Article that gives $200, $500 and $1,000 FRNs new hope

I'm extremely confused. She noticed what? Has boughten? What? :scratch:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

If you look closely enough, you will notice that Mr. Franklin's face is absent and has been replaced with Mr. Lincolns face. Mr. Franklin took the day off any decided to let his good 'ol pal Abe take care of the bill. Just like somebody at a bank, a wal mart, a restaurant, anywhere you can think of that commonly accepts $100 bills, they will not notice they face difference right away. They will realize it too late after the person who counterfeited it is long gone. So in plane words: That bill is counterfeit. It is a $5 bill that was chemically altered to have the $100 design printed on it. The ink of the $5 was chemically removed and a $100 bill was replaced on it. This commonly works because the strip inside look legit and at first glance, the face looks good too.

 

Er...ok. If you say so, I still don't see it.

I'm not at all sure what this has to do, however, with any of this. Yes. $100 bills get counterfeited. So do/would larger and smaller bills.

I fail to see what one anecdotal "story" from a friend of a friend has to do with whether or not the FR should print larger bills.

:scratch: again

 

You are missing my point... If that man was able to take a $5 bill, alter it to make it look like it were worth $100, spend it, get away with it... Why couldn't he/she do the same with a $200 bill? Next we can grab $100 bills that have similar security features to a $1,000 bill and preform the same precidure. Get it?

 

Look at the watermark on the right side of the note.

 

You're absolutely right, I am...which is why I said I was.

No reason I can think of he/she couldn't.

No, I still don't, sorry.

All you've said is "OMG! People counterfeit $100 bills! They could counterfeit others too!"

Um...yes. They do, they could, they have, and they will. There are plenty of security features in place making it difficult to duplicate and/or pass, counterfeit bills. There are merchants who choose to use/not use the available methods of counterfeit detection.

None of that's going to change with the issuance...or lack of it...of different denomination bills.

So...again...you're absolutely right. I'm missing your point. I have no idea why the fact people can and do counterfeit bills applies to whether or not the Federal Reserve should issue other bills.

 

I'll take your and the OP's word for it. I can't even see A watermark, much less tell what it is.

I'm not disputing that the note's counterfeit, merely saying that I don't see it. I am, however, by no means an expert, nor do I posses a high quality video display or pair of eyes.

 

Have you checked that bill to make sure it wasn't a genuine $100 that was mistakenly printed on paper that had been destined for $5 bills?

 

The watermark, on the right side of the note, is definitely not Franklin.

 

The bill has signatures and block letters that do not match up, so that'd be one heck of an error, if it were . Sadly, its not :rollling:. The first 'A' of the serial number stands strickly for Series 1996. This particular $100 was printed with the signatures of a 2003 $100. I've heard of this type of counterfeit before, more specifically in this forum. I don't remember which thread I was on. I do know that people bleach big head $5's until the ink is removed, then they pass the blank $5 through the printer printing a $100 on it. I do know that it is one of the more common known counterfeits of today.

 

LOL

Right.

I get that.

It's Lincoln

It's not Franklin

That is not a $100 bill. It's a counterfeit.

Really not sure how many more ways I can indicate that I take everyone's word for it, that I BELIEVE YOU, that that bill is, indeed, fake.

My inability, due to poor display, astigmatism, ignorance, and frankly apathy, to make that determination on my own in no way signals that I don't understand the fact.

I simply fail to understand why the fact that people can and do counterfeit money means the federal reserve should not issue it in other denominations.

 

Here's my point straight up: Why would you make it easier for counterfeiters to make more money doing something they already do. It'd be more worth it, therefore more promising for someone who counterfeits. They could steal and get away with printing 2x, 5x, or even 10x the amount. That just leaves more profit in their pocket, so more people would get into it. Plus, the whole counterfeit thing is merely one single aspect of all the probelms larger denomination bills could casue. I do know that in other foreign contries, doing things like making lager denomination bills overall turned out in major deflation of the currency. Bank robbers... They could stash the same figure of paper bills in duffle bags as $100's, except 10x. So if you've heard about bank robbers getting away with "such and such" amount, times that by 10. Huge problems.

 

Several responses.

1) Because you simply aren't saving anyone that much time or effort. Your description above suggests the bills are bleached then printed. Fine. One can not begin to believe those processes are done by hand, clearly the bills are run through some sort of printer. it simply doesn't take that much longer to do 2, 5, or 10, than it does to do 1.

I suppose there might be some time in the chemical treatment...I don't know the first thing about such a process, so I'll just go with common sense there. Of course, common sense also suggests that whatever sprayer, dip bath, tank, bucket, bowl, etc is used to do that sort of thing could exist in multiples. In other words, they probably have another bowl of bleach.

2) Ok, fine..let's presume response #1 is complete bunk. By making, say, a $500 bill, you've cut counterfeiters time to 20% of what it was. ZOMG!

By that reasoning, the existence of $100 bills does the same thing. Why don't we get rid of them, and limit everyone to $20's?

Of course, $20's cut it in half. We really shouldn't have anything bigger than a $10!

It's an unsustainable argument, which gets silly in both directions. You simply can't justify...or invalidate...the existence of one denomination or another, because every one of them makes life easier for 2 groups of people...counterfeiters AND legitimate consumers/businessmen.

3) Because none of this changes the fact that methods exist to detect counterfeit currency, and it isn't the government's job to babysit every merchant who chooses to use or not use them.

You guys yourselves have suggested that the bill is an obvious counterfeit when held up to the light. The treasury has educated people at great length on the use of various detection techniques, including holding the bill up to the light and checking the watermark.

If a merchant hires people who are unable to make that determination (like me, apparently), or is unwilling to train them to do so, or adopts policies that prevent the opportunity to do so, then no amount of "denomination management" is going to help. That merchant has not assembled a staff capable of preventing theft...he's going to get robbed blind if you limit the world to Lincoln Cents.

4) There are, as many of you have pointed out, considerably fewer places that would transact business at denominations that large. (80% fewer, one would initially presume) That being the case, the amount of stolen money should, logically, remain relatively consistent.

That is to say, if we double the amount that can be stolen by printing a $200 bill, we've also halved the number of places that trade at those levels. Half of 2 being 1, and all, the total amount of counterfeit currency in circulation remains relatively constant.

5) This is probably the most important. You're making the mistake of presuming static technology. You're presuming that because current bills can be counterfeited by Method X, all future bills must also be similarly counterfeitable. Clearly, this is not the case, thus any argument that presumes it is as a basis is fundamentally flawed from the beginning.

==============

So let's see...

It likely doesn't significantly impact the ease of counterfeiting, even if it did that's a bi-directional unsustainable argument, ignorance or apathy on the part of merchants isn't denomination dependent, circulating counterfeit M2 doesn't change significantly, and your thesis suffers from a baseless presumption.

Anything else?

 

Major deflation which large denomination bills have been proven to cause in the past...?

 

You make a great argument, I will give you that. But you are still missing my point. It takes an intelligent government to decide where the fine line of having a large denominal bill is. Sure, people always have, are, and always will produce counterfeit bills. This is true. $100 bills are reasonable. Why print bigger bills than such? If your dealing with so mich cash that a $100 bill isn't sufficient to handle the amount of space it would take up you are one of the following: 1) someone who is not smart with their and needs to open a banking account or learn how to use PayPal because the risk of carrying around so much cash is high. 2) a drug/arms/prostitution dealer. 3) a bank robber. Get it? What? You don't want to take 2 WHOLE ENTIRE $100 bills to pay your grocery bill, but instead you need a special $200 bill.

 

You'll have to provide citations for that.

Historically, the changing denomination of bills is CAUSED by prince instability, not causal to it.

Secondarily, larger bills are the result of INflation, not DEflation.

I'm no longer missing it. I just don't think it's right.

You believe the status quo should be maintained, since 1) there is little use for larger denomination bills 2) which will only lead to increased counterfeiting and 3) deflation.

I believe I've demonstrated points 2 and 3 to be wrong.

As for the third...

1) I disagree, but of course there's no way to "prove" if I'm smart with my money. I suppose we could start quoting bank balances, retirement plans, investment strategies, and net worth statements at each other...but that's neither wise, nor the point of this thread.

The argument that the "risk" is higher is bunk. First, it presumes the cash on hand is ALWAYS large, which clearly it needn't be, second it presumes those around you know the amount on hand. If the amount on hand is unknown...which, unless I'm flashing it in public, it should be, then my risk is the same as any other random target. There's a $current_local_crime_rate percent chance I'll be the target of a robbery attempt.

2) I'm certainly none of the above. Of course, again, there's no way to prove that, so my refutation must stand on its own.

3) I'm not that either. See #2.

Sure. I get it.

But no...I don't really want to take 2 bills when the option to pay with 1 exists....any more than a merchant WANTS to count 2 or 5 times as many notes as (s)he has to. Obviously, if that option doesn't exist, we'll do whatever the current denominations allow us to do.

 

Are you being serious?
Like only rich spend $100?
My truck takes that to fill up.
Go to a dinner out with the family and it can be that.
I'd hardly say that that makes me rich.

And any bank gives out $100's.

 

With that thought where do you draw the line? Such as we don't need $100's either as you can use 2 $50's...then why have $50's you can use 2 twenties and a ten...



I am obviously FOR a $500 and a $1000 bill.
Our dollar is worth less and less but we have smaller bills.
I don't want to use credit cards and electronic payments. Keep us with the option to use cash.

 

Wow. Okay, so when they come out with the new $200 bill, we can all run down to the bank, stand in line for the teller, and say that we don't want to carry two $100 bills in our pockets... Oh no, we want just one $200 bill! It's my $200 bill, and I want it now! Then, we can run down to Wal Mart, the retaurant, whatever, and buy what we want to buy with just one bill! Sounds fun! I think it'd be fun for a robber to only get 1 duffel bag to rob a bank vs have two duffel bags. I like it. It seems already bad enough now that no body ever wants a $100. Instead of people running up to the cashier in the store to break a $100, now they'll be running in to break $200, $500, and even $1,000 bills! Tell me, what good will larger denominations do? You can sit here and point out how none of the bad things I say are true, yet I haven't heard you mention too much about what good the newer denomination bills will do. This argument is fun and I like hearing different opinions from different people, so don't take any of it too personal. I just think its cool that we can give different opinions on the situation. Nice to meet you btw, my name is Travis. So, again, what good will the larger denomination bills do? What kind of productive things can these bills help the US to do?

 

Forgive me, I'm having trouble following your emotional sarcasm here.

But...yeah. We can. Why not?

I go to the bank regularly, cash a check, and hand the teller a note with the denominations and quantity of them I want. Not sure why it would be a problem to handle a new denomination.

:scratch:

Pretty sure we've already refuted this "risk".

People don't wish to break $100's when there's no reason to. They don't want to hand out several $20's to make change for a $15 item, particularly when much of their currency flow is in smaller bills.

That's not really going to change.

For merchants that don't frequently trade in high dollar transactions, they simply won't move the new bills. For those that do, it's an attractive option.

I wasn't aware they had to do any "good". Why can't they simply be convenient for those who wish to use them?

If that's not enough, however...

They'll circulate less, thus lasting longer than an equivalent amount of smaller denominations, which saves government costs.

As compared to multiple small bills, a single large bill is faster and easier to count, saving time and increasing efficiency for merchants who transact them.

Similarly, fewer physical bills leads, consistently, to fewer counting errors at both banks and merchants. Accounting discrepancies are reduced.

They're easier to conceal than multiple smaller bills.

I agree, 100%