Talk:United States dollar/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Eagle

The Overview section, paragraph 4 starts:

"The U.S. dollar bill uses the decimal system, consisting of 100 equal cents (symbol ¢). It is also officially divided into 1,000 mills or ten dimes, while ten dollars is equal to an eagle."

31 USC § 5101. Decimal system provides "United States money is expressed in dollars, dimes or tenths, cents or hundreths, and mills or thousandths. A dime is a tenth of a dollar, a cent is a hundredth of a dollar, and a mill is a thousandth of a dollar."

So what current law says $10=1Eagle? And was the historic eagle a denomination or just a nickname like the modern nickel?

The Eagle was denoted as equal to 10 dollars as per the coinage act of 1792, section 9 http://www.usmint.gov/historianscorner/?action=docDetail&id=326.--Celtic hackr (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I would change this to:

"The U.S. dollar is commonly divided into 100 cents, symbolized ¢. It is also officially divided into ten dimes, and technicaly 1,000 mills, however the mill is encountered only in a few industries and is no longer represented by either coin or note."

And preserve the link to mill and add one to dime.

What do you think? Awg1010 (talk) 21:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Entirely reasonable. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 22:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, since the Eagle is a federally recognized and defined super unit of the dollar, it should be listed as so where the subunits are currently listed in the side bar. --W5WMW 02:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by W5WMW (talk • contribs)

Ecuador official or unofficial

Ecuador is listed both as official user of the USD and unofficial user of the USD, that seems a bit silly, can someone check which is true and delete the other, I could not find any information on the subject. --Utkun (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Where does it inidacate they're an unofficial user of the USD?
In the info box in the upper right hand corner. You need to click the 'show' button to see it. A number of sources, including the US government, indicate the USD is the official currency of Ecuador. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35761.htm Rob Page III (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It certainly is the official currency, they mint their own Ecuadorian coins etc but they are USDs. Also, the part where this article says that USDs are called "plata" in Ecuador is true, but sounds a little strange because "plata" is used throughout spanish-speaking South America to simply mean money. 2.217.42.159 (talk) 08:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

"Plata" also simply means "money" in Ecuador, it doesn't refer to the currency at all. "¿Tienes plata?" "Do you have any money?" "Tengo dos dólares." "I have two dollars." It's exactly the same as in other spanish-speaking countries in Latin America. (Source: my mother is ecuadorian, and I personally lived the devaluation of the sucre and transition to dollars.) 93.20.49.248 (talk) 14:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

This article is bullshit

The article conflates the United States dollar with Federal Reserve currency. They are distinctly different things, although the private Federal Reserve Bank is happy to pass its intrinsically worthless fiat currency off as "United States dollars" as long as an ignorant public goes along with scam. The article needs a fundamental re-write. There have been no United States dollars in circulation for half a century, since the mid-1960s. — QuicksilverT @ 23:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's incorrect. A one dollar Federal Reserve note is indeed one dollar. And there are lots of United States dollars in circulation.

All paper money is "intrinsically" "worthless" -- in a sense. What I mean by that is that a piece of paper money does not have substantial value based on the physical composition of the paper and ink of which it is composed. Paper money, in this sense, has little if any value in use. The value of paper money is value in exchange. If someone in the United States wants to sell me an item for $100, that someone (i.e., most people) will generally accept $100 in Federal Reserve notes from me. The reason they will do that is that Federal Reserve notes have value in exchange -- which is the only kind of value paper money needs to have.

In this sense, the intrinsic value of a one dollar Federal Reserve note (its value in use) is insignificant. Yes, you could use a Federal Reserve note to wrap a small object. You could use a large number of Federal Reserve notes as wallpaper in your house. You could burn some Federal Reserve notes in order to keep yourself warm. But, those would be examples of extractions of value in use. Those would be examples of intrinsic values, of values that inhere in the physical object of the paper based on the laws of physics.

In this particular sense of the term "intrinsic," any use of the Federal Reserve note as a vehicle for obtaining something else (a meal, a tank of gasoline, a back rub, whatever) is not an example of an extraction of the benefit of "intrinsic" value (value in use), but is instead an example of an extraction of the benefit of value in exchange -- which is the real purpose of having and using a dollar. Famspear (talk) 22:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The term "specie"

A recently blocked edit warrior tried to insert material in the article essentially saying that a United States dollar is "specie". That's not precisely correct. The term "specie" generally means metallic money. See Black's Law Dictionary, p. 1254 (5th Ed. 1979). Yes, there are (or have been) U.S. dollars that were in the form of metal money. But a one dollar Federal Reserve note is a United States dollar. And, of course, a Federal Reserve note is not "specie" in the sense of metal money.

This is not rocket science. Famspear (talk) 22:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Padlock

You forgot to add the silver padlock of semi-protection at upper right 187.38.138.210 (talk) 01:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on United States dollar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Choice of comparison currencies

Not sure I understand the rationale for the currencies listed under Historical exchange rates, in particular the Singapore dollar and South Africa rand. There are several other currencies more relevant to the US (see List of the largest trading partners of the United States). Also, the list is different from that in the next section, Current exchange rates. --Macrakis (talk) 20:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Claim that the United States Dollar is Still a Commodity Currency

The user 66.189.197.154 (talk) has repeatedly edited the introduction of this article to say that the United States Dollar is actually a commodity currency rather than a fiat currency, even though this is contradicted by the rest of the article, the article History of the United States dollar, and by the United States Code. As one can see on uscode.house.gov for 31 US Code Subtitle IV-Money, Chapter 51, in the Historical and Revision Notes for §5101, the U.S. Dollar is not defined to be an explicit amount of any commodity:

Thus, the phrase "money of account" did not mean, by itself, that dollars or fractions of dollars must be equal to something having intrinsic or "substantive" value. This concept is supported by earlier writings of Thomas Jefferson in his "Notes on the Establishment of a Money Unit, and of a Coinage for the United States" (1784), and the 1782 report to the President of the Continental Congress on the coinage of the United States by the Superintendent of Finances, Robert Morris, which was apparently prepared by the Assistant Superintendent, Gouverneur Morris. See Paul L. Ford, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol. III (G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1894) pp. 446–457; William G. Sumner, The Financier and the Finances of the American Revolution, vol. II (Burt Franklin, 1891, reprinted 1970) pp. 36–47; and George T. Curtis, History of the Constitution, vol. I (Harper and Brothers, 1859) p. 443, n2. The words "or units" and "and all accounts in the public offices and all proceedings in the courts shall be kept and had in conformity to this regulation" are omitted as surplus.

Additionally, in §5112, there is no specification for a dollar coin of the historic weights or proportions.

Instead of engaging in a edit war, I have placed an inline dubious tag and invite 66.189.197.154 to provide evidence for the United States Dollar being a commodity currency. Considering that this claim contradicts not only the published information available on relevant Wikipedia articles (e.g. History of the United States dollar, the United States Code, and the existence of the Federal Reserve System as an institution, I would say that this is an extraordinary claim. As such, it requires extraordinary evidence. BirdValiant (talk) 06:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


First, I commend you BirdValiant, usually I am never afforded such courtesy...my edits are usually just cast aside. It is comforting to find someone actually following the guidelines.

Let me begin by addressing your leading statement: "the United States Dollar is actually a commodity currency rather than a fiat currency". It is not clear to me who has the burden of proof here, you or I, but I can say this; wouldn't a United States dollar have to be one or the other, i.e. can it be both? Or to be more precise, a dollar according to the United States Constitution, wouldn't it have to be something definitive? And was not that constitutional discovery by Mr. Hamilton (i.e. 371 4/16 grains of pure silver) done with some sincere, precise and deliberate effort to discover what the US Constitution had referred to? i.e. that the silver weight of a Spanish dollar was something quantifiable? Why all the fuse by Mr. Hamilton if the dollar can mean multiple things or worse something undefinable or re-definable? Would not this very idea presuppose to obviate the premise of the US Constitution itself? at least if the definition of a "Constitutional dollar" is not redefined using the required constitutional amendment process. To quote the article you have provided "History of the United States dollar":

"The term 'dollar' had already been in common usage since the colonial period when it referred to eight-real coin (Spanish dollar) used by the Spanish throughout New Spain."

It is my understanding that is why Mr. Hamilton went to such great lengths to measure the weights and purity of the "Spanish Dollar" so as to issue the newly contemplated US Dollar in conformance with expectations of the definition found within the US Constitution that the American people had recently ratified thru their respective legislatures.

But already I think I can agree with you in part that the article is not so much self-contradictory as it is conflating two distinct things. There are many things we call dollars in our society (Federal Reserve Notes, clad coins, Silver Certificates, "dollars of account", etc). To this end I tried to make the article more self-consistent. For example you state "even though this is contradicted by the rest of the article" in referring to my edit by stating a dollar is "371 4/16 grain[s]" of pure silver. Rather than contradicting the rest of the article, I tried to square it with the immediately following section of the article "Overview" wherein it is stated:

"The word "dollar" is one of the words in the first paragraph of Section 9 of Article I of the Constitution. There, "dollars" is a reference to the Spanish milled dollar, a coin that had a monetary value of 8 Spanish units of currency, or reales. In 1792 the U.S. Congress passed a Coinage Act. Section 9 of that act authorized the production of various coins, including "DOLLARS OR UNITS—each to be of the value of a Spanish milled dollar as the same is now current, and to contain three hundred and seventy-one grains and four sixteenth parts of a grain of pure, or four hundred and sixteen grains of standard silver". Section 20 of the act provided, "That the money of account of the United States shall be expressed in dollars, or units... and that all accounts in the public offices and all proceedings in the courts of the United States shall be kept and had in conformity to this regulation". In other words, this act designated the United States dollar as the unit of currency of the United States."

So you see my edit harmonized the article and did not add contradiction, that being the condition I found it.

If we are referring to the definition of a dollar as contained in the United States Constitution and I assume this is the case based off the first sentence of the article:

"The United States dollar (sign: $; code: USD; also abbreviated US$ and referred to as the dollar, U.S. dollar, or American dollar) is the official currency of the United States and its insular territories per the United States Constitution."

I will not at this point go on to address your references because I do not feel it is necessary yet because either they refer to non-Constitutional dollars or the reference predates the US Constitution, for example. Also, with all due respect to "Notes" given at the ushouse.code website the fact is that the coinage act of 1792 (1 Stat. 246) is still good law and until congress specifically removes these lawful statements they remain good law. Shepherding 1 Stat. 246 will show that much of it still remains unchanged, including Hamilton's definition. So obviously the United States Code sections you refer to are good law and so is much of 1 Stat. 246. For example "This act laid the foundation for the modern U.S. currency and is still in effect today, albeit with many modifications over the past two-plus centuries." (see e.g. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/the-coinage-act-of-1972.asp#ixzz4XCS4obNf) We can go on to debate if Hamilton's definition was removed but I don't think we will need to go to that level given what is presented here.

Perhaps this is beyond our purposes here but it is not unheard of for Congress to give things definitions that, how can I say this, are not really accurate. For example in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius you may recall that Congress made not having health insurance subject to a "penalty", the Supreme Court went on to rule that the "penalty" was in reality a "Tax" because it did not have authority to penalize but it did have power to tax. So even today you can go into the US Code and find references to "penalties" wherein the Supreme Court has effectively edited this word to mean "tax". Likewise Congress, the Federal Reserve or whoever may refer to "dollars" but they may be non-Constitutional dollars. We must look past monikers and to the substance I think. Likewise anyone can call something a dollar, including Congress, but that doesn't change the fact that a Constitutional Dollar remains unchanged until constitutionally amended ... "Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised" (Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 1920)

However I think maybe we have more agreement than disagreement and rather than continue with a treatise that you have requested of me I would suggest perhaps we need to bifurcate the subject and make a separate article for "non-US Constitution dollars".66.189.197.154 (talk) 01:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Suggested fix for misleading/incorrect currency classification

The way it is written right now is contradictory and confusing. The second paragraph starts with an invalid assertion that USD is currently on a silver standard, when that is plainly not true. It then waits until the last sentence to correct itself, mentioning the nixon shock that brought USD into the modern fiat system and broke up breton woods.

This is clearly an article on the actual fiat dollar in use, the one you buy hamburgers with, not some theoretical legal or constitutional concept that may or may not even apply in modern times. So, if we feel like the history of the USD as a commodity currency, in particular how that inflexibilty, combined with the lack of a FDIC, caused most of the 19th century's worst "panics", or talk about the fights over "free silver", or how the nixon shock and the breakup of breton woods brought economies kicking and screaming into the modern era and deprecated an entire class of economic turmoil forever, that's probably a good idea, but it doesn't belong in the opening section. A simple mention of its current status as fiat currency and the nixon shock should be enough. 104.156.111.15 (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


I think you have a lot of valuable comments User 104.156.111.15, but I still feel you are conflating two separate issues. The article is mainly a mix of two "things" a US Dollar and a Federal Reserve Note (FRN) - but also some clad coins and even digital "dollars" could be a possibility, etc. But mainly what you speak about are Federal Reserve Notes, what I was editing is a US Dollar, which of course is a Constitutional thing, well before Nixon, FIDC, "free silver", Brenton Woods, etc. Like I mentioned in my last Talk page edit I think everyone would be better served if we bifurcated the two subjects dollars/FRN. But unfortunately I do not control that possibility. 198.232.211.130 (talk) 23:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Please stop changing the article to your incorrect presentation of the US dollar as CURRENTLY being based on commodities of silver. This has not been true for decades and reliable sources and general page consensus are against you. --Khajidha (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


First, thank you for coming to the TALK page. Much better to converse here than to engage in reverts. Second I believe it is you that is changing the page and at least at first not providing sources for your edits as I believe is considered recommended practice, and I say that respectfully and not to be rude. From what you have said thus far I am not aware of any citations for the assertions you speak of so I can not comment on them directly but in general I will give the following... 1) the first paragraph of the article is:

"The United States dollar (sign: $; code: USD; also abbreviated US$ and referred to as the dollar, U.S. dollar, or American dollar) is the official currency of the United States and its insular territories per the United States Constitution. It is divided into 100 smaller cent (¢) units. The circulating paper money consists of Federal Reserve Notes that are denominated in United States dollars (12 U.S.C. § 418)." (note the use of the word "denominated")

Notice the article is about the "United States Dollar" not United States coins, federal reserve notes, digital dollars, etc. If the article was about something different then I would probably agree with a lot of what you would probably present to me. However this is not that article. The statement "official currency of the United States ... per the United States CONSTITUTION" (emphasis mine). The "thing" of a "dollar" at least within the Constitution is a very specific thing, so specific that it required the first Secretary of the Treasury to make a determination of exactly what it is. After all if it has no definition then it could really be anything right? So to change the definition of a United States Constitutional dollar would require a change to the Constitution. The US Code does not define a dollar because "Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised" (Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 1920)

So Mr. Alexander's determination of a Constitutional dollar is still good law and has never been revoked (he went to great lengths and exacting details to make the determination of a "dollar" per the Constitution. Even if it had been eliminated it would not change what the Constitutional dollar is, i.e. basically a Spanish Milled Dollar of the time (see second paragraph of the article's Overview section).

Now of course we in the United States use many things "denominated" or "valued" in dollars (see Titles 12 and 31) but that does not make them actual "dollars" per the Constitution, rather they are things valued in dollars or given meanings in values that are not Consitutional dollars. A Federal Reserve note is a good example, its value appears to derive from peoples confidence in the Full Faith and Credit of the United States and no longer is tied in anyway to Silver. So I think your comments are most likely valid but should be placed in the appropriate pages, for example, "Federal Reserve Note", "Coins of the United States dollar" or "Dollar coin" article entries. I hope this helps. 198.232.211.130 (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I changed the page to restore the longstanding version of this page that identified the US dollar as having formerly been a commodity currency. Aside from your changes, this page has so stated (or stated the equivalent of the dollar being a fiat currency at this time) for the last year (and probably longer). It is you who needs to find sources to state that it is still a commodity currency. And, no, your essay above does not count as it is your own research. Find reputable sources arguing thus and bring them here. --Khajidha (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


It seems we both agree that at least at some point in time the US dollar was commodity money (since that is what you are changing it to), so the bright side (no pun intended) is that we agree on that. However I stop there but you proceed on to assert that somewhere in time that mutually agreed fact changed. Correct me if I am misstating your position.

I hope you will be so kind to not require of me the onerous task of proving a negative? (i.e. that something you claim occurred never occurred). Wouldn't it be more clean and fair for you to present your evidence that what we both agree to has changed? by place, date, time, by whom and by what authority for example? 198.232.211.130 (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Again, the version of the article that states that the US dollar is not a commodity currency is the stable version. You want to change it. It is thus up to you to find the sources. --Khajidha (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


I disagree, your statement that "US dollar is not a commodity currency is the stable version" is not true. The article has never read this way. Prior to my edit the article stated that a "US dollar is fiat currency", I changed it to "a US Dollar is commodity money of silver", I changed this on January 9th almost four months ago. Regardless you are trying to change it to "The U.S. dollar was originally commodity money of silver" something completely different. Therefore the burden is upon you per Wikipedia editing policy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy). I believe a better path for you to follow if you disagree would be to put a "citation needed" rather than to engage in edit warring. 198.232.211.130 (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

And a fiat currency is not commodity money. Therefore, your change is the one that needs to be cited. --Khajidha (talk) 11:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Especially as the statetment that the dollar is commodity money was tagged as dubious back in January. The tag stood for about a month unanswered. It was then changed to the "was originally" wording that you have since removed several times. Your contention that the dollar is a commodity money has been properly challenged and you have yet to supply sources.--Khajidha (talk) 11:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


Your first sentence states: "And a fiat currency is not commodity money. Therefore, your change is the one that needs to be cited." I do not understand what you are trying to say with this statement. I have never claimed otherwise from what you state in this sentence. Please clarify. Again I think we are in agreement here.

Again I respectfully disagree with your characterization of the events. My edit proceeded the edit of "was originally" as well as your recent edit. So your request that I must "prove" my edit over yours and/or the "was originally" is to turn the Wikipedia editing policy on its head. You need to provide a citation for your contention, the extant article is already cited. As for the prior "dubious citation" you refer to, a citation was added and therefore the request was no longer needed. I believe, again, that was all done to the letter of Wikipedia policy. Right?

But I can agree with you on your request nonetheless, as you state in your last sentence "Your contention that the dollar is a commodity money has been properly challenged and you have yet to supply sources". Your current request is actually regarding something that is not part of my edit and certainly is not my contention (although I believe it is a true statement) but something that existed before, I am not wedded to it and I don't consider it necessary or even that significant to the topic of the article. So I agree with you that it can be removed if no one else contests it. I suggest removing it as you request, simply change the first sentence to:

"The U.S. dollar is silver as enacted by the Coinage Act of 1792 which determined the dollar to be 371 4/16 grain (24.1 g) pure or 416 grain (27.0 g) standard silver." 198.232.211.130 (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

That still doesn't address the issue. Your contention that the dollar IS silver is the same as the idea that it is commodity money. The bulk of reliable sources states that the dollar is not based on silver and has not been based on silver for decades. No one is disputing that it was so based, but you need to show reliable sources that it is still so based. And, no, there was no citation given to the dubious statement that the US dollar IS silver. That was your original addition, that is what was challenged, that is what I have removed several times. Show me the sources that the dollar IS silver. Not that it WAS.--Khajidha (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


Sorry I can only address the issues as you present them... Again, the article has never read as you want to try and change it, therefore the onus is on you to provide authorities to cite for your position per Wikipedia policy. As you stated "You want to change it. It is thus up to you to find the sources." In the meantime, The Coinage Act of 1792 clearly states that a dollar is a certain amount of silver as already stated in the article in multiple places and not just my edit of January 9 by the way (see the "Overview" section for example).

You state: "The bulk of reliable sources states that the dollar is not based on silver and has not been based on silver for decades." I have never in my life seen anything in writing to this affect, but if you have them why are you not sharing? It would help me to help you if you could tell me the exact day this change occurred. It would help me narrow down my efforts to prove a negative. Is it also your position that this change that happened "decades" ago is still in affect?

You also state: "No one is disputing that it was so based, but you need to show reliable sources that it is still so based". If no one disputes the prior position why do you impose the burden on me to prove your position to the contrary? If everyday every article in Wikipedia had to prove it was still valid then the medium would cease to be useful, this position of yours is clearly not per Wikipedia policy, again I refer you to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy). With respect, it is you that is contending a change to what we both agree, at a minimum, was the "was" condition. Best regards 198.232.211.130 (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

In order to bring fresh input into this issue so that consensus may be built, I am going to add this page to Request for Comment. BirdValiant (talk) 06:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

RfC about the U.S. Dollar currently either commodity money or fiat money

Not a valid RfC. There is nothing here for the WP community to form a consensus opinion about; this is a simple factual question already answered by reliable sources. The WP:TROLLing nature of the thread is not constructive, and please see also WP:NOT#FORUM. Article talk pages are not a venue for personal theorizing about economics or promotion of fringe ideas.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  05:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

{{rfc|econ|pol}} At the current time, is the U.S. Dollar commodity money, or is it fiat money? BirdValiant (talk) 06:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Survey

  • Fiat. The ability to actually convert a paper/electronic dollar is long gone. The value of the dollar is entirely based on public perception.Icewhiz (talk) 07:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Fiat. I anybody finds any 'constitutional dollars' down the back of their couch, and succeeds in converting them to silver, I may change my mind. William Avery (talk) 11:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Both It's not that simple. :) There is supposedly gold being held in three major locations in the United States which "backs" the cloth script that is used in the U.S. which can be considered to be Commodity_money but only if gold can be used for monetary transactions, however the cloth script being used in the U.S. are "Federal Reserve Notes" which are Fiat_money. In theory you may exchange gold for "real" cloth notes that represents real gold however the Gold_standard is obsolete and ownership of gold by citizens was made illegal (aside from Industry and cosmetic use.) So yes, what we're using is Fiat. Damotclese (talk) 15:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Fiat If I can't exchange a dollar for "371  4⁄16 grain (24.1 g) pure or 416 grain (27.0 g) standard silver", it's not a commodity currency de facto. Any other reading of the facts is (a) grossly misleading, and (b) suggestive of conspiracy thinking. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 00:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I've not looked to closely, but this seems to be a long-running, ongoing dispute. I suggest partial-protecting the article to get any SPA/SOCK/etc problems under control, reverting to whatever consensus was reached the last time this came up, then working from high(er) quality sources to determine what, if anything needs changing. --Ronz (talk) 01:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Re Requested Comments

Dear Icewhiz, thank you for the information you have given regarding the wiki article on the US Dollar. Per wiki policy Talking and editing Policy:

"Be bold in updating articles, especially for minor changes and fixing problems. Previous authors do not need to be consulted before making changes. Nobody owns articles. If you see a problem that you can fix, do so. Discussion is, however, called for if you think the edit might be controversial or if someone indicates disagreement with your edit (either by reverting your edit and/or raising an issue on the talk page). The "BOLD, revert, discuss cycle" (BRD) is often used when changes might be contentious.

Boldness should not mean trying to impose edits against existing consensus or in violation of core policies, such as Neutral point of view and Verifiability. Fait accompli actions, where actions are justified by their having already been carried out, are inappropriate."

I would respectfully request that you do not edit the existing consensus without following the wiki policy on editing. Thank you very much. Kind regards.

I do not see a consensus to support describing us currency as a commodity currency. In fact, this would seem grossly misleading. This position, amongst editors, seems to be supported by yourself only. The prior stable version was to simply describe as fiat (which despite the legal history, in the actual situation in the past few decades).Icewhiz (talk) 20:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
First it is nice to meet you and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this issue with you, like you I think the article could be greatly improved. For some time I have felt that the article is attempting to address multiple issues which is causing confusion and strife. However it is my understanding that this specific article is addressing a United States dollar "per the Constitution", if we proceed with that understanding then I think a consensus and a more specific consensus is not that difficult.
The current consensus I believe has existed more or less for years (i.e. addressing that a dollar is based in silver). It is true that I have watched you and others attempt to change that consensus over time but I believe the long existing consensus by many, not just myself, at least for this article, has been that a US dollar per the Constitution has been based in silver. The use of the word commodity does not have its origin in me, it was there before I ever noticed the article. Personally I do not like the use of the term commodity, it brings in an element of economics which I personally do not feel is really relevant to the Constitutional creation of the dollar.
But for the moment I am more interested in listening to you and what you want to change the article to and why. What do you think is a dollar per the US Constitution? How would you write it up and why? The talk page is already full of the views I think are correct. I sincerely would like to know what you think is incorrect about the current article. Kind regards 186.71.169.87 (talk) 23:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
First - as a side note - I suggest you create an account - you'll find it is easier to communicate and that you will face less "anti-IP bias" (which is not right, but.... Wikipedia:IPs are human too). Editing as an IP works if you're doing small fixes, or even big ones - but tends to be less efficient when engaging in discussion.
Regarding the article - it is about the US currency - not its constitutional status (which is actually quite limited - [1]. The dollar is currently Fiat (a process that began with fractional reserves, continued through Bretton Woods system, and following Nixon shock - any pretense of this being non-Fiat is long gone).
The article consensus, as might be seen in an old version here - [2] - is that the dollar is stated as Fiat in the lead.Icewhiz (talk) 05:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice I will look into it.
The "consensus" and "prior stable version" that you have made reference to existed for all of about 11 hours? Why, therefore, do you attempt to pass off the consensus is that the US dollar has been "fiat" as you state? I don't understand why believe that the article states this, clearly it does not and has not.
I do no understand your position given that you quote (your reference 1) the Constitution which clearly indicates that the United States "money" can be "coined". Money "coined" I think you would agree is by definition not "fiat". Currently it is my understanding that the US Treasury only coins money and issues no paper, electronic or anything other than "coined" money.
The article is entitled "US Dollar" the leading sentence follows as: "The United States dollar (sign: $; code: USD; also abbreviated US$ and referred to as the dollar, U.S. dollar, or American dollar) is the official currency of the United States and its insular territories per the United States Constitution." Under US law the word "dollar" is a Constitutional term which law is the supreme law of the United States. When you see the words "per the Constitution" why do you then tell me the article is not bout the US dollar "per the Constitution"? If we are talking about the US dollar and the Constitution is the supreme law of the land how can we have any other discussion than about a dollar per the US Constitution? Why would you even think the article could be about anything otherwise?
I hope you do not think I am being dismissive I really would like to understand what you are trying to communicate to me. I will repeat my requests from before: "But for the moment I am more interested in listening to you and what you want to change the article to and why. What do you think is a dollar per the US Constitution? How would you write it up and why? I sincerely would like to know what you think is incorrect about the current article."
Lastly you state "The dollar is currently Fiat (a process that began with fractional reserves, continued through Bretton Woods system, and following Nixon shock - any pretense of this being non-Fiat is long gone)." Do you have any references for such assertions? These assertions seem to me to be very opposed to what the article has long stated. But I will wait to judge based on your comments. This discussion I think would be beneficial to all so I am moving it to the article talk page. Thank you. 186.71.169.87 (talk) 13:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
I believe the article should focus on the current legal and financial reality - and not on constitutional history that should be mentioned and expounded but should not be the main focus of the article.Icewhiz (talk) 13:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
I believe I feel the same way assuming of course that it is recognized that the legal definition of a dollar per the Constitution has not changed or if it has we should explain how that happened. But your reply has changed my mind so I commend you for that. I have been confused and disliked the article because it seems to mix different subjects and not clearly address the separate subjects, for example why all the information and pictures of Federal Reserve Notes when that subject has its own Wiki entry? Why the superfluous redundancy?
But you have changed my mind, I agree leading with the historical and legal facts of the US dollar would be good and then transition into what others have characterized as the "de facto" aspects of the "dollar". After all, even I would have to admit that in common day usage I refer to and use things as "dollars" even when I know they are in law (de jure) not dollars. It would be a disservice to the public to ban this fact of life just as much as it would be a disservice to pretend that a legal definition of a dollar does not exist. I have been of the opinion in the past that two or more separate articles to address this reality would be better but I think you may be correct - address it all in this article. I would even concede that the main focus of the article should not be the historical or legal issues, they are important but I must concede to you that in my opinion if they are no longer being followed in everyday life the importance must shift.
I would have attempted something similar in the past but the "dogs-in-the-manger" editors that are in waiting I think would make it impossible to effect any real change, but one can hope. There are those that are of the opinion that a dollar is and only can be at the moment a "fiat" entity, which I have found strange since even the Wiki article on Federal Reserve Notes acknowledges them as being back by something: "Federal Reserve Notes are backed by the assets of the Federal Reserve Banks, which serve as collateral under Section 16."
Lastly I think a lot of the contention is really a misunderstanding to the Constitution itself. I have never read this anywhere so I must confess it is my own opinion but if one thinks about it I think it will appear obvious...the Constitution refers to the dollar in the lower case, I always paused at that and found it strange they did not capitalize the word. Since one would think if you were creating a new money for a new nation that you would want to emphasize as well as follow grammar in capitalizing a proper noun. It was only much later and after reading other works that I realized that the Founders did not create a "Dollar" but created a unit of measure much like a meter or yard... that is to say a "dollar". A dollar (per the Constitution) is not a coin (regardless the metal) or piece of paper or a computer entry. A "dollar" is a unit of mass measurement of pure silver of 371  4⁄16 grains as determined by Mr. Hamilton and passed by Congress and signed by President Washington. I used to think a "dollar" was a coin containing that amount of silver and issued by the US mint, I realized at some point the error in this thinking. So I think people including myself need to get past the monikers stamped or printed on or coins or bank statements or Federal Reserve Notes or whatever will come down the line - bitcoins, etc. These are just names given to objects that yes can be confusing and misleading but a "dollar" per the Constitution is simply a value measured in a certain mass of silver which currently runs at about 15 Federal Reserve Notes. Federal Reserve Notes being "denominated" in dollars and not dollars themselves (see Federal Reserve Note Wiki entry). Much like there is a concept called a troy ounce there is also a unit called a dollar... maybe I am wrong and maybe it is sacrilege but theoretically one could cut off the correct amount from a Canadian Maple Leaf a have remaining in the other hand a United States Constitutionally compliant "dollar" ! 186.71.169.87 (talk) 23:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on United States dollar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Photos

I've removed a photo of a stack of prop money. I don't think a picture of fake bills is especially helpful on this page. If anyone has a similar photo of real currency, please add it. Compuandy (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello. In the "Infobox currency" could we please have images of the back sides of the currency? CryMeAnOcean (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

History of United States dollar (article)

If anyone cares enough to fix it, the article History of the United States dollar is a mess. I have fixed it in part but don't have time to hunt the very large number of citations it needs. I stopped half-way down, no doubt the rest is of the same low standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.50.253 (talk) 21:24, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

United States dollar#Exchange rates

~ Hi everyone, I checked the history (for the last couple of years) can anyone tell me why we skipped 2016 and 2017? {The table is in succession from 2000 - 2015} ~ nice to meet everybody ~ Thanks ~mitch~ (talk) 12:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Mitchellhobbs If you can find a source that has the exchange rates for those years, feel free to add them. - ZLEA T\C 13:16, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

"Greenback" in lead

Hi Mitchellhobbs - as perWP:LEAD, the reason for having greenback in the lead and in bold is because of the redirect from the Greenback disambiguation page. Other slang terms may not have redirects, but if they do, unless obviously way too many, they should be there too. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 13:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Laterthanyouthink:, Nice to meet you ~ not in the lead ~ you will need a consensus on this talk page ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 13:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose ~I might be wrong but a redirect takes you to the article associated with the name of the article ~ like 'american dollar' (Redirected from American dollar) ~ thats a redirect ~ not to an Disambiguation page and then choose where you want to go ~ there is no article for 'Greenback' associated with the american dollar ~ so I don't think it should be added to the lead ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 14:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The "Greenback" nickname has its own article. - ZLEA T\C 16:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Greenback (1860s money) Thanks @ZLEA: ~mitch~ (talk) 19:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment You may not be aware of the use of greenback outside of the US? It is the most commonly used term in financial articles and the media in Australia, for instance: here and here and here and here and here and here, to give a few examples. Also common in NZ - a couple: here, here; South Africa here and here and India here. (And this is just a small selection of examples Google gave me.) It's not just slang, but a nickname used commonly in many countries. I hear it all the time on the news. I'm really not that fussed because it's not a topic I have any interest in, but for a good article about the US dollar with an international readership, I believe that it should appear in the lead and have a fuller explanation in the Nicknames section. (Also see Investopedia: "Today, the term greenback is an anecdotal term used by foreign exchange traders for the U.S. dollar.") Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Laterthanyouthink I suggest moving Greenback (1860s money) to Greenback (money) and rewriting the article to include modern usage of the term. The article is currently written as if the "greenback" was a form of US banknote (like the Federal Reserve Note) instead of only a nickname, which is inaccurate. - ZLEA T\C 13:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Citizens

How many citizens does the US-Dollar-zone have? As in relation to the second sentence in Euro. --46.83.140.188 (talk) 14:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

There is no "US-Dollar-zone". Unlike the Euro, the US dollar was not created as an international currency. Some countries have adopted the USD as their official currency, but the fact remains that the US did not create the dollar with this in mind.
The number of people who officially use the USD can be found by adding the populations of the countries that use the USD as their official currency. The answer is around 371.5 million. - ZLEA T\C 15:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
That was the answer I was looking for! Thank you :) --46.83.140.188 (talk) 16:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Keep in mind that this number may not be accurate as I added together the estimates for the number of people in each country. The true number may be different. - ZLEA T\C 19:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Table row-color

I had no idea the row-color represented the coin-color, until I looked at the Wiki source. The row-colors do not look at all like the colors of the coins, so I, naturally, assumed it meant something, e.g. no longer minted, withdrawn from circulation, precious metal. I removed the row-color, to lessen reader confusion. I think the color photos portray the coin colors quite well. Nick Beeson (talk) 00:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Fiat money

Now that the article is protected and the fringe theory behind the dispute identified as a common claim of the Sovereign citizen movement, shouldn't fiat money belong rather prominently in this article, if not the lede? I've restored some of the content to the lede, noting it's awkwardly worded and the sourcing should probably be improved. --Ronz (talk) 23:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

And I've trimmed away much of it as poorly sourced and undue, if not a FRINGE vio. --Ronz (talk) 23:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I think it should be clear it is fiat (it is manifestly obvious this is de-facto the case, the legal framework (which involves presidential orders, and the underlying US code, etc. is less obvious to me - unless we find a modern legal source covering this) in the lead.Icewhiz (talk) 06:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
@Ronz and Icewhiz: I would like to bring your attention to a recent edit which I reverted. The claim seems not to be supported by the quote, and doing a quick Internet search for "Public Law 73-10" seems that there are a lot of fringe theories associated with this, probably the Sovereign Citizen movement again. Does this seem like a justified assessment? I want to make sure that I'm not having an irrational PTSD-like reaction to this situation, which has reminded me of our shared past experience on this page. BirdValiant (talk) 05:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
The removal and assumptions that it's related to past disputes seems reasonable. --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Unofficial users

Is there any standard to include one country as an "unofficial" user of the dollar? I was surprised to see Chile included, considering US dollars are not in common usage, you can't buy anything in a formal business with dollars (except in the tourist sector), so I removed it. But I have the same question with other countries: Bolivia, Brazil, Uruguay, Colombia from what I know in the rest of Latin America. I know for sure that dollars are allowed in some shops in Argentina and that it is not uncommon for buying houses or cars. But... that means it is unofficial? Is there a standard? Most of the countries listed doesn't have any reference at the moment either, so I don't know why are they included. --B1mbo (talk) 04:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

B1mbo As far as I know there is no standard. I'm not even sure why "unofficial" users are listed, as there is probably someone in just about every country that accepts payment in USD. I would remove all the countries where the government does not accept USD as legal tender. Wehwalt what are your thoughts on this? - ZLEA T\C 13:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I would suggest getting rid of "unofficial" and only listing countries where the dollar is a legal tender, or where the US had made arrangements locally for circulating fresh bills and withdrawing damaged or worn ones as it does in some countries.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I've removed the list of "unofficial" users. - ZLEA T\C 14:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

This article has a problem in that the list of countries that use the dollar is either wrong or having various extents. For example, Canada is listed. In Canada, the USD is usually not used. Maybe in gas stations by the border, they might accept it but not stores in Toronto or Vancouver. Lebanon does have their own currency. On the other hand, Timor Leste, Panama, and El Savador do use the USD.

I am holding off editing to fix this problem pending bringing this up here. Inkfo (talk) 02:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Clean up on US dollar users

Hi Guys, I've rearranged the users between offical and unofficial. Although Bahamas and Zimbabwe do accept US dollars as legal tender, they are not offical users of the currently therefore I've place them in the unofficial users category alongside Tijuana which also accepts the US dollar unofficially. If you know any other places that use the US dollar as legal tender but not recognised as offical users, please place them in the unofficial users section of this article. If you have any questions or comments, please leave them here below this message. Thank you! ;) Put a mask on mate! (talk) 05:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

It looks to me that recent updates to the material relating to official and unofficial use, and to legal tender has wandered off into WP:OR and WP:SYNTH territory. I'll leave it to editors closer to the subject to resolve but some ground rules need to be established:
  • 'Official use' means "sanctioned by the monetary authority". For example, Andorra, Monaco, San Marino and the Vatican State are official users of the euro.
  • 'Unofficial use' means that the currency is widely used as money between residents, typically with national government approval. Kosovo and North Macedonia are de jure examples (euro), Zimbabwe de facto (US dollar).
  • Accepted from tourists: this is neither an official or unofficial use. This is a facility provided by traders who accept foreign currency at a good markup against the inter-bank rate [where available!]. This is not an official or unofficial use, because the currency is not being used routinely by local people between themselves.
  • Legal tender has a very specific legal meaning: it is the currency that must be accepted on foot of a court order to pay.
Comments welcome. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
As a "for example", if a US visitor goes to store in Toronto and offers a US$50 bill for an item priced at CA$50, will it be accepted? Yes, probably, since the interbank rate says US$50 buys about CA$61 and, given enough such transactions, it will be worth the hassle to the merchant. Does this mean that the USD is "used" in Canada? No, it just means that some traders will accept it. Not the same thing. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:39, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Dollar usage in Cambodia

As anyone widely knows (and as the citations I added report), dollars are widely used in Cambodia for any purchase or denomination that is relatively large, e.g cars or rental payments. Would someone be so kind as to readily update the map with the fact in mind that Cambodia uses the US dollar widely? I generally am not good at these sort of things. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 04:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_dollar/Archive_2&oldid=1208723831"