New US 5 dollar note. What do you think?

[fnmag]

 

[bfg9000]

Well, history has demonstrated how dangerous fiat currency can be without proper controls, and quickly. The German Goldmark was backed by gold from its introduction in 1873 until 1914 when the Mark was taken off the Gold Standard and became the Papiermark.

The Federal Reserve System has functioned remarkably well in implementing monetary policy favorable to the interests of the United States.

Mr.Xs, McLuxes, and FM Elephant bodies are some things that have intrinsic value here because of their rarity, but I doubt they'd trade for many groceries either because the people who have those groceries aren't necessarily the same people who want rare lights. Money is the invention that keeps us from having to barter for everything.

 

[TorchBoy]

There is no intrinsic value to gold. There is none to diamonds. ...

Everything used as a medium for trade is based on agreement of relative worth.

I agree. Everything.

 

[Daekar]

I apologize if this comes across as grumpy, but it's late and I've heard this stuff too many times. It makes zero difference to the average person in the real world whether money is backed by gold, silver or fiat.

The assertion that money is not money is just a nonsensical argument made by people who want to scam the system and excuse anti-social behavior such as tax avoidance.

If I can work 8 hours and get paid $100 in us money and then use that money to buy food and flashlights, then that's money to me.

There is no intrinsic value to gold. There is none to diamonds. If you doubt that, take an ounce of gold ore (looks like dirt) to any store in the world and try to buy a week's groceries. Take a 1 ounce gold coin to the amazon rain forest, and see if it will buy you more food that you can get for a $3 knife. If gold had intrinsic value the gold coin would buy you more food.

Everything used as a medium for trade is based on agreement of relative worth. In some areas, cattle is the medium of trade, and there's even an exchange rate for how many cows will buy a wife. Gold has value here because we all agree it has value.

So far, the only people I know who have a lot of heartache over the 'constitutionality' of money are those that want to be able to earn those very same dollars and spend them without being taxed. They are just being self serving and greedy.

That said, I don't know Daekar and I don't know his motivations. He may simply be a constitutional scholar who believes that it's important to understand that document. He may be a Numismatist and simply wants the correct definitions used for his hobby.

But back on subject for this thread.....

I think the older bills were more dignified and better looking.


Daniel

Just a short response to this:

I appreciate you giving me the benefit of doubt regarding my motivations. I'm neither scholar nor numismatist, I'm a Libertarian. The reason I've taken the trouble to learn all this is I believe that the government should abide by the laws made to govern it. As for reasons - if I were to somehow get away with paying no income tax, I'd be committing no moral violation, since the debt repaid by those funds was incurred illegally, spent illegally, and "taxed" illegally. By paying income tax, we all just perpetuate the lie. Consider this: in the years just before the Federal Reserve Bank was established (early 20th Century) there was a Federal surplus. Not deficit - a surplus, they had money they didn't know what to do with! As soon as the Bank was established (also UnConstitutionally, the Founding Fathers feared banks because they knew what happened when they gained control and wrote documents accordingly) things started to go downhill. Anyway, those are my reasons, I like things the way they should be and dislike corrupt government.

Oh yes, I and I agree with you about the old bills - much more dignified in appearance.

 

[turkdc]

To the OP who doesn't believe that there is a recognizable intrinsic value to gold - PLEASE SEND ME ALL OF YOUR GOLD. I WILL GLADLY HOLD ON TO IT FOR YOU. Since it is worthless and all...

 

[gadget_lover]

To the OP who doesn't believe that there is a recognizable intrinsic value to gold - PLEASE SEND ME ALL OF YOUR GOLD. I WILL GLADLY HOLD ON TO IT FOR YOU. Since it is worthless and all...

There is no intrinsic value, but there is a consensus that it has value. That's why you'd like me to send you some. If no one else wanted it, you would not either.

Now a nice flashlight,,,, that has intrinsic value. You know you'd want one even if the rest of your family thinks you have enough.

Daniel

 

[Daekar]

There is no intrinsic value, but there is a consensus that it has value. That's why you'd like me to send you some. If no one else wanted it, you would not either.

Now a nice flashlight,,,, that has intrinsic value. You know you'd want one even if the rest of your family thinks you have enough.

Daniel

What Daniel is referring to here (please correct me if I'm wrong, Dan) are the conditions necessary for a medium of exchange of any type to exist, whether it be rice, currency, electronic credits, gold, oil, spices, flashlights, whatever. As Daniel pointed out and is shown by history, there is no one kind of valid money - all that is required for a functional medium of exchange is that there exists a some method of transferring ownership of whatever the medium, and that it is accepted by those exchanging goods or services. That's all - not much is required for a functional medium of exchange. In this, Daniel is uncontestably correct - it is such a fundemental truth that this information could be derived from observations of a barter economy that existed without "money."

The key is that not all mediums have the same qualities of scarcity, durability, etc. Until the era of currency arrived, mediums of exchange tended to be those items which were universally desired like spices, foodstuffs, timber, oil, gold, land, etc. These were all available in finite amounts and produced by many people in many places. They were commodities, and as such were a secure store of value (excepting food, which is so universally desirable that its transient nature is unimportant) which could not easily vary in purchasing power.

This begs the question: What functions/qualities should the ideal money fulfill?
1) Money should be first and foremost a medium of exchange.
2) Money should have a relatively stable (over a meaningful span of years) value, meaning that the amount available in the economy should not fluctuate to any great degree.
3) The value of money should not be subject to the whim of any person, group, organization, etc.
4) Money needs to have a practical value-density - meaning that if you try to use something too valuable for money, you'll have a hard time buying small things (try cutting a diamond small enough to buy a Coke) - but if the value-density is too low (like sand, for instance) then you'll have trouble buying anything at all - there needs to exist a happy medium.
5) Money should be durable, so that ideally, one would use money as currency.

If any money meets those criteria (I may forgotten something, please point out anything I'm missing) then it will be almost immune to inflation (I say almost because the Gold Rushes in the US caused a few small hiccups), the government of a society using such a monetary system would be unable to function on a deficit, and encourage financial responsibility. Incidentally, this tends to seriously reduce or eliminate military action except with the direct, voluntary financial support of the People. Based on this, how many think Vietnam would've lasted half as long, or even occurred? How about the First Gulf War? The current mess in Afghanistan? Iraq? Military action would essentially be resistricted to defensive action - as it should be.

This is all to say that Daniel is correct - our currency as it is today functions as a medium of exchange because it is desired and accepted by others, and anything may be used as a medium of exchange if it is accepted. My point is that while anything can be used as a medium of exchange, only certain things SHOULD be used as a medium of exchange.

 

[TorchBoy]

By paying income tax, we all just perpetuate the lie.

That's all right, since you're paying worthless tax on your worthless income. Hence no problem. :thinking:

 

[Daekar]

That's all right, since you're paying worthless tax on your worthless income. Hence no problem. :thinking:

Almost. :nana: Despite the fact that the currency we use is fiat, that doesn't change the fact that having less of what is our accepted medium of exchange corresponds to a lower standard of living. And, technically, unless you are in business for yourself, you actually have no income according to the meaning of the word when "income" tax was established. Anyone who is paid compensation for their time does not actually earn income, regardless of what the IRS tells you today. Income was defined as profit made by a business when the income tax "amendment" was unceremoniously shoved through (it didn't actually pass - even our court system acknowledged it) - only in WWII, when no one would protest, did income tax begin to apply those earning wages, and then in very small amounts. They continually increased it over the years.

Have you ever noticed that there are no digital copies of the Internal Revenue Code? That's because it's huge, obtuse, misleading, with critical definitions scattered everywhere, and the whole thing is reorganized and edited every year. If they made it digital it would become searchable, and that would be catestrophic because of the holes which would become easily exposed (OK, easy is a relative word - they're really good at what they do, after all).

It's all pretty depressing, too - everything is so entrenched and so ridiculously audacious that it's hard to believe it's true... so people don't. Much easier not to, that's for sure, I found that out the hard way. But as a result, if nobody wants to acknowledge it or do anything about it, nothing gets done about it and it stays the same old screwed-up. Not that I think even Ron Paul could do anything about it if he were elected... same thing would happen to him as happened to Lincoln, and that would be the end of the story. There are too many powerful people with an interest in having things remain as they are for things to change, and since those people and their families have been pulling the strings of nations for hundreds of years, they're pretty good at it. Today's banking families would make the Hapsburgs look like amateurs playing with models...

 

[yaesumofo]

They are pulling older bills from circulation.
examine your cash you will notice that more and more of it is the new variety. The new 5 note represents the bleeding edge of American currency anti copying measures. It will not copy on a color copier. there are lots if fine lines which will not resolve on copying devices.
there is more than one watermark. I find it very interesting.
I have some of the previously mentioned currency from down under. it is all plastic. (I suspect they do this so it lasts longer as well as being more difficult to copy. There was a article in popular something or other discussing this recently and they say the hardest currency to copy is a Mexican peso (I seem to remember it was the 20 or 50 peso note) . Funny when you consider the value of the peso.

Another interesting thing is each ans every copier and laser printer now prints a series of all but invisible dots identifying that printer making it some what easier to determine make and model to the feds.
Don't ask for a reference I can't give you one but it is out there for the finding.
BTW how long before they add big numbers on all of the notes? When will they revamp the ONE? soon I hope.
All green is getting old IMHO.
Yaesumofo

How, exactly are any of these changes an anti counterfeit move?

Ok, so we have a twenty that has fluorescent threads, watermarks and micro-printing as well as yellow spots and different color inks.

But if I hand you a good xerox of a 1990 series $20 bill, which had none of these features, you'd accept it, right?

The only way any of these measures would be truly effective would be to pull all the old bills from circulation. To the best of my knowledge, a 100 year old dollar bill is still legal tender here in the US.


Daniel

 

[TorchBoy]

One other interesting thing about the plastic currency down under is that if it's heated (eg, by ironing or putting in an over) it shrinks.

 

[Canuke]

It should be a coin. Considering that the current denominations were origijnally chosen for a currency that once bought gold at a 21.5:1 ration, we ought to lose the penny, nickel and dime entirely, and issue $1, $2, $5 and $10 coins.

 

[jtr1962]

It should be a coin. Considering that the current denominations were origijnally chosen for a currency that once bought gold at a 21.5:1 ration, we ought to lose the penny, nickel and dime entirely, and issue $1, $2, $5 and $10 coins.

Agreed 100%. Coins last a lot longer than bills. There might be a case for keeping the dime for a while, but the nickel and penny have definitely outlived their usefulness.

 

[LightInTheWallet]

I like the look of the new five, but I'm not sure why there are twenty stars on the front. Yaesumofo, is this what you were referring to? PC World - Government Uses Color Laser Printer Technology to Track Documents

 

[LuxLuthor]

Food & water have intrinsic value. Try depriving any living thing of all food/water sources, and you will find out just how intrinsically valuable.