While I don’t completely disagree with some of your point, I don’t agree with the opinion that 1) it would be endorsing anything. Even now ABC or Newsweek or Facebook, or any other entity who sells advertising ENDORSES said advertising. Of course all those entities have some guidelines (ie no alchol ads).
That such ads are subjecting anyone to harm. We have “forced” advertisement everywhere we go. Even if you consume NO media, you see it on your bus ride, your car ride, or on the clothes of people you see.
From a collectors standpoint, it would probably invigorate currency collectors (as well as people who collect what is being advertised), and a side effect may be people actually SAVING money. I know I still have a wad of $2 bills my parents saved for me. (I think one is actually a silver note).
I can agree that it feels a bit crass and tasteless, and that it is such a different/new idea that it is hard to accept. But I don’t think it would have any detrimental effects. I am trying really hard to come up with a tangible negative effect, and I am failing.
And with over 2 billion $1 bills being printed in a year, if you sold ads at $1 per bill, you would made a decent amount of change for other programs. And the advertiser gets and ad that will remain in circulation for years, unlike say a magazine trashed within a month.
But this is the US Government we are talking about, not a commercial entity. It is specifically prohibited from endorsing a commercial interest in the Constitution. In any normal time, this would be the #1, and immediate thing, that would require Congress to impeach and remove Trump: he is personally profiting from his position as the President through the Trump organization (which he still owns) due to the Trump DC Hotel and Mar-a-Lago. It’s unconstitutional (emoluments clause) and illegal.
Let’s use your example of Pepsi. Let’s say an 8 year old kid gets paid his allowance of $5/week in singles, 60% of which feature Pepsi ads. That increases his Pepsi intake by 10% over the next 20 years. By the age of 30, he has diabetes. No harm? Come on.
Keep collector currency separate from legal tender. Collection takes currency that is meant for circulation out of circulation. There is plenty of opportunity for collection with collectible currency.
Try harder. You can do it. I believe in you.
So this is like an involutary tax. The government sells our attention and influence to fund “other programs.” I, and most other people, it has been shown, prefer to just pay the tax and know what it is for, than to have fees and hidden influence tacked onto our daily lives. It’s absolutely ripe for abuse. And, as cited above, unconstitutional. As a self-proclaimed fan of certain constitutional rights, you should be 100% behind this.
I kind of prefer this proposal from 2014, which popped back up on my feed last week. Benefits: different sizes for different values, and fewer dead white guys on the front.
Again, I am not sure one would consider it an “endorsement”. Though of course for this to happen, there would need to be a well crafted law. The Trump situation is a separate issue.
Note that the use of Mickey Mouse, Star Wars, and other “popular culture” characters on postage stamps were at one point also against the law or against regulations. Note too that there are some examples of post offices selling advertising with post marks. A similar concept.
I think one is over estimating the power of some ads on a dollar bill. It would be the most successful campaign in world history if one actually got a 10% increase with it. Also one is assuming his actual soda intake would increase, vs his preference changing. I mean it is a nice example, but one that connects a lot of dots that aren’t necessarily there.
Legal tender is still collectable. Such as state quarters or president dollar coins. Or just getting each year and mint version of a coin. But the commemorative currency they some times produce usually has a much higher sale price than the face value of the coin.
How is this a tax? 0_o It is a voluntary purchase from advertisers. It costs nothing extra to the person using the money to buy things. Heck I think the most likely reason for it to not “work” is advertisers won’t see their small ad will really have enough of an impact to make it worth it.
Now that I think about it, ads on city buses and ads say the NYC subway are all being displayed by state owned agencies. Are they endorsing those advertisers? Are they corrupting our minds doing so?
You’re basically making the argument here that advertising doesn’t work and is worthless. Advertising is a >$1 trillion industry, globally. Modern advertising (driven by, but not exclusively, digital) is tracked to lower than 1% error to ROI. If it doesn’t work, the spend is dropped. Period. I don’t need to cite studies to prove my point. ADVERTISING WORKS, as evidenced by it’s continued existence in an age when the return on every view and click is tracked in the fractions of a penny. It is its own, massive, randomized, blinded study with 7 billion+ subjects.
As to being harmless, I used the 10% figure as a low, conservative estimate. If something has value that can be quantified, and is sold from one party to another without the person affected being a party to the transaction, that is harm. People pay (or pay extra) to access services without advertising. People get paid to watch advertising. People get free vacations worth several hundred or more dollars in exchange for having their time wasted with for 1-2 hrs of advertising.
If you are being advertised to and not getting something out of it, you are being used. You are being harmed. Even if it is just a minuscule distraction; even if someone is just wasting 10 seconds of your day, you are being harmed. We accept ads from services like YouTube, because we’re getting something out of it. But to put ads on currency is a taking, with no payback. That’s where the tax would come in. The government would be selling something that belongs to us (time, attention) to a commercial entity, without our permission.
Legal tender and postage stamps exist in two extremely distinct spheres. Postage stamps are cute curios that serve a largely decorative purpose atop their underlying function as physical proof that you’ve paid for the postage. Legal tender, on the other hand, is a physical manifestation of the institution of government and a representation of the public trust. It’s already scummy enough that many of our so-called representatives are bought and paid for by corporations and the ultra-wealthy; now you want to trumpet loud and clear that the government is open to the highest bidder by putting McDonald’s logos on the $5?
Even postage stamps have rigorous and extensive audits to ensure that nothing that goes on a stamp is controversial or damaging to the image or reputation of the Post Office or the federal government. There is simply no conceivable way that corporate interests would get through such a process, nor should they.
Consider the inverse: commercial corporate presence on US currency suggests corporate sponsorship. Like the Toyota/WEBN Labor Day Fireworks, or Budweiser, the official sponsor of NASCAR. If you think big businesses have too much power now, consider how much more sway they’ll hold when it’s their corporate image on the line and millions or billions of dollars in potential lost revenue should the government do something that provokes a company to stop sponsoring the $10. Complaining about taxes and exploiting the tax code is one thing. The immediate threat of revenue shortfalls from lost sponsorships because, say, DuPont is mad about pesticide regulations (or AT&T is mad about net neutrality, or or or or…) is a whole 'nother ball game. Businesses getting involved with the treasury like this is a recipe for rank corruption and conflict of interest at an almost unprecedented scale.
Further, consider the impact such a move would have on the dollar internationally. Sponsorships give the impression that the US government is so unstable that it can’t generate sufficient revenue to operate without relying on voluntary corporate largess. How many countries would be willing to put their faith in a $20 bill that’s brought to you by Sprint?
If none of that is persuasive, consider the logistics, expense, and waste of taking sponsored currency out of circulation every time a licensing deal expires. Aren’t there better things we could spend our tax dollars on?
Hmm that isn’t something I considered and probably the best argument against it so far I have heard. Though I kinda think the idea could be popular enough that it would require a lottery system/waiting period for people to get the chance to advertise, as the amount of $1 bills made will be finite and NOT based on whether ads were bought, but how much fiat currency they can print before people complain Heck might even be yearly auction scheme where they sell rights to 1 million bill lots. And hey, at least then we would see how much influence AT&T is trying to buy, vs the back door deal with congress critters.
As for international impressions - it isn’t sponsorship per se, nor would the “value” or “strength” of the dollar be any different. I think there are 101 other things that can effect our currency value more than some new novel scheme.
Note too, I am intentionally limiting it to $1 bills for a reason. Not only is it the most often printed bill, but the one with the shortest life span. No, they wouldn’t need to remove any old bills. The way it would work is say Microsoft would buy ads on say 1 million bills, and that’s it. There is no continued ad scheme. The next lottery or auction would give the next business a chance to buy space on the next million bill lot. If they never buy another lot again, the MS bills will eventually be mulched from wearing out, or saved by collectors.
Like I said - make money, making money!
But I do appreciate your earlier negative example, it is a good one!
Heck might even be yearly auction scheme where they sell rights to 1 million bill lots. And hey, at least then we would see how much influence AT&T is trying to buy, vs the back door deal with congress critters. 