Talk:United States dollar/General Archive 1

Dollar merger with US Dollar

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was not to merge

I suggest that the article dollar be merged into this article because when people talk about dollars what usually comes to mind is the USD. The minor page should be reduced to a disambiguation page since it isn't as complete as this one. --SvenGodo 17:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• strongly oppose This "usually" you refer to is not "usually" enough to justify it. This "usually" of yours is far less compared to "USA". Let me give the population of places that use "dollar"

1. USA 300 M
2. Canada 33 M
3. Republic of China 23 M
4. Australia 20 M
5. Zimbabwe 13 M
6. Hong Kon 7 M
7. Singapore 4.3M
8. New Zealand 4.2 M
9. Liberia 3.2 M

Now this list is incomplete, but non USA population already exceeds 35% of that of the USA.

In addition, if you were to carry out the merge, then you would have to do it globally for franc, ruble, pound, peso, rupee, and dinar, which I also oppose. By the way, when people say "peso", what kind of peso do they "usually" come to mind? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 23:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• oppose: In addition to ChoChoPK's points, the dollar page has a history of the term "dollar" not specific to any particular national currency. Where does that content go in the event of a merge? I certainly don't think that United States dollar is an appropriate place for it. --RickScott 05:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• strong oppose: dollar links United States dollar in the first para; removing one click for people who mean USD would cause excessive inconvenience elsewhere. 193.128.127.33 13:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• oppose: The dollar article also deals with near contemporary use of the word dollar to mean 5 shillings in the U.K. By leaving dollar in place, anyone looking for the U.S. currency without realizing that others exist may learn something, which ought to be one of the prime motivations for the compilers of an encyclopedia. Can we consider the matter settled?
  Dove1950 00:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• strongly oppose for all the reasons mentioned above. The term "dollar" applies to more than the US dollar, until we annex Canada and Australia, etc. I'm removing the tag; the proposer was well-intentioned if uninformed. -THB 08:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Talk page needs archiving

This page seriously needs its first archive (subpage method is easiest) if someone has the 5-10 minutes to do it. See the Examples section at the bottom of Wikipedia:How_to_archive_a_talk_page. I suggest waiting for a week of no activity (is that possible here?). 209.26.38.244 14:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I've taken it on, but 5-10 minutes was a serious underestimate. I can see why the call for archiving got ignored for two months .... Anybody got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell me? BeeTea 04:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Consider it done. The framework of most frequently beaten topics has been laid out at least. You're on your own here-on-in. No one shall talk me into one of these again for a while! BeeTea 05:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort BeeTea has spent on archiving. S/he spent at least 1.5 hours on it. But I'm having some questions about it.

• The archive is by subject, but most other pages are archived by time (e.g. Talk:Euro).
• In each archival page, the ordering of each section did not follow the original ordering.
• Of the threads that are not archived, some are rearranged. For example, "Dollar merger with US Dollar" was topic 55, now 1. This thread (archiving) was topic 66, now 2.
• It seems a bit arbitrary to me as to what gets archived and what does not.

Is there another way of archiving? I'm open to suggestions. On the top of my head, it can be the traditional chronological archiving. Or by subject, then by time... --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 07:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi -- BeeTea is "Bryan" (he). I pondered "by time" versus "by subject".

I chose "by subject" because many questions or debates come up more than once -- for ex, the constitution, the law, the legality of the federal Reserve, the legality of fiat currency and paper bank notes, whether "dollar" should be written with upper case "Dollar", the various theories on the origin of the "$" sign, etc. The real purpose of the Talk page is to talk about the composition and organisation of the article itself -- paragraphs, structure, grammar, sources. It is not to debate politics. Questions that come up again and again are best put into an FAQ file so that people will find them, read them, hopefully not ask them again, ... :-) I reasoned that if I numbered the archives as just 1,2,3,4,5,6, ... then these questions would get lost and people would not bother to read them to understand why the article is written as it is written. In this case, we want people to read the archives, but we don't want the bulky contents of the archives to clutter up the current discussions on Talk.

My goal was to move all threads not focussed on composition and structure off Talk and into Archives. All that remains here now are threads on the organisation and presentation of the information.

Yes, I did change the order of threads in some Archive pages. Sorry. Maybe I wasn't supposed to do that? Nothing was lost. I was thinking about the archives as being FAQ files, so I regrouped them by the logic of their contents, almost as if they were supplementary articles of material not good enough to be included on the Wikipedia page.

On this primary Talk page, I think I reordered only two threads -- this one and the one above it in the green box. Since that thread seemed to be very very very important, I promoted it. Then I put this one after it about Archiving so that people would see what had taken place. This thread about Archiving could be dropped down to the bottom later. I just wasn't sure how to draw attention to it. This was my first Archive. Fearless, aren't I?? :-) BeeTea 23:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

US dollar Topic Title

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

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)

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??

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)

Denominations in use

This is not exactly on topic but I would like to see it addressed. Was there any discussion of why the US uses 1,5,10,20,50, and 100 denominations predominantly? (The 2 dollar denomination really seems to be more of a curiosity.) This is my curiosity because I can't help but wonder why for change 1, 5, 10, and 25 seemed most logical, but for bills 1, 5, 10, 20, and 50 seemed more reasonable to the country.--Mokru 19:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the 25 cent coin is actually a fraction, ¼ dollar. It even says QUARTER DOLLAR on the coin. US coinage historically preferred using fractions. Thus, we had copper ½ cent and 1 cent, silver ½ dime (which was replaced in the 1870's with the copper-nickel 5-cent), 1 dime; ¼ dollar, ½ dollar (which was, at one time, a common coin, it seems to have fallen out of use sometime in the mid-20th century), 1 dollar (which was never too common, paper tended to be more popular for the $1 denomination), and gold ¼ eagle, ½ eagle, and eagle (eagle = $10; thus quarter-eagle was $2.50). Thus, originally, all the coins were either decimal units or halves or quarters of said units. Later the double-eagle was added (there were also short-lived 2-cent, 3-cent, 20-cent, and $3 denominations, and a proposed $4 coin, in the 19th century, which messed up the pattern, but none of them lasted very long). Since, at the time the double-eagle was introduced, there was no term for $100 (there was a later proposal for a $50 gold coin called a "Half-Union"), they just chose to, use a double. Banknotes, on the other hand, were generally denominated in multiples of dollars, and presumably 20 seemed a more reasonable multiple than 25. Or perhaps the denomination was chosen to mirror the gold double eagle. Nik42 03:43, 11 November 2007 (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)

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)

An inflation rate that maintains price stability is not hyperinflation. But internationally traded commodities rapidly increased in price, causing contracts that lacked cost-of-living or price indexing clauses to break or fail prior to their completion. A fiat currency is protected somewhat by a general graduated income tax on the populace. The newly created money raises all prices, thus wages increase to the new equilibrium, placing wage earners into higher tax brackets. A universal graduated income tax and forced tender laws perpetuate a fiat currency regime controlled by a financial power elite. Countries had varying inflation rates depending mainly on the proportion of their foreign and domestic trade and banking conducted in the U.S. dollar and also on their adjustment to the collapse of Breton Woods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.241.226.183 (talk) 14:32, 15 August 2007 (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)

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)

Because current money in the U.S. is composed of coin and printed currency which historically was provided by many individuals and groups, foreign or domestic, since only the States are prohibited by the U.S. Constitution from coining money. Any private currency attempting to draw attention to the Federal Reserve monopoly will compare their total issuance to the Federal Reserve Note and U.S. Note issuance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.241.226.183 (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2007 (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)

Lately, it appears to be revised far more frequently. Every other 20 dollar bill in one's wallet seems to look different now or my wallet is full of counterfeits now... Where's the full story?192.91.172.42 23:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

There are only two commonly-circulated versions (colored and uncolored) of the $20 bill, with a third (The pre-1998) version popping up every once in a while. Pretty rarely now, though. The colored version was introduced in 2003, 5 years after the uncolored one, which was introduced in 1998. That, in turn, was the first revision since 1990 (which wasn't very noticeable), and the pre-1990 version was the first alteration since 1969 (unless you count a change in the font used for the serial number in 1977-1981). So, it certainly seems to be speeding up, but given our government's habit of introducing changes 1 bill at a time, I doubt it'll get any more frequent than once per 5 years in the near future (since there are 5 bills being changed each time, the $1 and $2 being ignored) Nik42 03:53, 11 November 2007 (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?

You can find information about security features of the 1996-2003 notes here. For the 2004-2011? notes, check here. The U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing States that it plans to change and/or enhance notes every seven to ten years to maximize anti-counterfeiting efforts. In my humble opinion, I think holograms should be added. One downside is it will dramatically change the look of the notes which might cause some instability of people's faith in the note. BUT, it is possible to make holograms very difficult to replicate. This is why they use them on travelers checks, foreign visa's, and other important documents. Another downside to holograms could be the cost it adds per note produced. Killer Swath 00:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

$ 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)

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 [1]. 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)

Ya because there is the Canadian dollar, the Austrailian etc... Androo123 (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2008 (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 [2] 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)

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)

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.

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)

Perhaps a tabulation of comparative values would be useful that includes more than just foreign exchange rates since people have lost relative sight of what the numbers mean. For instance, one median range Silicon Valley Single Family Home US$800,000; one brand new Airbus 380 $300,000,000; one year of American Missile Defense Spending US$5,000,000,000; one year of American military tax expenses in Iraq US$100,000,000,000; one year of American public education tax expenses US$300,000,000,000.192.91.171.42 21:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the above discussion before your comment was invalidate because exchange rate snapshot was removed a few months ago. Your idea about the scale of large things is not bad, as most people have problem with large monetary values. Perhaps it should have its own article. But a link to a real time exchange rate would be more suitable to demonstrate the value of 1 unit of the USD. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 20:41, 20 January 2007 (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)

In my experience, outside of places like fast food or gas stations, most businesses do accept $50's and $100's. For that matter, I've used a $50 at a McDonald's with no problem. Nik42 02:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

owl? on $1 bill

just curious as to what it officially is - and what it represents. seriously NEED to have symbology listed on this

Owl? I thought it was an eagle... 68.39.174.238 20:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

"3 USD" nonsense

Since the table of common denominations has disappeared, has the notorious "3 dollar bill" vandal also disappeared? I'm trying to clean up WP:LTA and wanted some first-hand info on whether or not that entry was still applicable. 68.39.174.238 20:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Alternative U.S. currencies

Dear fellow editors: I have tried to tone down the rhetoric in the recently added material on alternative U.S. currencies. This section is in desperate need of some sourcing as well. I have also removed an unsourced reference to alternative currencies being "legal tender." That's a legal question, and without having gone back to research it, I don't think any medium of exchange can be used as a legal tender for debts unless the law so provides. I doubt very seriously whether any U.S. law provides that any kind of alternative currency qualifies for use in making a legal tender in satisfaction of a pre-existing debt (which is what legal tender is all about). In other words, as a general matter no one is required by U.S. law to accept anything except what the statutes say is legal tender. Yours, Famspear 17:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors: Regarding this passage:

As time goes by and inflation increases, the value of the precious metal backed currencies will continue to rise due to their precious metal content.

This is the kind of totally unverifiable material that probably does not belong in the article in present form. I left it in anyway -- with a citation tag, though. The idea that an encyclopedia article or anything else can predict something like this with any reasonable expectation of accuracy is, in my view, untenable -- quite apart from whether the prediction turns out to be accurate or not. This passage could, however, be amended to read something like:

Economist xxxxx asserts that as time goes by and inflation increases, the value of some precious metal backed currencies will continue to rise due to their precious metal content [insert citation here]].

Wikipedia is not, as a general proposition, in the business of predicting the future changes in value of this sort of thing, in my opinion. Yours, Famspear 18:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Anything considered M1 currency (less: federal notes and coins which are obviously what this article already considers currency. They sometimes are considered M0.) can be considered alternative currency.

"M1 consists of (1) currency outside the U.S. Treasury, Federal Reserve Banks, and the vaults of depository institutions; (2) travelers checks of nonbank issuers; (3) demand deposits at commercial banks (excluding those amounts held by depository institutions, the U.S. government, and foreign banks and official institutions) less cash items in the process of collection and Federal Reserve float; and (4) other checkable deposits (OCDs), consisting of negotiable order of withdrawal (NOW) and automatic transfer service (ATS) accounts at depository institutions, credit union share draft accounts, and demand deposits at thrift institutions. Seasonally adjusted M1 is constructed by summing currency, travelers checks, demand deposits, and OCDs [Other checkable deposits], each seasonally adjusted separately."FRB: November 2006 Statistical Supplement--Money Stock Measures

Killer Swath 23:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The so-called "liberty dollar" is not US currency, and is not valid as such. It is only exchangeable for goods and product at certain retailers for the value of the metal in the coins (or presumably, what their paper money is exchangable for). It should also be noted that the retailers on the liberty dollars website are a VERY small percentage of the US's businesses. It's not valid currency, and needs to be removed from this article. This section was added a few weeks ago, and one editor has already cherry picked some POV out of it, I'm going to pull it completely. It reads as though the liberty dollar people wrote it, and posted it here. If someone REALLY REALLY thinks this is valid encyclopedic knowledge, stick a link to the liberty dollar page in the article with a brief sentance on it, not a whole poorly worded section.JamesBenjamin 02:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC) (oops, forgot to sign the first time)

Perhaps the heading Should be Alternatives to U.S. Currency. It seems some people do not want to pigeonhole the various private currencies in the U.S. such as Liberty Dollars, "Mickey Mouse Money," gold grams, wooden nickels and the rest as alternative U.S. currency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.241.226.183 (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Adding Bills

There are still a few $1000 and above bills in circulation. I think that these should be mentioned in the infobox at the top listed under uncommon bills. Some banks still use these to transfer money between each other. I have held one before.--M79 specialist 23:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The important question is, what denomination can a common person access from a bank. See also Template talk:Infobox Currency. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 04:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

While $500 bill, $1,000 bills and larger notes are available and still legal tender they are virtually never spent and are normally only attainable at over face value. I am a coin dealer and the cheapest $500 bill I've been able to find costs at least $600. If we were to add these notes we would also need to add the fractional currency from the civil war. Which is completely impractical. Simply because a note is still legal tender does not mean that it should be listed.--Quinzy (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Buying power: confusing label

The label on the table at US dollar#Time-relative value of U.S. dollar seems wrong. "Buying power compared to 1980 USD" implies that, e.g., the 1970 dollar ($0.47) has just under half the buying power of the 1980 dollar, when the reverse is true. Perhaps a more accurate label would be something like "Historical buying-power equivalent to one 1980 dollar", but that is still confusing.

Better yet, keep the label, but fill in the table with actual buying power relative to the 1980 dollar, instead of the number of contemporary dollars with the same buying power. So for 1970, enter $2.13, the relative buying power of $1.00 in 1970. (Calculation: 1 / 0.47 = 2.13). —Michael Z. 2007-04-04 01:04 Z

Both representations should be presented. $0.47 in 1970 can buy you the same amount of stuff as $1 would in 1980. $1 in 1970 has the same purchasing power as $2.13 in 1980. It's just a matter of labeling. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 13:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Reorganizing table - I think columns are easier to follow. 129.31.71.161 09:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Fight vandalism

I'd like to bring the attention of everyone here. From 5/1 to 5/20, there has been a steady stream of vandalism on this article. Some of them got through and lasted many days. Here is a list of vandalism until my revert (04:47, 21 May 2007 UTC)

• 212.85.20.100's edit (Maldives) (09:25, 3 May 2007 UTC)
• 66.213.36.2 's edit (classl) (00:05, 11 May 2007 UTC)
• 75.46.9.14's edit (not a vandalism, good faith, but misuse of "citation needed") (19:42, 15 May 2007 UTC)
• 68.45.129.11's edit (beer of oiness) (18:58, 20 May 2007 UTC)

I have requested a semi protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. But your help is still needed. Thank you. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 05:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

US Dollar Index

The USD Index is a standardised basket of other global currencies used to track the value of the USD on a collective level. I arrived at this page trying to find an article on the US Dollar Index and am quite dismayed to find that none exists. Am I just searching badly or is there truly no entry on it yet? BeeTea 05:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I put this section into it myself, so that's done. BeeTea 16:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ordering of sections

BeeTea and I have a difference of opinion of how the sections should be arranged. I'd like to discuss that here to get a wider audience.

old ordering

• International use
  • Dollarization and fixed exchange rate
  • The dollar as the major international reserve currency
• Value
  • Factors influencing the price
  • Time-relative value
• Historical exchange rates
• Current USD exchange rates

new ordering

• Value
  • Factors influencing the price
  • Time-relative value
• International use
  • The dollar as the major international reserve currency
  • US Dollar Index®
  • Dollarization and fixed exchange rate
• Current USD exchange rates
  • Historical exchange rates

Here is BeeTea's comment copied from my user talk page:

Regarding "Value" and "Historical Exchange Rates" -- I would argue that these do not belong together. The reason is that "Historical Exchange Rates" relate to the value of the USD outside the USA versus other currencies. Therefore, it belongs with information on the USD Index, its reserve currency status, its international use, etc. But the information about the "Value" of the USD shows its value over time inside the USA, as inflation or deflation has taken it up or down. What a dollar will buy you inside the USA is part of the history of the currency back to 1776. What a dollar will get you in francs or yen is all external and has no connection to inflation or deflation but the trade value of currencies to currencies internationally. BeeTea 19:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

After careful consideration, I found that there are actually 3 major areas.

• Value, domestic only (Factors influencing the price, Time-relative value)
• Value, international (Historical and current exchange rate)
• USD in the world, but not on the issue of value (dollarization and reserve currency)

So BeeTea partitions by international v.s. domestic first. I partition by value v.s. non-value first. What would be a good compromise? 3 major blocks with exchange rate in the middle (as a transitional area)?

By the way, the pseudo section "Current USD exchange rates" is generated by the {{Exchange Rate}}. It uses a mock header to avoid accidental edit on the template itself. Right now it mocks level 2 header. If desired, I can make an optional parameter to mock level 3 and 4 header. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 03:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the need to demote "Current USD exchange rates" to mock level 3 or level 4 header. It took me a while to figure out that the header must be embedded in the code that generates the block. I could not change that, so that was the driving force behind my ordering of the sections -- ie: since that was etched into the code, I had to modify my plan.

How would you, ChoChoPK, position the section on domestic Value within the whole article? I put it right after the section on the domestic history and the section "United States coins" (which, by the way, I think needs to be retitled "United States Coins and Banknotes" since it covers the whole gamut up to the $100K bill). So the logic is:

• Domestic History
• Domestic Coinage and Banknote Issues
• Domestic Value over time
• International Influence
• International Value in Exchange

Perhaps the domestic value section should be demoted to a subsection of "United States Coins and Banknotes" since it relates to value over time and the various precious metals and subsequent debasements and the silver certificates all help to illustrate this.

The lawsuit by the blind could also be a subsection of "Coins and Banknotes", since it relates to how the vehicle for value is created and distributed.

I guess that, in organising information, I tend to be in favour of "knowledge trees" over "knowledge bushes" -- I don't find it helpful when too many topics are given parallel priority top-rank and would prefer to see substantial groupings made. This also leads to related information getting separated in an article by interloping late-arrivals because the organising logic gets lost in the shuffle. BeeTea 00:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Mock level 3 header is done. I was being BOLD. Level 3 header is also deployed to euro. I'm not sure what to do with pound sterling. GBP is now a collection of random stuff.... Back to the topic of USD. I just want to suggest some small modifications to your proposal above. Coins and banknotes are usually independent sections that do not fall under a parent "coins and banknotes" section. This is the trend of most other currency articles. I would also like to suggest swapping bullet point 4 and 5, so that things about value go together.

And I agree that "Suit by sightless over U.S. banknote design" should go under the banknote section, shortened and providing a link to where most of the content is. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 11:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: "suit by sightless" -- this is definitely an issue for the design of banknotes (Federal Reserve Notes) and that article already has a section on this problem, but it is less informative than this one here. I think I should cut our version of the section out of here entirely and insert it into that other article, then link to it from here. BeeTea 16:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

What about the slight modification I proposed? I'd like to hear your opinion. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 08:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I am pondering it. There are a lot of articles with overlapping or competing information, like Federal Reserve Notes or United States Coinage and so forth. How do we disentangle the focus of this article from others? BeeTea 15:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe the coin section of way bloated, too much detail. And the images of the current notes are also too many. Nevertheless, we should keep some summary here. What about the ordering of sections? What about swaping your 4th and 5th bullet point? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 22:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think some re-ordering is necessary, yes, but there are two other parts that feel out of place as well -- in the intro, the part about the value of US$ versus euros in circulation is not repeated or expanded upon in the section on international use. So I'm still thinking. Maybe I will do a sandbox version of the page and then invite you to have a look at it? BeeTea 17:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure. That sounds like an idea. But given the tight schedule I have, I won't be able to validate new content or complex copy edit. I can only assume the content is factually correct and examine the ordering. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 03:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Infobox upgrade

The currency infobox now has a new optional parameter: unofficial_users. See the edit on euro for example. We can do the same for the USD. I just don't know who's official and who's not. But once that is done, we can probably eliminate some of the currency_name_in_local values if unofficial. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 08:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Cambodia is listed incorrectly as using the US dollar. It has in fact its own currency - the riel - and though the US$ may be commonly used in transactions, it is not and never has been the official currency. Other countries in the "unofficial user" box could include Russia, where AFAIK things like rent payments are usually done in dollars. Any opinions? If not, I'll add Cambodia and Russia to the "unofficail box" in a few days. If anyone knows where else the US$ is in common but unofficial use, please feel free to add. --Targeman 10:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to not include Cambodia at all. the "unofficial user" attribute is intended for users like Montenegro to the euro. The situation can be said in these different ways

1. The only legal tender in Montenegro is the euro
2. But Montenegro does not participate policy regarding the euro
3. It's a unilateral adoption

So the bar is there. Cambodia and Russian, IMHO, don't event meet this bar. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 11:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Technically all users other the United States (and its possessions) are "unofficial users", since the US dollar is meant to be legal tender for the United States and no other user has any say in the policies regarding the dollar. The euro is a trans-national currency, thus there can be more than one "official user" which can have a say in euro-policy, but just because the US dollar has only 1 intended officially user, doesn't mean other countries cannot use it officially. The catch is whether use of the US dollar is official in the country in question (thus that country uses the US dollar officially as legal tender). In that instance the term "official user" can be used as a short-hand to describe those countries where the US dollar is legal tender. As for those countries where the US dollar circulates widely, but is not legal tender....I don't think they should be added to the infobox since the information about the US dollar's circulation can not be confirmed readily (unlike the cases where it is adopted officially) and since the usage may vary over time and within the country. For example, in Mexico, the US dollar is not legal tender, but in Cancun and Cozumel (especially around Springbreak) the US dollar would be widely circulated. The same holds true for towns in Jamaica and the Dominican Republic where tourists frequent. But none of these countries would be considered as "unofficial users", even though US dollars would be readily accepted throughout those countries. Taking the case of Russia, what proof is there that US dollars are used widely throughout the country (as opposed to just the big cities)? And what is the volume of transactions in US dollars versus roubles? If, in the case of Mexico, more transactions were carried out in US dollars due to Cancun, Cozumel and the border towns, would that mean Mexico should be included even though it would be hard to prove that US dollars circulate widely or freely? For Cambodia, does any one know how widely US dollars are used throughout the countryside as opposed to just Phnom Penh? All of these questions would be easily answered if the country in question adopted the US dollar as legal tender since the US dollar would be the sole currency of transaction (or in the case of those countries with their own coins it would indisputably be the major currency of transactions).72.27.162.106 19:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm kind of in agreement with you. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 06:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggest adding a map

With so many countries and territories using the US$, I suggest a map be added. I could make one - with separate colors for official use, inofficial use, and pegged currency - but I could only do it in JPG format, and I thing SVG would be more satisfying. If y'all are OK with JPG, I'll go ahead. --Targeman 11:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Great idea. Try to find a map maker and see if they can make in a better format. Per previous thread, I don't think Cambodia or Russia should be labeled as such. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 11:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Any suggestions for a map maker? There are apparently lots of those on the net but I won't download anything not recommended by a trustworthy source, and I can't find any. I wish I knew what software people use to make those nifty maps on Wikipedia. --Targeman 12:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC) Edit: please disregard my question, I just found out about Inkscape.--Targeman 12:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

PS. Come to think about Cambodia and Russia, I think you're right. After all, the US$ is a truly global curriency, and transactions in dollars can happen anywhere... As for Montenegro, it adopted the euro without any agreement with the European Central Bank AFAIK, making its adoption unilateral, thus unofficial. You seem to know a lot about money, do you know whether Ecuador and El Salvador adopted the dollar with American consent? I would imagine that Palau, Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands (as well as Puerto Rico, Guam, the Northern Marianas, etc.) have never even considered issuing their own currencies, having close ties to the US. 謝謝 for your help. --Targeman 12:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not know if Ecuador, El Salvador, and East Timor adopted the USD with Americans' consent. But since they don't have their own currencies (although Ecuador and East Timor have their own coins. See East Timor centavo coins, Ecuadorian centavo coins). These two articles and Salvadoran colón and Ecuadorian sucre (two former currencies) don't tell us much the answer we need either. That being said, I think it's safe include them on the map since USD is the only currency they use. The adoption is official in these countries. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 05:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

50's and 100's rare?

In the info bar on the right hand side at the top, it is claimked that $50 and $100 bills are rare. I disagree with this. To compare there circulation levels with $2 bills is ludicrous. Surely the average American would more than often have a 50 in there wallet? Tarcus 04:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This issue has come up again and again. I agree with you. $50's and $100's are certainly less common than $1's, $5's, $10's, and $20's, but they're far from rare. I see them every day working as a cashier, while $2's I almost never see. But, if you change it, it'll be reverted right back. Nik42 20:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't think what to call it , but couldn't they come under a category called something like "less common," only with a better name? Or is there a way the subject can be put up for discussion, so then people can say there opinion, then the 50s and 100's can be moved to common, or left where they are? Tarcus 00:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Since no-one else has anything else to say, if no one voices there objection to the change being made within 7 days of the time mentioned below, I will change it. Tarcus 07:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we all agree that $50 and $100 are rarer than $1, $5, $10, and $20, but not as rare as $2. The difference in our opinions is only where we draw the borderline of "rare". However, there is a consistent rule I've been applying to all currencies, at least best to my knowledge about euro and pound sterling. To fix this, we can talk about how to phrase it. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 15:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Considering the bulk of international trade is in U.S dollars and the currency held is suppose to be in the 100 dollar denomination, is that right. So how can it be rare? In the Australian currency the 100 dollar note isn't seen that frequently, at my work we see only 1 or 2 a week, is that classed as rare? Do we have any information of the total amount of each denomination in circulation? Also we maybe should look at all high denominations for all countries to check their rarity. Enlil Ninlil 04:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

my customers pay me in cash, sometimes thousands of dollars in hundreds and fifties. nothing even remotely rare. move on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.62.231 (talk) 14:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh and here is some official figures http://www.moneyfactory.gov/section.cfm/2/51 Quantity per year, and http://www.moneyfactory.gov/section.cfm/2/431 quantity per month. I would say they are not rare. Enlil Ninlil 05:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for finding these sources. Looking at the annual figures, I have aggregated figures since 2000 as the folling:

$1	29,049,600,000
$2	352,000,000
$5	5,523,200,000
$10	4,262,400,000
$20	14,150,400,000
$50	659,200,000
$100	3,795,200,000

Note that $50 is only twice as much as $2. And considering the fact that most $100 bills are going abroad, what remains domestically is not much. IHMO, I don't think most Americans have (almost) as many $100 bills as $10 bills in their wallets. When I started the infobox, I envisioned the separation of "rare" and "frequent" as usage by the common people, domestically. There is a sharp increase of rarity when you go from $20 to $50 and $100. It's just that some people don't call that "rare". --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 07:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

But the mintage could also de due to the higher denominations lasting longer as well. Well a review is good for all. Enlil Ninlil 07:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, $2 bills are rarely spent. If someone gets a $50 or $100, they will spend it. If someone gets a $2, they're more likely to just hold on to it. $50's and $100's are nowhere near as rare as $2's. I think I've only received a $2 from a customer once in several years of working retail. Nik42 17:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it all depends on the area and the people. I circulate $2s quite frequently (I know I am in a extreme minority). I believe if the general public knew more about the existence of the denomination, and they see it more, they will in turn use it. Since I've started using the denomination, the only time that I ever seem to have any difficulty is when I first use the denomination at a particular place of business. Once that hurdle is passed, I have had no problems on repeated acceptance.-MBK004 17:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm the same. I frequently get $2's and dollar coins (and, from time to time, half-dollars) from the bank. THe problem, though, is that the cashiers rarely give them back out in change. They just go into their tills, and then into the store vault, and thence back to the bank. And occassionally, as a cashier, I'll put some $2's and/or dollar coins in my register to give out in change. But, they still don't circulate. They won't circulate unless stores regularly stock their tills with them. Nik42 17:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

We think alike! I go to the bank every week for more (BTW, half-dollars are excellent for purchasing scantrons at my university as they are 45¢ each). I've also given-up using $1 bills and have completely switched to dollar coins and $2s. You are absolutely correct on how these denominations could circulate and why they currently don't in large numbers. Unfortunately, I don't foresee this situation changing any-time soon.-MBK004 18:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You guys must all live in Nevada. The sentence saying dollar coins are rare or unpopular might be amended to say they are quite common in Las Vegas. I wonder if they tend to gravitate there. Wegesrand (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Another issue is that the $50 and $100 are large. Many people prefer not to use cash for large purchases. But, among those who do use cash for such purposes, $50's and $100's are common. Nik42 17:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4256265 - 55% to 70% of American currency circulates OUTSIDE THE U.S. The $100 bill is EXTREMELY popular outside the country (easy to carry and move). And given the cited numbers above for the production for notes (with the understanding that the frequently circulated $1 note has a MUCH shorter 'life' than a $100 note) THE $100 NOTE CANNOT IN ANY WAY be described as 'rare'. Even though those reverting the edit might be poor, or solely credit card users, or have never been outside the country. The personal observations of people using the currency within the United States have no relation to the total worldwide money supply, or the mass circulation of the $100 note itself. Stop reverting the edits, and discuss it on the talk page instead! Dobbs (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Some more on this -

How long does a bill last before it wears out?

$ 1 21 months

$ 5 16 months

$ 10 18 months

$ 20 24 months

$ 50 55 months

$100 89 months

(From http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqcur.htm )

Now, do the math here and determine if the $100 is RARE, the answer - and be sure to look above at the 10 and the 5 quantities produced, is NO. The $100 is NOT RARE at all. Dobbs (talk) 22:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw the edit on the article before this discussion. There is a clearly defined criterion at Template:Infobox Currency/doc. And the result for US$100 bill is not common. And to use your number, the life of bills, $1 to $20 last between 16-24 months, 55 months and 89 months are clearly a jump from the lower denomination. The more commonly used, the shorter the life is. I have lived in many cities in the U.S. in the past 11 years, and I hardly use $100 bills. The $100 bills are mostly used outside the country. You may not like the word "rare". But you have to admit that there is a sharp decrease of usage from $20 and the two higher denominations. If you agree with this, we can probably discuss how to rephrase the attribute in the infobox. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 04:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Overjoyed that someone will discuss this! Just as you said - $100 bills are mostly used outside the country. However as I have referenced - between 55% and 70% of the currency is used outside the country. And I suspect, most of those bills are $100, as they are used as a store of value, not as common currency. Let's look at the numbers ->

$10 @ 18 month = (total # of $10 bills = 1yr * 1.5) = 639,360,000) from cite above.

Now look at the number of $100 bills (using cite above) (total # of $100 bills = 1yr * 7.4 = 280,844,800)

What I guess I'm trying to say, is that the dollar is currently used as the reserve currency in a very real way. And that, while Americans might not use the bill in normal transactions (buying milk, et al) it is a very, very real and normal currency. In many foreign lands, the $50 and the $2 are NOT considered real money - they look strange, and people don't accept them. While the $100 (while possibly fake), is considered real cash and subject to scrutinty - but is the "gold standard" of bills. Thus, given it's circulation outside the U.S., and it's status as the current reserve currency, it is not rare in any sense. Especially in the sense of the $2, or half as much the $50 bill. You see American currency, it's the $1, the $5, the $10, then $20, and the $100. I don't see why there is disagreement on this point. See http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba280.html second to last paragraph for an illustration of my point. Dobbs (talk) 09:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not disagreeing the facts you present. I am not denying that $100 is often used as store of value outside the U.S.. But my point is that what foreigners use is less relevant in the infobox. American authorities do not have to answer to foreigners. In addition, these $100 bills probably sit in some banks' vault or people's safes. Think in terms of transaction. If someone buys something from a supermarket with USD cash, that's one transaction. If a non-American buys USD with some other currencies to store value, that's one transaction. A drug dealer, American or not, trades with $100 bills, that's also one transaction. $100 bills may be as much as $10 bills, but they don't circulate as much. That's my point. Using your logic, shouldn't €500 note be common as well? But it has been stably on the "rare" attribute for months. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 08:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Would it be possible to classify 2 and possibly 50's as very rare or something. I originally started the discussion with the point that at least the rarity of 100's should not be in the same category as 2's and or 50's. As mentioned earlier, if you get a @, you would think hey, this might be rare, I'll keep this, if you get a hundred, you spend it. Tarcus (talk) 10:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

What you say here is "conditional probability". The "if you get a @" is important. I believe that the absolute probability is more important here. The probability of getting a $100 bill in daily life is not common in the first place. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 11:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops, held down the shift key there. I meant to say a 2, as in $2 bills are rarer than 100's. sorry about the confusion. My main point was that $2 bills should be given a separate category, eg. very rare. For example, if you got to the bank and ask for $100, I'm sure you'd get a $100 bill. If you asked for, you'd get 2x $1; if you specifically ask for a $2 bill, the teller may give you a funny look. Tarcus (talk) 03:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Bobdobbs1723 has started another discussion at Template talk:Infobox Currency/doc. He has raised some good point. And it is not my wish to revert just to piss off another editor. I just want to maintain a consistent rule across all the currencies. I believe we can reach some kind of compromise, something like $100 being common, but with a footnote saying it's common only among non-American and criminals, or the reverse. The USD and the euro are really unique in the sense that many people outside their respective jurisdictions also use these currencies. So a footnote may be appropriate. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 09:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Philippines mentioned in the article

In the Philippines, especially in the capital city of Manila, American dollar bills enjoy a high degree of underground circulation, used especially in connection with organized crime and gambling. Colloquially, the dollar bill is known as a "usaso", a play on "USA" and the word "peso".

I disagree with the statement and this should be removed and lacks proof. Organized crime internationally anywhere uses dollar as a medium and no one denies that, but rather use local currency when operating locally.

Using word "Colloquially" meaning locals has a layman's term in a certain location but try asking people in Manila, specifically Metro Manila, what "usaso" means, nobody knows anything about the word "usaso". I will have the statement deleted.

Index articles

There are US Dollar Index and Trade Weighted US dollar Index. Are these indices proper nouns that make "Index" capitalized? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 15:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Considering that they refer to one single item I would consider them so, the the the Index is a abstract noun, so is capitalised as part of the proper noun. Enlil Ninlil 04:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Plese refer to the Wikitionary talk page on Index:http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Talk:index Enlil Ninlil 06:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

British Indian Ocean Territory

The official currency of this British territory is the Pound Sterling, not the U.S. Dollar. The U.S. Dollar is the currency of the U.S. forces that are part of the garrison there. - (Numismaticman 03:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC))

Yes you are absolutely right. The infobox also incorrectly states that the Republika Srpska uses the USD. It does not, it uses the Convertible Mark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.154.66 (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Unmarked bills are what?

Can someone please add to this, or some other, article, what the fuck "unmarked bills" are? Depaderico 22:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Concerns

Are we really allowed to put such high resolution pictures of US dollars on the internet without a "specimen" watermark? Sounds dangerous. ArchonMeld 19:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Only if you think potential forgers, able to create and pass off forged notes as genuine, are too incompetent to get hold of an original note.--THobern 15:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

References

Maybe you can use this as a reference for Chinas intention of selling dollars: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aOoJCF.XMFsY&refer=home and this as a reference for Jim Rogers quitting dollar: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/10/24/bcnrog124.xml --134.155.99.42 06:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Debt

anyone want to add anything about the ever increasing debt. currently at over 9trillion USD, cant be good for the USD with such a huge debt http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.141.135.50 (talk) 02:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The "ever increasing debt" for the U.S. is little different versus its GDP (and in many cases it is better) than that of its peers. Take a look at Japan, for example. Sandreckoner (talk) 08:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Which other countries use the U.S. dollar as their official currency?

No fair saying

Several countries use the U.S. dollar as their official currency,

and then not giving readers a way of finding out which ones. Jidanni (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Wait, I found List of circulating currencies, and will make a link/note of it... Jidanni (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a few, but there are countries that don't use the american dollar, instead the canadian, australian dollar.

Did anyone ever notice that almost every currency has two lines running down the middle ₩ (is this some kind of Webkinz coin?), ¥ Yen, € Euro, $ Dollar (this one has one stripe, but we usally use two). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Androo123 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

currency comparisons

Where in the article can you find current value comparisons of the USD and some other currencies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.246.99.186 (talk) 02:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Just under section 8 "Exchange rates". There are links to real time exchange rates against 9 currencies, using 3 different websites. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 20:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

$100 Rarely Used?

Why is the Franklin categorized as rarely used? Being the most valuable american currency, banks use Franklins probaly more than any other bill, that is why I am moving the Franklin to Commmonly Used. Houstontowers (talk) 01:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, the $50 might be rarer than others, but it is not rarely used. The only note that belongs in the Rarely Used section is the $2 bill. Most people will give you a funny look if you handed them a $2 bill, however the case is not the same with a $50 bill. -wjs23 23 Jan 2009

Contradiction in intro

From the intro:

• The U.S. dollar has also been adopted as the official and legal currency by the governments in a few other countries.

Then:

• Several countries use the U.S. dollar as their official currency

Please research and fix. Thanks. ☆ CieloEstrellado 09:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

$5 Bill

I just noticed that the 5 dollar bill in the first picture is out of date. Does this need to be fixed/Replaced? Stealth (talk)

Historical Exchange Rates (Pound sterling)

I dispute the pound sterling rates entered for 1980 and 1985. I remember the pound was strong against the dollar in 1980 and weak in 1985, which is the opposite to what the figures show. perhaps the figures were accidentally entered for the wrong years (easy error when editing such a table). Karl (talk) 12:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You are quite right. I derived the figures for 1980 and 1985 correctly but then put them in the wrong places in the table! It's fixed now. -84user (talk) 22:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Legal Challenges to the Dollar

I remember reading several years ago that the validity of such things as the symbol $ have actually been challenged in the US federal court system. One of the articles I read involved Terry Nichols arguing that the symbol $ was undefined, and thus he didn't know what it meant on on tax returns. This might be an interesting bit of trivia if someone can find a link. MarchHare (talk) 05:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You'll find most of that kind of thing under Tax protester (United States). (I used to work for Revenue; and in my calmer moments found some of these folks hilarious in a perverse sort of logic-twisting way.) --Orange Mike | Talk 15:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Bi-metalism

The article kind of points out, by omission, that we need a general article on bi-metalism (gold AND silver "standard"), which has caused problems in the past. Need this new article to link to from Panic of 1893, as well. Student7 (talk) 02:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Question

I was just wondering if you have to be deceased to be featured on United States money, because I couldn't find it on here. Adam Penale (talk) 15:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Error?

In the "Overview" section there is currently a line, "In the second half of the 17th century there were occasional discussions of creating a $50 gold coin . . .". I have to believe that "18th century" is meant, since there WAS no union in the period 1650-1700, but I don't know, hence I didn't change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.38.157 (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal

I am unilaterally removing the following snippet from the opening paragraph:

Taken over by the Congress of the Confederation of the United States on July 6, 1785,[2] the U.S. dollar is the currency most used in international transactions.

While it is grammatically correct, it does not make logical sense. Furthermore, it follows a comment that chronologically succeeds it. Finally, I am not sure what the first part of the sentence is actually trying to say.

If you can clarify this, then please, by all means, add it back. 216.230.124.92 (talk) 06:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)