Can't believe they want to take Lincoln off the 5$ bill though. Why can't we just add new denominations of currency into the system? Bring back the 500$/1000$/5000$/10000$ bills? Perhaps instead add a 25$ bill and a 200$/250$ bill?

It's rather telling that we are going to lose this symbolism.

I would be for erecting a giant statue of Jackson in front of the federal reserve building in dc.

Currently:

$40: greedy: $20, $20

  optimal: $20, $20

  is greedy optimal: Yes

  greedy: $20, $20, $10

  optimal: $20, $20, $10

  is greedy optimal: Yes

$40:

  greedy: $25, $10, $5

  optimal: $20, $20

  is greedy optimal: No

  greedy: $25, $25

  optimal: $25, $25

  is greedy optimal: Yes

The reverse of the new $5 will depict the historic events that have occurred at the Lincoln Memorial. In 1939, at a time when Washington’s concert halls were still segregated, world-renowned Opera singer Marian Anderson helped advance civil rights when, with the support of First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, she performed at the Lincoln Memorial in front of 75,000 people. And in 1963, Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his historic “I Have a Dream” speech at the same monument in front of hundreds of thousands. Honoring these figures will bring to life events at the Lincoln Memorial that helped to shape our history and our democracy. The front of the new $5 will continue to feature President Lincoln.

There is a practical reason not to do this btw. Bills of this size get used for criminal purposes.

Lawrence Summers had a recent OpEd in The Post calling for the elimination of the $100 for this reason. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/16/its-t...

On what grounds.

The first four U.S. Presidents were founding fathers, so the election of 1824 was the first time it was a completely different generation vying for what direction we should take the country in. John Quincy Adams, son of President John Adams, seemed like he fit the bill. He was secretary of state, and Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe all had served as Secretary of State before taking the mantel.

Andrew Jackson was cut from a different cloth as the first five presidents. Not wealthy/educated/elite/eastern, Andrew Jackson instead was a frontiers man and a war hero.

By the time the votes were tallies, Jackson won the popular vote, but since the race was split between more than two candidates and he only had a plurality but not a majority (more votes than anyone else, but less than 50%), congress got to decide the next President.

In a move of backroom bargaining, John Q. Adams offers the then speaker of the house Henry Clay a position as the 9th Secretary of State in exchange for whipping the votes. It worked.

Screwed out of an election that should have been his, Andrew Jackson held his tongue and his temper and instead looked towards the next election where he knocked the sitting president out of office.

Who are your favorite founding fathers of the U.S.A.?

I certainly don't agree with the direction a lot of these guy's moral compasses were pointing in, but boy did sure did get things done (most of the time).

I hold Teddy and Eisenhower in high esteem, but need to read up more about Monroe.

Only terrorists, pedophiles and drug dealers use large denomination bills. Ordinary people have no use of paying big sums anonymously. Or the wages to make obtaining such sums possible. /sarcasm

There was some whining recently that 500 Euro was just too big of a banknote. i generally support the ability of citizens to do financial transactions anonymously. We have more than enough ways to track everything else.

At some point you have to wonder how much of a service the ACD committee is providing vs. how much they're justifying their paychecks.

I'm not saying that's the explanation, just speculating.

I was also going to make a dig at them for changing purely superficial characteristics before actually creating accessible money for the blind, but apparently starting in 2019 there will be tactile features introduced, so, I guess they put me in my place! Good on them.

You should view her as an American hero and this is one way to honor our heroes. What I find in poor taste is that we haven't honored her in some equivalent fashion until now. The Tubman museum in Georgia is pretty great though. There's a statue in Maryland too. Outside of that, on a national level, I'm not sure what we've done.

I liked it when Liberty herself was featured on the coinage. I'd vastly prefer it if the currency denominations featured various depictions of Industry, Agriculture, Liberty, Justice, and Science/Truth rather than politicians and/or revised and sanitized historic figures. The other side can feature economically significant animals.

Besides that, the money portraits seem a lot like icons of the Americanist pseudoreligion (as satirized to great effect in Bioshock Infinite), and a betrayal of the idea that the US is a nation of laws, not men.

For instance, a Saturn V rocket is a suitable subject for a money engraving. A portrait of Neil Armstrong is not. A Model T is an acceptable subject. Henry Ford is not. A Texas oilfield is suitable. John D. Rockefeller is not. A railway locomotive is okay. Cornelius Vanderbilt is not. The light bulb is acceptable; Thomas Edison is not. A harvester in a productive wheat field is acceptable. The politician that penned the farm bill is not. Blindfolded Justice, with scales in one hand, and sword and laurels in the other, would be great. John Jay would not be.

Real people all come with baggage. Ideals are clean.

I'd also love to see Chicago Pile-1 (first supercritical fission reactor) at Stagg Field on money.

Shopkeeper: I'm sorry, I can't accept this bill as legal tender. It doesn't say that it's not legal tender—ergo it is legal tender, ergo it's not legal tender.

I understand on "the Native American problem" he was faced with an untenable status quo and even worse ideas from the states in question. However, solving it by negotiating with largely unrecognized leaders, then forcibly relocating ethnic populations across the country in exchange for dubious reimbursement for their native and sovereign land doesn't exactly seem a moral solution.

It certainly could have gone worse had the states had their ways, but his solution wasn't exactly a paragon of ethical behavior.

So she's a former slave, a liberator of slaves, and a plantation owner and owner of slaves all in one. Would having her on a bill be in poor taste? (Granted, there are probably more prominent persons who should be on a bill before her.)

(I once dated one of her descendants.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_slavery

And anyway after the 30 picoseconds of novelty the people will only look at the numerical value and just ignore that there is a human there. And by the time it enters circulation we will be in cashless dystopia.

>...we're not going to succeed if we got half the team on the bench, especially when it’s the smarter half of the team. (Laughter.)

Sounds like it was a joke. I think you're being a bit oversensitive.

Eisenhower was on a cupronickel dollar from 1971 to 1978. SB Anthony was on from 1979-1981 and 1999.

The brass coins have had Sacagawea since 2000, and George Washington from 2007 to 2016.

In total, Liberty has been minted on circulated US coinage for 142 years. Eisenhower was on for 8 years. Washington was on for 10, and barely circulated at all. Anthony was on for 4 years, Sacagawea for 17.

Liberty was also on a $20 US note (greenback) from 1862 to 1863.

Clearly, the US Mint has a better history of sexual equality than either the Treasury or the Federal Reserve, the latter only ever depicting presidents, secretaries of the Treasury, and Ben Franklin.

Clearly, if you can choose to put someone that really has nothing to do with the issuance of fiat currency on the notes, you could put anyone on them, and anyone includes women.

I don't really care. I find the whole business to be slightly off-putting to begin with, and this is just a reminder that other people control all the money we use. But this is the turd you step in when you choose to honor specific individuals on your notes, rather than sticking to the eidolons. By putting specific people on the money, you are implicitly saying that everyone else was not good enough to make the cut.

Putting Tubman on the $20 just seems an awful lot like Mitt Romney showing off a token black friend at a campaign event, or thumping on one of his "binders full of women". They're not fooling anyone. We know they're still hard at work, desperately trying to sell the post-2008 "recovery" that only ever seems to show up on paper, but not in paychecks. This is a sideshow--a distraction.

Can we maybe get some money without the blatant political manipulation? Crap like this is the only reason I have any interest in Bitcoin (et al.) at all. We are all simply dying to have a currency that is immune to at least one form of all the financial bullshittery that we have traditionally been subjected to.

Who is honored by cryptocoins? Satoshi, but no one knows who he really is. Doge--a meme dog. Kanye West, in what appears to be a satire of some sort, though this may be covered by Poe's Law.

Commensurate accusations for the time were leveled against Andrew Jackson.

The leftist means of putting men down

I don't feel put down. An inaccurate positive stereotype is, in the end, just as damaging as a negative one, though. How is "women are smarter" any better than "asians are better at math?" It's not.

FDR would be the biggest missing person on our currency in my opinion.