digg

Join DiggAbout

$5 Bill from 1896

en.wikipedia.org — The famous "Educational Series" Silver Certificate. The entire obverse was covered with artwork representing electricity... looks pretty wicked.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • nestcrw, on 02/20/2008, -13/+871A five with that many boobs? Can we bring this back?
  • theNazz, on 02/20/2008, -43/+621Five silver dollars... back from the days when US currency was backed with gold and silver instead of some big mouth with access to our printing press.
    • mysql101, on 02/20/2008, -1/+49speaking of which, with inflation and other things factored, about how much is that $5 in today's money?
      • Firehed, on 02/20/2008, -1/+110Somewhere between $123 and $150, going by a couple different inflation calculators.

        However the bill itself is still worth $5 if you're dumb enough to redeem it at face value instead of sell it to a collector.
        • HesNikke, on 02/20/2008, -0/+37It says right on it that it is worth much more than the modern dollar. "This certifies that there has been ???? deposited in the treasury of the United Stats" and "Five Silver Dollars" - or 5 Troy ounces of silver - $17.50 * 5 = $87.5

          Too bad the US government no longer honers the /CONTRACT/ that this /CERTIFICATE/ implies... :
        • Narrator, on 02/20/2008, -0/+19You could get paid in $5 silver notes and claim the face value on your income taxes.
          • nakani, on 02/20/2008, -0/+5slick.
          • Squires, on 02/20/2008, -0/+6A company was doing that recently with $20 gold pieces. Then the Federal Government came down on them with the pretense that they were only doing that to avoid income taxes.
          • EtherGnat, on 02/20/2008, -0/+2Yes, but I think you'd get nailed on capital gains taxes or something if you tried to sell them for a profit.
        • Navicerts, on 02/20/2008, -0/+6Yes but, who will you get to pay you in 5$ silver notes?
      • gordonp, on 02/20/2008, -23/+1Having 5 bucks back then was like having a million dollars!
        • timusca, on 02/20/2008, -0/+27No, it was like having $123 or $150, going by a couple different inflation calculators.
    • noseeme, on 02/20/2008, -54/+15Listen Paultard, you and me both know that the precious metal standard wouldn't work for a country with the scope of the United States in our international economy. Inflation is just a fact of life in today's world.
      BUT. It doesn't have to be as rapid as it is today. It's only like that because a colony of retards has currently has control in the White House.
      • MindStalker, on 02/20/2008, -5/+32And thats the problem, there are two basic currency systems
        1) metal standard currency has the problem of currency doesn't increase with population and production.
        2) fiat currency that can stretch and bend but be ultimately demolished if the backing government screws up, lots of historical context to back this up.

        I'd take number 1 over number 2 anydays, there are solutions to 1 there are no solutions to guaranteeing ones government will always be free of corruption.
        • jonlarge, on 02/20/2008, -11/+4Almost every major country uses a fiat money system. That includes European Union countries, Japan, UK, etc. Everybody is so quick to point out how we need to be more like them, including emulating their health care systems. Why is money any different?
        • flogistan, on 02/20/2008, -2/+2Good argument.
        • Laminarcissus, on 02/20/2008, -6/+6not "almost every major country uses a fiat money system." every country in the world, without exception, uses a fiat system.

          commodity-based systems are interesting dorm-room conversation, but unworkable in a modern global economy.
          • gyrfalcon, on 02/20/2008, -1/+2Tell that to South Africa mr. economics...
          • justinx0r, on 02/20/2008, -0/+5Um, up until 1999 or 2000 Switzerland had a gold backed currency.
        • OverlordXenu, on 02/20/2008, -4/+3We cannot move back to a gold/silver based economy.

          We should just get rid of the fed and have the government print money instead. That worked well for England, until the Bank of England took over.
          • gyrfalcon, on 02/20/2008, -2/+2Why exactly can't we move back to a commodity based economy? Gold and silver are two of a number of commodities that can be used to back the value of currency, and have done so for many years successfully.

            A fiat based money system is absolute ludicrous.
        • Fartag, on 02/20/2008, -0/+6You've hit the head on the nail there MindStalker, the answer is staring us right in the face. We should adopt the booby-standard so that it inflates with the population and has the same buying power year after year!
          • CrankyPants, on 02/20/2008, -0/+3Booby Standard, hmm? I have a feeling I'd always be broke.

            How would you redeem a 5 booby bill? It seems there'd always be one booby in change required
        • shandula, on 02/20/2008, -3/+0Fiat money > gold standard
    • trappleton, on 02/20/2008, -24/+5good morning im in des moines
      • esotericguy, on 02/20/2008, -3/+25aw, he thinks the internet cares!
        • MarkOfTheDead, on 02/20/2008, -1/+11Cut him a break, he IS in Iowa.
      • winmywii, on 02/20/2008, -1/+7I feel sorry for him.
      • CrankyPants, on 02/20/2008, -1/+7I heard that dying in Des Moines is redundant.

        /old joke
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 02/20/2008, -11/+16The really important take-home message here for all the Economics experts who think that supply-side economics and non-protectionist trade is a panacea; the US has had more than one failed currency. They start their "flat earth" economic model at 1929 when FDR social programs and strong unions, and labor laws rescued the economy, and since Reagan, they've been undoing all these protections.

      Every time the "free market flat earth" folks start cutting red tape for the sake of efficiency, we have that very same market fail. They de-regulated banks, and we got the S&L bailout. They de-regulated mortgage lending, and we had the Great Depression, and our current, mis-named "Housing Bubble." Like pigs to the trough, all the responsible financial experts come running every time some "genius" privatizes or reduces regulations.

      We've been here before. The history of the United States is not predominated by a strong Middle Class.
      • wezman2, on 02/20/2008, -13/+4It takes a lot of naivety to think a modern, global economy can run on a precious metals standard.
        • gyrfalcon, on 02/20/2008, -2/+11Especially considering it did so for many years before the lunacy that's fiat money was introduced.
          • wezman2, on 02/20/2008, -3/+1I put emphasis on GLOBAL. I understand the problems with the fiat system, but read up on the problems of specie currency in a global economy and learn why though a new system brings new problems, it still solves more problems than the previous one. Your argument is similar to saying transportation was better before cars because we didn't have the emissions problems, but you forget sanitary problem that existed before.
          • graystar, on 02/20/2008, -0/+4That is why there should be a free market in currency - not just gold and silver, let the market decide. There should be competing currencies not government instituted monopolies.
          • edjenkins234, on 02/21/2008, -2/+2please please learn something about economics before you ever say something like this again
        • Tommyhawk, on 02/20/2008, -1/+2It coulldn't be run the waying its being run now thats for sure.
      • Tommyhawk, on 02/20/2008, -4/+10Its pretty astonishing how much ignorance you were able to cram in one little post.
      • justinx0r, on 02/20/2008, -1/+13FDR is the one that prolonged the Depression which didn't end until after WWII. His social programs and his huge amounts of regulation kept the US economy in shambles. The Smoot-Hartley Trade Act (a protectionist trade act) hurt everyone by driving up the prices of goods. The housing bubble we're experiencing now is a result of the government keeping the interest rates super low for so long allowing people who make 50, 000 dollars a year to get a 600, 000 loan. It also encouraged people to misallocate capital because it was so cheap and the government's continuing taxation, regulation, and inflating is going to make the coming recession even worse. Keynesian economics are trash and have been refuted thoroughly. The Great Depression wasn't a result of a market failure and the coming recession isn't a result of a market failure. It's a result of government intervention in the economy and when the government tries to "fix" the problem it's only going to make things worse.
        • wezman2, on 02/20/2008, -2/+0I sort of agree with you. You can't have a completely free market economy. Government regulation and intervention has to exist to some point to avoid mass corruption. (i know i know, insert the Bush clan is corrupt comment here, but seriously government 'fixes' are needed to some extent)
      • jjmckay, on 02/20/2008, -0/+4VirtrioAndAngst, its pretty astonishing how much ignorance you were able to cram in one little post. The S&L bailout was a corporate handout on the taxpayer backs. So if the feds are paying to bailout banks then that is government involvement in non-constitutional activities. This is what free market advocates dislike.
      • Scaryclouds, on 02/21/2008, -0/+2I was unaware that FDR was president in 1929. Why is it called the Hoover damn then?!
    • suzywang3000, on 02/20/2008, -10/+0it actually says "pay bearer on demand". lol, bankers were stupid in those days.
    • Sogui, on 02/20/2008, -4/+13Yea and our economy has gone to ***** since then...

      Oh wait, World's economic superpower... huh?

      I swear it's like you guys would have preferred it when we were some backwards-ass frontier colony.
      • nakani, on 02/20/2008, -2/+6Our status is only protected by force supremacy. Sooner or later, we will be overextended militarily/monetarily and the facade will be lifted.
    • moush, on 02/20/2008, -1/+2Fort Knox has gold. Just not enough to cover everything.
    • ncurses, on 02/20/2008, -2/+3hahaha look how stupid you are
    • sselbor, on 02/21/2008, -0/+2Tell me if I'm wrong... but in 1896 I'm pretty sure we were backed solely by gold. Bryan was trying to switch to silver, but he never got elected...
    • MattyDub, on 02/21/2008, -0/+2Actually in the reserves back then the paper money was still only backed by gold. It was the Populist party that supported Bi- Metalism ( as in gold and silver in the reserves). The party didn't get what they wanted at the time. Just a little US History update for you.
  • Recusant, on 02/20/2008, -16/+953That is one ***** epic 5$ bill.
    • feshmania, on 02/20/2008, -0/+46that's the type of bill to strike fear into the hearts of people
    • RealmDown, on 02/20/2008, -26/+6It's green, so it's not epic.

      (been playing WoW too long.....)


    • franklymister, on 02/20/2008, -3/+36I have to ask, because I'm seeing this error more and more. What made you think the $ sign went AFTER the number? Are you not from America, and just unfamiliar with our currency? Or are you American and just don't pay attention?

      I hope that the people who keep getting this wrong are all from other countries. I fear that may not always be the case.
      • RealmDown, on 02/20/2008, -0/+39Blame texting and shorthand chat. In the same manner that ne1 = anyone, 5 + $ = 5 dollar

        Proceed to weep for our language. I did.
        • franklymister, on 02/21/2008, -1/+1Ridiculously, it takes exactly the same number of characters. I honestly think it's just that remembering where the dollar sign goes would require too much brain power for people like that.

          I know every generation rolls their eyes at the next one, but at least in the past, each generation could say that they were better educated, even smarter than the one that came before them. I think Gen Y might be the last generation to be smarter than their forebears. From here on out, each one looks like it will be dumber than the last. Idiocracy, here we come.
          • RealmDown, on 02/21/2008, -0/+2Ridiculous perhaps, even probably; however, it's not a matter of remembering, it is a matter of trained thought process. Hours per day of a particular type of communication will shape thinking for a lifetime. The younger started, the more ingrained. Texting will continue to change language like a ...... genetic mutation of communication (tm).

      • rjam710, on 02/20/2008, -9/+4He could be Canadian, that's how they put their dollar sign.
        • ta10n, on 02/20/2008, -3/+12No it's not.
          • rjam710, on 02/20/2008, -0/+8I thought it was like that in Quebec at least. I remember seeing prices like 1,50$ before, but I guess it's not that popular. I was wrong, my mistake.
          • mowe, on 02/20/2008, -0/+7Cool, you actually apoligized. Nice of you : )
          • Lanlost, on 02/20/2008, -5/+0We shouldn't have to thank someone for apologizing here on Digg. Aren't we supposed to represent the better half of America? You know.. the ones who are above thinking they are too manly to apologize?
            Wishful thinking? =/
          • hillkiwi, on 02/20/2008, -0/+3Lanlost: No - digg represents the better half of the WORLD. There are no borders on the internet.
        • Vindexus, on 02/20/2008, -0/+2It's how we're taught it in french immersion and its how its done in Québec.
      • VSLOATHE, on 02/20/2008, -1/+9Maybe because it's inconsistent to put the currency sign before money.

        Do you say m5 when you mean 5 meters? how about degrees 5 when you mean 5 degrees? Every unit of measure has its notation after its quantity, why not currency?

        I actively type 5$ instead of $5, because I want to see this changed.
        • mrbad101, on 02/20/2008, -0/+3It's just a shorthand technique for saying "Five Dollars". There are lots of ways that our language has "evolved" and this is just one of the things that has emerged from the age of texting that we live in right now. Granted, it's not right according to past ways of thinking, but it has become acceptable in today's world. Either accept it, or move out of the way for it. It's not going to stop because of how you feel about it.

          Complaining on Digg about the use of our language, is like trying to have a thoughtful conversation in Barrens Chat.
          • papusman, on 02/21/2008, -0/+3Language evolves, thank you! I actually majored in English. I'm a pretty huge grammar nazi, but people have to come to grips with the fact that language changes. The entire meaning of words can change. I, personally, write $5, but I see absolutely nothing wrong with doing it the other way round.

            Also, Barrens chat is so, so much worse than Digg.
        • CaptainTater, on 02/21/2008, -2/+1rofl no one uses meters.
      • elnerdo, on 02/20/2008, -4/+9Because you say "Five dollars" not "Dollars five".
        • klui, on 02/20/2008, -4/+4But you write it as $5. Doing it the other way proves you're ignorant, stupid, or lazy.
        • foned, on 02/20/2008, -1/+3or a revolutionary
      • heypetray, on 02/20/2008, -1/+13What's %5 of 5$?

        /Joking
      • mGARANDEUR1, on 02/20/2008, -0/+3It doesn't really matter that much.
    • rix0r, on 02/20/2008, -1/+3I'd buy that for a dollar! (or five)
    • hermslice, on 02/20/2008, -8/+3actually that is one ***** epoch $5 bill
      • whataboutdave, on 02/20/2008, -1/+1Fail.
        • meburnette, on 02/20/2008, -4/+1before posting your fails, please google the word Epoch, thank you. Now move along.
          • whataboutdave, on 02/20/2008, -1/+3"1 a: an event or a time marked by an event that begins a new period or development"

            How is that a pun?

      • K3ITHK, on 02/20/2008, -1/+1Win.
      • pinstripewizard, on 02/20/2008, -0/+2epoch fail.
    • jrak, on 02/21/2008, -0/+4In 1896 when you had $5, you owned the heavens and the earth!
    • ritzcracker, on 02/21/2008, -1/+1*****!
      I see *****!
      Are those real?
      No they aren't.
      WAIT!
      YES THEY ARE!
  • 93TILL503, on 02/20/2008, -17/+539Dugg for the money shot!!
    • DrDigg, on 02/20/2008, -8/+59i see what you did there
      • noseeme, on 02/20/2008, -4/+69I don't, because IT'S IN MY EYES!!! AHHHHHHHHHHH!
        • bbardlbradd, on 02/20/2008, -12/+4Explanation? I laughed even though I don't get it.
          • kcdstudios, on 02/20/2008, -1/+23um, google "money shot"

            i would explain but there are children around
          • IllBeBack, on 02/20/2008, -0/+13Semen in your eyes burns like hell.
        • markperia, on 02/20/2008, -0/+11eww? (question mark reserved for those who like it in their eyes)
        • Vindexus, on 02/20/2008, -2/+6ZE GOGGLES, ZEY DO NOTHING!!!
    • burnin8r28, on 02/20/2008, -1/+1...good job
    • mGARANDEUR1, on 02/20/2008, -1/+1nice..
  • macwisdom, on 02/20/2008, -37/+407Gee! Imagine that! A currency that is actually backed by something of value... What a revolutionary idea!
    • johnnybluejeans, on 02/20/2008, -7/+48Tell me about it. Shiny metals couldn't ever possibly lose their value!
      • DeadElephant, on 02/20/2008, -10/+23it could, but theres less chance of it happening vs. a bill backed by nothing.
        • brstilson, on 02/20/2008, -3/+5Hooray for bank runs!

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard#Disadva ...
          • gyrfalcon, on 02/20/2008, -2/+3You don't have to base the entire currency on gold... There are commodities like silver, platinum, copper, brass, oil, corn, wheat, etc that money can be backed by.
          • BabaRamDass, on 02/20/2008, -2/+5The important thing is to legalize other forms of currency, thereby destroying the Federal Reserve's monopoly. The market would decide which forms of currency are best; maybe it would be gold, maybe silver, maybe corn as gyrfalcon suggests--maybe all of them, or maybe it would remain fiat notes.

            When you have competing forms of currency, you have a built-in price control system. Essentially you have bartering, where you actually trade something of value for something of value; this used to be impossible on our scale, but with the advent of technology and the rise of digital money, it's looking more and more feasible.
          • Clark3934, on 02/20/2008, -2/+2That's what happens with fraction-reserve banking.
          • graystar, on 02/20/2008, -1/+1Like the one that happened at Northern Rock?
          • PxCxG, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1classic comment, brstilson
        • HesNikke, on 02/20/2008, -1/+2Did you know that Aluminum used to be a precious metal like gold and silver? now you can by sheets of the stuff for next to nothing...
          • Clark3934, on 02/20/2008, -0/+7That's because it took a lot of energy to separate the aluminum from the aluminum oxide. The aluminum oxide is found all over the world; it was just that no one heat a good method to separate the aluminum.
            Now we know how to do it quite easily, so it doesn't have much value.
            Gold and silver on the other hand... their value comes from overall scarcity and overall value in manufacturing processes, not from the sole fact that it's hard to extract.
        • smashhell, on 02/20/2008, -4/+1That is because we could Make Aluminum, we can't make Gold........... or at least I don't think ............................
        • Locke2053, on 02/20/2008, -1/+7The US dollar is not backed by nothing. It is backed by scarcity. By law, you have to pay for things in dollars. Take the value of all the things in the USA, divide that by the number of dollars that exist, and you have a REAL value for the US dollar.

          As long as the number of dollars increases only as quickly as the total value of things in the US, it is possible to increase the money supply and still have the dollar maintain its value.

          It really annoys me that all the geniuses with their economics degrees from Crackpot Youtube Video University go around claiming the dollar has no value. What a bunch of tools.
          • PxCxG, on 02/21/2008, -1/+3"The US dollar is not backed by nothing. It is backed by scarcity."
            Brilliant comment, locke. If only people like you weren't so outnumbered on digg.
          • Akronos, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1Unfortunately it's not so scarce now, is it? The whole point is that the government is printing too much money. You saw how they reacted to the looming recession. They keep lowering interest rates, which increases money supply. Money supply isn't matching the total value of things, it matches how much dollars the politicians and fed chairman feel like having.
      • Laminarcissus, on 02/20/2008, -6/+1"it is backed by nothing." i read that somewhere so i repeat it now. down with the FDIC or whoever i'm supposed to be saying "down with!"

        when is the next meeting?
        • BruceBogtrotter, on 02/20/2008, -0/+6Are you suggesting that it is backed by something? I see nothing to be sarcastic about.
    • JorusC, on 02/20/2008, -11/+50Metal-backed currencies sound like a great idea, but they have some major drawbacks. One is that the metal supply must increase steadily to match the economy, or we suffer deflation - which can be more destructive than inflation in some circumstances. Another is that massive inflation can occur in a relatively short time through something as fortuitous as the discovery of a large new gold mine. Should the discovery of gold affect the price of milk so much? And finally, it's just as easy to manipulate - you just hoard gold to starve other countries and drive the value of currency up, then release it when you want prices to drop.

      The gold standard was dropped for a reason. It's inherently unstable.

      That being said, this fiver is awesome-looking! We should totally hire fantasy authors to design our currency!
      • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 02/20/2008, -9/+8Finally someone who makes sense.
        Besides, what country, on our scale, uses a metal backed currency anyways?
        • Laminarcissus, on 02/20/2008, -4/+4our scale or not our scale - no one. no country in the world uses commodity-back currency. it's too inflexible in the modern global economy.
      • OverlordXenu, on 02/20/2008, -9/+12I agree with above, finally, someone who isn't a crazy Ron Paul zealot and actually has some sense.
      • esfisher, on 02/20/2008, -4/+21"One is that the metal supply must increase steadily to match the economy, or we suffer deflation..."

        Actually, that's not true. A metal-backed currency is like a stock in a corporation. When the value of that stock reaches a certain point, the corporation can "split" the stock so that 1 stock at X value becomes 2 stocks at X/2 value. This means that if you have 20 silver notes (each note = 1 ounce, for example), the government can double the money supply by splitting the value, so you now have 40 notes, each note representing 0.5 ounces. Your total money would have the same value, but you'd have twice as many notes to spend, resulting in no net change of your savings. This is different from what happens now, where inflation results in you having the same number of notes, each note worth less than before, resulting in a net loss of your savings.

        "Another is that massive inflation can occur in a relatively short time through something as fortuitous as the discovery of a large new gold mine."

        Which is why you wouldn't base the currency on a single metal. Having a currency based on real, diverse commodities guards the safety of it's value against such things.

        "And finally, it's just as easy to manipulate - you just hoard gold to starve other countries and drive the value of currency up, then release it when you want prices to drop."

        Same response to the last statement.

        "The gold standard was dropped for a reason. It's inherently unstable."

        No, the government needed a currency they could directly manipulate and create to finance their deficit spending. Unlike our current currency, you can't create gold out of thin air.
        • Laminarcissus, on 02/20/2008, -9/+3splitting? that doesn't even conform to accepted commodity standard theory. if the government can arbitrarily "split" the money supply by fiat, how is that any better than a fiat-based system? any time you give a government control over valuation against the commodity you've created a fiat mechanism.

          and we're going to use our GDP to "hoard" enough gold to affect its price on a global scale? we're going to become market-makers in the global price of gold? so south africa could triple their production, and we would be obligated to buy it all up to preserve the global price to keep our currency stable?

          and if you're seriously proposing a multiple-commodity standard, what other commodities are you suggesting?
        • BabaRamDass, on 02/20/2008, -1/+6"and if you're seriously proposing a multiple-commodity standard, what other commodities are you suggesting?"

          You have GOT to get out of the centrally-controlled mindset you've assumed. The market would decide which commodities work well as currency.
        • sweetholymosiah, on 02/20/2008, -0/+2Gold AND silver?
        • esfisher, on 02/20/2008, -1/+5@Laminarcissus

          "splitting? that doesn't even conform to accepted commodity standard theory."

          Yes it does, which is why some metal-backed currencies have the exact redeemable weight printed on the coin/certificate. If I have a $5 coin which reads 'redeemable for 1 ounce of silver', no matter what the value of silver becomes, that coin is worth 1 ounce of silver. If 1 ounce becomes the new $10 standard weight, then I can trade that $5 in for one $10 coin or two $5 coins. I am protected against inflation because of the intrinsic value of the currency.

          "if the government can arbitrarily "split" the money supply by fiat, how is that any better than a fiat-based system? any time you give a government control over valuation against the commodity you've created a fiat mechanism."

          If I own 5% of a corporation and the stock splits, I have twice as many stocks but I still own 5%. Similarly, if I own an ounce of gold and the currency splits, I still own an ounce of gold but I have twice as many currency notes. The value of your acquired assets has not changed.

          "and we're going to use our GDP to "hoard" enough gold to affect its price on a global scale?"

          We do not need to hoard anything. Precious metals have an intrinsic value because they are finite and used for trade. No matter who is in possession of the commodity or where it is, a valid claim to that commodity holds its value. The issuer of the currency (gov. or private) may own just one ounce of gold, but they can print enough currency for the entire country if they divide the claim to that one ounce into relative percentages. (ex. 1 note = 0.000001 ounces)

          "and if you're seriously proposing a multiple-commodity standard, what other commodities are you suggesting?"

          Gold, silver, copper, diamonds, gems, whatever... The more choices you have the better.
          • EtherGnat, on 02/20/2008, -0/+2But under your guidelines "splitting" the money actually accomplishes nothing (except create a nightmare where you have some $5 bills worth $5 and some worth $10). You now have a $10 note that is worth exactly what your old $5 note was worth. You've done nothing to expand the money supply.
        • Locke2053, on 02/20/2008, -0/+2If the government can change the exchange rate between currency and shiny metal at whim, then the currency isn't backed by anything. You just reinvented the federal reserve system. Good job, econ genius.
      • gyrfalcon, on 02/20/2008, -2/+9Why do people always bring up a e 100% gold reserve standard as a way of "proving" a gold standard or commodity based money system wouldn't work???

        The point of the "gold standard" is to prevent the government abuses of monetary policy.

        A silver dime in 1945 had less than "ten cents" worth of silver in it... Today that dime is value is worth $1+ because of it's silver content. The penny costs the government more to produce than it's worth today!

        The fiat money system is good if you're a crook or a liar.

        http://www.coinflation.com/
        • PxCxG, on 02/21/2008, -2/+1What example do you have of the fed abusing monetary policy?

          If you are so unhappy with the Fed's monetary policy, you can simply convert your american currency to the foreign currency of your choice. It isn't that hard.
      • noelsusman, on 02/20/2008, -10/+4Every country and every sensible economist in the world will tell you that metal-backed currency is a bad idea in today's world economy. It is not opinion, it is a fact.
        • Tommyhawk, on 02/20/2008, -4/+8Wrong.
        • heypetray, on 02/20/2008, -1/+2sources.
        • Squires, on 02/20/2008, -1/+3Shenanigans! Fiat currency and central banking create the business cycle. Sound money favors savers over debtors. Saving and investment are what leads to a heightened standard of living. We don't have to go to a gold standard, just end legal tender laws and allow competing currencies. Fiat is required for an empire. Which we are. The irony is, because the money supply must be constantly increased, the resulting destruction of the currency eventually ends the empire.
      • graystar, on 02/20/2008, -1/+3Metal backed currencies provide discipline to the money supply - at the moment there is no discipline.
      • Akronos, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1Gold Standard would be bad. That's why we aren't really advocating for one. Stop setting up strawmen and acting like a genius when you knock them down. Competing currencies sounds like much better idea.
      • Archaic1, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1Whoosh!
    • Haha71687, on 02/20/2008, -8/+3your currency is backed by everything now....precious metal monetary systems are just artificial pricing.
      • sweetholymosiah, on 02/20/2008, -1/+5No, the American currency, printed by a private organization legally accountable to no citizen, is backed by nothing. Using Gold/some finite commodity assures that no one person can increase or decrease the total amount of currency in circulation, and therefore the individual worth of your American dollar.
        • Squires, on 02/20/2008, -1/+2The Federal Reserve is a private organization that gets billions for doing something that the US Treasury could do.
        • PxCxG, on 02/20/2008, -1/+1The fed (i.e. the board of governors of the federal researve) IS legally accountable to citizens as it is NOT private: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_ ... There are, however, measures in place to prevent manipulation of the fed by politicians.

          Furthermore, american currency IS NOT printed by a private organization, nor is it printed by the fed (a common digg misconception) -- it is printed by the US Department of the Treasury (do I even need to include this link? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Departm ...

          Know your facts next time, idiot.
        • ncurses, on 02/20/2008, -0/+2it also causes deflation, which is devastating to the economy
    • nshady, on 02/21/2008, -0/+2The revolutionary idea was a currency that isn't.
    • mentallyinhell, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1Maybe we should try the petroleum standard:
      http://blip.tv/file/520347
    • mabhatter, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1currency is backed by the value of WORK behind it. it's just markers for keeping score... the idea that money has it's own value is the REAL problem. People working for MONEY and not land, items, etc of value. The bankers don't ever want money to devalue so they can always make money from inflation and interest. It's always funny to see this when inflation/deflation of a "dollar" pree-1900 was very wild... a dollar stayed defined the same but had wildly different values... like on ebay where you may find an apple for 1 dollar... or a 12 dozen for the same dollar next year. Our current model benefits growth and use of dollars over sitting on them. If you want value, collect real estate or stocks in companies. Dollars are just poker chips until you cash them in for a good or service of value to you.
  • foxhaze, on 02/20/2008, -9/+153We should bring that back.
    • vptel, on 02/20/2008, -10/+3.
    • OverlordXenu, on 02/20/2008, -11/+5Yeah, it would be a great idea to have our economy controlled by the rate of gold production (mining)! Never mind that there isn't enough gold in the world to cover the amount of currency in use, we'll just not worry about it.

      Ron Paul, president for life!

      /sarcasm
      • shakbhaji, on 02/20/2008, -2/+3I'm pretty sure he was talking about that specific $5 note not the monetary system.
      • gyrfalcon, on 02/20/2008, -0/+8US money has never been 100% backed by gold or silver... There are different commodities that can back money besides gold.
      • esfisher, on 02/20/2008, -0/+3"Never mind that there isn't enough gold in the world to cover the amount of currency in use, we'll just not worry about it."

        Yes there is.
        • OverlordXenu, on 02/21/2008, -1/+2"Beyond the difficulty in transporting, storing, and preventing the debasement of gold, one of the main disadvantages of a gold standard is that it would artificially increase gold's value, due to the additional demand as a monetary medium, and thus increase the cost of items and industrial processes in which it is used.[4] The total amount of gold that has ever been mined is estimated at about 142,000 tonnes.[5] At a gold price of US$800 per Troy ounce, or around $26,000 per kilogram, the value of this entire planetary stock would be $3.65 trillion, which is less than the value of cash circulating in the U.S. alone, where more than $7.3 trillion is in circulation or on deposit.[6] Under a U.S. gold standard, the price of gold would be more than proportionally higher, because all the gold in the world can not be brought in to U.S. bank vaults."

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard#Disadva ...
    • joshuabowers, on 02/20/2008, -1/+2Then you would have the extreme nutters screaming about indecent exposure whenever someone pulls a fiver from their wallet. (Now, if we could only cure the degenerates who still hold Victorian era taboos regarding the nature of the human body, we could be on to something.)
      • gonknet, on 02/21/2008, -1/+1The Victorian Era was from 1837-1901 (the reign of Queen Victoria). This bill was made in 1896, which if I understand math correctly, falls in Victorian era. So, how exactly do we need to cure people from their "Victorian era taboos" to allow a bill like this to be acceptable?
    • Squires, on 02/20/2008, -0/+3Boobs on bills or sound money?
    • Treason, on 02/20/2008, -1/+1Im bringing back porch monkeys...
  • ronpaul20008, on 02/20/2008, -70/+16the woman holding the torch... they tell you it represents liberty, but it actually symbolizes our oppression/servitude by/to the illuminati.
    • ElAssoWipo, on 02/20/2008, -4/+31hahaha, good luck with those elections in 20,008.
      • rabiddachshund, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1No, you've got it all wrong. It's just an incomplete math problem. 2000 and 8 = 2008! >.
    • iPirate, on 02/20/2008, -3/+10Okay, Mr. Langdon.
      • rabiddachshund, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1Did anyone else google Langdon, come up with John Langdon and go WTF?!
    • noseeme, on 02/20/2008, -24/+9This is what it looks like when a Paulbot segfaults from seeing how much EPIC FAIL Ron Paul is right now.
    • Pentarix, on 02/20/2008, -12/+5You're right, but these sheeple will never realize this and instead will waste their entire lives being willfully blind and ignorant to the world around them. I mean, the government has been so honest to them so far, right??
      • rabiddachshund, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER!!!
        oh wait...
    • Laminarcissus, on 02/20/2008, -3/+4the illuminati pale in comparison to the fear i feel from women holding torches.
    • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 02/20/2008, -11/+4Hey, did you notice that you've lost all the primaries? Oh you didn't? Well, there's always Kentucky. I hear Kentucky has more delegates than the entire United States, combined! And their delegates are backed by Gold!
  • scallon, on 02/20/2008, -4/+347The is by far the single coolest piece of currency I have ever seen. The old saying "they don't make 'em like they used to..." really applies here.
    • wesbc, on 02/20/2008, -2/+1Yeah, but have you also check out some of the latest currency from out country. Just recently saw the latest Hong Kong plastic currency with a clear plastic window. Now that is cool!
    • Lythium, on 02/20/2008, -0/+11My reaction exactly - since we're redesigning our currency anyway, how about an action shot instead of just a BIGGER presidential mugshot? Stills are to lame....
    • whataboutdave, on 02/20/2008, -3/+5Agreed. Too many presidents heads and references to god these days.
  • crackah, on 02/20/2008, -15/+3wow, they must have been rich!
    • DeadSkinMask, on 02/20/2008, -3/+2wow, you must have been homeschooled!
  • mikephimikephi, on 02/20/2008, -18/+5that is one fine looking fy dolla bill.
  • Ganja420, on 02/20/2008, -20/+123some chick bought weed from me and gave me 5 5$ silver certificates for half an eighth... (25$ worth of bud) they were from 1920-1930 and they were going for like 30$ a piece on ebay.
    • sharpwre, on 02/20/2008, -4/+63she definitely stole them......
    • orlyfactor, on 02/20/2008, -3/+51Great story.
    • Hellbacon, on 02/20/2008, -2/+60lol stoners
    • ubitendo, on 02/20/2008, -8/+93You're really HARDCORE for telling people on the Internetz you sell blunts...I think.
    • iamnotbill, on 02/20/2008, -5/+159wait. wait. ganja420.... sells weed?!!
    • yelow, on 02/20/2008, -4/+4Holy crap you made out like a thief on that one. I'd hang on to those and hand them down to my kids, and reward her with an extra dub or so. Maybe she knows where they're all stashed. :D
      • heypetray, on 02/20/2008, -0/+5***** that. Roll 'em up and smoke 'em! :)
    • DeviateSeptum, on 02/20/2008, -4/+28How do you feel about receiving stolen items?
      • theysayjump, on 02/20/2008, -2/+28Probably the same way he feels for smoking illegal substances.

        Pretty ***** hungry.
      • taintedzodiac, on 02/20/2008, -1/+3You do realize that selling weed is a bigger crime than receiving stolen goods of that value, right?
    • travbrack, on 02/20/2008, -3/+9dood
    • Protoman, on 02/20/2008, -3/+18Who pays $25 for half an eighth? An eighth here is $25. I guess that's just a benefit of living in BC :)
      • eatsleeptrumpet, on 02/20/2008, -0/+2seriously!! i'm from toronto and living in california now - the markups down here are disgusting
        • heypetray, on 02/20/2008, -0/+6Welcome to CA, where the world's highest quality marijuana is grown... Pay for it.
        • xxNIRVANAxx, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1Woo, I'll be in Cali for March Break! To the dank I come!
        • SolitarySoviet, on 02/20/2008, -1/+3Oregon bud beats CA bud any day of the week... I dare you to prove me wrong. that's all there is to do in Oregon
      • Archaic1, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1Say hi to Jesus for me if you see him sometime in the future
    • Laminarcissus, on 02/20/2008, -2/+9...but my point is...i'm an awesome pot dealer!
      • mahdaeng, on 02/20/2008, -3/+7Exactly. Bragging about selling pot and receiving stolen goods to impress people on Digg is so cool.
        • SolitarySoviet, on 02/20/2008, -1/+1and it is because you can never have too many hookups. its just good advertising that's all.
    • Typhoon2009, on 02/20/2008, -0/+7Party van time
    • jjcool430, on 02/20/2008, -4/+36"Billy Kilbey (Ganja420)A 20 year-old male from Knoxville, TN (US) who joined Digg on October 4th, 2007"

      Maybe I have more skills than any DEA agent...but I sure hope you used a fake name. I'm pretty sure it's still a felony to SELL the stuff
    • yanivalfasy, on 02/20/2008, -1/+4Hiiigh Five?
    • DiggBuryMe, on 02/21/2008, -0/+0Bet her parents were PISSED when they realized the notes were gone.

      Was that why you were caught?
  • hokeywebb22, on 02/20/2008, -2/+116Why can't we have epic pieces of art on our money now?
    • ours, on 02/20/2008, -1/+66A zillion people getting offended by a naked booby?
      • drlha, on 02/20/2008, -0/+42Perhaps if we had naked boobies on the money people would get the ***** over it.
        • ours, on 02/20/2008, -0/+16One can hope. But I expected breast feeding to have solved that issue and here we are. Early exposure to boobies doesn't seem to have an effect in the US. Damn you boobies, tool of the devil!
          • OverlordXenu, on 02/20/2008, -0/+15It's strange...In Europe, boobies aren't all sexualized. In the US, they are.

            And yet men can have boobies, that for the most part, don't look different than female boobies.

            And yet we require females to cover up their boobies on the beach, but not men.

            Is it just me, or are indecency laws extremely sexist?
          • Radical5, on 02/20/2008, -0/+12I agree, women should be allowed to be topless just like men wherever they go.
          • nakani, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1I once saw some chick nonchalantly walking down the street with a top that covered only one of her breasts. It was magnificent.
    • orlyfactor, on 02/20/2008, -4/+13Purple money would be sweet!
    • orlyfactor, on 02/20/2008, -3/+5Purple money would be awesome.
    • ChazHollywood, on 02/20/2008, -12/+8Because it has angels, and the atheists would get all upset that it's not an evolutionary chart instead and file a lawsuit.
      • TheInfamousOne, on 02/20/2008, -2/+22but the angels are naked, so that nulifies everything.
        BTW, as an athiest, i just saw a chick with wings.
        • Agrunt007, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1Those damn atheist and their wars, terrorist, politicizing phoney outrage,--- oh wait that's everyone else lol.
        • Kyan, on 02/20/2008, -0/+3FYI, chicks DO have wings.
      • Mutton, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1In God We Trust?
    • terminal157, on 02/20/2008, -0/+6Because the government, and most of the people, no longer value fine art.
    • sweetholymosiah, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1You should check out the totally epic scene on the back of Canadian cash... Hockey and Birds!! Praise!
    • mGARANDEUR1, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1We are more focused on trying to make bills that are hard to counterfeit. The new bills that are being printed look more and more like monopoly money or Canadian money than a serious form of currency.
      • *jooloop*, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1Our money looks like Monopoly? Look at the Euro and Swiss Frank. Plus they're HUGE (well, the higher denomination ones are...)

    • tgc1, on 02/21/2008, -0/+0Because it's not worth it anymore.
  • phaseblue, on 02/20/2008, -3/+336Not pictured: the internal speakers that blast Led Zeppelin every time you (triumphantly) pull out the bill.
    • elk80, on 02/20/2008, -2/+13Ahhhhhhhhh Ahh! Ahhhhhhhhhhhh Ahh! We come from the land of the ice and snow where the....
      • DemDude, on 02/20/2008, -0/+2That's just what I thought of! Immigrant Song's ***** awesome =D
    • z1freeride, on 02/20/2008, -0/+3How 'bout "Squeeze my lemon... till the juice runs down my leg..."
  • Skurt, on 02/20/2008, -19/+7So when did we go from Boobs on the Bills to there is no such thing as boobs in America?

    I'm sure if the FCC had anything to do with this anyone who carried this money would be fined.

    Let's put Janet Jackson's boob on the next $5.00 bill!
    • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 02/20/2008, -0/+8Let's find something other than a haggard, wrinkly, no talented, 45 year old Boob to put on our next $5... ok?
      • quiggibub, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1I agree. Her ***** are pretty gross.
  • lnxfi, on 02/20/2008, -1/+230Trumpets, horses and *****. Why did we ever stop using this?!
    • sensor, on 02/20/2008, -9/+14Christians.
      • nakani, on 02/20/2008, -0/+10The country was mostly Christian when we started using them.
      • PxCxG, on 02/20/2008, -0/+7No, feminists.
      • mGARANDEUR1, on 02/20/2008, -0/+4Art became big in the Renaissance period because of Christianity. You might want to trying backing something like that up after you blabber it out.
  • mtxrawkus, on 02/20/2008, -4/+163Dugg for reminding me that things were cool and un-PC once...
    • TinternAbbot, on 02/20/2008, -0/+0Except for the fact that the bill was pulled due to obscenity. Some things never change.
  • santixar, on 02/20/2008, -3/+54Note it just says United States, not "Of America"
    • Rocketbird, on 02/20/2008, -1/+23Not to be confused with the United States of Finland.
    • sorrow, on 02/20/2008, -2/+39and that there is no "In God We Trust" being broadly proclaimed for the entire country
      • Groovemaster, on 02/20/2008, -6/+14No, that was introduced later to differentiate Americans from the "godless communists".

        Well, that was the alibi anyway. It was really just to promote a nation of subservient, unquestioning sheep.

        And it worked.
    • Haz3rd, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1Terrorists!
  • Klarth, on 02/20/2008, -2/+59Dollar bill != silver certificate.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_certificate

    Also relevant: "The naked breasts of the female figures on the $5 Silver Certificate reportedly caused some minor controversy when several Boston society ladies took offense to the design. Some bankers reportedly refused to accept the notes in transactions, and the term banned in Boston allegedly originates from the $5 Silver Certificate. The notes were quickly replaced for the Series of 1899 notes."
    • gametavern, on 02/20/2008, -3/+1but it says silver certificate on the edge of it
    • Ninja337, on 02/20/2008, -3/+32***** you Boston
    • OverlordXenu, on 02/20/2008, -1/+13First boobs, now lite-brights.
    • coinspired, on 02/20/2008, -0/+5but the term "Banned in DC" - that originates from Bad Brains.
    • mGARANDEUR1, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1Damn MA liberals. Always ruining our fun.
    • tgc1, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1I'm amazed Boston uses electricity the way they act.
  • dbldwn, on 02/20/2008, -3/+84People fought a lot harder for liberty back then for some reason.
  • pintomp3, on 02/20/2008, -31/+18buried as inaccurate. it doesn't say "in god we trust" on it. ron paul told me this country was founded as a christian nation.
    • MindStalker, on 02/20/2008, -3/+38You don't have to trust god when you have silver backing your money :)
      • gyrfalcon, on 02/20/2008, -2/+2Or the government.
        • MindStalker, on 02/20/2008, -1/+3When you have to trust the government is when you need to put your head between your knees and kiss your ass goodbye.
    • Chode2235, on 02/20/2008, -0/+30Eisenhower had "In God We Trust" added to all our coins and paper money. Mostly as a way for us good Christian people to differentiate ourselves from the heathen communists.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust
    • monkeyvoodoo, on 02/20/2008, -2/+4[citation needed]
      • pintomp3, on 02/20/2008, -2/+5"The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state."
        http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html
  • ubitendo, on 02/20/2008, -25/+2I was our currency was still just as badass.

    *blames jews, muslims, catholics, atheists, communists, liberals, scientologists, the elite, the poor, conservatives and the pumpkin-man for current currency graphix*
  • yohnstoppable, on 02/20/2008, -7/+39Dugg for Boobies
    • bbardlbradd, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1There digg, now we have another front page story to digg.
  • sassyt, on 02/20/2008, -1/+5very cool! they were freaky back in the 1890s it seems, with all those ladies there!
    • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 02/20/2008, -0/+7And they're not malnourished anorexic skanks!
  • tinkafoo, on 02/20/2008, -2/+11HOT.

    $$
  • Midtowner, on 02/20/2008, -3/+47Rule 34 existed before the internet.
    • wrzhydr, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1I have this strange feeling that if I ask about Rule 34, I will get told that I am not following the first 2 rules. Anyone care to explain?
      • Amadeus2490, on 02/21/2008, -0/+2You're not following the first two rules.
  • exomni, on 02/20/2008, -0/+2That's pretty awesome. Wish I had one of those.
  • Scopitone, on 02/20/2008, -2/+7Now thats a titty
  • dickeywayne, on 02/20/2008, -9/+4Boobs and money. It just don't git no better'n that! LOL!
  • Frostman3D, on 02/20/2008, -26/+25It's a shame it's still not backed by silver or gold. Ron Paul FTW!
    • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 02/20/2008, -4/+9What an odd definition of "Win" you people have...
    • obixx, on 02/20/2008, -4/+6You still think he has a chance?
      • Frostman3D, on 02/20/2008, -3/+5A chance? Yes. An incredibly slim one. If every other candidate died, and Bloomburg didn't enter the race, then yes, he has a shot.
        • Amadeus2490, on 02/21/2008, -1/+1And if the government and the media weren't stacked against him, and if the voting machines weren't rigged.
    • bbardlbradd, on 02/20/2008, -7/+1I would love RP in office, I think that's what we need... but things are changing. He doesn't have a chance. Your vote for him will be nearly useless and someone that you definitely didn't want in office will be elected.

      Also, wtf would I do with silver? Am I really supposed to pay for fastfood and rockstars in silver, or should I instead use the silver to build an oven, or the aluminum can that will hold the rockstar?
      • Hartley1942, on 02/20/2008, -1/+2Use silver to build an aluminum can. You sir are to most brilliant man Ive ever seen.
    • Vltava, on 02/20/2008, -1/+4Gold and silver-backed currency was abolished for practical reasons. Ron Paul is stuck in the nineteenth century.
      • tgc1, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1I think i'll stick with the idea that it was abolished for greed reasons. It's no coincidence that the central banks have most of the silver and gold anyway.
  • zwendkos, on 02/20/2008, -1/+4way more bad ass than what we have now!
  • Pentarix, on 02/20/2008, -7/+18Silver backed money that is actually worth something... what a quaint idea!
    • bbardlbradd, on 02/20/2008, -3/+2The time that I spend working is worth more than I could do with silver. Could I melt that silver into jeans? Could I craft it into taco bell? I don't want Taco Bell to have a ***** of silver, that's scary.
  • mikepictor, on 02/20/2008, -9/+96and the phrase "In God we trust" appears no where on it, just like the pledge of allegiance at the time.
    • soulmist, on 02/20/2008, -6/+5Is it just me or are you completely overlooking the fact that the bill is covered in angels?
      • spartan777, on 02/20/2008, -0/+10angels? those are much more likely to represent roman gods and goddesses. also, it is typical to represent liberty with a woman.
        • akamurph, on 02/20/2008, -1/+0a woman with wings?
        • soulmist, on 02/20/2008, -2/+1angel wings?
        • rengeek, on 02/20/2008, -0/+2Biblically speaking, Angels are not described as having wings. Though they did fly. Mythological characters are very common images in the 18th and 19th century. Religious imagery was reserved for worship and the church. Back then they understood the separation of church and state.
      • bbardlbradd, on 02/20/2008, -0/+6And *****.
      • Andyschism, on 02/20/2008, -0/+4And metal power.
    • beavis777, on 02/20/2008, -2/+12For those not aware that this ridiculous motto was not added to our paper money until 1957:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust
      • SatansSpatula, on 02/20/2008, -1/+3Why the hell is he getting buried for posting a proper reference?
        • krd1979, on 02/20/2008, -1/+3For stating that the motto is "ridiculous". To those who believe in and support the motto that is rather offensive. Also, that link was already given in an earlier comment.
  • ike6116, on 02/20/2008, -3/+46Epic currency would stimulate the economy AND my pants!
    • bbardlbradd, on 02/20/2008, -2/+1You would be less inclined to give it up too, that would be great for our economy.

      /sarcasm
  • dumpyhumpy, on 02/20/2008, -11/+4Rumsfeld would've had those boobies covered up immediately. We were so liberal in the 1800's
    • noseeme, on 02/20/2008, -0/+7No, female breasts were not yet sexualized. This is a relatively modern and very stupid ideal.
    • dumpyhumpy, on 02/20/2008, -1/+10Sorry, now I think it was Ashcroft who had the stachue's breasts covered. Let the EAAAAAGLLLLEEE SOOOOOOAAAAR
  • KiloKaan, on 02/20/2008, -4/+3why couldn't they have kept it with a "M" rating?
    • DeadSkinMask, on 02/20/2008, -0/+4The human body should not have an "M' rating.
  • kronzdigg, on 02/20/2008, -8/+35That $5 bill is so beautiful for two reasons. the artwork and IT IS BACKED BY SILVER!!!!!!!
  • laurasmith76, on 02/20/2008, -0/+8Timeline of $5 bill found here: http://www.portfolio.com/interactive-features/2008 ...
  • mal1964, on 02/20/2008, -0/+7Anyone have change for a five thousand dollar bill?
    • Pyrerit, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1Will you accept two twenty five hundreds or a thick stack of 1250 fours?
  • Pyrerit, on 02/20/2008, -0/+11The Canadian $20 had boobs on it in 1937 and circulated till 1954+
  • ostracize, on 02/20/2008, -1/+8Doesn't it remind you of the star wars poster?:
    http://www.nerf-herders-anonymous.net/images/StarW ...
  • DblTap, on 02/20/2008, -1/+9Anyone know what the other side looks like by chance?
  • rmw132, on 02/20/2008, -6/+3[citation needed]
  • djdementia, on 02/20/2008, -0/+0Currently going for a Buy It Now price on Ebay of $749: http://cgi.ebay.com/1896-5-Silver-Certificate-Educ ...
    • LostAngeles, on 02/21/2008, -0/+2"worn with a few holes...no real problems."
  • sdlvx, on 02/20/2008, -8/+2Funny, I don't see "In God We Trust" anywhere on it.

    This looks exactly like the kind of money a christian nation would use, too.
    • jonshipman, on 02/20/2008, -0/+5I don't know, it looks like Zeus in the bg throwing lightening...
  • JimiSlew, on 02/20/2008, -7/+1I so prefer currency with pictures of our national leaders. Gives me someone to look up to...
    • whataboutdave, on 02/20/2008, -1/+2Why? I think personifications of Liberty and Columbia are much more inspirational. Plastering Presidents on money is too similar to monarchy for me.
      • krd1979, on 02/20/2008, -1/+2Not all currency features presidents. Alexander Hamilton ($10) and Benjamin Franklin ($100) were never president, but were founding fathers and extremely influential in the beginnings of the United States.
  • samkline, on 02/20/2008, -29/+1Why do people digg this? Its been on Wikipedia since 2004. Its nothing special.
    You guys are ***** morons. Buried as spam.
    • mille716, on 02/20/2008, -0/+6Um, because there are over two million wikipedia articles. Are we supposed to assume that you've already seen this when it first showed up '04? Its cool, samkline, and its new to those of us who haven't seen every wiki article. And what do you mean by spam? Did you feel the picture was trying to coerce you into buying a 1896 five dollar bill? YOU are a ***** moran.
      • mille716, on 02/20/2008, -0/+5I think my point would have been better had I not misspelled "moron" at the end.
    • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 02/20/2008, -2/+3Yeah and it was on our currency in 1896. WHY BOTHER WITH IT NOW?
    • bbardlbradd, on 02/20/2008, -1/+1There done, you're buried as spam.
    • Existenz87, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1I wish I lived in your world where I could absorb all the history of the world.
  • VenDrake, on 02/20/2008, -0/+3Anybody know what the inflation adjusted value of 5USD from 1896 would be? I'm wondering how much that bill was worth when it was hot off the press? I'm guessing it was like $200 in today's money.
    • noonjab, on 02/20/2008, -0/+2Around $120
    • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 02/20/2008, -0/+5http://www.westegg.com/inflation/
    • billski, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1i think it would be more interesting to see,by weight, how much $5 of silver would have been then versus now.
      • PeppermintPig, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1Did you hear that? It was the sound of a silver pin dropping. Heh.
    • bearsandbulls, on 02/20/2008, -0/+4Money today is worth about 4% of what is was then so yeah about 120.
    • PeppermintPig, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1120 is just the adjusted value for what it represents... and despite this government not having any value backing in its money supply, it's still probably worth more.
  • mogebier, on 02/20/2008, -11/+3ZOMG!!!

    i LOVE B00BIES ON MY MONIES!!

    oH CRAP, cAPSLOCK!!
  • hasslinthehoff, on 02/20/2008, -1/+10A damn sight cooler than the bland bills we have now... I think it's time for some retro currency!
  • archivist, on 02/20/2008, -2/+21very stunning artwork
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 158 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.