Government Appeals Currency Redesign

Why not use debit cards? What's wrong with that?

Cheesehead, surely you can see something wrong with that logic, no? I'll bet you a years salary that not every blind person in America has a bank account. Lets not forget vending machines, strippers, drug dealers, and the ice cream man don't take credit cards. Its about accessibility for everyone.

More or less what Tony said. Saying "Oh, they can use credit cards" is a false answer to the issue. It's what one expects from a "Let them eat cake" type of government.

That, and really, this is the same administration that worked so hard to break down bankruptcy protections for America's working families. I'm sure they'd love it if more people used credit cards in place of cash...

This is why we should just switch to a national smart card system and get rid of the paper money altogether.

Oo, the personal privacy advocates would just LOVE you for saying that. That's exactly why the new biometric ID card scheme is facing so much controversy and, to put it simply, scorn from so many people here in the UK (unlike many countries, we've never before been required to carry round proof of who we are), and something which holds so much personal information AND a smart chip brings with it many concerns for individuals who fear that the information could be sold, abused or misused by official bodies, governments, even banks, credit agencies, all sorts.

Using it for payments is exactly the kind of thing which to many people (at least here in the UK) are directly opposed against, and even I think it's a bad idea (and I'm even for the implementation of such privacy-infringing technologies such as RFID tags on items in supermarkets, because having worked in a retail environment for many years as a student I can easily see the financial and time benefits of using such a system for much more efficient stock distribution and checking / database updates)...

Also, I have to say that in the UK, we've had different-sized bills for absolutely ages. The £5 is smaller than the £10, £10 is smaller than the £20 and £20 is smaller than the £50 (but to have a pocket with at least one £50 in you have to be a pretty rich person).

The only thing which has been kept from the previous round of banknote designs is that the £50 still bears its old design, whereas the £5, £10 and £20 all have updated designs with new typefaces, layouts, and people featured on the various sides. When I went to America, I was bemused by the fact that all the notes are the same size... Why? It's such a simple thing to roll out different-sized paper currency, sure you'd have to update every single vending machine in the country which accepted notes larger than $1, but it's an absolute no-brainer really when you look at the bigger picture.

Oo, the personal privacy advocates would just LOVE you for saying that... something which holds so much personal information AND a smart chip brings with it many concerns for individuals who fear that the information could be sold, abused or misused by official bodies, governments, even banks, credit agencies, all sorts.

Maybe smart card was the wrong word. I just want, essentially a debit card with a display on it that shows how much money I have and is not linked to any bank. Further, I should have the ability to transfer funds from that card to another card - just as I would with handing someone paper money. If someone wanted to opt in, and I would, I don't see any reason why this couldn't also contain personal information.

I'd much rather carry around a single card than a wallet full of cash. It's just as easy to steal someone's wallet, isn't it?

I just want, essentially a debit card with a display on it that shows how much money I have and is not linked to any bank.

For it to be considered valid as a replacement for legal tender, it would have to be linked back in some way to the Federal Reserve.

How would you propose transferring money to the card (or between cards) without some oversight on the system used to validate the transaction?

[Firefox crashed.]

One would have to go to a bank or grocery store and have their cash exchanged for credits to be added to their card. The cash would then have to have a definitive mark put on it so that it could not be used for the rest of the transition period [give people a year to adjust]. Any credits added to the cards would be linked to the federal reserve automatically because the cash was linked. As for actual coding of the cards to keep them secure, I am no expert. Still, open source code should be used to develop a system that is secure and safe for all [or at least don't let Diebold handle it].

Okay, and how much would the bank or grocery store be allowed to charge for such a transfer? And if a blind person has problems already handling the cash, how do they determine if they were given a valid amount on a debit card?

I believe there is technology that could make a display on the card feasible, but I am not sure that technology currently includes methods of assistance for the sight-impaired.

Would it be viable to mark currency that had just been put into circulation, as well as older bills that could more readily be considered invalid as legal tender?

Any credits added to the cards would be linked to the federal reserve automatically because the cash was linked.

Some form of account with a financial institution would still need to be established (particularly after the PATRIOT act) to have a clear audit trail for those funds. Otherwise the possibility of using such card systems for money laundering or transfer of large funds for less than legal purposes raises to a certainty.

We already have systems in place to validate the user of a given card (PIN numbers, CV2 codes), and most banking/credit systems have now established communication links that encrypt the transaction data between trusted institutions. But there have been cases where the input of PIN numbers are viewed or recorded, and validation codes are deliberately not applied using embossed or raised numbering as a security measure against an easy carbon rub copy of the card; which again makes it harder for use by the blind.

Open source code (by itself) does not preclude the possibility of someone installing a modified version of the server somewhere in the system. That means an addition of time and money needed to audit the physical setup for machines within the system.

You do realize that Diebold was already managing better than 60% of the ATM market in North America, before they won the contract to also provide voting machines? ( http://www.atmmarketplace.com/article.php?id=4678 )

Okay, and how much would the bank or grocery store be allowed to charge for such a transfer? Nothing. It would be a changeover done the same way as when we introduce new bills.

And if a blind person has problems already handling the cash, how do they determine if they were given a valid amount on a debit card? They can remember how much is on the card just like I remember how much money is in my bank account. If they want to make sure they were given the right amount, it is possible to include a mini speaker [the kind used in greeting cards] to announce the amount transferred. Again, I'm not an engineer, but I am sure plenty exist that can solve these issues.

Would it be viable to mark currency that had just been put into circulation, as well as older bills that could more readily be considered invalid as legal tender? I am not really sure what you mean here. I would say the answer in yes. Simply use the same anti-counterfeiting measures used by banks and grocery stores today [special pens, etc.].

Some form of account with a financial institution would still need to be established (particularly after the PATRIOT act) to have a clear audit trail for those funds. Otherwise the possibility of using such card systems for money laundering or transfer of large funds for less than legal purposes raises to a certainty. That's the 'freedom vs security' choice that always arises in any debate about the government. I prefer freedom, but the government does what it likes because of the way it's set up.

We already have systems in place to validate the user of a given card... which again makes it harder for use by the blind. This would be considered the same as cash. Eliminate the security. If it's stolen out of your wallet, it would be the same as if some the cash out of your wallet. I still expect people to use their bank accounts separately from the card.

Open source code (by itself) does not preclude the possibility of someone installing a modified version of the server somewhere in the system. If that were the case, it would be fairly easy to see where someone is stealing money. I would trust that more than a system with the possibility for all of the ATMs being corrupt.

Amount of Cash in Circulation (June 30, 2000):
$571,121,194,344

Hmm, lets go remodel the dollar again. I'm not against putting Braille on dollars, but its not something that will happen any time soon. There is too much money that will remain in circulation for years.

SO LET THEM EAT CAKE ; GO GET YOUR FREE CHECKING ACCOUNT

P.S.: Debit not credit cards; in the meantime with a little glue can make dots you can feel on the bills

The ruling didn't set a deadline so nothing happening soon.

The current uniform size of bills in the US makes it more efficient to deal with them. We do already have devices that accurately measure cash values for machines such as vending machines, and I'm sure they could produce a portable version.

On the other hand, that would mean one more expensive piece of equipment that blind people would have to use, and it would still be much more difficult for them to manage money than if they could use their own senses of touch.

I think the question is about what is more important to Americans: The convenience of the majority, to the detriment of the physically handicapped, or the fair accessibility to everyone of our daily activities.
Are we truly a democracy of convenience? I'm not sure, because I believe decisions like this one have gone either way in the past.

We can have both efficiency and accessibility. We merely need to add some tactic information to the bills in such a way that the bills can be easily identified. As complex as our currency has already become, this doesn't seem to be that great of a challenge or expense, although it is an interesting problem.

One solution I have heard is to add holes. The holes would be added such that larger bills had fewer holes (so you could not turn a $10 into a $20 by adding holes). One problem with this solution is that there is no guarantee the portion(s) of the bill containing the holes will be intact. (Currently as long as 3/5 of a bill is still there, it is valid currency.) Another problem is that it is very easy to add holes to paper, so even though a $10 could not be turned into a $20, a $20 could be turned into a $10, which is still a problem for the blind.

Another solution might involve adding raised sections of each bill (braille or otherwise) to identify the bills. Of course, the bills will have to be removed out of circulation before the bumps wear down. This seems to be perfectly doable and won't require any serious modification to the existing process like making the bills different sizes would require.

Changing the size or shape of bills wouldn't have much more of an impact than adding holes or textures, and with new colors would be the most accessible. Any change at all will cost money, and that is the thing that the lazy (I would also call them egocentric or selfish) want to avoid. Any increase in accessibility for the handicapped will cost money, will temporarily reduce efficiency in the lives of everyone else.

I think you should be careful about making "we can have it all" statements like what heads your last post. Before you know it, you'll really convince yourself that you do, and forget about the reprinting and design work and everything else that people complain about removing "God" from currency would cost. There will always be people complaining about it, and trying to oppose from that angle.

Changing the size or shape of bills wouldn't have much more of an impact than adding holes or textures, and with new colors would be the most accessible.

Changing the size or shape of the bills would require replacing every vending machine in America, as well as many cash registers. It may also require replacing existing machines. In contrast, adding holes, textures, or inserts, would only require adding an additional machine at some point in the process. Such a change would also require a public buy-in.

I think you should be careful about making "we can have it all" statements like what heads your last post.

I said we can have efficiency and accessibility. This is a fact, as many other countries have demonstrated. We already have efficiency and a measure of security - and security is much more difficult than accessibility.

...forget about the reprinting and design work and everything else that people complain about removing "God" from currency would cost.

Aside from the (possible) purchase of a few machines, there is no significant cost associated with holes, textures, or inserts. The "reprinting" cost doesn't exist because old bills are routinely and regularly destroyed and replaced with new bills. There is no redesign cost, because these modifications can be used on the bills as designed. In any case, the bills are redesigned on a regular basis as an anti-counterfeiting measure. (And any costs that are incurred will be insignificant unless the Treasury is forced to adopt these changes prior to the next security redesign).

@Adam
Many officially blind people can see a little so it's possible a difference in colour would be fairly helpful. Although braille printing the denomination would be better.

A great deal of people are only partially blind, or can only distinguish colors. Different colored bills would make money handling much easier for them.

Just another sign of America's arrogance. Have you ever tried to determine what bill was what blindfolded? There is no way. Other countries have made certain bills smaller based on their lesser value/added bumps/braille etc., to help those who are visually impaired. It's just human decency man. What's so hard about doing that here? We're the best country in the world right? Then why not have the best universally designed currency?

We could all just go back to paying for everything with lumps of gold. Small lump, less value, larger lump, larger value. This paper currency thing is a fad. It will pass.

I have to think that Braille dots would get flattened over time in someone's wallet and after changing hands so many times. Then how useful would it be?

is said to be the cost of changing our currency.

Considering that paper money have undergone two major redesigned in just the last ten years alone, bigger pictures and more security in 1996, and more color recently, I don't think this is an actual excuse.

Neither do I.

ATM and vending machines all get upgraded anyway. Changes in currency are never instantaneous, they take years in which companies and everyone would have to get used to the new money. Wallets today hold a variety of things. Unless you have a particularly small one and insist on not folding the cash you put inside it, you should be capable of carrying resized bills right now.

While there would still be a large cost to make the change, anything on a national scale like that makes for huge numbers on upgrading. When it comes down to it, the bulk of that money is just a few dollars for everyone to buy a new wallet or purse, things most people upgrade every couple of years anyway, that are being blamed on the change of currency. It's like saying how Winter costs America billions of dollars. After all, people buy new jackets, spend more on heating and hot cocoa.

The rhetoric response to the rhetoric 'cost argument' is "Think about all the jobs it'll support!" All the Vending machine workers and ATM parts manufacturers in America who are getting paid! "Happy times, money everywhere!"

How about new coins? $5 coins, $10 coins, $20 coins, $100 coins. Different size and weight, different pictures embossed on the coins.

I don't particularly see why we use paper money at all. Paper tears. Paper wears out. Paper gets discolored. Unless you put a coin on a train track, or swallow it and then poop it out, nothing really affects a coin.

It would make things hard for people who like to flash a lot of cash I guess. Their pants would be falling down with all those coins in their pockets.

I don't particularly see why we use paper money at all.

In descending order of importance:

1. It's cheaper to print money than strike a coin, particularly at today's prices for metal.
2. Ever tried to carry $300 in dollar coins? Your pants look kind of funny, right before they fail catastrophically.
3. Strippers, baby. How do you slip a coin in a garter?
4. Won't you please think of the cocaine addicts?

1. It may be cheaper initially, but paper currency is replaced about every year and a half while coins last decades
2. $300 in dollar bills is not much better
3. Bingo! We have a winner
4. I don't get it

Hey Brian, how about a different question, why should the government print money at all? Coming off the gold standard is eventually going to screw us if nations ever start trading in the euro. Instead we can just leave currency up to banks and private companies, like the dudes who came up with the libert dollar.

4. To roll up and use as a straw. Probably the reason 80% of the currency in the us tests positive for coke.

I have a vague memory of seeing the futuristic money they used on Buck Rodgers as a kid. It looked like little plastic triangles all stuck together (by magnets?) and you could break off a piece or two when you needed it. Now that was cool. How often have I looked at a $20 and wished I could just break it in two and have two $10s? And then stick them back together if needed? That's what I want out of currency personally. If the government does decide to redesign all our currency they should go all out and really think of something new, not just vary the sizes a little bit.

The Liberty dollar is interesting, but the reason the feds got involved in the first place was all the different competing currencies in the different states, which caused real problems. If I was interested in a metal backed currency I'd go more for e-gold, which was designed to be usable worldwide since you just trade specific weights of gold and it's not tied to the US dollar in any way.

Although e-gold is accounted by weight, the e-gold payment system allows Spends to be expressed in terms of eight major national currencies (as of this writing). For example, it's possible to: * Spend 10 troy oz worth of e-gold * Spend 5.3 grams worth of e-gold * Spend US $100.00 worth of e-gold * Spend CHF 685.88 worth of e-gold

This means (for example) that a Canadian can pay a German or a Japanese can pay an Australian the correct weight of gold (e-gold) for a good or service as easily as if the price had been quoted in his own national currency.

Coins might be cheaper in the long run, but our government is responsible for this years budget, not 2020's. They have no incentive to bear the up front cost.

And three hundred dollars in ones is still a hell of a lot less bulky and heavy than a similar number of dollar coins.

See #3 and ensuing discussion.

what do you consider to be fair, and how much would you object to spending?

like some others have said here, if the size of the bills were to change, then that would mean changes for ATMs, vending machines, mechanized toll booths, etc. that would cost a lot of money also. the way that would probably work is through a government subsidization for private companies to overhaul their existing machines.

i would think that even putting raised portions (for braile, etc) would cause many bill takers to have to make some modifications.

i'm not saying screw the blind, but there has to be a different solution than changing the size of the bills.

I should be clear, I'm Canadian so I couldn't say how much money you should spend revamping your currency :-) just interested in fair play. We have a blind friend in our family so I may be a little extra aware of some of the issues they face in the day-to-day.

Different sized bills would be a major work and to be honest, I find them annoying in countries where they have them. Different colours ARE helpful even for the sighted - you can peak in your wallet and easily know if you have a $50 or a $5. We seem to get new versions of our various denominations every couple years with new anti-counterfit features and for a few years now, braille for the blind.

cool, have money taking/giving machines had to be revamped in Canada for these features? or is there much adjusting that has needed to take place?

Just people getting change back and going "oh cool look at the new ten" or whatever. :-) You can see some of the newest designs here

The big change for us was when they went to coins to replace $1.00 and $2.00 bills; even then it wasn't huge as far as I recall. ATMs don't have to be changed since they don't give these out anyway. Some cash drawers in some stores... that's about it.

The only problem I can think of with the braille solutions is:

a) Will existing machines have issues dispensing or receiving money because of increased width of the bills? Shouldn't be an issue in stacks because the bumps could interlock like legos, but this could cause a dispensing issue if the bills stick together.

b) Will the bumps last or will they wear off?

I am definitely for making paper currency work for the blind but the costs must be considered.

great points

I think the general idea is that it should be readily identifiable to the person without the aid of technology. Not everyone needs glasses, very few people will have RF readers or barcode scanners. In contrast, most people have fingers.

Well that will be fine, until the people without finger sue because this change doesn't help them.