Talk:United States dollar

Article neutrality and factuality dispute

The article makes no mention of the fact that the United States currency is a debt money system, something that the United States Constitution implicitly prohibits. The Federal Reserve is a private corporation as declared by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on April 19, 1982 in Lewis vs. US and it charges interest on the use of its notes which are the United States currency. This debt money system has all but brought the United States to the brink of destruction. Further details regarding this can be found at http://www.techccu.com/users/compwiz/Bankruptcy_Fraud/Bankfraud1.htm Xode

Would it be more appropriate to discuss that issue in the Federal Reserve Note article? Perhaps a brief mention of the issue here and a link to the Federal Reserve Note article? Something like: "The legality of issuing Federal Reserve Notes is disputed." Seitz 06:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Seitz, I like your idea and took your suggestion, linking to both the Federal Reserve and Federal Reserve Note articles. Xode

Dear fellow editors: On 25 January 2006 I respectfully deleted the reference (in the "United States dollar" article) to "disputes" in (or regarding) the "legality" of the Federal Reserve and the Federal Reserve Note in the articles on the Federal Reserve and Federal Reserve Notes -- for the simple reason that, at least as of the time of my edits, there simply were no descriptions of any disputes present -- on either those article pages or their related discussion pages. Yours, Famspear 02:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

How does the United States Constitution implicitly prohibit a "debt money system"? It is clearly stated in words, not assumed, that the U.S. may "...borrow money on the credit of the United States". --Kurt

A debt money system is not the same thing as borrowing money on the credit of the United States. A debt money system is a fraud where the issued money costs the issuer of the money nothing to create and where the issued money is intrinsically worthless. Further, in a debt money system, those who have been issued the money are forced to use the money system even if they don't want to, receive nothing in exchange for having used the money system and have to pay something in return to use the money. In other words, a debt money system is a something for nothing ponzi scheme in favor of the the issuer of the money. In contrast to this, truly borrowing real money and going into debt means that you receive something for having incurred that debt. The people of this country have received nothing for having "incurred" the (ever growing) "national debt."Xode

Also, Knox v. Lee established that paper money is indeed a legal tender of the United States. --Kurt

The courts in this country have violated their oath to the people of this country. Consequently, you can't trust anything that they say. In fact, the courts have been corrupted into enforcing the slavery that the people of this country have been sold into via the money fraud that has been perpetuated on them. Please see http://www.techccu.com/users/compwiz/Bankruptcy_Fraud/Bankfraud1.htm

for details regarding this. Xode

Also, congress has the power to coin money. Congress created the Federal Reserve. Regardless of the fact of the Federal Reserve being a "private corporation" or not, Federal Reserve Notes are obligations of the United States government, not the Federal Reserve Banks. --Kurt

Whatever Congress does, it must be in the best interest of the people of this country. That much is obvious from the Constitution. Further, Congress does not have the authority to give up any of the powers, that the Constitution granted it, to any other party. The money system in this country must be a public and neutral institution to everyone using it. The debt money fraud with the Federal Reserve being a private corporation means that Congress has given up its money making power to the Federal Reserve, in violation of the Constitution. Further, Congress violated its trust to the people of this country and committed treason by creating the non-neutral debt money fraud and the Federal Reserve system. Finally, those Federal Reserve Notes being obligations of the United States government and not the Federal Reserve Banks, you are correct about that. But, what did the people of this country receive from the owners of the Federal Reserve in exchange for the government having become obligated to the owners of the Federal Reserve? Answer, nothing. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, defines fraud as "an intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right." Fraud voids all contracts. Consequently, everything that Congress did regarding the creation of the Federal Reserve and its attendant debt money fraud is illegal, void, and treason. Xode

The only type of U.S. currency your argument could be directed at is the Federal Reserve Bank Notes, which were obligations of/issued by each Federal Reserve Bank individually. Although, you'll need a time machine to argue against these notes since they were last issued in the 1930's. --Kurt

Considering that, on every piece of U.S. currency, it says "Federal Reserve Note" right at the top, each and every one of the pieces of U.S. currency in circulation are "Federal Reserve Notes." Consequently, my above argument can be directed at all of the U.S. currency currently in circulation, and has. Personally, I call these "Federal Reserve Notes" FRAUDs (Federal Reserve Account Unit Debts), because they are fraud, and treason. Xode

And finally, there are still non-fiat coins of silver valued at 3¢, 5¢, 10¢, 20¢, 25¢, 50¢, and $1, non-fiat coins of gold valued at $1, $2.50, $3, $5, $10, and $20, Interest Bearing Notes, Compound Interest Treasury Notes, Demand Notes, Fractional (Postal) Currency, United States Notes, Gold Certificates, Silver Certificates, National Bank Notes, National Gold Bank Notes, Refunding Certificates, and Treasury (Coin) Notes that are still valid legal tender for payments in U.S. dollars. Oh, and let's not forget the American Eagle bullion coins which are issued through directly through the U.S. Mint that are also legal tender for payment in U.S. dollars. When one looks at the U.S. dollar (metaphorically), one can clearly see that it is backed by more than just Federal Reserve Notes.

--Kurt 10:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The coins that you mention here have a face value as you stated. However, that is different from their intrinsic value, which is what matters to the money system. For example, gold was about 560.00 FRAUDs ("Federal Reserve Notes") last time that I checked and it changes continuously. This means that that American Eagle Bullion coin would cost you about 570.00 FRAUDs at the present time, price in FRAUDs subject to change without notice. Further, what the people get paid in and what they are forced to pay their bills with are... FRAUDs, not the coins that you mention above. This puts those coins in the category of commodoties and not part of the (illegal) money system currently in place at all. Therefore, they can't be considered "backing" for this illegal debt money system. All of the rest of the items that you mention above are based on FRAUDs. Xode

As long as I'm lurking in this area, I have some questions for anyone who can help. With all the discussion above of a "debt money system" and the "legality" or "illegality" of same, what is the exact legal definition of a "debt money system," and what is the citation to the primary authority (e.g., statute, case law, etc.) for the legal definition? Also, how does one distinguish a "debt money system" from a money system that is not a "debt money system"? What does it mean (either legally or in an economic sense) to say that a given note is an "obligation" of the United States government (or of the Federal Reserve System, or a given Federal Reserve Bank, or anybody else)? Is this relationship between the holder of the note and the United States government really legally and economically analogous to the relationship between (for example) a bank that holds a promissory note (the creditor) and the person who signed the note (the borrower)? What is it, if anything, that the government (or the Federal Reserve System, or anybody else) is obligated to "do" or "pay" to me just because I have a Federal reserve note in my wallet? Is there any legal obligation at all and, if not, is a Federal reserve note really a debt instrument at all? Famspear

I will address these points later. I have separated the point below so that it and my response can be compared... Xode

I can address these points now...

Hey, Famspear, catch this:

"There is a large class of people who believe that paper can be, and ought to be, made into money without any promise or hope of redemption; that a note should be printed: 'This is a dollar,' and be made a legal tender. I regard this as a mild form of lunacy, and have no disposition to debate with men who indulge in such delusions, which have prevailed to some extent, at different times, in all countries, but whose life has been brief, and which have shared the fate of other popular delusions. The Supreme Court only maintained the constitutionality of the legal tender promise to pay a dollar by a divided court, and on the ground that it was issued in the nature of a forced loan, to be redeemed upon the payment of a real dollar; that is, so many grains of silver or gold. I therefore dismiss such wild theories, and speak only to those who are willing to assume, as an axiom, that gold and silver or coined money, have been proven by all human experience to be the best possible standards of value, and that paper money is simply a promise to pay such coined money, and should be made and kept equal to coined money, by being convertible on demand." (Secretary of Treasury John Sherman, 1877)

Thirty-seven years later, President Woodrow Wilson sold his soul to international banking by helping to establish the Federal Reserve System. Since that day in 1913, the purchasing power of the American "dollar" has been eroded from 100 cents to precisely 2 of those 1913 cents. The missing 98 cents went into the pockets of those same international bankers, mostly foreigners, all of whom still own and run the US Federal Reserve System.

I do believe that we are getting more than enough verifiable evidence to put back the statements that I originally added to the article page. No? Xode

Dear Xode: Well, no. Again, if you want to state in an encyclopedia article that something is illegal, you need law to back up that claim. What you have quoted above appears to be a statement by someone named John Sherman, who apparently was Secretary of the Treasury in 1877. That quote, even if accurate, is not law. It is the personal opinion of Mr. Sherman. Further, the quote language includes something that actually hurts your argument, if anything. Consider the statement that the "Court maintained the constitutionality of the legal tender promise" (emphasis added). The rest of Mr. Sherman's diatribe is mere "cant". Similarly, in the passage regarding Woodrow Wilson, there is no citation to primary legal authority about anything being "illegal." I repeat: Does anyone have a citation to an actual primary legal authority (again, statute, case law, etc.) to the effect that a "debt money system" is "illegal"? Famspear

Finally, does anyone have a citation to an actual primary legal authority (again, statute, case law, etc.) to the effect that a "debt money system" is "illegal"? If there is no primary legal authority stating that the system is illegal, then I respectfully contend that the significance of our discussion is about the same as the significance of the debate over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Yours, Famspear 03:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Your assumption here is that the courts are neutral and that what they say regarding this can be trusted and should be followed. Unfortunately, that is not true. Consequently, it is irrelevant whether the courts say that a debt money system is legal or illegal. The very nature of a debt money system is what makes it illegal. If you compare how it works to what the accepted definitions for fraud, theft and breach of contract are, you can see for yourself that a debt money system is all three of those. Xode

Dear Xode: Actually, I am not making any assumption about whether the courts are "neutral" (whatever you intend the word to mean in this context). In questions about law, whether what the courts say "can be trusted and should be followed" is irrelevant. Whether the courts are "neutral" is irrelevant. Under the American legal system, the law is literally what the courts say the law is. What courts say (if anything) about whether a "debt money system" is legal or illegal is therefore not only not irrelevant, it's almost the only thing that is relevant -- the only thing that really counts. By the way, the terms "fraud, theft and breach of contract" are also legal terms. In our legal system, the function of determining what constitutions, statutes, treaties, regulations, common law, etc., mean is ultimately the function of the courts. If the legislative branch does not like a particular result in a particular case, the legislative branch can and does change the law or the people can and do amend the constitution, depending on the nature of the court ruling. Similarly, if the legislature passes a statute, that statute is the law regardless of whether you or I feel that it is "legal" or not. Yours, Famspear 21:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Famspear:

First, let me make this clear. The government in the United States is required to be a government by the people of the country and to serve the people of the country. Nothing else. Period. This includes that the courts be neutral (i.e. impartial) as required by the U.S. Constitution. Given this, your statement of "Whether the courts are "neutral" is irrelevant" borders on absurdity. If the government, which includes the courts, stops serving the people then it ceases to be lawful and becomes a foreign invader, and anything that it says becomes null and void. That has happened in this country with the courts being the prime offender. You can find all of the evidence of that, that anyone would need, at http://www.jail4judges.org. Therefore, as I stated above, nothing that these courts say can be trusted and none of it should be followed.

Second, the United States is required to be a republic. That means that the administration of government is open to all citizens. That includes the quoting and the enforcement of the law. Stating "In our legal system, the function of determining what constitutions, statutes, treaties, regulations, common law, etc., mean is ultimately the function of the courts" is an arrogant slap in the face of the republic that the United States is required to be, and, further, is not true. Fundamental legal terms gain their meaning from common sense and from moral and natural law (those are defined in Black's Law Dictionary) in this country, and not from corrupt and venal courts, such as what we currently have in this country.

Finally, your statement of "Under the American legal system, the law is literally what the courts say the law is" is a dangerous and illegal sickness that was introduced by the U.S. Supreme Count in 1803 in Marbury vs. Madison. Common sense will tell you that as in: the Constitution might as well not exist if it can be twisted whichever way a corrupt and venal court wants, to the point where black would fraudulently be declared to be white and true would fraudulently be declared to be false. Believe it or not, this has already happened multiple times, as I have read from time to time in the daily J.A.I.L. email newsletter from http://www.jail4judges.org. But the Constitution does exist and was put down in writing, which only means that this dangerous sickness is yet another thing that needs to be flushed from this country, along with the illegal "money" system that currently exists in this country.

While we are at it here, you state that you have read the legal evidence that I referenced at http://www.techccu.com/users/compwiz/Bankruptcy_Fraud/Bankfraud1.htm and claim that it is "legally insignificant" (which I don't care about since I am not interested in impressing the courts but simply exposing them for the corruption that they are) and also claim that there is a false statement in it. That document is nothing more than a long series of references to various statutes, court cases, agreements, memorandums, etc. that the various governmental bodies in the United States have generated over the decades, along with some sparse and terse narrative to give it some logical flow, with the ultimate intent to clearly expose the bad faith that the government in this country has shown to the people of the country. Please prove to me in no uncertain terms that there is even one reference in that document that doesn't reference a document that was in fact created by this or that governmental body in the United States. Given that that document clearly proves the bad faith of the government such as it exists in the United States, it most certainly is legal evidence against the government since a government that shows bad faith ceases to be lawful. Xode

Dear Xode:

I understand that you feel that my statement "Whether the courts are 'neutral' is irrelevant" borders on “absurdity.” However, regardless of what you or I feel about the absurdity or fairness of this state of affairs, under the American legal system the law is what the courts say the law is. And this did not begin with Marbury v. Madison. Our legal system came to us from English common law, which is primary "judge-made law." I did not create the American legal system. Where people have a dispute about what the law is, that dispute is decided not by the Congress or the President or by the guy working at the gas station down the street or by you and me in a discussion in the pages of Wikipedia. "What the law is" is decided by judges in courts of law. When you say my statement borders on absurdity, you are in effect saying that you really don't like the way the system was set up.

You also state: "If the government, which includes the courts, stops serving the people then it ceases to be lawful and becomes a foreign invader, and anything that it says becomes null and void."

You also state that because our nation is required to be a republic, "[t]hat means that the administration of government is open to all citizens. That includes the quoting and the enforcement of the law."

In response to my statement that the Nelson materials are legally insignificant you replied that you "don't care about [that] since I am not interested in impressing the courts but simply exposing them for the corruption that they are".

You also state "Please prove to me in no uncertain terms that there is even one reference in that document that doesn't reference a document that was in fact created by this or that governmental body in the United States."

First of all, I and the other editors of Wikipedia do not need to prove that the Nelson materials are (or are not) referencing actual government documents to keep the Nelson materials out of the main articles area of Wikipedia. Aside from copyright problems, and assuming for the sake of argument that all the references within the Nelson materials are to primary authority, you still have the problem of showing that these sources actually stand for the proposition that the Federal Reserve System is “illegal.”

It sounds like you, like the author of the Nelson materials, are on a mission of sorts to “expose the bad faith that the government in this country has shown to the people of the country.” Regardless of the validity of your belief or lack thereof, the main article on the Federal Reserve System (or the US Dollar) in Wikipedia is not the appropriate place to do the “exposing.” Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a cyberspace soapbox to expose the alleged bad faith of the government.

The rules in Wikipedia include Verifiability and Neutral Point of View. A bald statement that the Federal Reserve System is illegal is not verifiable for purposes of the Wikipedia guidelines. For all practical purposes, you would have to cite to an actual court decision where the court actually ruled that the Fed was illegal.

A statement that such and such a legal scholar has argued in such and such an article that the Fed is illegal MIGHT be verifiable. (It would not be primary legal authority, but at least it might be verifiable for Wikipedia purposes.) And an article containing such a reference MIGHT or might not be neutral point of view -- as long as the opinion was clearly identified as being that particular scholar’s opinion, and not the actual law, and as long as the article made clear what the actual law is on that point.

I am sure that your beliefs about the legality of the Fed are interesting to you and many other people. However, I and the other editors of Wikipedia are enforcing the rules, including those requiring Verifiability and Neutral Point of View.

If I may presume a bit, I would like to suggest that your disagreement with the Federal Reserve System might not be so much that it is somehow “illegal” but rather that having the Fed is somehow a bad idea, unfair, bad public policy, etc. The arguments you have been making are much more appropriate by avoiding words like "illegal" and re-framing the arguments as public policy arguments – maybe including arguments to CHANGE the law and the banking system – not arguments over what the law actually is.

Thanks for using this talk page for these discussions. Famspear 17:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors: For your consideration and discussion, here is the text of a relevant provision from the U.S. Money and Finance Code:

Section 5103. Legal tender

United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts.

See 31 U.S.C. § 5103. Yours, Famspear 00:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

If it will please you to use "bad idea, unfair, bad public policy, including arguments to CHANGE the law and the banking system – not arguments over what the law actually is, etc." instead of "illegal" in the disputed encyclopedia articles in order to make people aware of the incredible problems that the Federal Reserve system is causing and to give those same people the opportunity to read the documents, including the Nelson materials, then, by all means, do it. I personally don't care how people are made aware of the what I know to be the illegality of the Federal Reserve system. All I care about is that they are made aware of the problem and have an opportunity to read the materials, including the Nelson materials, exposing the Federal Reserve system for what it is. To do otherwise (i.e. project the Federal Reserve system and its associated "money" as a great wonderful system that has no problems, etc.), would violate the Neutral Point of View and Factual Accuracy requirements for Wikipedia articles. Since you are so adamant about how the statements that I added to the disputed articles are phrased and since you seem to know exactly how you want those statements phrased, then I ask that you restore my statements to the disputed articles, using whatever language you find pleasing. Again, all I care about is that people reading the disputed articles are immediately made aware of the problems surrounding the Federal Reserve system, so that the disputed articles can keep their Neutral Point of View and Factual Accuracy. Xode

Dear Xode: As you can see I moved your comments down slightly on the page, underneath my last entry. I personally believe that the formal articles areas of Wikipedia are not the right places to be trying "to make people aware of the incredible problems that the Federal Reserve system is causing" as you put it. I'm also not sure about the appropriateness of using Wikipedia articles to try to make people "aware of the problem and have an opportunity to read the materials, including the Nelson materials, exposing the Federal Reserve system for what it is" as you put it. And it's not so much that I am "adamant" about how the statements you "added to the disputed articles are phrased," except that I respectfully suggest that Wikipedia rules should be followed, especially those dealing with Verifiability and Neutral Point of View. And I think that instead of saying that all you care about is that "people reading the disputed articles are immediately made aware of the problems surrounding the Federal Reserve system" we should be saying that the main thing we care about is developing a good encyclopedia. But I know you'll agree that Wikipedia is not about what I personally want to see in the Federal Reserve and US Dollar articles. At least at this point, I do not want to get into restoring your statements to the disputed articles, using whatever language I find "pleasing." I'm just one editor of Wikipedia, so maybe we should ask for more input from the other editors. Anybody have any suggestions? Famspear 16:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Farmspear asked for my input. When I first saw the "Totally disputed" banner, I clicked the "neutrality" link, which took me to Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute article. There I read:

"Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties really do disagree with us, no matter how wrong we think they are, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties."

Based on that, I thought that it was better to keep a brief mention of the claim, rather than dispute the validity of the claim. Further, since the disputed claim specifically dealt with Federal Reserve Notes, it would be best for any further discussion to take place in that article. Seitz 06:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Famspear on this issue. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Jwolfe 05:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Xode, I refer you to Article Three of the United States Constitution, which was drafted by the founders and states in its first line that "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." This means, simply put, that the Constitution itself gives to those courts the power to interpret the law. Perhaps you mean to argue that there exists some inherent right to money not based on debt that over-rides the Constitution itself, or that the current system is wrong, and the Constitution should be overthrown in favor of a document that prohibits money based on debt. However, because this Constitution empowers the courts to define the law, the definition so rendered under our existing Constitution can not be "illegal" unless the Constitution itself is somehow illegal. BD2412 T 22:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the place to discuss public policy, or to publicize positions that are far out of the mainstream (even if the mainstream is wrong). Please try to find accepted authorities (professors of economics or of law at reputable universities, etc.) for information you wish to present here.

For that matter, the "United States dollar" article also doesn't seem like the right place to document the Federal Reserve System and the monetary policy of the United States. --Macrakis 02:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

---

I find the above comments by Macrakis shocking, condescending, and uncalled for.

Macakis's opinion that "Wikipedia isn't the place to discuss ... positions that are far out of the mainstream...", is pregnant with psychologically abusive and elitist intimidation designed to overcome the targeted person's desire to establish fact (or at least to establish the nature of the controversy). This sort of attempt to suppress the argument and return to the status quo robs Wikipedia of its vibrancy and relevance by driving away people who care strongly about what they understand to be true.

Wikipedia is designed to be edited by "anyone", even those who are not lawyers, academics, or eggheads of any other ilk. This is an encyclopedia for the masses and NOT just another exclusive club for the pleasure of the self-appointed “holier than thou” intelligentsia. In this forum, those who stifle debate (discussion) should be the magnets of derision, and NOT those who foster it. Debate IS the only acceptable form of establishing the truth, for what other reason do we need these discussion pages? And, who elected Macrakis as the judge and jury of what is, or is not, "mainstream"? Was it his own bridge club, perhaps? --Britcom 08:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Rollo May tells us: “The opposite of courage … is not cowardice, it is conformity.”

---

Terminology clarification

Dear fellow editors:

As long as we're talking about U.S. dollars and the Federal Reserve System, etc., one problem I see with some of the discussion is confusion over terminology.

Specifically, the term "Federal Reserve" is ambiguous in the absence of elaboration. I am not expert on the Federal Reserve System. However, the following entities are separate from each other and, together with various other entities not listed, comprise the "Federal Reserve System":

1. The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System;

2. Federal Open Market Committee;

3. The Federal Reserve Banks (e.g., the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, of San Francisco, of Dallas, etc.);

4. "Member banks" in the Federal Reserve System.

Let's look at this statement found elsewhere on this Talk page: "The Federal Reserve is a private corporation as declared by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on April 19, 1982 in Lewis vs. US".

The cite for the case is apparently Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (9th Cir. 1982). I don't have a reliable copy of the court's decision right now, and I don't have the "cert" history (if any) on it. But based on what I have, it appears that the court in this case did NOT declare or rule that the "Federal Reserve is a private corporation".

What the court in Lewis apparently ruled is that the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco is not a "federal agency" within the meaning of the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b).

When you say "Federal Reserve" some people are going to think you mean the entire "Federal Reserve System," not the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco or even the Federal Reserve Banks generally. The use of the phrase "Federal Reserve" without the suffix "System" or "Bank" is unfortunately very common, and it may sometimes be a source of confusion.

The court in Lewis apparently stated: "Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region." The court noted that "the fact that the Federal Reserve Board [and here the court probably meant "the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System"] regulates the Reserve Banks does not make them federal agencies under the Act."

To make things more confusing for non-lawyers, the court also noted that the "Reserve Banks are deemed to be federal instrumentalities for purposes of immunity from state taxation."

In other words, what the court was talking about in Lewis (if my copy of the case is correct) was not the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, not the Federal Open Market Committee, not the member banks of the Federal Reserve System, and not the "Federal Reserve" or the "Federal Reserve System" as whole -- but only the Federal Reserve Banks themselves (in this particular case, the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco).

So, we have at least two sources of confusion. One is the indiscriminate use of the term "Federal Reserve" without making clear whether we're talking about the entire Federal Reserve System or, alternatively, just the Federal Reserve Banks or some other part.

The second source of confusion is that a Federal Reserve Bank, like other "things" can be considered one "legal thing" (to use a non-technical term) for purposes of one law such as the Federal Tort Claims Act and another "legal thing" for purposes of another law, such as a law of state taxation. The concept of things being treated one way under one law and another under another law is very familiar to lawyers, judges, etc., but may be confusing to others.

My copy of Lewis may or may not be reliable. If anyone can get quick access to a copy of the decision (e.g., in the West Federal Reporter, second series, or another reliable copy), please let us know whether my description of Lewis above is accurate. Famspear 00:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors, I have added a revised version of my 2 Feb 2006 comments above at Talk:Federal Reserve, as there seemed to be a lot of confusion there about "who owns the fed". Yours, Famspear 23:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Mills and thalers

There seems to be a prety big mistake ont he page regarding mills. There is no such animal, and never was. The US coin page makes no mention of them and the mill page says that while the mill was approved, it was never minted. This page says it was minted, and provides an explaination for why production was stopped.

The word "thaler" from which the word "dollar" evolved from actually comes from a woman by the name of Elizabeth Thaler. Her image adorned the obverse of the most commonly traded, pre-revolutionary silver coin in the colonies. The coins were called "thalers", and somewhere, somehow, like a lot of words in American English, "thaler" became "dollar", and we still refer to American currency as "dollars" to this day.

Mills, while never produced by the federal government, were produced by local governments.

Secondly, I have never heard that explanation, and quite frankly, strikes me as rather unlikely

Milles as used in the article are not specific coins or bills, like a one cent coin or a $50 bill. The term is for a denomonation of money of account current in the United States. The coinage act of 1792 provided for a common currency for the nation, naming this unit the Dollar. Section 20 of the same provided for the mille, even though there was to be no coinage in milles. Since Milles have never been in common use, and even when used today (eg gasoline prices) are not named, I have changed the article to reflect the spelling of 1792. As an aside, while section 9 of the act clearly refers to an 'eagle' as a denomonation of $10, as opposed to a name for a specific coin, section 20 provides for money of account in public proceedings to conform to the dollar, disme, cent, mille standard, without further mention of the 'eagle'.

First half

The first half is a bit confusing Ilyanep

Explanation of $

---

THIS IS REDICULOUSLY UNHELPFUL -------

Everyone is editing the part about how the dollar sign came around. But honestly, the discussion behind is it 'well, i dont believe it', 'i believe this is wrong'. Id give more credit to Ayn Rand than whoever the hell you random people are. Get some evidence, rewrite the whole thing, and get rid of the OBVIOUSLY biased language behind it all. I loved wikipedia untill this article made me vomit at the idea of people being able to write a credible encyclopedia. Awful. Just awful. - Tony

---

I removed the following explanation of th $:

, which was originally a superimposed U and S

Because I believe it is wrong. I believe the $ is derived from the sign for Imperial Spain (which, as the article points out, was the source of the dollar). Can someone offer historical evidence for the US claim? Slrubenstein

I believe it actually comes not from the sign for Imperial Spain, but rather from the Spanish abbreviation for "peso", which slowly overtime became the dollar symbol. -- SJK

We agree that the $ derives from Spain, and is not a superimposed U and S. But I am stil not sure about the history. I do not think $ is an abbreviation of Peso; my guess is the peso (just spanish for "weight") also had the Imperial Seal on it during the colonial period. I found this:

Cuando en Estados Unidos se decidió que la moneda única sería el dólar coexistía todavía el Spanish Dollar acuñado con el escudo de España en una de sus caras. Como se ve en la imagen tiene en sus laterales las columnas de Hércules y unos lazos que las abrazan con la inscripción "PLUS ULTRA".

Para indicar que se pagaba con esa moneda ponían detrás de la cantidad el signo $ que recuerda la torre y la cinta que le abraza. Desde entonces pasó a ser el símbolo universal del dólar.

{The United States decided that its currency, the dollar, would coexist with the Spanish Dollar coined with the shield of Spain on one of its faces. As it is seen in the image, it has the columns of Hercules and a ribbon with the inscription “PLUS ULTRA”. In order to indicate that it was paid with that currency, they put next to the amount the sign $ that recalls the columns and the ribbon. Ever since then it became the universal symbol of the dollar. Translated by --Britcom 09:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC) }

on the web-site, http://usuarios.lycos.es/aurenauta/spanishdolar.htm which suggests that the two vertical lines represent the pillars of Hercules, and the S represented the sash, but I do not know how authoritative this source is! Slrubenstein

It isn't. As reported, the $ sign comes from a melded PS, meaning "peso". The first written example has only one slash, not two, which sort of puts a hole in the Pillars of Hercules idea. Anyway, the whole thing was clarified by Dr. Florian Cajori - I'll find you a cite, but it may be on the Straight Dope archive - I'll try to find it when I'm not behind a firewall :) User:Montrealais

Here it is: [1]. - Montréalais

I checked the SD site; it sounds like the ps. argument is still conjecture, although I admit no less reasonable than the Spanish seal conjecture (also, Cajori was a notable mathematician but not an historian -- which doesn't mean he was wrong, but one would still have to check his research). In any event, we still all agree that it is NOT derived from an abbreviation for "United States," which is what the article originally claimed. Slrubenstein

There is a whole article discussing the dollar sign. I suggest merging the information here into that article. -- Seitz 21:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

---

According to the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (they make those dollars, after all):

The origin of the "$" sign has been variously accounted for. Perhaps the most widely accepted explanation is that it is the result of the evolution of the Mexican or Spanish "P's" for pesos, or piastres, or pieces of eight. This theory, derived from a study of old manuscripts, explains that the "S," gradually came to be written over the "P," developing a close equivalent to the"$" mark. It was widely used before the adoption of the United States dollar in 1785.

US dollar

Isn't the most common usage "US dollar" rather than "United States dollar? If I were searching on Google (for example) I'd search on "US dollar". </stupid nitpick> Tannin

US dollar redirects here. - Montréalais

Nickel

'Jordan Langelier: nickel is the term used by the mint. http://www.usmint.gov/about_the_mint/index.cfm?action=coin_specifications

Yes, and the mint occasionally uses the word "penny" as well, for example at [2]. Nonetheless, both "penny" and "nickel" are slang terms, not the name of US coins. "Nickel" doesn't mean "twentieth of a dollar", it refers to the metal that the coin is traditionally made of.

I don't think it's slang anymore. Today, an educated man would say he picked up a 'nickle'; saying he picked up a 'five cent piece' would be unusual. Cent/penny; there is no argument, but nickle is no longer slang. IMHO, of course ;) Jordan Langelier

The same could be said of the "penny", in that saying "one cent piece" would be unusual. But ponder this. Each coin contains, in writing, its own name. The twenty-five cent piece, for example, says "Quarter Dollar". What is written on the "nickel"? Also, consider that the mint is only allowed to issue coins which congress authorizes it to. Read the law authorizing the issuance of the "nickel" and see what the law calls it... The word "nickel" is mentioned over at United_States_Coin, which lists every denomination of coin currently or previously issued.

Perhaps the fine distinction we should make is this. The word "nickel" doesn't mean "twentieth of a dollar", it means "five cent coin". -º¡º

Green

Is there any good reason that all the American bills are green? I mean why didn't they use different colours for every bill like in Canada, I mean, like in every other country in the world that I have ever been to (which includes most of Western Europe, pre-Euro). dave 06:02 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, tradition. What I remember from school is that U.S. currency is green is because it was extremely expensive to make green ink, then (during the Civil War). But, when I started looking around, there seems to be a lot speculation, but there apparently is no one reason known, but green ink fades much more slowly than other colors. Please don't compare the Almighty Greenback to Western European currency. Seriously, though; if you were comparing it to others from all over, that would be different, but don't group the U.S. in with Western Europe and don't buy that "common culture" crap. We, really, have very little in common with Europe.

No doubt! I don't like this Monopoly money other countries have. Long live the greenback . . . heck, I'm upset that they've added a bit of color to the $20 bill.

Personally, I think all the bills should be in completely different colors. It discourages counterfeiting (as the bills are in different colors, not just green) and it looks nice. The new $20 bill just looks like it's been dipped in dark green paint or something at either end. Oh, and towards the second person, he was talking about the pre-Euro currencies. I wouldn't exactly call it the "almighty greenback" now, seeing as the US dollar is falling against many major currencies. :P

Issuance

I was going to change "issuance" to "issue", but I wondered if the former is actually correct usage in American English? jimfbleak 15:20 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

Yes issuance is a word. Even the World Bank website uses it. Rmhermen 15:27 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

Welfare increase

Did spending on welfare increase in the early 70s contributing to inflation ? User:Smith03

Government spending in general increased during the Johnson administration, and part of that was because of welfare programs, part of it was wartime expenditures. Also, the energy crisis of 1973 caused price shock inflation. So there were many inflationary factors at this time. 128.227.191.106 05:29, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Page to use for the $1 bill

The $2 through $100 bills all have their own pages. Until recently, I thought that the $1 bill should link here, but now I feel that a better page is Federal Reserve notes. Which do you think is a better page??

The $200 bill

Somebody who saw this page appears to think that there was a $200 bill with Theodore Roosevelt. What kind of person says this??

US $1 coin

No mention of this? - it was minted in 2000, and has an eagle on one side, and a Native American woman on the other side, with baby in papoose (I forget the name, someone who helped the Lewis & Clark expedition survive I think). - MPF 16:06, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ah yes, the "golden dollar." Bears a likeness of Sacagawea. -- knoodelhed 05:26, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

New & old $20 notes

Reading the bit about the introduction of new coloured bills - for how long will the old ones remain valid? - MPF 16:06, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

American currency remains valid at face value forever. - knoodelhed 05:28, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks; got the impression the old style were being withdrawn because of the ease of conterfeiting them - MPF 11:45, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The notes are technically valid indefinitely, but paper currency degrades a LOT with repeated handling. It is likely that the older styles of bill will become more and more rare as time passes. This doesn't, unfortunately, stop the problem of it being possible to create many Series 1990 $20 bills, screw them up a bit and pass them off with the excuse "I just found these" or similar. :( RDevz 22:25, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Chronology of denomination articles

In February 2004, the articles for the $5 to $100 bills were created at pages like this: Five dollar bill. A few seconds later, they were moved to articles like this to avoid being unfair to Canadians: American five dollar bill. Originally, they had links only to articles that I thought were of great importance. Then, a few days later, people went to American twenty dollar bill and thought that it should be moved to United States twenty dollar bill. Then, someone moved the pages to articles like U.S. twenty dollar banknote and put more links in them. By then, the articles for the bill pages have improved so much. Then, finally, they moved to pages like U.S. five dollar bill because "banknote" is a primarily European term. People appeared to be doing a good job editing the bill pages. The next major change in the bill articles was to add nicknames such as "sawbuck", and then to give links to bill galleries at http://www.currencygallery.org. The next change was to add the bill's pre-Federal Reserve histories. After that, a blue box was added that simply links all denominations of coins and currency.

Can you think of what the next change in the histories of the bill pages should be?? 66.32.158.89 14:24, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The denomination table

Until very recently, the denomination table was at the top. Now, however, it is at the bottom, where it is more difficult to find. Can anyone decide where the best place to put it is?? 66.32.70.244 01:16, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

FWIW this comment was also left on 'needs attention'--I will remove it from there as this issue seems to have been addressed. Niteowlneils 01:13, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Nickel

The reverse of the U.S. nickel is Monticello, Jefforson's residence, not the Indian Peace Medal. The page wont allow me to edit this so I'm posting it hear in hopes that someone else will be able to correct the mistake.

Actually, as of March 1, 2004, it is now the Indian Peace Medal. It will return to Monticello in January 2006. More information can be found at Nickel (U.S. coin)#Westward Journey Nickel Series. --Pascal666 02:19, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

since it is now 2006, the main page should now indicate Monticello as the subject of the reverse of the 5 cent coin.

1970s’ inflation not necessarily caused by commodity price increases

It is doubtful inflation in the 70s was caused by commodities increasing prices, as this was a worldwide phenomenon but countries had wildly varying inflation rates.

The more likely cause was simply government spending and thus printing dollars, not only for the Vietnam war but mainly, and more enduringly, for welfare.

That's correct. The hyperinflation of the '70s was caused by the Federal Reserve literally printing money. The deficit was financed with this newly printed money, and hyperinflation ensued. --Dissipate 17:16, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

While the United States endured high rates of inflation in the 1970's, it did not approach a state that could be described as hyperinflation. Christopher Parham 21:19, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

Crime added to the overview

Recently, someone just added something about crime to the overview. Is the crime of this kind still common as of 2004?? Well, here is a question that I want to see if any registered Wikipedians can answer:

Suppose there were a billion dollar bill. As I'm sure you know, U.S. currency is well-known internationally, and even though billion means 10^9 in the United States, it means 10^12 in many European countries. People would want to counterfeit A LOT, adding 3 extra 0's to the 1,000,000,000. Therefore, it would DEFINITELY need a new anti-counterfeiting feature of changing the footer at the bottom from "ONE BILLION DOLLARS" to something like "ONE GIGADOLLAR". How do you think people would respond??

(Please don't read too much into this. I'm not expecting there to be a time in the near future when a billion-dollar bill enters circulation; this is only an IF statement.) 66.245.10.239 13:35, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Any counterfeits with "1,000,000,000,000" would stand out to anyone familiar with US currency. Besides, if we ever got to such ridiculously high numbers, it would be due to hyperinflation, and no one would be using such a bill outside the US. Besides, surely anyone who needs to handle US currency would take the time to familiarize themselves with the legal currency, to avoid counterfeits if nothing else, and would therefore be familiar with the fact that the US billion is his milliard Nik42 09:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Captialisation?

Shouldn't the D in "United States Dollar" be capitalised? anthony (see warning) 14:36, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

To quote from another response to this same question: This topic has been addressed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics/Style, you'rre welcome to continue it there. Markkawika 08:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

currencies pegged to USD, countries accepting USD

there is a mess in these lists on the page. Panama's currency is pegged to the USD, but they are not using USD as currency (according to the Panama Wikipedia page) "and a few more countries use USD" - who exactly? full list needed. East Caribbean Dollar is pegged to USD.

International usage

I would feel better if the analysis of the Dollar/Euro interactions and the ongoing fall of the USD with respect to the EUR was backed by some citations of prominent economists. In the present state, it looks like a lot of economic speculation, that may be true, but that is surely controversial enough to warrant some back-up. David.Monniaux 17:54, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. If an article is going to make me nervous, I want to see the facts to back it up. -FunnyMan 23:09, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

As I was writing this, I stopped to read through the history and find the initial occurance of these theories. The majority of that section was contributed by a single anonymous user way back on Nov 24 ([3] / [4]). I'm reverting that entire section as a precaution, others are welcome to re-add any useful and fact-backed content that was in it. -FunnyMan 23:09, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

Whoa there, that's a huge revert... The latter parts did sound like shaky conjecture, but the initial factoids are true. There appears to be ample reason to list and elaborate what happened so far, even if we completely omit all futurology. --Joy [shallot] 23:18, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've got no problem with what you put back, it looks fine to me. I was just doing a blind revert of the section and leaving it up to "the next guy"--you, in this case--to sort through the conjecture and find anything useful that was in there. You did exactly what still needed to be done, so more power to you. As it stands, though, the section could use a bit of reworking, it seems a bit fragmented, especially the line "The majority of US paper currency is actually held outside of the United States.". One line paragraphs should be avoided whenever possible. -FunnyMan 23:46, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

The term "buck"

The article states the following:

The word "buck" is commonly used by Americans to refer to a U.S. dollar. It originated with the colonial fur trade.

Is this an indisputable fact? I've heard various theories about the origin of the name. At any rate, given that a deer is not a fur-bearing animal (a buck, of course, is a male deer), I don't quite see the connection with the fur trade. A little more in the way of explanation would be nice.

circulation....

According to the Review Text in American History by Irving Gordon (1995), the amount of money in circulation in 1892 was about $20 per person. The U.S. Populist Party wanted to change the ratio to $50 per person. The text gives no references nor equations. How was this calculated?

My second question is this...what is the ratio today? According to this United States dollar article, there is nearly US$700 billion in circulation, with an estimated half to two-thirds of it still being held overseas.

$700,000,000,000/3=233333333333.33 in circulation in the U.S. $233333333333.33/295,786,000 people=$788.85/per person.

is that accurate?

please help. Kingturtle 01:40, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes that does sound accurate. But remember that it is the amount of printed currency per person not the amount of money in the bank per person in the U.S. So I am not sure why this statistic would be important or useful for anything. --Clawed 09:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Dimes

The page mentions Eagles, Dollars and Cents as the currency of the US. However, I believe the Dime is also one. This is supported by the fact that the dime coin says "One Dime" and not "Ten Cents". Can anyone confirm this? Mkehrt

It is. Furthermore, Eagle was never an official currency unit. The US Coinage Act established Dollars as the units, Dismes (sic) equal to 1/10, Cents equal to 1/100 and Mils equal to 1/1000. Eagle was used for the name of gold coins Eagle, Half-Eagle, and Quarter-Eagle, but was never authorized as a unit of currency. It had formerly explained the use of dimes, but that was changed at some point Nik42 09:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The eagle was not mentioned in section 20 of the coinage act of 1792 specifying moneys of account, but it was used in section 9, grammatically as a denomonization, not as a name of a particular coin.

I have found that according to a resolution of the Continental Congress on August 8, 1786 [5] that congress intended the ten dollar gold coin to be called an Eagle, the five dollar gold coin to be called a Half Eagle, a twenty cent silver coin to be called a double dime, and the smallest to be called a Half cent made of copper. Mills are mentioned as "money of accompt", but no provision for minting a coin is mentioned. There is also no mention of a five, or twenty-five cent coin. - Britcom 14:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

US Mint's New Custom

Shouldn't we mention the US Mint's new custom of revising the 20 dollar bill's design every ten years? --crumb 01:31, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

First off, the Mint has nothing to do with banknotes, secondly, it's not just the 20 that's been revised. Everything from 5-100 was revised in the 90's, and the 20 and 50 were changed most recently, with the 10 being revised next year. Thirdly, there's nothing unusual in a government altering its paper money every so often. Nik42 09:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Franklin Half Dollar

The Franklin Half Dollar was removed from the table because it was "no longer in circulation". It was restored to the table because "it is still legal tender".

My understanding is that all U.S. coins, except the gold ones removed from circulation, are still legal tender. If "legal tender" is the criteria, then almost all U.S. coins ever issued should be listed on the chart.

The chart says it is meant for "Contemporary Designs". This raises the question of how recent a design must be to be "Contemporary". On this question, I can only speak anecdotally. The Franklin half dollar ceased production in 1963. My wife has been a bank teller since 1989 and has never seen Franklin half dollar.

The next most recent coin that ceased production appears to be the Eisnenhower dollar. It was in production until 1978. It is still relatively common. My wife sees these at her bank about once a month.

The Eisenhower dollar seems recent and common enough to keep in the chart. However, the Franklin seems to be a rare coin, likely to be seen only by collectors. Based on that, and its position as the coin with the oldest circulation date on the chart, it seems reasonable to remove it from a chart of "Contemporary Designs". --Seitz 06:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

The Franklin half dollar, along with any other U.S. coin that contains silver (pre-1965), is no longer in circulation. If one looks at the history of this article, the Franklin half dollar was mistakenly put in as an entry that would belong to a table of all U.S. coins. --Kurthalomieu J. McCool 07:12, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

A few silver coins are in circulation. I've run across a few silver dimes and 1 silver quarter since I started paying attention to that about a few months ago Nik42 21:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

But, by the same logic, Indian Head cents are still in circulation too. I've found 2 in my lifetime, but this doesn't necessarily mean that are "in circulation". Circulation is being used here as a relative term meaning, more or less, "active circulation" and not fluke instances of a coin surfacing. --Kurthalomieu J. McCool 22:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that the criteria is, or should be, what coins/currency were still being made within the last year say. - Britcom 14:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

New security features?

I was wondering, are there going to be any new security features on bills besides the EURion constellation? Like, for example, a holographic patch or strip, or a broken number as featured on the Canadian and European notes?

$ Or US$ In Wikipedia?

How do I refer to US Dollars in Wikipedia articles? Is it "$" or "US$"? E. g. "the ticket costs $10" or "the ticket costs US$10"? I. e. does the dollar symbol always refer to the US currency if not alternatively affixed (C$, A$, etc.)? --Maikel 13:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I would assume it would depend on context. If the context is clear what nation you're talking about, I see no reason to put a disambiguating abbreviation, whether US or other Nik42 08:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The Good Style at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (currency)#Currency says it should be "US$", but it's still marked "proposed," and I agree that there is no ambiguity here. —RandallJones 18:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the link and info! --Maikel 14:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Dollar coin nicknames

I've never heard "Gold dollar" or "Sackey" for the Sacagawea dollar, or "Suzy B" for the Susan B Anthony dollar, but I have heard "Silver Dollar" for both of those, despite the illogic, especially with the Sacagawea one. Nik42 08:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

When speaking with tellers, they would laugh in your face if you called either of the small dollars "silver". The "Silver Dollar" is the nickname of the Large Size only. Everyone I have ever encountered knows what a "Suzy B." is. They do get confused when you talk about the "Gold Dollar" but understand when you say "Golden Dollar". "Sacky" is very common among the actual users and proponents of the coins. TEG 14:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, I have heard all of the above. People's usage is often very imprecise. I have also heard the Eisenhower dollars referred to as 'bowl' dollars. Since I have only heard that in speach, I have no idea of the spelling or etymology.

Vending machines?

As most vending machines are incapable of making change in banknotes, they are frequently designed to give change in dollar coins and occasionally half-dollar coins.

I've never seen a vending maching give change in half-dollars, and have only heard of the Post Office's stamp dispensers giving change in dollar coins. I'm revising that Nik42 21:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I have personally witnessed The United States Post Office vending machine dispensing dollar coins - Susan B. Anothony and Sachagiwa - as change if the amount of change meets or exceeds a dollar. Nuance13x 08:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Half dollar coins are rarely used for change from machines. However, many toll systems use them for change, especially on ferry systems like the Washington State Ferries. TEG 14:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Federal Reserve

Some cynics also 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.

I don't think this is true, as the Federal Reserve doesn't make money from replacing worn-out bills, only from printing new bills. Am I mistaken, or is that actually incorrect? Nik42 21:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I actually think you're correct. They would have to lose money, because they replace the worn out bill with a new one, removing no money from the overall supply. That is nothing but an expense. Markkawika 08:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

deprecated

"Large U.S. denominations (deprecated)" is probably bad wording. I had read a "fun fact" once that stated no bill in the history of the u.s. has ever been recalled or deprecated.

I don't know what you or the article mean by deprecated, i had to look it up [6]. Which is not that same as "depreciate"(to lessen the value of). Which would be true, large bills, i believe $1000 and above are no longer produced, and when one is turned into a bank they send it into the fed. that would sound like a phase out, or deprecation to me. As for straight up recall, seems weird that none have occured, but I'll have to check it out. Joe I 02:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the term is 'demonetized' or having the legal tender status removed. It is technically incorrect to say that no US coin or currency has been demonetized, as the trade dollars were demonetized, among, I believe, other obsolete coin at various times. The coinage act of 1965, however, restored the legal tender status to all coin and currency of the united states, regardless of era. I do not believe this applies to the coins and currency of the continental congress, however. I believe it would apply to the fugio cents of 1787, which were coined privately under the authority of the US Congress.

"Dollar" vs. "dollar"

I believe this article should be "United States Dollar" rather than "... dollar", and all specific references to the USD should capitalize the word. This is an official monetary unit (and, therefore, a "title"). Essentially, the difference in reference is between "a dollar" (a value) and "The Dollar" (a title). RadioKirk 04:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

This topic has been addressed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics/Style, your welcome to continue it there. :) Joe I 04:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Three $1 coins

Why are three different one-dollar coins listed in the chart? The Golden Dollar is the only one minted and the only one considered current by the Mint. If we're going to list the SBA and the Eisenhower, why not the Franklin half-dollar and the Buffalo nickel, among others?

The Buffalo nickel has been gone from production since 1938; nearly 70 years ago. In constrast, the Susan B. Anthony dollar has only been gone since 2000 (it was last minted in 1999.) Georgia guy 14:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I find a length-of-time argument to be unconvincing. How long does it have to be out of production before it's no longer included? 5 years, 10 years, 15 years, 20 years? The Eisenhower dollar has been out of production for nearly 30 years. And one never encounters one in general circulation. At least the SBA's are still out there (when I ask my bank for a roll of dollars, I generally get a mixed roll that's about 1/2 Golden and 1/2 SBA).

If we're including everything that's in general circulation, why are the Monticello-back nickel and the eagle-back quarter excluded? Those will even be produced again after the special series are done, unlike the SBAs, which are gone forever. The time argument doesn't work here, because the eagle-back was last produced in 1998, while the Monticello-back was last produced in 2003 and will be produced again this year. Jwolfe 21:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, for consistency and conciseness, keep just the currently minted versions in the table, and save the past versions for the individual denomination articles. 06:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Meaning

I think that something needs to be added to this page about the meaning and value of a dollar. What I mean is this: I know that a dollar, in old times, said that it could be exchanged with the US government for equal amounts of gold and/or silver. Then, they removed the statement. Now what is a dollar worth, in that sense? Does it have any actual material value? Is there anything that makes it value other than the fact that it is accepted by all institutions in the US?TrogdorPolitiks 21:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

To redeem for gold or silver it had to be a Gold certificate or a Silver Certificate. US money now is whats termed Fiat currency, meaning that there is no real backin other than the governments word. The reason why your sayin those statements were removed from the dollar, is cause its a totally different dollar.  :) Joe I 21:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Cocaine

I heard it's really true that a lot of US dollars have trace amounts of cocaine. Shouldn't this be in the article? A Clown in the Dark 18:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

— Ambush Commander^(Talk) 03:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's your citation [7] A Clown in the Dark 16:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

This sounds sensational. But after reading the reference, it seems like a more mundane, if novel, piece of trivia. I'm not sure how best to present it. It doesn't seem to warrant a long discussion in the article, but just a brief mention might leave the wrong impression. Maybe a section, or even a separate article, on U.S. banknote trivia?

--19:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Picture

Methinks it would be pretty cool if someone made a picture of all the bills from 1 - 100 and the commonly circulated coins for this article. :-) — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 03:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the US mint doesn't like it when people do that due to counter-feiters. A Clown in the Dark 18:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added links to official images from the U.S. Bureau of Engraving and U.S. Mint.

--Seitz 19:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I found the illusive one dollar note image and added it to the page. This is from the BoE site. Britcom 14:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge coins section to U.S. Coinage

I would like to move the information in the section about U.S. coins to the "United States coinage" article. That would put specific information on U.S. coins in one place, and help make this article a more concise and general overview of the U.S. dollar as a currency unit. --20:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's a link at the top of the article saying "Main article: United States coinage". Georgia guy 21:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and I would like to keep that link, but remove the duplicate information. -- Seitz 03:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Scanned Images

I have several questions.

1. Is it legal to scan the US dollar with a scanner? My question concerns not only the scanning process, but also the distribution of these images. For example, is it legal to transmit the images via E-mail? Is it legal to add the images to web sites, such as Wikipedia?

2. What is the licensing of such images? Are they in the public domain or are they copyrighted?

3. How does a scanner know to produce discolored lines when you scan the dollar bill? I myself tried it. I scanned it under 2000dpi and 48 bit color. When I scanned the bill horizontally, the scanner produced discolored lines every 50 pixels or so. When I scanned the image vertically, nothing happened. I then could rotate the image of the buck to the original horizontal position using Photoshop. My scanner is EPSON Perfection 4870. Could this be done through software or the driver, or is the copying block done in the scanner firmware itself.

---

If scanning the images is legal, can somebody add images to the article?

--BorisFromStockdale 00:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

See "Reproduction of Currency" from the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. -- Seitz 05:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I read the article. It is very unclear. I want to know if I can make large scans 4000X6000 pixels of currency such as of a 1 dollar and add that to the wikipedia 1 dollar page.--BorisFromStockdale 01:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Section on Composition of the Dollar

Shouldn't there be a section on the actual composition of the dollar such as how much cotton there is and stating that it is not really paper, but cloth? Just wondering, Tom 22:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I would second that. I would like to see the actual composition. One small correction: It is paper, not cloth. It is not wood pulp paper, but cotton paper. Cloth consists of woven fibers, while paper consists of pressed or dried fiber mesh. Therefore, wasp nests are not 'like paper' they are, in fact, paper.

US Dollar Backing

Hoy hoy,

I've heard for a long time that the US dollar is no longer backed by gold. Something about it being a "fiat" currency or some such. Do any of you have some research that challenges or backs this claim up?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.170.161.147 (talk • contribs)

Yes, the US dollar is no longer gold backed. It went off the gold standard in 1971, i think. You can loo at these for more info. History of the United States dollar Fiat currencyJoe I 21:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Spanish affecting currency??

Spanish appears to be getting so popular in the United States now, meaning that I find it likely that there might be a version of the currency with Spanish words on it. Any opinions?? Georgia guy 21:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I think eventually that might happen, but not for a long time. It's still rare to encounter people who only speak Spanish in northern states. --71.225.229.151 23:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Anything is possible in the future, but I would be highly doubtful that spanish will really become competitive as a common language of discouse with English in the United States. Immigrants speak the language they grew up with. Their children speak that language at home and English elsewhere. Their grandchildren speak English and perhaps the first language secondarily. This has been the historical pattern within the US for as long as there has been a US, and is the pattern even with modern hispanic immigrants more than most people realize. To wit, my maternal grandparents spoke spanish, and I did not learn spanish until my late 20's. My paternal great great grandparents spoke German, Italian, Gaelic, and Polish. My Grandparents spoke english. My first wife was the daughter of spanish speaking parents, and spoke not-quite-fluent spanish. Xenophobic Americans really need not worry any more about Spanish today than they worried about German in the 1800's (which was quite a bit, but still unwarrented).

Added "Buck" Term

I just wanted to clarify that under the terminology for $1 bills, I added the term "buck" because it is a very common term for a dollar. I just wanted to clarify that under the terminology for $1 bills, I added the term "buck" because it is a very common term for a dollar. Chile 02:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

early dollar bill

can someone add pictures and info on the early dollar - was there something about pheonix on the bill before 1841? official commentary - unofficial commentary on what the things on the bills mean?

Security Features of the US Dollar

Shouldn't we include a description, or at least reference a description of the security features of the US dollar? Of course, we wouldn't want to divulge anything that is illigal. But the US mint does release a list of security features, and a lot of others are common knowledge. I think it would be both important and interesting. Nuance13x 08:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Tracking money

I was surprised to see that there is not a link on this page to www.wheresgeorge.com, a website that allows people to track dollar bills as they are being spent around the country. I don't know if it would fit, where to put it, or if should should even be there, so I didn't do anything about it other than comment.

Quarter reverses

I saw that this article only mentions statehood designs as the only reverse of the quarter. However, there are more than one: I have seen a bald eagle with an olive branch in its mouth reverse. Would this make the quarter a little more informative? FinalHeaven

You might wanna look under Quarter (United States coin) for a more in depth article about quarters. Joe I 20:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Exchange Rate

Personally, I feel that listing the exchange rate for the dollar to various other currencies is a poor practice, primarily because exchange rates change daily. Wouldn't it be better to give general approximations like US$1 ≈ ¥100, because those don't fluctuate that much (except over long periods of time or under extreme inflation, e.g. Zimbabwe) IMacWin95 22:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from. But if US$ = J¥114.42 right now, then any future fluctuation will be going off from 114.42. A statement that says US$ = J¥114.42 3 days ago is always more accurate than US$ ≈ J¥100 (with no time information). People do update them frequently. And if we were to use approximation, then we would have to come up with standardized procedure that applies to all currencies, such as how many significant digits, how often do you update. By no mean should any reader assume that exchange rates stays at the rate stated in the article, that's why there's always the "as of" clause. So I would have to respectfully disagree. --Chochopk 22:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Adopted by the United States Congress on July 6, 1785

I copied the date to the article because I saw that on the homepage (today in history). User 216.205.224.10 changed that to July 8. But 216.205.224.10 is a shared IP, and I am no US history expert. So can someone verify? Thanks. --Chochopk 00:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The dollar as a "monetary unit" was officially adopted on July 6, 1785 by the Continental Congress (not the United States Congress). The evidence of this is found in the Library of Congress, Journals of the Continental Congress, Volume 29, Page 500 [8] The Library of Congress website says: "The Second Continental Congress ran from May 10, 1775, to March 2, 1789" [9]

The confusion may have arisen from the fact that the "value" of the dollar was set on August 8, 1786, found in Library of Congress, Journals of the Continental Congress, Volume 31, Page 503 [10] . Note the reference to the types of coins to be minted, including a .20 of a dollar coin to be called a "double dime" on this page.

There is also a very interesting report by the grand committee regarding the new currency about how it arrived at its recommendation made on May 13, 1785, found in the Library of Congress, Journals of the Continental Congress, Volume 28, Page 351 [11] there is also in the report a coin design drawing with 13 stars and the inscription apparently “CONFEDERATIO” [12], here is an image of the minted coin: [13] and another [14] - Britcom 13:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Dollar denomination image, $100 vs $1

Re: the change that Britcom made to the image of the dollar in the infobox ($100 note changed to $1 note, Chochopk said after he changed it back, "Why restricting banknote of 1 unit, and coin of 1 unit. Such restriction won't work on many other currencies." before that Britcom said "This page is about the dollar as a currency standard. The $100 is NOT the standard the $1 is. If the image is of the $100 note then you are misleading the reader."

I don't understand why Chochopk resists the fact that the dollar is singular and the note it represents is the only acceptable image that should be shown. Other currencies do not use a note to represent their currency's standard denomination, they use a coin. The US does have such a note and the coin is barely used at all. This page should not confuse the reader about what is and what is not in use in the US. Some people may be relying on this information when visiting the US. Wikipedia is not the place for internationalizing the United States currency by "standardizing" the information so that the description is wholly foreign in content to the traditions and customs of the currency described in the page. Yes some other nation's currencies will not be able to be compared directly to the US dollar, too bad; the US dollar is different and unique and defies simplistic efforts to compartmentalize it. We are after facts here, not standardization for the sake of standardization.

- Britcom 07:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

---

I am not against of using $1 as the image. I just felt higher denomination banknotes/coins are better because they tend to have more detailed design, which tell more about the culture and history about the country/territory.

I do not intend to confuse the readers, of course. That is why I designed the "rarely_used_banknotes" and "frequently_used_banknotes" attributes in the first place.

I am totally aware of the fact that some visitors use Wikipedia for tourist information. I am a non-American living in the States now. FYI, most visitors bring large amount of cash in $100 notes or traveler's checks (again $100 or even $1000) if not using credit cards.

FYI, right now I can only think of Egyptian pound and Chinese Renminbi yuan that have notes and coins for 1 unit.

If you are going to use my very first point and say $1 note "tells more about this country than $100", then I am not going to argue against that.

Standardization is a good thing. --Chochopk 09:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

What we are talking about here is the standard unit; the dollar. We are not supposed to be talking about the nature of the printed note (that should be on the numismatic page) we are supposed to be talking about the medium of exchange that is represented by the note and the coin. Let me say this in another way. If we were making a page about the metric gram, you would not show an image of a kilogram of lead would you? Surely you would show an image of a gram of lead, or grain, or something that shows the reader what the unit represents. The dollar is no different; it is a unit of measure. In this case it is supposed to be a measure of monetary value.

Regarding tourists bringing in large amounts of $100 bills or travelers checks; exactly my point; they do and when the get here they are shocked that they can't spend them. Businesses typically will not accept anything larger than a $50 and some won't accept anything larger than a $20 for small purchases. The first thing they have to do is find a bank to change all their hundreds into twenties.

This page does not even have an image of the current dollar note on it. I have no objection to showing images of other denominations, there is room for that. My objection is that the info box is supposed to give the reader the fast facts and showing the $100 note in the same box as the words "United States dollar" leads one to believe that the US currency is a low value currency like the yen, where the 100 yen is the equivalent to the $1 note in value. If we were talking about the yen, then you may have a point, but we are not. What if someone is not used to reading English, they could easily become confused into thinking that the $100 note is a low value note (like the 100 yen) and expect the wrong change. They might mistake the value of 100 as the base unit and hand a clerk a $100 bill for a candy bar, expecting a few coins in return (I have actually seen this happen). An Asian tourist ahead of me in line in Orlando could not tell the difference between the value of 95 dollars and 95 cents. Apparently he was very wealthy since he had a roll of hundreds. He was insulted when the clerk said he couldn't take his money.

Too much standardization robs the reader of the ability to discern the difference between similar looking but different operating subjects. It tends to gloss over differences in the quest of comparing similarities, while possibly ignoring unique differences that may be significant. Like North and South Korea. Some things belong in a category by themselves, to do otherwise is to rob the reader of a significant understanding of why some things perform well and some don't. One of the reasons why encyclopedias exist is to help the reader understand why things are different. A book that organizes the similarities of things is called a catalog, not an encyclopedia.

- Britcom 13:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Very well said. But I just don't think this article is more about the "standard of unit", rather, about "medium of exchange", both of which you mentioned. When I go check out Indian rupee, am I thinking about the monetary system as a whole (comparable to "metric system weight"), or only the amount of precisely 1 rupee (comparable to "1 gram")? Unfortunately, when talking about money, we tend to call both the system and the amount of that standard unit "United States dollar". Again, I am not against of using $1 for the image in the infobox.

--Chochopk 23:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Then let us use it, with your permission, I will put the $1 image in the info box. You make a valid point about the medium of exchange vs the standard. This goes to the heart of what is wrong with fiat currencies and why the public continues to accept them. Perhaps there should be a link from all these currency pages to a page about fiat currencies and what makes them vulnerable to collapse (i.e. the public's failure to reject a medium of exchange that has no value of itself). The standard unit of the dollar used to be pegged to a certain amount of silver, a valuable commodity, set by congress. The FRN and every other fiat currency is just an empty promise given by the bank that issues it.

- Britcom 01:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Rarity of $50 bill

Banknotes Frequently used $1, $5, $10, $20, $50, $100 Rarely used $2

I think the $50 should be added to the rarely used section. It is never given as change, and is not commonly used. The $20 and the $100 are much more common.

Jamesinclair 19:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)