March 09, 2004
No Funny Money!
Most regular readers of this site have probably figured out that when it comes to money - cold hard cash - I'm a bit of a traditionalist. I don't care for the Monopoly money bills we're issuing, I don't really care too much for the state quarter series (but it is at least palatable for some reason), I don't like the new nickels, and now I don't like the new plan to put the Presidents' faces on the dollar coin (rotating 4 Presidents per year until they're all done).
American currency should not carry the face of a living person, particularly a sitting President (which would happen with the last issue of the dollar coin series). I like Ronald Reagan. I think that he will be an excellent candidate for being memorialized with his bust on a coin - after his passing.
The Caesars put their faces on coins. King George III had his face on the coinage. Using the money as a propaganda tool is common amongst the two-bit tyrrants of the world.
It is, in my opinion, boorish. I've said it before and I'll say it again, our money is a reflection of who we are. Having dignified currency in both appearance and subject is important. People around the world complain that Americans don't value history. Imagine if they started pulling Reagan nickels and GW Bush dollars out of their pockets.
Money, like it or not, is important for something more than just being a store of value. It is, in our case, also a store of knowledge.
How many people would know who Alexander Hamilton was if he wasn't on the $10? We like to think that we would revere Franklin just the same, but there is a segment of the population who only knows of him as the "Benjamin" on the $100.
Susan B. Anthony? Sacagawea? Would they be as well known if they weren't the subject of the $1 coin? Possibly, but very unlikely.
When we start playing with the money, we start playing with that memory. If we can replace Sacagawea with Jimmy Carter, why not swap out Hamilton for Clinton - Hillary Clinton? She wasn't ever President either (of course, her fanatics would want her as the replacement for the other non-Presidential denomination. Just wait for the movie It's All About The Hillaries...) Why not just go ahead and change the currency over so that the current President is on every denomination (but then how do you account for the free campaign advertising? Gives new meaning to campaign finance reform...)?
Our money is important. Far to important to debase with a rotating bust scheme.
As far as I'm concerned, the idea is a bust.
Posted by Chris at March 9, 2004 08:35 PM | TrackBack | Linked by:Lighten up, Noble One. I like the new coins & bills. But could they get rid of the penny? Now THAT would be a public service.
Posted by: pedro at March 10, 2004 07:12 AMI am WITH you. I just did a quick overview of MY currency collection on my blog in reponse to the funny story about the $1MM bill. The large sized notes of the early 20th century I think were the apex of U.S. currency making and it has just gone down hill from there.
Posted by: Director Mitch at March 10, 2004 09:34 PMThe old horseblankets were nice weren't they? But really even the smaller notes looked classy. Everything was in proportion. That's not true with the new bills, the oversize, off-center portrait I think is terrible. I understand the security rationale, but they're still ugly.
And Pedro, you have to understand this is one of my pet peeves. I start writing on this and it's off to the races. As for the penny, I like to think that it's a good idea, but then I keep remembering that it would mean that everything would be priced in increments of a nickel. Over the course of a year that can add up to a significant amount. And right now, I am watching every penny, which is good because I'm not sure I have enough to even make a nickel!
Posted by: Chris at March 10, 2004 09:54 PMPlease do not use my bandwidth and storage for solicitations. Any solicitations are subject to deletion
-Best
-Good
-So-so
-Not good
-Terrible
