Talk:United States dollar

Addition to this page...

I truly apologize if this is not the area for this (please let me know where is the right area) but added a genuine, neutral, and sourced addition to this page, and it was listed as spam. It read as such:

The Future of Money

In September of 2009, The Black Vault Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) archive released a report from 1999 created by the Department of Treasury regarding the "future of [U.S. Currency]." This study identifies the forces that will drive requirements for U.S. coins and notes. It examines how these forces may shape demand and the implications for the production and processing of coins and notes. This study was conducted jointly by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the U.S. Department of Treasury (including the U.S. Mint and the Bureau of Engraving and Printing) to provide operational and policy guidance.

According to the study, "The future of money demand will influence both operational and policy decisions at the Department of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve regarding notes and coins. Those decisions may address facilities, equipment, employee skill mix and the form of the money being produced."

What is wrong with this?

--Johnbv417 (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Commentary

Doesn't seem to have much information content, just "here's this report" and some empty truisms. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Also this is Source soliciting. Neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia. Unfortunately Johnbv417's conflict of interest editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote theblackvault.com. Such a conflict is strongly discouraged. Contributions to wikipedia by this user under Blackvault and IP 24.24.168.235, consist entirely of adding or soliciting content with links to theblackvault.com and is considered WP:Spam.--Hu12 (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Origin of term "Greenback"

I always thought that the term originated at the time of the Civil War and referred to Lincoln's printing of paper money to finance the Civil war. Per the article the term is even older. Is there any backup for this? To my knowledge the only US paper money, prior to the Civil War greenback, was printed to fund the Revolutionary war. I can't see how the term can refer to US paper money prior to Lincoln's greenbacks because, to my knowledge, there was no such animal prior to the Civil War.71.174.127.224 (talk) 00:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This sentence is what I am referring to.

This term, dating to the 18th century, may have originated with the colonial fur trade. 71.174.127.224 (talk) 00:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Print it

I've looked for this a couple of places on WP (not to mention the Bu of E&P site...), but can't find it, so... I've heard BuE&P spends over half its time/budget printing $1 notes. True? If so, how much does that amount to? If not, what's the right #? Thx. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Dimensions

I noticed that the coinage pages include dimensions of coins; what are the dimensions of the American Dollar bill? 66.30.136.200 (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Comedy?

"Some cynics also erroneously point out that the Federal Reserve makes more profit from dollar bills than dollar coins because they wear out in a few years, whereas coins are more permanent. The fallacy of this argument arises because new notes printed to replace worn out notes which have been withdrawn from circulation bring in no net revenue to the government to offset the costs of printing new notes and destroying the old ones." This is terrible logic as the Federal Reserve is NOT the government. The argument of "no net revenue to the government" to destroy currency is true, but it has no relevance to the "cynic" idea, as the two establishments, the US and the Federal Reserve Bank, are not the same. Congress can't even audit the Federal Reserve! ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.58.144.122 (talk) 06:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Federal Reserve Note?

Should this article and the article, Federal Reserve note, be merged? Thoughts...? ask123 (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Certainly not. Not all dollars are FR notes, and the FR note article is way too long to slide into this article. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

East Timor

The infobox lists East Timor twice, as both an "official user" and an "unofficial user". Which is correct? -- Heath 198.82.17.195 (talk) 05:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

No Verification for "official unit"

Trekphiler: The notice at the top of the article reads: "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2009)". You removed references that I added to the article and you inserted an unverifiable statement. If the United States dollar is truly the "official unit of currency of the United States" then you should be able to cite the United States Code section that verifies that statement. In fact, there is no such Code section. The United States dollar is exactly what the United States Code defines it to be! You cannot just redefine the dollar to be something else. JasonCupertino (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Trekphiler: The dollar is used as the unit of account in financial reports issued by the United States Government. For example, see http://www.gao.gov/financial/fy2009/09frusg.pdf Please do not confuse the use of the dollar as a unit of account with what the dollar actually is. The dollar is literally a coin. JasonCupertino (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Pay attention. I inserted nothing. The East Timor add was there before I came along. Neither did I say anything about the "official currency" because I neither know nor give a damn. And I frankly could care less if the dollar is a coin or not. I had (have) doubts about the need to add details on the authorizing law in a page about the dollar; as noted, it seems to me better placed at Congress, where the authority lies. Don't go pulling "additional citations" as an excuse for adding OT junk 'cause I'm not persuaded; cited cruft is still cruft. You want to add cites, add them to things that don't have sources. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Trekphiler: The article includes images of (1) the United States dollar and (2) Federal Reserve Notes and (3) a United States Note. Those notes are issued under separate laws. That is why I believe it is important to specify which statute and constitutional provision the United States dollar is being issued under. United States Notes were issued pursuant to a different statute and a different provision of the United States Constitution. United States Notes were issued under the constitutional power of Congress to borrow money, rather than under its constitutional power to coin money. JasonCupertino (talk) 00:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Then place it somewhere other than the lead, which is supposed to summarize, not go into deep detail. The overview section, frex? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Trekphiler: I agree that the reference to the fifth paragraph of Section 8 of Article 1 of the Constitution should be in the Overview section. However, I did not put it there because the Overview section is a mess. The United States monetary system is very complex and this article incorrectly treats the U.S. dollar and Federal Reserve Notes and United States Notes as though they are interchangeable. I will have to completely rewrite the Overview. I will work on it and post possible revisions on this talk page for your review and comment. JasonCupertino (talk) 02:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

DRAFT of Revisions to the Overview Section

The Constitution of the United States of America provides that the United States Congress shall have the power "To coin Money". As an exercise of that power, Congress enacted Section 5112 of Title 31 of the United States Code. Section 5112 provides that United States dollars shall be issued in two forms: (1) a coin made of a copper alloy and (2) a coin made of pure silver. Both of these coins are designated as "legal tender" in payment of debts. The Sacagawea dollar is one example of the copper alloy dollar. The pure silver dollar is known as the American Silver Eagle.

The Constitution also provides that Congress shall have the power "To borrow money on the credit of the United States".(include reference to the second paragraph of Section 8, Article 1, U.S. Constitution) Congress has used this power to issue United States Notes. Some of these notes have been redeemable on demand while others have been interest-bearing. United States Notes are no longer being issued. They are still legal tender but they are rarely seen in circulation. They are most likely to be treated as collector's items.

Congress has also provided for the printing and issuance of Federal Reserve Notes. Those notes are issued by the twelve Federal Reserve Banks. Each Federal Reserve Bank is organized as a privately owned "body corporate" in accordance with the Federal Reserve Act.(reference to 12 USC 341) Section 411 of Title 12 of the United States Code provides that Federal Reserve Notes "shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank".(reference to 12 USC 411) Federal Reserve Notes are liabilities of the Federal Reserve Banks and "obligations of the United States".(reference to 12 USC 411)

I hope that the three foregoing paragraphs properly distinguish between (1) the United States dollar and (2) United States Notes and (3) Federal Reserve Notes. I welcome your review and comments. JasonCupertino (talk) 03:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're getting further OT. I'd keep your first 'graph, link U.S. Code, & rewrite to "...Code, which defines 'legal tender'. Under its provisions, the Mint has issued the Sacagawea dollar and the American Silver Eagle." I'd then explain them as "coin dollars" & delete the rest. The U.S. note isn't AFAI can tell germane to the dollar, & has its own page besides. Moreover, the issue of how S.5112 bears on the paper dollar, if at all, is still unclear, because the language is way too obscure for the general reader. It looks like paper money is only governed by S.411, not S.5112 at all, so Title 31 has no bearing. No? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 06:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the explanations of U.S. Notes and Federal Reserve Notes are "off topic". Those topics are covered in separate articles in Wikipedia and they really do not belong in this article. And in regard to the other coins authorized by Section 5112, I added to my DRAFT first paragraph a sentence directing the reader to the article titled Coins of the United States dollar. I am also proposing to add a paragraph that explains why the U.S. dollar is the unit of account of the United States. I hope that paragraph will keep people from thinking that the U.S. dollar is just an abstract accounting entity; I have heard that kind of mistake numerous times.

Please review the following two draft paragraphs.

The Constitution of the United States of America provides that the United States Congress shall have the power "To coin Money". As an exercise of that power, Congress enacted Section 5112 of Title 31 of the United States Code. Section 5112 provides that United States dollars shall be issued in two forms: (1) a coin made of a copper alloy and (2) a coin made of pure silver. Both of these coins are designated in Section 5112 as "legal tender" in payment of debts. The Sacagawea dollar is one example of the copper alloy dollar. The pure silver dollar is known as the American Silver Eagle. Section 5112 also provides for the minting and issuance of other coins, which have values ranging from one-hundredth of one dollar to fifty dollars. These other coins are more fully described in Coins of the United States dollar.

The Constitution provides that "a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time". The sums of money in such statements are currently being expressed in U.S. dollars. The U.S. dollar may therefore be described at the unit of account of the United States.

I'm not sure, but the first statements of account were probably expressed in Spanish milled dollars, since the U.S. dollar had not yet been invented. JasonCupertino (talk) 11:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I moved the details about the United States dollar from the opening paragraph of the article to the Overview section, as you suggested. And I added an explanation of why the U.S. dollar can be regarded as the unit of account of the United States, citing the Constitution, the implementing statute, and an example, with references all along the way.

The article still contains lots of stuff about Federal Reserve Notes and United States Notes. That stuff seems superfluous to me because there are other Wikipedia pages on those topics. But I am not going to mess with all that extra stuff. JasonCupertino (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

On inclusion of the coinage, I don't know if I follow (or agree with) your reasoning. The ref to "legal tender" per S.5112 is a good one, IMO, but the details on alloy dollars (beyond brief mentions) & coinage strike me as OT. The "statement of account", again, appears to better belong on either the Congress page (in re its powers & duties) or the U.S. budget page (for much the same reason). A link out to U.S. coinage &/or U.S. coin dollars might be the best solution, rather than trying to have this page carry the weight. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The proposition that the U.S. dollar is the "unit of account" of the United States is supported by the fact that the dollar is being openly used in that way. However, I have not been able to find a citable legal foundation for that proposition. The foundation that had existed in law was repealed along with the Coinage Act of 1792. That Act explicitly provided that the U.S. dollar was the "money of account" but that designation does not exist in current law. That's the problem! The U.S. dollar cannot be verifiably described as the unit of currency or "official unit" of the United States. That is why I have tried to show that the U.S. dollar is a coin and that it is in fact being used as the unit of account/money of account/unit of currency of the U.S.

I have seen laws amended in ways that cause these kinds of problems. It usually happens by inadvertence but sometimes it happens because someone wants to create a "loophole" in the law that will allow insiders to profit at the expense of everyone else. By redefining the U.S. dollar as a copper alloy coin, the banksters have been able to become very rich. They have used Federal Reserve Notes to inflate the money supply, thus removing 96 percent of the value of the U.S. dollar. They are now running into the problem that the copper alloy dollar is worth about 4.8 cents and that it will be difficult to use inflation to drain away any more of the value. So they are asking their congressmen to change the law so that U.S. dollars can be minted in much cheaper steel. They will probably adopt a treaty that establishes an Amero currency of steel coins, and a privately owned "North American Union Bank" that will be beyond democratic control of any kind. The banksters will find some way or another to suck more of the value out of our life savings. JasonCupertino (talk) 09:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so now it's clear: you are a North American Union conspiracy believer and gold bug, trying to make some kind of obscure ideological point in this article. See WP:POINT, please. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Mike: I added three paragraphs to the Overview section. Those paragraphs provide the reader with important information about the constitutional foundation for the United States dollar. That information is appropriately presented near the beginning of the article. If you disagree, please move that information to some other location or delete it completely.

I believe that the price of gold will continue to rise and here is why: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/AMBNS I do not advocate the issuance of United States dollars made of fine gold or any alloy of gold so I don't think that I fit into the "gold bug" category. I have been alarmed by the debasement of the dollar (circulating dollars now contain zero grains of silver) and by the continuous monetary inflation caused by the Federal Reserve Banks. Those Banks are destroying the international exchange-value of the dollar. That kind of destruction will eventually lead to the default of the United States on its debts. Patriots should oppose what the Federal Reserve Banks are doing.

I am not opposed to an agreement between Canada, Mexico, and the United States which provides for a common, inflation-proof unit of currency (perhaps named the Amero). That unit might be made of silver, or of a base metal with the quantity to be issued based on census data. That kind of North American Union would be perfectly acceptable to me. However, I am highly opposed to the creation of a privately owned North American Union Bank that constantly inflates the supply of irredeemable bank notes. That kind of monetary system gives the political class the power to constantly steal from everyone else via hidden monetary inflation. JasonCupertino (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

See below. The dollar is not "literally a coin". FRNs are dollars, as well. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually federal reserve notes are dollar bills, evidences of debt, promises to pay, promissory notes, also known as IOUs. Please read the 7th amendment, do you really think a twenty dollar bill from the federal reserve is a value in controversy over which people should have the right to a trial by Jury? Ask yourself this, what did the people who wrote and agreed to that amendment to the constitution understand as the meaning of the term twenty dollars? If you can answer that you will have realized that a dollar is literally a silver coin.Gnayler (talk) 04:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)24.19.206.90 (talk) 03:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

This paragraph appears to be written in English, but, if it were correct, hardly any of the words would have their conventional meaning. (In other words, you're either a liar or an idiot.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's not conflate dollars with bills

The fourth paragraph of the Overview section begins with the words, "The U.S. dollar bill uses the decimal system..." Those words constitute an example of the tendency of people to conflate the United States dollar with bills, such as United States Notes and Federal Reserve Notes. That kind of error should be removed from the article. And that is why I believe that the images in the box titled "United States dollar" should be changed. The uppermost portion of that box inappropriately contains the images of several Federal Reserve Notes and the images of numerous denominations of U.S. coins. Instead, that box should contain (1) the image of one of the copper alloy dollars, such as the Sacagawea dollar and (2) the image of an American Silver Eagle dollar. Those are the current, legally authorized, legal tender forms of the United States dollar. Do you agree with changing those images? JasonCupertino (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Certainly not. Like gold bugs (which, I concede, you are not), you have some obsession with coinage-metal money as opposed to any other kind, a distinction which fetishes money as if it were a real rather than arbitrary and fictitious concept. To make this distinction is an WP:NPOV violation to suit your WP:FRINGE theory. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Why does the banknote say "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private" I think that is self explanatory. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 01:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Mike, Dollar is not an "arbitrary and fictitious concept". The United States dollar was defined by the Coinage Act of 1792 as a quantity of pure silver and also as a quantity of silver alloy. And before that, "dollars" was used in the U.S. Constitution to refer to a coin made of silver (the Spanish milled dollar).

The Act also specified that the U.S. dollar shall be the "money of account" and that accounts shall be kept in decimal fractions. Previously, the money of account had been the Spanish milled dollar. In those days, people were in the habit of using a hammer and chisel to cut the coin into 8 equal pieces (hence the nickname "Pieces of Eight"). This led to accounts being kept in dollars and eighths of a dollar, rather than being kept in the more modern decimal system, which was established by the Act.

At the Constitutional Convention, the delegates considered a motion to include in the Constitution a provision that would authorize the Government of the United States to issue bills of credit. The delegates rejected that motion. They deliberately limited the U.S. government to issuing coins (money made of metal). The reason that United States Notes and Federal Reserve Notes are labeled "legal tender" is precisely because those notes are not lawful money.

Most of the nations of this world have the power to issue money made of paper. However, the Government of the United States does not have that power and most people do not realize that, and that causes lots of confusion. That is why I added a paragraph to the Overview section to explain the legal foundation for the issuance of United States Notes and Federal Reserve Notes.

I also added an infobox to the article to clear up another point of confusion. People confuse monetary inflation with price inflation. So I amended the first infobox to specify that the data is for price (CPI) inflation, and I added a secondary infobox about monetary inflation. JasonCupertino (talk) 12:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand that this is your theory, and you are welcome in this free nation to promulgate your theory on your own blog. But in Wikipedia, it's still a fringe theory, and should not clutter up the lede of the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The proposition that "The Constitution did not grant the federal government the power to issue a paper currency" is not a "fringe theory". That proposition is already in Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Note#The_Legal_Tender_Acts The United States Government issues United States (we promise to pay you someday in the future) Notes as a means of borrowing money, not creating it. JasonCupertino (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The U.S. Constitution empowered Congress "To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States". The article includes an image of a "UNITED STATES NOTE" (Series of 1917) that reads, "THE UNITED STATES Will pay to Bearer ONE DOLLAR". In 1917 the United States dollar, the then "current Coin of the United States", was made of silver. In 1917, "ONE DOLLAR" was not an "arbitrary and fictitious concept".

The U.S. Constitution also provides that, "No State shall... coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts..." This reference to "gold and silver Coin" makes it quite clear that the money of the United States is not an "arbitrary and fictitious concept." The United States dollar is a "Thing" (an object), not a "fictitious concept". JasonCupertino (talk) 22:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Mike, you wrote, "I manage a family of virtual mutual funds on the Marketocracy site..." If you regard money as a "fictitious concept" then perhaps you have spent too much time in cyberspace moving virtual money from here to there. I recommend that you acquire a United States dollar and keep it in your pocket to remind yourself that the United States dollar is a "Thing". JasonCupertino (talk) 23:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

All money is a legal fiction, a tacit agreement to assign value to things beyond its actual value to sustain life. What seems to drive hard-money folks like yourself crazy is that the issuance of paper money exposes that fiction for the social lie that it is. A U.S. coin, (whether solid gold or cupronickel or steel), like any other, is as arbitrary a pretense of value as any other "money", from Yap stone disks to entries on some computer in Zurich. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It appears that the Chicago Boys have deleted the link that exposes the Pollyanna Creep peddled by the B.L.S. It's entertaining but sad to watch them use censorship to enforce their deception. They are driving this nation into insolvency and all the while trying to make sure that we do not know it's happening. JasonCupertino (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The Chicago Boys???? You believe that Chilean Friedmanites are to blame for BLS statistics changes and censoring Wikipedia? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

One of the things that the Chicago Boys did in Chile was to censor university curriculum. They censored the curriculum of economics departments. They made sure that only their economic theories were studied. At the university I attended, three professors of economics openly complained about this kind of censorship being practiced in their department. I escaped from that department and found a very enlightening refuge in the anthropology department, where I studied ecological and economic anthropology.

I have had personal contact with what Jack Bogle calls the "The Happy Conspiracy"; http://wallstreetwarzone.com/happy-conspiracy-reality-myth-metaphors/ It looks to me like the Chicago Boys have their claws in Wikipedia, where they are waging "a clandestine war, a military-style psychological operations". "Their behavior is deceptive, loaded with conflicts of interest, self-serving, they are driven by greed". One of the things that they promote is Pollyanna creep. They willfully distort economic reports and economic history. And one of their favorite tricks is to tell us that the dollar is just a fiction. "They will sabotage your retirement—they are, in fact, winning that war". They will destroy the value of the dollar and your life savings, and they will become rich in the process. JasonCupertino (talk) 02:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

That's what Wall Street does; this runs all the way back to Adam Smith. What else is new? They don't gun us down when we strike any more, and the "anti-terrorism" element is more sophisticated; but it's the new boss, same as the old boss. This has nothing to do with the whole hard-metal obsession about which we are having a (fortunately, rather even-tempered) discussion. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Mike: above on this page, in a section titled "Merge with Federal Reserve Note?", you responded "Certainly not" to the question "Should this article and the article, Federal Reserve note, be merged?" I agree with you; this article should not be merged with Federal Reserve Note. This article should be about the United States dollar. Other United States coins, and United States Notes, and Federal Reserve Notes are being adequately covered by other articles in Wikipedia. I have tried to direct the reader to those other articles so that this article can focus on the United States dollar. At the same time I have tried to provide citations to the U.S. Constitution, and to relevant U.S. statutes, to explain the relationships between the United States dollar and (1) other coins and (2) United States Notes and (3) Federal Reserve Notes. I have revised my paragraph about the United States dollar and the notes that represent it. I did not address the issue of whether the United States Congress has the constitutional power to issue money made of paper. JasonCupertino (talk) 06:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The article should be about the US dollar, not about the US dollar coin. Information on the coin should also be summarized. Coins, bills, and notes should be given equal status as to use. (Well, perhaps bills should only be the historical section, as only coins and FRNs are presently used.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Which part is "FRINGE"?

Mike: You wrote, "This is WP:FRINGE stuff..."

The U.S. Constitution provides that Congress shall have the power to "borrow money on the credit of the United States". As an exercise of that power, Congress enacted Section 5115 of Title 31 of the United States Code. Section 5115 authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to issue "United States currency notes". Each note is labeled "United States Note" and each note is "payable to bearer" in United States dollars. Congress has also used it power to borrow money to authorize twelve private companies—the Federal Reserve Banks—to issue banknotes which are "obligations of the United States". These banknotes are known as Federal Reserve Notes and they are payable in United States dollars. Both United States Notes and Federal Reserve Notes are designated by law as "legal tender" for the payment of debts.

What part of the foregoing paragraph is "WP:FRINGE stuff"? JasonCupertino (talk) 09:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The idea that a Federal Reserve note is not a "dollar" is metaphysical rather than meaningful in the real world. I like Saccies, got a pocketful of them at the moment; but they are no more and no less "dollars" than the Federal Reserve notes I also have in my pocket. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The law does not define Federal Reserve notes as "dollars". The law does provide that the notes "shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand" and I have revised the draft paragraph to include that reference...

The U.S. Constitution provides that Congress shall have the power to "borrow money on the credit of the United States" As an exercise of that power, Congress enacted Section 5115 of Title 31 of the United States Code. Section 5115 authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to issue "United States currency notes". Each note is labeled "United States Note" and each note is "payable to bearer" in United States dollars. Congress has also used it power to borrow money to authorize twelve private companies—the Federal Reserve Banks—to issue Federal Reserve Notes. Those notes are "obligations of the United States" and "shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank. Both United States Notes and Federal Reserve Notes are designated by law as "legal tender" for the payment of debts.

Does the foregoing revision address your objection? JasonCupertino (talk) 23:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It's still a metaphysical distinction not made by actual buyers and spenders in real life. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

United States Notes are issued by the Government of the United States. United States Notes are correctly described as bills of credit. In contrast, Federal Reserve Notes are issued by privately owned companies, the Federal Reserve Banks. Federal Reserve Notes are therefore banknotes and promissory notes.

The statute that authorizes United States Notes uses the phrase "United States currency notes". Congress intended that those bills of credit be in a form that could be circulated so they are printed on "currency" size paper, not on legal size paper (11" by 14"). It is not surprising that the average person does not comprehend the fact that coins (lawful money) are issued under one provision of the Constitution and that bills of credit (currency notes) are issued under a different provision of the Constitution. But the ignorance of the average person does not change the Constitution or the federal statutes that are enacted pursuant the Constitution. What I wrote about Federal Reserve Notes is correct and WP:V (verifiable), and the experiences of the "actual buyers and spenders in real life" is totally irrelevant. JasonCupertino (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Print, not mint

Despite the wording of USC31, paper currency is engraved and printed. USC31's language is archaic in that it reflects the time when U.S. currency was only coinage and greenbacks didn't exist. Coins are minted, bills are printed.

Bigdumbdinosaur (talk) 02:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You are correct; the Bills of Credit issued by the Government of the United States — called "United States currency notes" — are printed. That printing is carried out pursuant to Section 5115 of Title 31 of the United States Code ( http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/31/usc_sec_31_00005115----000-.html ). Please do not confuse the printing of currency notes with the minting of Untied States dollars pursuant to Section 5112, which provides that, "The Secretary of the Treasury may mint and issue only the following coins..."

United States currency notes "are payable to bearer" and may therefore be referred to as "evidence of indebtedness". In contrast, the "money" that is coined (minted) pursuant to the fifth paragraph of Section 8 of Article 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America ( http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section8 ) is an asset, not an evidence of indebtedness. JasonCupertino (talk) 05:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Coinage

The lede correctly quotes 31 USC 5112, but that defines coinage and the requirements for minting coins, not for bills or notes, which are also US$. Either 31 USC 5112 should be moved to the body, with another definition from reliable sources added, or the corresponding law authorizing FRNs should also be included. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The article should be about the US dollar, not about the US dollar coin. Information on the coin should also be summarized. Coins, bills, and notes should be given equal status as to use. (Well, perhaps bills should only be the historical section, as only coins and FRNs are presently used.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Rubin: You asserted that, "The lede correctly quotes 31 USC 5112, but that defines coinage and the requirements for minting coins, not for bills or notes, which are also US$." The statute that authorizes "United States currency notes", Section 5115 of Title 31 of the United States Code, is referenced in the section on "Banknotes". And the statute that authorizes "Federal Reserve Notes", Section 411 of Title 12 of the United States Code, is also referenced in that section. Those references are correct and they are where they should be. Please do not confuse bills of credit (e.g., United States currency notes) with money (United States dollars). Please do not confuse bank-issued promissory notes (e.g., Federal Reserve Notes) with money (United States dollars).

The U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress "To coin money" and Congress has authorized the coining (minting) of United States dollars. The Constitution also authorized Congress to borrow money, and Congress done that by authorizing the issuance of bills of credit known as United States currency notes. Those notes represent debts payable in United States dollars. Similarly, Federal Reserve Notes are issued by the twelve Federal Reserve Banks and those notes are, by statute, redeemable in United States dollars.

Each Federal Reserve Note identifies the issuing bank by the first character in the note's serial number. For example, the letter "A" represents the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. A complete list (A through L) can be found in Federal Reserve Bank. The Organization Cetificate of each Federal Reserve Bank is on file in the office of the U.S. Comptroller of the Currency. Each certificate lists the names of the private banks that own and control the Federal Reserve Bank named in the certificate.

United States Notes and Federal Reserve Notes are not United States dollars. Those notes are evidences of indebtedness, not "money" as the word money is used in the U.S. Constitution. Please understand the distinction between money and notes payable in money. JasonCupertino (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You are absolutely, positively, wrong. FRNs are money, as the term is used in reality, although they may not be money as defined in the Constitution. (Your arguments are generally considered discredited, but they have some historical weight behind them, so may not be legally void.) For what it's worth, FRNs are not "bills of credit" as defined in the Constitution. I'm not sure they're technically Constitutional, but they are considered to be "money" by US Courts, which is what counts in the real world as being Constitutional.

The article on US dollars should treat coins and bills equally. Whether this article should be split into an article about the actual dollar, and a separate article "United States dollar coins", is a separate issue, but the present name does not match the present article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

One of the pillars of Wikipedia is verifiability. The proposition that a Federal Reserve Note or a United States currency note is money cannot be verified by citations to United States statutes. Those "notes" are promises to pay money, not money in themselves. The fact that the general public regards those notes as "money" is not relevant. The fact that the general public regards those notes as money is a testament to how poorly U.S. public schools function. The ignorance of the general public is not a standard by which Wikipedia should measure its content! The notes are only treated as the equivalent of money because they are by law payable in money. If the promise to pay is repudiated then the notes become almost worthless.

I did not assert that Federal Reserve Notes are bills of credit; they are not. However, United States currency notes are bills of credit. The distinction is that bills of credit are issued by a sovereign while bank-issued promissory notes (banknotes) are issued by private banks and the underlying obligation to pay those notes is based on contract law. JasonCupertino (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, one of the pillars of Wikipedia is verifiability. This generally means the statements must be verified from a reliable, secondary source. The statutes and constitutional provisions you are quoting are primary sources, and your interpretation of them is not confirmed by any modern secondary source, or by any recent Court decision in the US. FRNs are legal money and legal tender. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it, what is this POV dispute about? This article is named in line with other nation's currency systems (anything and everything to do with that particular money, usually), and as the common name of the U.S. currency, U.S. Dollar is appropriate in my opinion (see WP:COMMONNAME). There is a wikilink to both Federal Reserve Note and Coins of the United States dollar in the header. What is the deal? Int21h (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Rubin, Federal Reserve Notes are issued by privately owned, privately operated banks. Those banks do not have the power to issue "legal money". They are only authorized to issue NOTES and those notes are liabilities of the banks. Black's Law Dictionary defines Federal Reserve Notes as "promissory notes" and I completely agree with that definition. Can you cite a source for your assertion that Federal Reserve Notes are "legal money"? JasonCupertino (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

To Int21h; the problem is the emphasis on dollar coins, excluding "dollar bills" (FRNs, and the former Treasury Notes and silver certificates). I quite agree that the name of the article is appropriate, but most of the commentary on coinage should go to the coinage article (where some of it is, to use a term, "base"less) ; the FRN/currency section should be before the coinage section. That's all for now. I have real life issues to deal with. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The statement that U.S. Federal Reserve notes are not "money" is incorrect. Indeed, from a legal standpoint the statement is legally frivolous. The federal courts have uniformly stated that the argument that Federal Reserve notes are not "money" is without merit. See, e.g., the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Edgar v. Inland Steel Co.: "Plaintiffs argue, inter alia [. . . .] that federal reserve notes are not money. Every court that has considered any of these claims has found them to be without merit." Edgar v. Inland Steel Co., 744 F.2d 1276, 1278 n.4 (7th Cir. 1984) (per curiam). See also Harrell v. Commissioner, 75 T.C.M. (CCH) 2458, T.C. Memo. 1998-207 (1998).

As the United States Tax Court stated in its decision in the case of Crowley v. Commissioner: "Much of the trial of this case was consumed by petitioner's constitutional and other legal arguments, particularly his arguments that Federal Reserve Notes are not money [ . . . .] All of these arguments raised at trial and in petitioner's post-trial briefs are frivolous and have been rejected by this and other courts so many times that citation of the case law is unnecessary." Crowley v. Commissioner, 43 T.C.M. (CCH) 1137, T.C. Memo. 1982-211 (1982).

See also the text of the decision of the U.S. Tax Court in Stephens v. Commissioner: "We think it is unnecessary to address the specifics of petitioners' argument because it suffers from the same basic flaw of all arguments which attempt to raise the relationship of Federal Reserve notes to gold as a bar, in whole or in part, to the income tax, i.e., the contention that Federal Reserve notes are not money. It is clear that the courts have consistently held that Federal Reserve notes constitute legal tender — money — and income at face value. See Hatfield v. Commissioner, 68 T.C. 895, 897 (1977); Sibla v. Commissioner, 68 T.C. 422, 430-431 (1977), affd. without discussion of the issue 611 F. 2d 1260 (9th Cir. 1980); Gajewski v. Commissioner, 67 T.C. 181, 193-194 (1976), affd. without opinion 578 F. 2d 1383 (8th Cir. 1978); Cupp v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 68, 84 (1975), affd. without opinion 559 F.2d 1207 (3d Cir. 1977); Leitch v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1979-75, on appeal (9th Cir. June 7, 1979)." Stephens v. Commissioner, 41 T.C.M. (CCH) 964, T.C. Memo. 1981-85 (1981).

Yours, Famspear (talk) 23:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Here are more court cases: United States v. Kelley, 539 F.2d 1199 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 963 (1976) (the argument that the taxpayer was paid in Federal Reserve notes that were "not lawful money" and that the taxpayer therefore had no income upon which he could be taxed was rejected and was ruled to be frivolous); and United States v. Gardiner, 531 F.2d 953 (9th Cir. 1976) (the argument that the taxpayer was not subject to the jurisdiction of the Internal Revenue Service because he did not receive "money" in 1970 and 1971 as the Federal Reserve Notes he received were "not lawful money" was ruled to be without merit). Yours, Famspear (talk) 02:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, Webster has dollar described as "a coin, note, or token representing one dollar". I argue that, whatever the legal and historical (and whatever other) status of FRNs (Federal Reserve Notes) and coins vis-a-vis the dollar, they both belong in this article as they both are commonly (WP:COMMONNAME) considered to be dollars. (The crux of my opinion on the supposed POV.) And the POV tag should be moved by its submitter to the section in question (FRNs) if possible.

While I concede that JasonCupertino's (talk) arguments have substantial weight (attributed to their logic), the arguments and controversies should be thoroughly and properly researched, noted, cited, and replicated into the relevant articles. From the looks of the arguments, a multitude of new articles are needed, as well as at least a new section in Federal Reserve Note on their status as "money" versus "promissory notes" versus whatever and the cases cited by Famspear (talk), which also have substantial weight, and are cited (hurray!). But again, FRNs should be commonly grouped under this U.S. Dollar until such a time as the state of verified information regarding these subjects warrants a reorganization of the topic(s). Having said that, Arthur Rubin's (talk) suggestion is suboptimal; the reference should only be copied into the body, as it is relevant where it is, and the corresponding law authorizing FRNs added (to both the lead and the body.)

And I think people are getting hung up over definitions. I point to the English language article: "Unlike other languages ... there is no academy to define officially accepted words and spellings. Neologisms are coined regularly ... [and] Archaic, dialectal, and regional words might or might not [even] be widely considered as 'English'." I think the quote is especially relevant for its use of coined. :) Int21h (talk) 07:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Regulating the value of money

I wrote the following paragraph as an introduction for the section titled "Value". Please review and comment.

The U.S. Congress has the constitutional power "to regulate the value" of money.[1] It can exercise that power by increasing or decreasing the gold and silver content money, and by increasing or decreasing the quantity of money in circulation. It can also affect the value of money by increasing or decreasing the quantity of United States Notes in circulation (a power not currently being exercised), and by increasing or decreasing the quantity of Federal Reserve Notes in circulation. Since the establishment of the Federal Reserve System in 1913, the U.S. Congress has been able to sell U.S. securities to the Federal Reserve Banks and then spend into circulation the Federal Reserve Notes that it acquires through such sales. This method of increasing the quantity of Federal Reserve Notes in circulation has caused significant monetary inflation, reducing the value of the United States dollar by about 96 percent since 1913.

I believe that the foregoing draft paragraph lays a foundation for understanding the graphs that are currently in the "Value" section. JasonCupertino (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it does not. Emphasizing "constitutional power" over the actual power seems inappropriate. Furthermore, references are needed, even for the summary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the draft paragraph needs a source for that 96 percent loss of value. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Inflation Calculator ( http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl ), "$1 in 1913 has the same buying power as $21.89 in 2010". The 96 percent is based on that calculation. Did I do the math correctly? Is 96 percent right? Primarily, I am trying to explain the little graph that has a caption that reads, "The value of $1 over time, in 1776 dollars". The data in that graph needs some sort of explanation.

I do not understand your distinction between "constitutional power" and "actual power". The "[1]" reference in my draft paragraph would be a reference to paragraph 5 of Section 8 of Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution. The words "to regulate the value" are in that paragraph of the Constitution. JasonCupertino (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a primary source, again. We would need secondary sources to support your implication that Congress does not have the authority to print paper money. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

"United States currency notes" are unfortunately misnamed because, rather than being "notes", they are actually Bills of Credit "issued by a state, on the mere faith and credit of the state, and designed to circulate as money". The United States Congress has authorized the issuance of United States currency notes based on its constitutional power to borrow money and the U.S. Government stands ready to pay those so-called "notes", so I have no problem with U.S. currency notes other than the fact that they are misnamed. The term "paper money" redirects to Banknote—"A banknote (often known as a bill, paper money or simply a note) is a kind of negotiable instrument, a promissory note made by a bank payable to the bearer on demand, used as money, and in many jurisdictions is legal tender". Federal Reserve Notes are banknotes. U.S. currency notes are "designed to circulate as money" and Federal Reserve Notes are "used as money" but neither kind of note is "money" as the term money is used in paragraph 5 of Section 8 of Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution. Those notes are evidences of indebtedness, which should be obvious to you by the fact that they are, by statute, payable and redeemable. In contrast, the money issued pursuant to 5-8-1 is not payable or redeemable, and it does not circulate "as [the equivalent of] money" because it simply is money.

I am not implying "that Congress does not have the authority to print paper money". I am simply trying to explain to you that the statutes that authorize paper money are based on the constitutional power of Congress to borrow money, rather than on its constitutional power "To coin money". JasonCupertino (talk) 20:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I rewrote the first sentence of my draft introduction for the section titled "Value". I specified that I am referring to the power "To coin money" in order to avoid confusing coined money with "paper money"; i.e., bills and notes that circulate as the equivalent of money.

The U.S. Congress has the constitutional power "To coin money [and to] regulate the value thereof".[1] It can exercise that power by increasing or decreasing the gold and silver content of money, and by increasing or decreasing the quantity of money in circulation. It can also affect the value of money by increasing or decreasing the quantity of United States Notes in circulation (a power not currently being exercised), and by increasing or decreasing the quantity of Federal Reserve Notes in circulation. Since the establishment of the Federal Reserve System in 1913, the U.S. Congress has been able to sell U.S. securities to the Federal Reserve Banks and then spend into circulation the Federal Reserve Notes that it acquires through such sales. This method of increasing the quantity of Federal Reserve Notes in circulation has caused significant monetary inflation. This inflation has reduced the value of the United States dollar by about 96 percent since 1913[2], as shown in the following chart.

Following that chart, I would insert the text and chart about monetary inflation. And following that chart would be a few sentences about how monetary inflation can eventually lead to price inflation, "a rise in the general level of prices of goods and services in an economy over a period of time". That explanation would be followed by the chart showing price inflation (the chart captioned "US Consumer Price Index 1913–2006"). That reorganization of the Value section will put all three charts into an easily understood context. JasonCupertino (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The chart might be appropriate, but the commentary provides WP:UNDUE weight toward coins over FRNs (which are not "Bills of Credit"). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

True enough; Federal Reserve Notes are not Bills of Credit.

In order to avoid confusion on that point, I rewrote the relevant draft sentence to read as follows: "It can also affect the value of money by increasing or decreasing the quantity of bills of credit (e.g., United States Notes) in circulation (a power not currently being exercised), and by increasing or decreasing the quantity of legal tender banknotes (e.g., Federal Reserve Notes) in circulation". Is that clear enough for you? JasonCupertino (talk) 10:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Still commentary without a source, or with only primary sources ([1]). Now, some of it is correct (monetary inflation and price inflation are related), but it is still synthesis to combine the terms that way unless a single source states the relevance.

[1] is a primary source with no secondary source as to relevance, and I don't know what [2] is. Also, adding "creation of the Federal Reserve" to the chart is clear synthesis. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Do the following two paragraphs provide a good introduction for the Value section and for the chart about the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar?

The 5th paragraph of Section 8 of Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution provides that the U.S. Congress shall have the power to "coin money" and to "regulate the value" of domestic and foreign coins. Congress exercised those powers when it enacted the Coinage Act of 1792. That Act provided for the minting of the first U.S. dollar and it declared that the U.S. dollar shall have "the value of a Spanish milled dollar as the same is now current".

The following chart show that the value or purchasing power of the U.S. dollar cyclically increased and decreased until the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913. Since that time, the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar has diminished significantly.

JasonCupertino (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The significance of the Federal Reserve Act is not supplied by any reliable source; it should not be mentioned in the article (except in terms of how it changed the definition of "dollar") until such sources are there. (Furthermore, all the graphs should be converted to log-scale, and the first one possibly inverted, so that they can be more easily compared.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not know how to convert that chart to log-scale, or how to invert it. I am simply trying to put it into a context, to explain its significance, including the chart's reference to the Federal Reserve System. The folks at the Fed are probably embarrassed by that chart, and they should be. For your information, the Federal Reserve Act did not change "the definition of 'dollar'". The dollar is still a coin and Federal Reserve Notes are still, by statute, redeemable for lawful money. JasonCupertino (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You are still wrong. The Federal Reserve Act did change the definition of "dollar", even if it did not explictly do so, as $1 FRNs are "dollars".

You need to remove the Federal Reserve Act from the chart, or it's WP:OR to select which statutes are relevant, it's not a copyright violation, but is synthesis by the creator of the chart, and is not allowed.

I cannot presently create reliable log-scale charts on my computer, but the existing charts are misleading, in that you cannot tell whether the "value of the dollar" and the CPI charts represent the same data. At the very least, the first chart should be flipped, to represent the value of a 1776 dollar in then-present dollars. That, I can do, if I had the raw data. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

And the reference to the Federal Reserve Act is unsourced, and probably libelous. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

Arthur Rubin has disputed the neutrality of this article. In order to resolve the dispute, I propose inserting a new paragraph into the Overview section, between the current third and fourth paragraphs. That new parapraph might read as follows:

The United States "money supply" includes U.S. coins and United States Notes and Federal Reserve Notes. Those notes are promises to pay money to the bearer of the note. The notes circulate in the economy as the equivalent of money (U.S. coins) and they are designated by law as legal tender for the payment of debts.

JasonCupertino (talk) 13:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Still not acceptable. The notes are money. If the lede refers to coins, it should also refer to bills and notes. My opinion is that all of those should be moved to the overview section, but I can't think of anything which should then go in the lede. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The first legal tender U.S. Notes were not issued until 1862, and the first Federal Reserve Notes were not issued until 1914. We could sidestep the issue of "notes" by proceeding historically. The lede might read, "The United States dollar (sign: $; code: USD) was defined by the Coinage Act of 1792, which provided that the U.S. dollar shall be "the money of account of the United States" and that it shall have "the value of a Spanish milled dollar". And, proceeding historically, the third paragraph of the Overview section could be moved up to become the first paragraph. JasonCupertino (talk) 04:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Or the lede might read: The United States dollar (sign: $; code: USD) was first minted in 1794. It was marked "ONE DOLLAR OR UNIT" and it was designated by law as having "the value of a Spanish Milled Dollar". The images in the infobox might be revised to show the "Original U.S. Dollar", Coinage Act of 1792" and the "Current U.S. Dollar, 31 USC 5112(a)(1)". JasonCupertino (talk) 14:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It's an improvement, but the lede should be a summary of the article, including all incarnations of the dollar. And the dollar bill (present FRN, more or less) should be in the initial image, as well. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The article on the United States Note contains the following sentence: "The Constitution did not grant the federal government the power to issue a paper currency, but on February 25, 1862, President Lincoln signed the First Legal Tender Act,[4] which authorized the issuance of United States Notes as a Legal Tender." This is correct. The delegates to the constitutional convention considered and rejected a proposal to "grant the federal government the power to issue a paper currency". That is why I will not agree with your assertion that United States Notes and Federal Reserve Notes are money in the constitutional sense. Those bills/notes are being issued in accordance with the power of Congress to borrow money, not to coin money. Those bills/notes are evidences of indebtedness and they are payable/redeemable in money. They circulate as the equivalent of money but they cannot be money because the federal government cannot issue a paper currency. JasonCupertino (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The (implied) claim that the Federal government did not or does not have the legal power to issue a paper currency, is not sourced to a reliable, secondary, source, and shouldn't be there, either. Thanks for pointing it out. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The bill of credit at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Continental_six_dollars_copy_1875.png reads, "This Bill entitles the Bearer to receive SIX SPANISH MILLED DOLLARS or the value thereof in GOLD or SILVER, according to a Resolution of CONGRESS published at Philadelphia Nov. 2. 1776". Bills of credit are payable in money (e.g., Spanish milled dollars). Similarly, United States Notes "are payable to bearer" (Section 5115, Title 31, USC). Those Notes are "payable" in money so it should be obvious to you that those Notes are not money. If they were money they would not be "payable" in anything!!! And since the Sacagawea dollar is not payable in anything it should be obvious to you that it is literally money. JasonCupertino (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you about the Continental six dollar note, but not about FRNs, and probably not USNs. The "lawful money" that FRNs are payable in is other FRNs. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The Federal Reserve Bank Note at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_$50_1929_FRBN.jpg reads: "REDEEMABLE IN LAWFUL MONEY OF THE UNITED STATES AT UNITED STATES TREASURY OR AT THE BANK OF ISSUE". Can a Federal Reserve Bank redeem its own note with another of its own notes? Is that what "redeemable in lawful money of the United States" means? JasonCupertino (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that's exactly what it means. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

And when you redeem a Federal Reserve Bank Note at the United States Treasury what do you get? Another note or U.S. coins? JasonCupertino (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Another note, usually. There doesn't appear to be an actual, enforcible, legal requirement that the Treasury supply coins in large quantity on appropriate payment (FRN or not). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I drafted changes for the lede and for the "Overview" section. The historical foundation provided by those draft changes will give you with the opportunity to add to the Overview section a paragraph or two about United States Notes and Federal Reserve Notes. See the draft changes in my Sandbox at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JasonCupertino/Sandbox JasonCupertino (talk) 02:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd use the opening sentence from the main article and move the history summary to just before the "divided into 100 cents" sentence - better opening description to me. That would describe what it is today, then get into the history. As you've got it written, I just don't like it. Ravensfire (talk) 03:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, most of your changes from where the article was when you first created the sandbox are not improvements. Minimal changes to the lede include

• Deemphasing coinage for current usage; if current usage is to be in the lede, it should refer to FRNs, and possibly coins.
• The lede deals with tokens with a face value of $1; but much of the article is and should be the history of the dollar, not the dollar coin or dollar note.
• The infobox must include FRNs.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Tags

I've explained the POV tags; I thought I had explained the {{refimprove}} and {{primarysources}} tags at the time, but apparently I didn't do so adequately.

Many of the references are to specific statutes and the wording of the US Constitution, without secondary sources which explain what the provisions mean. It has been pointed out that the US Courts have ruled that many of them do not mean what is claimed, User:Famspear supplying specific court citations. Now, those are also primary sources in a sense, but they are legitimate secondary sources for the constitutional provisions. To really include the questioned statements which I tagged as POV, we would need reliable legal commentary stating what the provisions mean. I doubt that there is such for what is presently in the article, even if it might be a plausible reading of the law in the absence of contrary opinions by the courts. 17:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Next change in U.S. currency

Now that the $100 bill has been revealed what will be the next change in U.S. currency be?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Adjusted Monetary Base is not a measurement of U.S dollars

This section of the article on monetary inflation is inaccurate and needs extensive fixing. I am going to replace it with a real money supply graph and graph of how much cash is on hand. Carlitos (talk) 14:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Official users

The infobox states the U.S. dollar is used officially by the United States and 16 U.S. territories. However, I could count up only 6 territories listed there: Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the United States Minor Outlying Islands. Is there something wrong or not? --Магьосник (talk) 06:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The confusion is that the United States Minor Outlying Islands is an a statistical designation defined by the International Organization for Standardization's ISO 3166-1 code and is actually 11 separate islands: Wake Island, Johnston Atoll, Midway Atoll, Kingman Reef , Palmyra Atoll, Jarvis Island, Baker Island, Howland Island, Navassa Island, Bajo Nuevo Bank, and Serranilla Bank. Technically this would make the total of 16 U.S. territories correct but given that in 2008 none of them had permanent residents with temporarily stationed scientific and military personnel being the only human population it doesn't really matter.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Consolidate the coins

Right now the coins are scattered all throughout the article. I have consolidated the Coins and other denomination sections into a list of coins with their dates for easy referencing. I am considering moving the "Collectors' coins" section up with a mark (*) denoting those general coins made for collectors as the Mint also makes what are known as Silver Proof sets where the dime, quarter, and half dollar are all 90 percent silver.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The material on inflation does not belong

The USD is not the only currency that has lost most of its value in the last 200 years. Just as you could enjoy a fine restaurant meal for a few bucks in 1910, the same was true of sterling, francs (pick your country), marks, and pesos. To devote so much space to devaluation and inflation is to suggest that they are peculiarly American phenomena.Pithecanthropus (talk) 03:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, especially devoting three subsections, four charts, and one table all to the same concept without explaining why, when, and how inflation has occurred is...definitely POV and gives undue weight. I rewrote the section to give a more balanced explanation, but I left the neutrality template there in case someone disagrees. Equilibrium007 (talk) 01:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This devalues the currency, causing inflation?

Actually it depreciate the currency. Doesn't it?