Tuesday, June 08, 2004
Re: Dead Presidents (An amusing aside and two rants)
(Original post) "The easiest enemy to beat is one who can't shoot back."
Though not as intended, perhaps if Hamilton had been a better duelist (not dualism ying-yang, duelism bang bang), we wouldn't be having this discussion. Hamilton lost his duel with Aaron Burr - thus entering the text of a Got Milk trivia question, and forever limiting his chances of achieving higher terrestial office.
Jackson, of course, won his duels. If Jackson had lost his duels, he probably would've found this to be a significant impediment to attaining the office of President and placement on the $20.
Rant 1
All that being said, I am not generally in favor of changing currency. Money has virtually no intrinsic value (indeed those that burn their dollars are actually recovering a good chunk of its intrinsic value). Any value that money may have comes from what people attribute to it for exchange. You don't value the million dollars, you value the MTV crib and the tricked out ride you can trade it for. Bling bling.
Ultimately the monetary system is an illusion, a trick we play on ourselves when we assign value to something that is virtually worthless. This disconnect in perceived value and actual value is where bubbles and sudden collapses come from (which rather frightens me).
However, I like the current monetary system as I don't see a better way for facilitating trade. The system will continue to work fine as long as everyone keeps believing in it. However, I prefer to not be reminded of the uncomfortable reality of the monetary system.
So with that in mind I don't like the constant redesigns of the US 20 (yeah that'll stop counterfeiters for what all of a few months - and then what - another redesign?). I really don't like the state quarters (I recognize that those who are numismatically inclined - like Thason - like the quarter redesigns for other reasons). However, the constant redesign makes it all feel like pretend money - a process that is exacerbated by the the new colorful bills.
I don't particularly care if Ronnie appears on any US currency, and am inclined to leave US currency as is.
Rant 2
If Ronnie must appear on a currency, I would rather pretend the Sacajewa dollar was never issued and put Ronnie's smiling mug on it. (Venturing into unPC land) I think that a country's currency should be reserved for those who made signficant contributions to the country. Sacajewa just doesn't cut it for me. I don't think the Lewis and Clark expedition was all that important and thus don't feel that a guide for a non-major expedition should be so enshrined.1 If an Indian was needed, why not Squanto, or Sequoyah? If it was desired to put a woman on a coin, what was wrong with Susan B. Anthony? or Jeannette Rankin? I think both made more significant contributions than Sacajewa (as did many many more women). Then why not a leader from the civil rights era? I would be proud to have MLK on a coin.2 If I had sufficient motivation I imagine I could come up with a list of thousands of people who made a more significant contribution to the US than Sacajewa.
However, I don't really care enough to do anything about it. Ahh... 20-something apathy. That's gotta be a significant contribution to the country. Now if I can just avoid losing any duels, I'm set.
Footnotes
1. Why do I think the Lewis and Clark expedition were of minor importance? Consider the following: the land was already purchased, no trails were set up, no important treaties with the Indians signed, no all water route to the Pacific was found, and people were going to pour into the new territories anyways. From my perspective, the only thing that the L&C expedition accomplished was an incomplete inventorying of a new purchase.
2. Putting MLK on a coin would be a far far better honor than putting his name on every crime ridden street in inner city America. Might even go a ways to reversing the truth Chris Rock identified in Bigger and Blacker.
Comments(0) |
Though not as intended, perhaps if Hamilton had been a better duelist (not dualism ying-yang, duelism bang bang), we wouldn't be having this discussion. Hamilton lost his duel with Aaron Burr - thus entering the text of a Got Milk trivia question, and forever limiting his chances of achieving higher terrestial office.
Jackson, of course, won his duels. If Jackson had lost his duels, he probably would've found this to be a significant impediment to attaining the office of President and placement on the $20.
Rant 1
All that being said, I am not generally in favor of changing currency. Money has virtually no intrinsic value (indeed those that burn their dollars are actually recovering a good chunk of its intrinsic value). Any value that money may have comes from what people attribute to it for exchange. You don't value the million dollars, you value the MTV crib and the tricked out ride you can trade it for. Bling bling.
Ultimately the monetary system is an illusion, a trick we play on ourselves when we assign value to something that is virtually worthless. This disconnect in perceived value and actual value is where bubbles and sudden collapses come from (which rather frightens me).
However, I like the current monetary system as I don't see a better way for facilitating trade. The system will continue to work fine as long as everyone keeps believing in it. However, I prefer to not be reminded of the uncomfortable reality of the monetary system.
So with that in mind I don't like the constant redesigns of the US 20 (yeah that'll stop counterfeiters for what all of a few months - and then what - another redesign?). I really don't like the state quarters (I recognize that those who are numismatically inclined - like Thason - like the quarter redesigns for other reasons). However, the constant redesign makes it all feel like pretend money - a process that is exacerbated by the the new colorful bills.
I don't particularly care if Ronnie appears on any US currency, and am inclined to leave US currency as is.
Rant 2
If Ronnie must appear on a currency, I would rather pretend the Sacajewa dollar was never issued and put Ronnie's smiling mug on it. (Venturing into unPC land) I think that a country's currency should be reserved for those who made signficant contributions to the country. Sacajewa just doesn't cut it for me. I don't think the Lewis and Clark expedition was all that important and thus don't feel that a guide for a non-major expedition should be so enshrined.1 If an Indian was needed, why not Squanto, or Sequoyah? If it was desired to put a woman on a coin, what was wrong with Susan B. Anthony? or Jeannette Rankin? I think both made more significant contributions than Sacajewa (as did many many more women). Then why not a leader from the civil rights era? I would be proud to have MLK on a coin.2 If I had sufficient motivation I imagine I could come up with a list of thousands of people who made a more significant contribution to the US than Sacajewa.
However, I don't really care enough to do anything about it. Ahh... 20-something apathy. That's gotta be a significant contribution to the country. Now if I can just avoid losing any duels, I'm set.
Footnotes
1. Why do I think the Lewis and Clark expedition were of minor importance? Consider the following: the land was already purchased, no trails were set up, no important treaties with the Indians signed, no all water route to the Pacific was found, and people were going to pour into the new territories anyways. From my perspective, the only thing that the L&C expedition accomplished was an incomplete inventorying of a new purchase.
2. Putting MLK on a coin would be a far far better honor than putting his name on every crime ridden street in inner city America. Might even go a ways to reversing the truth Chris Rock identified in Bigger and Blacker.
Comments(0) |
