How do I approach my currency revamp issues?

wrote in message
...


Why go to the expense of making a new $2 bill. When it comes time to
phase out the old $2 bill just replace it with $2 coin. I feel a $2
coin would circulate more widely than the $2 bill does, but that is
just my opinion.

Why go to all the expense to make all of these new Pesident, and soon,
Naive American $1 coins that are failing to circulate widely? (Sure,
$1 coins circulate better than $2 bills, currently, but I have yet to
receive one in change) I'm not really worried about $1 or $2 coins
anymore, because it has come to be very clear that Congress will NOT
eliminate the $1 or $2 bills anyway. So I give up on that one. As much
as I wish they would get rid of them.



As for counterfeiters, I don't see that it really matters. They'll be
plenty of the old bills available for those that want them either for
legal or illegal purposes. Also I tend to agree that $1s and $2s not
having a security thread or watermark makes them look more different
than the higher denomination bills that have those features. Adding a
security thread or watermark to the $2 or $1 bill would only require
closer inspection of bills to determine if they are genuine or not.

The reason I said to add these features to the $1 and $2 bills, is
because of the fact that counterfeiters can bleach the paper, and
print old style pre-1990s $100 bills that had no microprinting or any
security features on the paper from a $1 or $2 bill. (Sure, a bunch of
older $100s from that many years ago might draw attention, but someone
could just be cashing in, or spending some older bills they were left
to them by and older family member) This issue was never about
counterfeiters faking $1 and $2 bills. It was about printing these
older style larger denominations on the bleached $1 or $2 bill paper.


I don't find the watermarks to be that distinguishable anyway,
especially if the bill is worn. I'd much rather they had gone with a #
watermark for the denomination rather than the presidential portraits.-


I agree, this would have been a better idea. Which is why I was going
to suffest a "2" watermark for the right side of a new $2 bill, and to
really make it easily distinguishable from a new $5 bill, like I said,
put the words "TWO" on the same spots on the left of Jefferson's
portrait on a new $2 bill, as the numeral 5s are on on the left of
Lincoln's portrait. Now, if someone mistakes the word "TWO" for a
numeral "5", and takes a $5 bill that was faked on a new $2 bill, then
there's a problem, because ANYONE should be able to see a difference,
including foreigners. Thats my opinion.

Why don't you simply run for office yourself. If elected, you then could
sponsor bills containing all your ideas and would see from the inside what
it takes to get these things passed. Plus you would save the time and
postage of writing to yourself.

On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 08:55:29 -0400, "Bruce Remick"
wrote:

wrote in message
...


Why go to the expense of making a new $2 bill. When it comes time to
phase out the old $2 bill just replace it with $2 coin. I feel a $2
coin would circulate more widely than the $2 bill does, but that is
just my opinion.

Why go to all the expense to make all of these new Pesident, and soon,
Naive American $1 coins that are failing to circulate widely? (Sure,
$1 coins circulate better than $2 bills, currently, but I have yet to
receive one in change) I'm not really worried about $1 or $2 coins
anymore, because it has come to be very clear that Congress will NOT
eliminate the $1 or $2 bills anyway. So I give up on that one. As much
as I wish they would get rid of them.



As for counterfeiters, I don't see that it really matters. They'll be
plenty of the old bills available for those that want them either for
legal or illegal purposes. Also I tend to agree that $1s and $2s not
having a security thread or watermark makes them look more different
than the higher denomination bills that have those features. Adding a
security thread or watermark to the $2 or $1 bill would only require
closer inspection of bills to determine if they are genuine or not.

The reason I said to add these features to the $1 and $2 bills, is
because of the fact that counterfeiters can bleach the paper, and
print old style pre-1990s $100 bills that had no microprinting or any
security features on the paper from a $1 or $2 bill. (Sure, a bunch of
older $100s from that many years ago might draw attention, but someone
could just be cashing in, or spending some older bills they were left
to them by and older family member) This issue was never about
counterfeiters faking $1 and $2 bills. It was about printing these
older style larger denominations on the bleached $1 or $2 bill paper.


I don't find the watermarks to be that distinguishable anyway,
especially if the bill is worn. I'd much rather they had gone with a #
watermark for the denomination rather than the presidential portraits.-


I agree, this would have been a better idea. Which is why I was going
to suffest a "2" watermark for the right side of a new $2 bill, and to
really make it easily distinguishable from a new $5 bill, like I said,
put the words "TWO" on the same spots on the left of Jefferson's
portrait on a new $2 bill, as the numeral 5s are on on the left of
Lincoln's portrait. Now, if someone mistakes the word "TWO" for a
numeral "5", and takes a $5 bill that was faked on a new $2 bill, then
there's a problem, because ANYONE should be able to see a difference,
including foreigners. Thats my opinion.

Why don't you simply run for office yourself. If elected, you then could
sponsor bills containing all your ideas and would see from the inside what
it takes to get these things passed. Plus you would save the time and
postage of writing to yourself.


Not in my state. I don't want to have a Congressman from Florida
dicking around with currency design reform. I want all his attention
on economic issues and foreign affairs issues. The economy is in a
nose-dive, we are spending billions on a war that should never have
been, and there are many domestic issues that need attention.

In the meantime, the design of the currency in circulation causes no
problems. Let's pay more attention to where the money goes than what
the money looks like.


--

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 08:55:29 -0400, "Bruce Remick"
wrote:

wrote in message
...


Why go to the expense of making a new $2 bill. When it comes time to
phase out the old $2 bill just replace it with $2 coin. I feel a $2
coin would circulate more widely than the $2 bill does, but that is
just my opinion.

Why go to all the expense to make all of these new Pesident, and soon,
Naive American $1 coins that are failing to circulate widely? (Sure,
$1 coins circulate better than $2 bills, currently, but I have yet to
receive one in change) I'm not really worried about $1 or $2 coins
anymore, because it has come to be very clear that Congress will NOT
eliminate the $1 or $2 bills anyway. So I give up on that one. As much
as I wish they would get rid of them.



As for counterfeiters, I don't see that it really matters. They'll be
plenty of the old bills available for those that want them either for
legal or illegal purposes. Also I tend to agree that $1s and $2s not
having a security thread or watermark makes them look more different
than the higher denomination bills that have those features. Adding a
security thread or watermark to the $2 or $1 bill would only require
closer inspection of bills to determine if they are genuine or not.

The reason I said to add these features to the $1 and $2 bills, is
because of the fact that counterfeiters can bleach the paper, and
print old style pre-1990s $100 bills that had no microprinting or any
security features on the paper from a $1 or $2 bill. (Sure, a bunch of
older $100s from that many years ago might draw attention, but someone
could just be cashing in, or spending some older bills they were left
to them by and older family member) This issue was never about
counterfeiters faking $1 and $2 bills. It was about printing these
older style larger denominations on the bleached $1 or $2 bill paper.


I don't find the watermarks to be that distinguishable anyway,
especially if the bill is worn. I'd much rather they had gone with a #
watermark for the denomination rather than the presidential
portraits.-


I agree, this would have been a better idea. Which is why I was going
to suffest a "2" watermark for the right side of a new $2 bill, and to
really make it easily distinguishable from a new $5 bill, like I said,
put the words "TWO" on the same spots on the left of Jefferson's
portrait on a new $2 bill, as the numeral 5s are on on the left of
Lincoln's portrait. Now, if someone mistakes the word "TWO" for a
numeral "5", and takes a $5 bill that was faked on a new $2 bill, then
there's a problem, because ANYONE should be able to see a difference,
including foreigners. Thats my opinion.

Why don't you simply run for office yourself. If elected, you then could
sponsor bills containing all your ideas and would see from the inside what
it takes to get these things passed. Plus you would save the time and
postage of writing to yourself.


Not in my state. I don't want to have a Congressman from Florida
dicking around with currency design reform. I want all his attention
on economic issues and foreign affairs issues. The economy is in a
nose-dive, we are spending billions on a war that should never have
been, and there are many domestic issues that need attention.

That's just the way our system works. The people we elect only have 1/50th
of the total input. And then there's the feuding parties. Maybe that
contributes to why it's so hard to get 100 individuals to agree on the
controversial things. It could be worse. We could have one ruler who makes
all the decisions. Hmmm. Sometimes it seems that does happen.


In the meantime, the design of the currency in circulation causes no
problems. Let's pay more attention to where the money goes than what
the money looks like.

Amen.

On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 22:42:42 -0700 (PDT), wrote:



Why go to the expense of making a new $2 bill. When it comes time to
phase out the old $2 bill just replace it with $2 coin. I feel a $2
coin would circulate more widely than the $2 bill does, but that is
just my opinion.

Why go to all the expense to make all of these new Pesident, and soon,
Naive American $1 coins that are failing to circulate widely? (Sure,
$1 coins circulate better than $2 bills, currently, but I have yet to
receive one in change) I'm not really worried about $1 or $2 coins
anymore, because it has come to be very clear that Congress will NOT
eliminate the $1 or $2 bills anyway. So I give up on that one. As much
as I wish they would get rid of them.

Why give up on that one? *That* is the one that will be more likely
than the reintroduction of high denomination notes or the introduction
of an entirely new denomination note!

Padraic

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Padraic Brown wrote:
On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 22:42:42 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:
[...] I'm not really worried about $1 or $2 coins anymore, because
it has come to be very clear that Congress will NOT eliminate the
$1 or $2 bills anyway. So I give up on that one. As much as I wish
they would get rid of them.

Why give up on that one? *That* is the one that will be more likely
than the reintroduction of high denomination notes or the
introduction of an entirely new denomination note!

Exactly! Of all his ideas, that is the only one *I* care about - and
the only one I think has any chance of being implemented.

Congress (right or wrong) will see high denomination notes as being used
ONLY in the underground economy - so there's a strong disincentive to
reissue those.

And the changemakers have no trouble using two quarters instead of a
half dollar - so really only the collectors care about that denomination.

But the dollar coin/bill issue has received significant press in recent
years. After the election's over, I wouldn't be surprised to see
somebody champion the cause. (Whether it gets any traction, though, is
yet to be seen).

--
Jim Seymour

On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 17:29:06 GMT, Jim Seymour
wrote:

Padraic Brown wrote:
On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 22:42:42 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:
[...] I'm not really worried about $1 or $2 coins anymore, because
it has come to be very clear that Congress will NOT eliminate the
$1 or $2 bills anyway. So I give up on that one. As much as I wish
they would get rid of them.

Why give up on that one? *That* is the one that will be more likely
than the reintroduction of high denomination notes or the
introduction of an entirely new denomination note!

Exactly! Of all his ideas, that is the only one *I* care about - and
the only one I think has any chance of being implemented.

Congress (right or wrong) will see high denomination notes as being used
ONLY in the underground economy - so there's a strong disincentive to
reissue those.

And the changemakers have no trouble using two quarters instead of a
half dollar - so really only the collectors care about that denomination.

But the dollar coin/bill issue has received significant press in recent
years. After the election's over, I wouldn't be surprised to see
somebody champion the cause. (Whether it gets any traction, though, is
yet to be seen).

Agreed on all points.

I'd rather see that smaller but rather thicker coin be either a $2 or
a $5 rather than waste it on small change like a new 50c. (I think the
size of the 50c coin would make it ideal for semi-circulating
commemorative issues. *Real* commems, not just "let's celebrate all
the states or prezidents" kind of thing -- real achievements past and
present.)

The vending machine issue is also important because the introduction
of a new 50c coin would either require *legislation* that forces all
vending machines to accept the new coin or else the industry will have
to be willing to retool all on its own. Guess what the vending
industry would choose if left to its own devices?

I'd rather see that size coin be a *higher* denomination rather than a
lower, because then vending machine makers might take an interest
where they wouldn't take an interest in a lower denomination coin that
is already capably being handled by two quarters.

The dollar coin has proven its worth in vending machines of all kinds
for decades. With more kinds of complex vending operations (like food
services and drinks) that often cost more than a dollar, the utility
of higher denominatin coins would be more certain than a lower.

Padraic

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Padraic Brown" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 17:29:06 GMT, Jim Seymour
wrote:

Padraic Brown wrote:
On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 22:42:42 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:
[...] I'm not really worried about $1 or $2 coins anymore, because
it has come to be very clear that Congress will NOT eliminate the
$1 or $2 bills anyway. So I give up on that one. As much as I wish
they would get rid of them.

Why give up on that one? *That* is the one that will be more likely
than the reintroduction of high denomination notes or the
introduction of an entirely new denomination note!

Exactly! Of all his ideas, that is the only one *I* care about - and
the only one I think has any chance of being implemented.

Congress (right or wrong) will see high denomination notes as being used
ONLY in the underground economy - so there's a strong disincentive to
reissue those.

And the changemakers have no trouble using two quarters instead of a
half dollar - so really only the collectors care about that denomination.

But the dollar coin/bill issue has received significant press in recent
years. After the election's over, I wouldn't be surprised to see
somebody champion the cause. (Whether it gets any traction, though, is
yet to be seen).

Agreed on all points.

I'd rather see that smaller but rather thicker coin be either a $2 or
a $5 rather than waste it on small change like a new 50c. (I think the
size of the 50c coin would make it ideal for semi-circulating
commemorative issues. *Real* commems, not just "let's celebrate all
the states or prezidents" kind of thing -- real achievements past and
present.)

I'd like to see a $2 or $5 coin. Like you said, thicker would make it stand
out. At least we should give it a try, if possible without all the tiresome
input about who or what should be on it. Just go with a "generic" Liberty
or something for a couple years to see if the public will accept it first.

And speaking of size, I wonder if a reduced (dime) size one cent coin with
the current metals has been considered. Might solve the metal problem, and
since cents aren't used in vending machines, only mechanical coin counters
should have to be adjusted. But then the numismatic lobby would probably be
against it because collectors would have to get new albums. So much for
that idea.


The vending machine issue is also important because the introduction
of a new 50c coin would either require *legislation* that forces all
vending machines to accept the new coin or else the industry will have
to be willing to retool all on its own. Guess what the vending
industry would choose if left to its own devices?

Status quo, plus credit/debit cards like on most all gas pumps?


I'd rather see that size coin be a *higher* denomination rather than a
lower, because then vending machine makers might take an interest
where they wouldn't take an interest in a lower denomination coin that
is already capably being handled by two quarters.

The dollar coin has proven its worth in vending machines of all kinds
for decades. With more kinds of complex vending operations (like food
services and drinks) that often cost more than a dollar, the utility
of higher denominatin coins would be more certain than a lower.

$2 and $5 coins would work here, but again, we're getting into credit card
territory with higher priced goods in vending machines. I still see that as
the way we seem to be going more and more.

Bruce

Bruce Remick wrote:
And speaking of size, I wonder if a reduced (dime) size one cent coin
with the current metals has been considered. Might solve the metal
problem, and since cents aren't used in vending machines, only
mechanical coin counters should have to be adjusted.

The dime is pretty close in size to the cent (about 90% by surface area
AND mass). To get enough savings, they'd have to make it WAY too small
(in my opinion).

Aside from eliminating the denomination completely, the only practical
option I see is to change it to a cheaper metal.

But then the numismatic lobby would probably be against it because
collectors would have to get new albums. So much for that idea.

Lobby?! We have a lobby? :-)

--
Jim Seymour

In article dNzFj.122$sR1.39@trndny08, Jim Seymour wrote:
Bruce Remick wrote:
And speaking of size, I wonder if a reduced (dime) size one cent coin
with the current metals has been considered. Might solve the metal
problem, and since cents aren't used in vending machines, only
mechanical coin counters should have to be adjusted.

The dime is pretty close in size to the cent (about 90% by surface area
AND mass). To get enough savings, they'd have to make it WAY too small
(in my opinion).

Aside from eliminating the denomination completely, the only practical
option I see is to change it to a cheaper metal.

But then the numismatic lobby would probably be against it because
collectors would have to get new albums. So much for that idea.

Lobby?! We have a lobby? :-)

i got a credenza and a portico. they don't get along.

On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 16:09:35 -0400, "Bruce Remick"
wrote:


"Padraic Brown" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 17:29:06 GMT, Jim Seymour
wrote:

Padraic Brown wrote:
On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 22:42:42 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:
[...] I'm not really worried about $1 or $2 coins anymore, because
it has come to be very clear that Congress will NOT eliminate the
$1 or $2 bills anyway. So I give up on that one. As much as I wish
they would get rid of them.

Why give up on that one? *That* is the one that will be more likely
than the reintroduction of high denomination notes or the
introduction of an entirely new denomination note!

Exactly! Of all his ideas, that is the only one *I* care about - and
the only one I think has any chance of being implemented.

Congress (right or wrong) will see high denomination notes as being used
ONLY in the underground economy - so there's a strong disincentive to
reissue those.

And the changemakers have no trouble using two quarters instead of a
half dollar - so really only the collectors care about that denomination.

But the dollar coin/bill issue has received significant press in recent
years. After the election's over, I wouldn't be surprised to see
somebody champion the cause. (Whether it gets any traction, though, is
yet to be seen).

Agreed on all points.

I'd rather see that smaller but rather thicker coin be either a $2 or
a $5 rather than waste it on small change like a new 50c. (I think the
size of the 50c coin would make it ideal for semi-circulating
commemorative issues. *Real* commems, not just "let's celebrate all
the states or prezidents" kind of thing -- real achievements past and
present.)

I'd like to see a $2 or $5 coin. Like you said, thicker would make it stand
out. At least we should give it a try, if possible without all the tiresome
input about who or what should be on it. Just go with a "generic" Liberty
or something for a couple years to see if the public will accept it first.

No that sparks an idea that revamps the coins but doesn't mess with
sizes and the like. I am *all* for replacing dead prezidents with
images of Miss Liberty! After all, isn't that what we had long ago?
Didn't Mr Washington express the desire *not* to be on a coin because
it was too much a royal practice? Now, if Malanut wants an issue to
send to Congressman Whatzinitforme, a series of *updated* allegories
of Miss Liberty could be tried. Call it the "Hot Liberty Ladies
Coinage Act. Note to Malanut: be sure to send your congressman *large*
pictures of the models in question. )

Penny: too small for hot Liberty ladies! Try some state flowers or
something
Nickel: Angela Bassett
Dime: way too small for hot Liberty ladies! Try an eagle in flight.
Quarter: Halle Berry on a Ford Mustang (or even a series of other
popular cars)
Half: Angelina Jolie walking
Dollar: Miss America of the given year
$2: ?
$5: ?

Feel free to fill in or change names! I don't mean actual images of
particular women -- these aren't supposed to be "actress commems" --
but artistic images based on living models like we see on 19th century
coins.

And speaking of size, I wonder if a reduced (dime) size one cent coin with
the current metals has been considered. Might solve the metal problem, and
since cents aren't used in vending machines, only mechanical coin counters
should have to be adjusted. But then the numismatic lobby would probably be
against it because collectors would have to get new albums. So much for
that idea.

How about keeping it the same size -- that way we won't find
numismatists rioting and looting in the streets -- but make it much
thinner? That way, the coin presses won't have to be changed either,
just the thickness of the planchets.

The vending machine issue is also important because the introduction
of a new 50c coin would either require *legislation* that forces all
vending machines to accept the new coin or else the industry will have
to be willing to retool all on its own. Guess what the vending
industry would choose if left to its own devices?

Status quo, plus credit/debit cards like on most all gas pumps?

I could never bring myself to use a credit card at a fast food
restaurant, let alone a coke machine.

I'd rather see that size coin be a *higher* denomination rather than a
lower, because then vending machine makers might take an interest
where they wouldn't take an interest in a lower denomination coin that
is already capably being handled by two quarters.

The dollar coin has proven its worth in vending machines of all kinds
for decades. With more kinds of complex vending operations (like food
services and drinks) that often cost more than a dollar, the utility
of higher denominatin coins would be more certain than a lower.

$2 and $5 coins would work here, but again, we're getting into credit card
territory with higher priced goods in vending machines. I still see that as
the way we seem to be going more and more.

I just don't see the need to use a card for low priced items like a
sandwich or a large pop. Sure, some folks will -- but they're the ones
who go into the market and whip out the plastic just to buy a pack of
gum.

If some day the US outlaws actual money altogether and forces everyone
to use the Uncle Sam Card, that'll be the day to head for the hills
cos the jack booted thugs won't be too far behind. In the mean time,
it is much easier and much more convenient to use coins or paper notes
for such purchases, whether at the market or in a machine.

Padraic

Bruce

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com