Dca Lobbyist Says "Should Be A Coin. Not A $2 Bill Redesign"

You all bring up good points, especially Steve and Jbucks.

If you will allow me and this does not violate the ToS for the site, let me put on my "real life hat" here. I am at a pretty big University and my major focus of research and teaching is the history of the Constitution, including civil/voting rights and monetary policy/history (among other things.... my interests have changed over time).

Jbucks is correct about the Constitution and money, but let me add something. The Constitution gives the federal government the SPECIFIC right (some would even argue RESPONSIBILITY) to "coin" money. The Constitution also specifically BANS states from doing the same, given the chaotic monetary situation and even differing weights and measures situation of the 1780s. This is another reason that Article I gives the feds the unchallenged right to set uniform weights and measures and also to set exchange rates with foreign coin.

However, the Constitution is silent and vague on the role of paper money, and intentionally so. There was much debate in Philadelphia in 1787 about banning federal issues of paper money outright, given the experience with the Continental dollar. However, there were others who, realizing that the United States as then configured had a pretty awful shortage of known gold and silver deposits. Therefore, they wanted the feds to be able to issue paper currency, but wanted the Constitution to remain silent on it. Of course the feds did not issue paper until 1861, and almost all the paper up to that time was issued by banks and other private companies.

To recap: states cannot coin money, nor can banks. The feds can (read by some to mean "must" coin money, and the Constitution is silent on paper. The states, banks, and companies could print paper currency until he feds outlawed this practice in the 1860s.

It's a mess.

Now, on another subject re: the convenience of paper or coins and the physical configuration of the monetary system, money serves three purposes: (1) a unit of account, (2) medium of exchange, and (3) a store of value. #3 is what gets people who denounce "fiat money" all upset mostly #2 is 99% of what comes up on this site regarding dollar coins, for example.

But we as collectors need to realize that #1 and #2 together have to see widely accepted and convenient. If we ignore the intrinsic value/fiat money argument, we need to realize that whatever money we have is widely accepted, recognized, and universally exchangeable. To that end, we could make money out of clamshells or rocks, as long as the government could somehow regulate its supply and prevent counterfeiting.

In the end, dollar coins might well save the feds $$$ in production, but if people do not use or trust them, well.......

I will duck now. Please also realize that even though I study this stuff for a living, all this is just ultimately my opinion.

Kevin.

I can live with either but prefer the $2 bill. I have way too many pocket pieces now anyway.

It will get to the point where the only people using coinage will be the poor and numismatists. I rarely use cash anymore and I hate carrying large amounts of coins or currency in todays problem racked society. I believe all coinage and currency will be replaced by electrons within the next twenty years relegating the US Mint and BEP to provide product for collectors.

Hope I'm wrong.

@KevinH - Thank you for your valuable insights. :-)

@ratio411 - You're using "makes money" equivocally there.

Nice information, Kevin.



I agree. If there were such a being they would have solved all of our problems by now.

Not all US money has In God We Trust on it. I guess they used to be trustworthy.