; he can go on the back. They're going to redesign both sides, after all.
The Queen manages to fit on Bank of England notes along with other people, after all: she gets the front, the other folks go on the back.
As for the choice, picking Eleanor Roosevelt to me would be an obvious partisan gambit; someone like Harriet Tubman or Susan B. Anthony or Ida Wells at least wouldn't be obviously identifiable with the Democratic Party, particularly in an environment where Hillary Clinton is falling over herself to run both as a born-again New Dealer and as a feminist icon. Honestly if you were going to pick a presidential spouse on her independent merits, I'd choose Abigail Adams instead (who would also tie with the Hamilton theme).
Quote from: bugo on June 18, 2015, 01:56:30 PM
One reason the "golden" small dollars like the Sac, the Native American dollars, and the presidential series have been failures is because the coins don't age well at all. If you have a brand new one (I have a 2007-S Sac PF69 Ultra Cameo graded by NGC that is stunning) they are attractive coins but when they have been in circulation, even for a short time, the mint luster disappears and the coins just look ugly.
I honestly don't think that has anything to do with it. People will use dingy old quarters just as readily as new ones, to anyone who is not a coin collector, it's just money and what it looks like isn't really important beyond being able to identify it.
No, the reason dollar coins aren't getting used is because no one has any reason to use them. They offer no functional advantage to the average Joe over $1 bills, and indeed have a distinct disadvantage since bills are less bulky and easier to carry around than coins. No matter how it is designed, no $1 coin will ever see widespread use unless the $1 bill is discontinued.
As for the matter at hand I don't really care who is depicted on the bills in my wallet. Put random pictures of cats on them for all I care. It's just money and so long as it remains equally usable, meh.
There hasn't been an American president or serious contender who was anything like a new dealer since LBJ.
How about getting away from politicians -- Ella Fitzgerald, Georgia O'Keefe, or Sally Ride?
Quote from: kkt on June 19, 2015, 01:38:50 AM
There hasn't been an American president or serious contender who was anything like a new dealer since LBJ.
How about getting away from politicians -- Ella Fitzgerald, Georgia O'Keefe, or Sally Ride?
No matter who you put on it its political as we live in a politically correct world. Even if you put Michael Jackson on the currency it would be politics.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 19, 2015, 02:28:55 AM
Quote from: kkt on June 19, 2015, 01:38:50 AM
There hasn't been an American president or serious contender who was anything like a new dealer since LBJ.
How about getting away from politicians -- Ella Fitzgerald, Georgia O'Keefe, or Sally Ride?
No matter who you put on it its political as we live in a politically correct world. Even if you put Michael Jackson on the currency it would be politics.
Everything has political overtones, but you can avoid people who are primarily politicians...
Quote from: Duke87 on June 19, 2015, 12:42:23 AM
I honestly don't think that has anything to do with it. People will use dingy old quarters just as readily as new ones, to anyone who is not a coin collector, it's just money and what it looks like isn't really important beyond being able to identify it.
How many severely corroded quarters have you seen lately? How many post-1964 (cupronickel) quarters have you seen that had significant wear? The old pre-1965 quarters tended to wear around the edges but the modern copper/nickel coins actually age a lot better than silver quarters did.
When I worked at a C-store, I would spot 1965 quarters nearly every day. Most of them were still in excellent condition. I don't know where all these grungy quarters are, but I've rarely ever seen any.
Quote from: kkt on June 19, 2015, 02:48:45 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 19, 2015, 02:28:55 AM
Quote from: kkt on June 19, 2015, 01:38:50 AM
There hasn't been an American president or serious contender who was anything like a new dealer since LBJ.
How about getting away from politicians -- Ella Fitzgerald, Georgia O'Keefe, or Sally Ride?
No matter who you put on it its political as we live in a politically correct world. Even if you put Michael Jackson on the currency it would be politics.
Everything has political overtones, but you can avoid people who are primarily politicians...
Which is the average Joe. Every time I sit at a bar stool some idiot will always talk about how great Clinton was, which may or may not be true, but that is another story. However the way he stuck up for Clinton was like he was a big member of the Democratic Party who campaigned for the guy back in his tenor as President. This man was no more than just the average male who works a regular job and holds no political office and when I said that all politicians are crooked he started ranting that Clinton was different from others like he was his brother or something.
Then you have some that defend others who visit local bar happy hours as get them loaded with beer and the garbage flies.
Quote from: bugo on June 18, 2015, 05:42:36 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 18, 2015, 03:16:01 PM
You wrote a whole lot here, but yet you never backed up your opening statement. Going back to line #1:
QuoteI disagree with changing the $10 bill. For one thing, Alex Hamilton deserves to be on the $10
Why?
It is my opinion. Since when do you have to prove your opinion is correct? It's not a fact. If somebody had a better answer I might change my stance. I'm stubborn, but I'm open to changing my mind.
I never said your opinion was wrong. In fact, I gave you the opportunity to back up your opinion, which you didn't do. Several people have given reasons why a woman should be on the $10 bill. You still haven't given a single reason why Hamilton deserves to stay on the it.
The debate continues, this time with former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke strongly supporting leaving Hamilton on the $10, and instead bumping Jackson from the $20 (for a multitude of sins, including President Jackson's hatred of central bankers like Bernanke):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/06/22/former-fed-chair-ben-bernanke-is-appalled-alexander-hamilton-is-coming-off-the-10-bill/
It is striking that, even in response to the original proposal to bump off Jackson in favor of Harriet Tubman, Jackson is not getting a lot of love in this debate.
FWIW, here's an idea on Alexander Hamilton's view on women (from the Wikipedia article on his wife):
Quote
In spring 1779, Alexander Hamilton asked his friend John Laurens to find him a wife in South Carolina:
QuoteShe must be young–handsome (I lay most stress upon a good shape) Sensible (a little learning will do)–well bred. . . chaste and tender (I am an enthusiast in my notions of fidelity and fondness); of some good nature–a great deal of generosity (she must neither love money nor scolding, for I dislike equally a termagant and an economist)–In politics, I am indifferent what side she may be of–I think I have arguments that will safely convert her to mine–As to religion a moderate stock will satisfy me–She must believe in God and hate a saint. But as to fortune, the larger stock of that the better.
Of course, this was probably not out of the norm for the viewpoints of the time, but I thought it was interesting in light of his possibly getting bumped off the $10 bill for a woman.
Quote from: kkt on June 19, 2015, 01:38:50 AM
There hasn't been an American president or serious contender who was anything like a new dealer since LBJ.
How about getting away from politicians -- Ella Fitzgerald, Georgia O'Keefe, or Sally Ride?
For that matter, how about getting away from putting any person's image on money.
Quote from: oscar on June 23, 2015, 03:14:25 PM
It is striking that, even in response to the original proposal to bump off Jackson in favor of Harriet Tubman, Jackson is not getting a lot of love in this debate.
Jackson seemed like an admirable fellow in 1928 when he was put on the $20. These days, he's viewed a lot more dimly. It certainly doesn't help him that the Native American tribes actually have a voice these days (and some tribes are doing better for themselves now than they ever have).
I have to agree with Bernanke here. Hamilton is probably a better figure for our currency than Jackson. If they go ahead and bump Hamilton, I hope that the precedent allows Jackson to be bumped too, maybe in favor of Martin Luther King, Jr.
Or here's an idea: we've issued a savings bond with Albert Einstein on it, so the BEP has an engraving of him sitting around collecting dust somewhere...
Quote from: roadman on June 23, 2015, 03:53:33 PM
Quote from: kkt on June 19, 2015, 01:38:50 AM
There hasn't been an American president or serious contender who was anything like a new dealer since LBJ.
How about getting away from politicians -- Ella Fitzgerald, Georgia O'Keefe, or Sally Ride?
For that matter, how about getting away from putting any person's image on money.
It works for the euro, but the result is a little bland, in my opinion. Though I imagine nobody on here would argue with a series of bills with famous bridges of the United States on them!
Why not create a new $200 or $250 bill?
Advantages:
1. Nobody would have to be removed from any bill. It's a new denomination.
2. The $200 or $250 bill would be similar to the $5 bill in the 1930s. Even in the 1930s, bills went up to $100.
Quote from: 1 on June 23, 2015, 04:43:18 PM
Why not create a new $200 or $250 bill?
Advantages:
1. Nobody would have to be removed from any bill. It's a new denomination.
2. The $200 or $250 bill would be similar to the $5 bill in the 1930s. Even in the 1930s, bills went up to $100.
Creating a new big bill (say, a $500) wouldn't eliminate the need to change a smaller, more-commonly-used bill to make room for a new face. I can see Reagan going on a $500 (people can differ on why that would be an appropriate place for his mug), but King, Tubman, or almost anyone else on a little-used big bill would be considered not a meaningful honor. That would be kind of like Susan B. Anthony on the little-used original version of the downsized dollar coin, which isn't really counted toward the "women on money" cause.
There would still be the traditional concern about a big bill facilitating black market transactions. I say, better such transactions be done with big dollar bills than big Euro bills.
Quote from: 1 on June 23, 2015, 04:43:18 PM
Why not create a new $200 or $250 bill?
Advantages:
1. Nobody would have to be removed from any bill. It's a new denomination.
2. The $200 or $250 bill would be similar to the $5 bill in the 1930s. Even in the 1930s, bills went up to $100.
Who uses big bills like that other than drug dealers and other criminals? Most large transactions are done digitally nowadays.
Furthermore, those would be begging to be counterfeited.
Quote from: TXtoNJ on June 23, 2015, 05:15:19 PM
Quote from: 1 on June 23, 2015, 04:43:18 PM
Why not create a new $200 or $250 bill?
Advantages:
1. Nobody would have to be removed from any bill. It's a new denomination.
2. The $200 or $250 bill would be similar to the $5 bill in the 1930s. Even in the 1930s, bills went up to $100.
Who uses big bills like that other than drug dealers and other criminals? Most large transactions are done digitally nowadays.
Furthermore, those would be begging to be counterfeited.
Actually, the most counterfeited bill in the US is the $20. I'm surprised people don't counterfeit $1s more often (never updated, easy to hide).
Doesn't the cost of making a decent counterfeit one for somebody that doesn't have access to the mint's economies of scale typically exceed $1?
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 23, 2015, 04:30:25 PMQuote from: roadman on June 23, 2015, 03:53:33 PMFor that matter, how about getting away from putting any person's image on money.
It works for the euro, but the result is a little bland, in my opinion. Though I imagine nobody on here would argue with a series of bills with famous bridges of the United States on them!
The bridges on Euros are as real as Greek democracy thanks to the Euro: totally fake.
Mostly to avoid the fighting over which note is more prestigeous and which country's bridge is on it. You might get that with states, but the demos (ie the idea that there is one people under the federal structure) in the USA is much more real than in the Eurozone, so maybe not, but with about twice the number of states, than countries that use the Euro, its still going to be an issue.
The theme on Euro notes is ages of architecture - €5 is Roman, €50 is Renaissance, €500 is 20th Century - with a generic bridge on one side and a window or archway or doorway or (for some reason on the €500) a small building.
Quote from: TXtoNJ on June 23, 2015, 05:15:19 PMWho uses big bills like that other than drug dealers and other criminals?
Germans (who demanded the creation of general issue €200 and €500 banknotes)? Or do they count in the 'other criminals'? :-D
Why do Germans particularly want a larger denomination note? Do they dislike electronic transfer, does electronic transfer come with high service charges there, do they not want Big Brother tracking their transactions?
Quote from: oscar on June 23, 2015, 04:58:04 PM
Quote from: 1 on June 23, 2015, 04:43:18 PM
Why not create a new $200 or $250 bill?
Advantages:
1. Nobody would have to be removed from any bill. It's a new denomination.
2. The $200 or $250 bill would be similar to the $5 bill in the 1930s. Even in the 1930s, bills went up to $100.
Creating a new big bill (say, a $500) wouldn't eliminate the need to change a smaller, more-commonly-used bill to make room for a new face. I can see Reagan going on a $500 (people can differ on why that would be an appropriate place for his mug), but King, Tubman, or almost anyone else on a little-used big bill would be considered not a meaningful honor. That would be kind of like Susan B. Anthony on the little-used original version of the downsized dollar coin, which isn't really counted toward the "women on money" cause.
There would still be the traditional concern about a big bill facilitating black market transactions. I say, better such transactions be done with big dollar bills than big Euro bills.
This sort of thing is one reason I suggested a $200 or $250 earlier in this thread: It'd be a new denomination, as there used to be a $500 that featured William McKinley. It was withdrawn, along with the other denominations above $100, in 1969. I asked at the bank once if I could get a $500 when I owed a guy $500 and needed to pay cash (I was moving and had to close my local bank account) and they told me Federal Reserve regulations require them to return any "large-denomination" banknotes (meaning above $100) for destruction whenever they receive any.
Quote from: english si on June 23, 2015, 06:19:59 PM
The bridges on Euros are as real as Greek democracy thanks to the Euro: totally fake.
Not anymore: http://www.dezeen.com/2013/06/05/the-bridges-of-europe-robin-stam-copied-from-euro-banknotes/
Quote from: bugo on June 19, 2015, 03:39:09 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on June 19, 2015, 12:42:23 AM
I honestly don't think that has anything to do with it. People will use dingy old quarters just as readily as new ones, to anyone who is not a coin collector, it's just money and what it looks like isn't really important beyond being able to identify it.
How many severely corroded quarters have you seen lately? How many post-1964 (cupronickel) quarters have you seen that had significant wear? The old pre-1965 quarters tended to wear around the edges but the modern copper/nickel coins actually age a lot better than silver quarters did.
When I worked at a C-store, I would spot 1965 quarters nearly every day. Most of them were still in excellent condition. I don't know where all these grungy quarters are, but I've rarely ever seen any.
Where the quarter itself corroded? None. But I have seen plenty of corroding pennies have their corrosion stick to other coins in my pocket. And I have also seen coins become fouled by other means, like soda spilling on them and leaving them sticky. When stuff like this happens, if anything I am
more likely to spend these coins, since their dirtiness makes me want to get rid of them.
Same thing with bills - I always spend the beat up ones before the fresh and crisp ones.
Quote from: TXtoNJ on June 23, 2015, 05:15:19 PM
Quote from: 1 on June 23, 2015, 04:43:18 PM
Why not create a new $200 or $250 bill?
Advantages:
1. Nobody would have to be removed from any bill. It's a new denomination.
2. The $200 or $250 bill would be similar to the $5 bill in the 1930s. Even in the 1930s, bills went up to $100.
Who uses big bills like that other than drug dealers and other criminals? Most large transactions are done digitally nowadays.
Furthermore, those would be begging to be counterfeited.
Casino patrons, for one. We had someone cash a $60,000 check (issued by the casino for a jackpot win) the other day. Six straps of hundreds...took forever to count out to the customer.
Counterfeiting happens but it's easy enough to detect if you're sensible. Before I worked with the amount of cash that I do, I thought it would be super tricky to spot counterfeits. Nope, most of them look like they're printed at home on an inkjet printer. The one counterfeit that was personally brought to me I noticed before the customer even made it all the way to the counter. Most of the counterfeits don't even make an attempt at a including the watermark, and if you want to be extra-certain, just run them under a blacklight and look for the glowing strip.
Running into counterfeits is common enough, but not an every day occurrence. I have personally seen fake $5s, $20s, $50s, and $100s, and have heard of, but not seen, $1s and $2s being intercepted. Because $1s and $2s don't have the security features the other bills have, we have to rely on the stupid pen for them, although with $1s we can run it through the currency counter to see if it rejects it as another measure of security (they don't take $2s so they're kind of useless for that).
Quote from: 1 on June 23, 2015, 04:43:18 PM
Why not create a new $200 or $250 bill?
Advantages:
1. Nobody would have to be removed from any bill. It's a new denomination.
2. The $200 or $250 bill would be similar to the $5 bill in the 1930s. Even in the 1930s, bills went up to $100.
In the early 1930s (before FDR dropped the gold standard in April of 1933), USA banknotes went up to $10K for general circulation (almost $800K in 2015 money), with a non-circulating $100K note that was used in interbank transactions only. Coins went up to $20 (about $1.6K in 2015 money). This was at a time when one 50¢ coin could buy a decent restaurant meal for the family and to have even a single $1 note in the wallet was to be carrying 'real' money around. Until the WWII era, nearly all 'everyday' commerce in the USA was pretty much done in coins only.
Mike
Only $100k (~$8m today)? Try £100m (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21145103) if you want big banknotes. 20 times the size!
I would join the comments about casinos. It is very difficult to carry, or even obtain, the amount of cash I want to take to a casino. $5 to 10K. That is a lot, even in hundreds. A $500 or $1000 bill would be welcome.
I have always heard that it is the Spanish who believe that it is wise to keep a good amount of high value notes in the home, because of various governments just deciding to wipe out bank deposits when things get rough. Never heard it was the Germans. Supposedly like half of the 500s are in Spain.
Canada briefly has a $200, but concerns over criminal stuff led them to pull it.
Personally, I think the US should have 5c, 10c, 25c, $1 and $2 coins (I would add a 50c coin but people are incapable of understanding they are not a commerative, pennies are nearly valueless just don't make any more and let them age out of the system) and 5, 10, 20, 50, 100 and 500 dollar bills.
The last money, sad to say, has been a great one for PC hindsight judgement of past lives against modern standards. Since no person can meet that standard, I would just give up and use alegorical symbols.
Quote from: SP Cook on June 25, 2015, 10:57:54 AM
I would join the comments about casinos. It is very difficult to carry, or even obtain, the amount of cash I want to take to a casino. $5 to 10K. That is a lot, even in hundreds. A $500 or $1000 bill would be welcome.
Will your bank not allow you to withdraw that much in cash? It would definitely land you on one of the Title 31 logs, but since it's clearly your money, that shouldn't be too much of an issue. Unless the bank just doesn't carry straps of hundreds, which seems absurd.
We have a guy that comes in occasionally and uses the casino check-cashing system to do a $10,000 credit card cash advance sometimes. The processing fee is $800, which he happily pays. Must be nice.
Nah, I can get that much money from the bank. It is just that, even with 100s, that is lot of bills.
There just isn't a good way to get money to and from Las Vegas. ATMs are limited to $500/day and the ones in the casinos charge confiscatory fees. And none of my local banks do business in Nevada, so I have to pay a fee anyway. Casino check cashing systems, as you note, cost too much. You can get house credit (AKA a marker) but that ties you to one casino and involves a lot of paperwork.
I've tried old-fashioned traveler's checks, which still exist and which come in 1000s. Aside from being safer, they come in 1000s. But, increasingly the people at the bank look at me like I have an extra head when I ask for them.
You can get the modern equilivant of traveler's checks, which is a pre-paid credit card, but the casinos, at least the ones I deal with, consider that a credit card cash advance and charge huge fees.
Coming home is easy (and, yes I generally come home with more than I take out) , most casinos will write you a check for any amount over about $4000.
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 25, 2015, 09:17:49 PM
We have a guy that comes in occasionally and uses the casino check-cashing system to do a $10,000 credit card cash advance sometimes. The processing fee is $800, which he happily pays. Must be nice.
To be a fool in the process of being parted from his money?
Quote from: kkt on June 26, 2015, 01:01:45 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 25, 2015, 09:17:49 PM
We have a guy that comes in occasionally and uses the casino check-cashing system to do a $10,000 credit card cash advance sometimes. The processing fee is $800, which he happily pays. Must be nice.
To be a fool in the process of being parted from his money?
Well, must be nice to be rich enough that you can't be arsed enough to stop at the bank to be willing to pay $800 for literally no reason.
Quote from: mgk920 on June 24, 2015, 10:24:16 PM
Quote from: 1 on June 23, 2015, 04:43:18 PM
Why not create a new $200 or $250 bill?
Advantages:
1. Nobody would have to be removed from any bill. It's a new denomination.
2. The $200 or $250 bill would be similar to the $5 bill in the 1930s. Even in the 1930s, bills went up to $100.
In the early 1930s (before FDR dropped the gold standard in April of 1933), USA banknotes went up to $10K for general circulation (almost $800K in 2015 money), with a non-circulating $100K note that was used in interbank transactions only. Coins went up to $20 (about $1.6K in 2015 money). This was at a time when one 50¢ coin could buy a decent restaurant meal for the family and to have even a single $1 note in the wallet was to be carrying 'real' money around. Until the WWII era, nearly all 'everyday' commerce in the USA was pretty much done in coins only.
Mike
There was also a $50K note that along with the $100K note that was used for transfers between Federal Reserve Banks only.
It was the "drug war" excuse that killed all denominations above $100-I remember getting out of the military in 1982 and getting my money out of the base credit union in $500 bills.
Of course, if Chase and the rest of the banks have their way, cash will be extinct (if you have any accounts with Chase such as car note, mortgage, credit card etc they will no longer accept cash AND you can't keep it in their safe deposit boxes).
Quote from: DeaconG on June 27, 2015, 08:54:41 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 24, 2015, 10:24:16 PM
Quote from: 1 on June 23, 2015, 04:43:18 PM
Why not create a new $200 or $250 bill?
Advantages:
1. Nobody would have to be removed from any bill. It's a new denomination.
2. The $200 or $250 bill would be similar to the $5 bill in the 1930s. Even in the 1930s, bills went up to $100.
In the early 1930s (before FDR dropped the gold standard in April of 1933), USA banknotes went up to $10K for general circulation (almost $800K in 2015 money), with a non-circulating $100K note that was used in interbank transactions only. Coins went up to $20 (about $1.6K in 2015 money). This was at a time when one 50¢ coin could buy a decent restaurant meal for the family and to have even a single $1 note in the wallet was to be carrying 'real' money around. Until the WWII era, nearly all 'everyday' commerce in the USA was pretty much done in coins only.
Mike
There was also a $50K note that along with the $100K note that was used for transfers between Federal Reserve Banks only.
It was the "drug war" excuse that killed all denominations above $100-I remember getting out of the military in 1982 and getting my money out of the base credit union in $500 bills.
Of course, if Chase and the rest of the banks have their way, cash will be extinct (if you have any accounts with Chase such as car note, mortgage, credit card etc they will no longer accept cash AND you can't keep it in their safe deposit boxes).
How do they know what you're putting into your safe deposit box? You take it to a private room and you put in whatever you want. Even when I just wanted to slip something in or out of my box at my bank in the vault room, the employee turns away when I open it so he/she can't see what's in there.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bilerico.com%2Fimages%2Fsimpsons_trillion.png&hash=756b1dd205a847fe603149ab9f5baf4612be5799)
IMO, I don't think we should change who is on the front of our paper money. As far as those gold $1 coins are concerned, put whoever you want on those.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on June 27, 2015, 09:17:39 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bilerico.com%2Fimages%2Fsimpsons_trillion.png&hash=756b1dd205a847fe603149ab9f5baf4612be5799)
"Give
what back?"
Quote from: DeaconG on June 27, 2015, 08:54:41 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 24, 2015, 10:24:16 PM
Quote from: 1 on June 23, 2015, 04:43:18 PM
Why not create a new $200 or $250 bill?
Advantages:
1. Nobody would have to be removed from any bill. It's a new denomination.
2. The $200 or $250 bill would be similar to the $5 bill in the 1930s. Even in the 1930s, bills went up to $100.
In the early 1930s (before FDR dropped the gold standard in April of 1933), USA banknotes went up to $10K for general circulation (almost $800K in 2015 money), with a non-circulating $100K note that was used in interbank transactions only. Coins went up to $20 (about $1.6K in 2015 money). This was at a time when one 50¢ coin could buy a decent restaurant meal for the family and to have even a single $1 note in the wallet was to be carrying 'real' money around. Until the WWII era, nearly all 'everyday' commerce in the USA was pretty much done in coins only.
Mike
There was also a $50K note that along with the $100K note that was used for transfers between Federal Reserve Banks only.
It was the "drug war" excuse that killed all denominations above $100-I remember getting out of the military in 1982 and getting my money out of the base credit union in $500 bills.
Of course, if Chase and the rest of the banks have their way, cash will be extinct (if you have any accounts with Chase such as car note, mortgage, credit card etc they will no longer accept cash AND you can't keep it in their safe deposit boxes).
There was never a $50,000 bill. It jumped straight from $10,000 to $100,000.
Quote from: US 41 on June 27, 2015, 09:51:48 PM
IMO, I don't think we should change who is on the front of our paper money. As far as those gold $1 coins are concerned, put whoever you want on those.
Why not? It's been almost 90 years since the current lineup was selected. We're not the same country that we were in 1928.