Earlier, I was sitting at one of those touristy bars where people write messages on paper currency and staple it to an area of the bar where it will presumably be for eternity, thereby guaranteeing immortality to the bearer in the most frugal way possible.
Sadly, I noticed a pinkish bill that had been stapled to the under side of one of the sections of bar slowly falling to the floor. Apparently it was made of material that couldn’t withstand its own weight, and gravity won out. While I couldn’t make out the country that produced it, I’m sure Rico and Rita are not going to be pleased when they come back to look for their message to the world.
That made me think of when I go to Canada, and experience their indestructible paper (plastic, really) bills. I simply can’t tear them no matter how hard I try. I guess that’s good, but I assume Canada pays more than a pretty penny extra for these upgraded bills. But why? Why does Canada care if their bills are destroyed by wear-and-tear or the elements sooner rather than later? I’m sure there are replacement costs to consider, but I suspect that many would just be lost forever.
Because it costs money – probably quite a lot, actually – for banks to return worn-out currency to the mint, for the mint to print replacements, and then deliver them back to the banks. It’s the same reason that Canada abandoned the $1 and $2 bills years ago in favour of coins.
Another reason for the modern plastic bills is that they have a whole host of security features that are virtually impossible to counterfeit with currently available technology, which is not the case for basic ink-on-paper bills.
BoC authorizes the printing of Canadian banknotes, but the actual printing is done by a private for-profit company, Canadian Bank Note Company. This is in contrast to the situation here in the United States where our unending commitment to godless socialism dictates that Federal Reserve Notes be printed by a government agency, the Bureau of Engraving and Printing.
Which, despite the name, also prints a wide variety of other currencies and secure documents for governments and private businesses around the world. I’d love to know details about the security safeguards and oversight surrounding this company!
You are right to worry about safeguards. I hope this is an acceptable quote:
“Portuguese counterfeiter Arthur Alves Reis was a case in point. In the 1920s, Reis forged a banknote printing contract and supporting letters purportedly from the Governor of the Bank of Portugal. He used these to deceive a London-based banknote printer, Waterlow & Sons, who held official Bank of Portugal printing plates. Waterlow & Sons used the official plates to print additional banknotes for Reis, which were collected in suitcases by an associate and transported by train to Portugal… 580,000 of 500 escudo banknotes, worth almost 1 per cent of Portugal’s nominal GDP at the time”
Don’t go robbing banks- cut out the middleman and get the cash straight from the printers!
But the government agency the Bureau of Engraving and Printing buys all the paper used in US bills from a private for-profit Massachusetts company, Crane Currency. Indeed, it’s said that the influence of this employer in the district of Senator Edward Kennedy was a big part of why the US never seriously moved to $1 and $2 coins like Canada (and most other countries) did.
So a victory(?) for capitalism and political lobbying over godless socialism and efficiency.
I’d suggest that the reason that the US never moved to dollar coins was because the US never stopped printing dollar bills. I doubt that was due to one company and one senator; Crane could have, and should have, done like the Canadian Bank Note Company, and produce currencies for other countries, and special currencies for private businesses (Canadian Tire money, anybody? Which was produced by the Canadian Bank Note Company, compete with intaglio printing and engraving.)
So why did loonies take off in Canada, while Sacagaweas didn’t in the US? Because Canada introduced the one dollar coin (the loonie), and immediately stopped producing one dollar bills. Yes, there were grumbles and complaints, but once those singles were gone from circulation, they were gone, and we were stuck with loonies. The same thing happened a few years later, with the introduction of the toonie, and the immediate cessation of production of the $2 bill.
That’s how you make a dollar coin work: you give no other option, and you don’t listen to complaints. You force it, by stopping production of $1 bills. Eventually, they will come to be accepted. Heck, at last check, I had $17 in my pocket change—enough to get a few beers at the sports bar without digging into the bills in my wallet.
It took me a while to notice it. I’d have a crumpled bill in my pocket, and after transferring it to my wallet, within a few days, it’s been smoothed out. The combined pressure/warmth in the wallet is just enough to iron out all the wrinkles.
A question for our Canadian friends on the tactile difference between paper and plastic currency: Old well-used paper bills, besides tending to rip easily, become flaccid rather than crisp, and can even become greasy-feeling. How does the Canadian currency hold up in comparison?
We turned the corner on our coinage and low value bills being useful to buy things so long ago that when we look back we can’t see that there was ever a corner there, that there used to be another way to go. Now they exist primarily to balance out transactions when you use higher value bills to buy something.
I think when it comes to US government decisions, the human citizens are not their customers. In the case of the decision to retain the penny and nickel coins, they’re listening to the zinc lobby more.
Quite well. As a test, I just looked at the 3 $20 bills I have in my wallet, and there’s not much to distinguish them as to age. I can’t recall ever getting a bill that made me think it was really old or worn out. Torn and taped-together bills are the only ones that really stand out, and the banks pull them from circulation when they can.