Currency for the Blind
May 22, 2008 3:30pm by Barry Ritholtz
This content, which contains security-related opinions and/or information, is provided for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon in any manner as professional advice, or an endorsement of any practices, products or services. There can be no guarantees or assurances that the views expressed here will be applicable for any particular facts or circumstances, and should not be relied upon in any manner. You should consult your own advisers as to legal, business, tax, and other related matters concerning any investment. The commentary in this “post” (including any related blog, podcasts, videos, and social media) reflects the personal opinions, viewpoints, and analyses of the Ritholtz Wealth Management employees providing such comments, and should not be regarded the views of Ritholtz Wealth Management LLC. or its respective affiliates or as a description of advisory services provided by Ritholtz Wealth Management or performance returns of any Ritholtz Wealth Management Investments client. References to any securities or digital assets, or performance data, are for illustrative purposes only and do not constitute an investment recommendation or offer to provide investment advisory services. Charts and graphs provided within are for informational purposes solely and should not be relied upon when making any investment decision. Past performance is not indicative of future results. The content speaks only as of the date indicated. Any projections, estimates, forecasts, targets, prospects, and/or opinions expressed in these materials are subject to change without notice and may differ or be contrary to opinions expressed by others. The Compound Media, Inc., an affiliate of Ritholtz Wealth Management, receives payment from various entities for advertisements in affiliated podcasts, blogs and emails. Inclusion of such advertisements does not constitute or imply endorsement, sponsorship or recommendation thereof, or any affiliation therewith, by the Content Creator or by Ritholtz Wealth Management or any of its employees. Investments in securities involve the risk of loss. For additional advertisement disclaimers see here: https://www.ritholtzwealth.com/advertising-disclaimers Please see disclosures here: https://ritholtzwealth.com/blog-disclosures/
What's been said:
Discussions found on the web:Posted Under
Previous Post
Coincident Index by StatesNext Post
Half Empty? No Such Thing!
The judge in this case (James Robertson) was appointed by Clinton in 1994.
A court system gone mad. A Congress that would make the Roman Senate proud and a legislative branch that has been alseep at the wheel. We are all doomed.
“A Congress that would make the Roman Senate proud…”
How can we expect our Congressional ‘Leaders’ to fix our economic troubles when they themselves are apparently engaging in the same fraud or were at least ‘duped’ into 100% LTV mortgages on homes they couldn’t afford:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/laland/2008/05/report-californ.html
(California Congresswoman walks away from her Sacramento home after taking a $578,000 100% LTV mortgage, and making no payments on it. Neighbors complained of unkempt premises.)
A pox on both parties…
I’m a lawyer and I still don’t get how we allow dipshit federal district judges to issue decrees w/ national implications.
Okay Judge Robertson, step aside, your fifteen minutes are over.
Never fear – a solution has been in the works for a few years now:
All paper bill denominations will approach the same value over time. Since metal coins are already different sizes, they will retain their value (and may even increase!).
In God We Trust (because it’s going to take a miracle),
Treas. Sec. Paulson & Fed Gov Bernake.
Barry this is off topic but I laughed so hard I just have to share this article about a Maureen Dowd column.http://whiskeyfire.typepad.com/
This idea of redesigning money to assist the blind is really ignorant. The blind have access to portable Optical Character Readers that speak into their ear. Anything a sighted person can see, they can “see” with the OCR technology. The Government already funds hearing aids; why not seeing aids?
What a bunch of ignornat pricks many of the above commentators are. Blind people are citizens and entitled to equal rights under the law, not to mention the ADA. Let me see you close your eyes and tell me the demonination of the bill. As the decision states, making blind people rely on others or carry around not insubstantial devices to determine the value of the currency is like telling the handicapped that since you can crawl up the stairs, we don’t need to make anything handicapped accessible. Plus, the fix is cheap. Next time you are in Canada, feel for the raised braille on the bills. The Euros are different sizes. Why are you all so attached to the currency that way it is?
I suggest you all read the judge’s decision and then come back and tell me how you can support your ass-backward conclusions in view of the reasoned decision of the judge.
/rant off
You tell ’em Will. I feel the same way you do.
Seriously, whats with all the complaints about it? Its hardly a big deal. The judge specifically states that the Treasury has been redesigning the currency every other year lately. Its hardly a big deal for them to incorporate these changes next time they do it.
Maybe they’ll change it around such that the US dollar isn’t the ugliest currency in the world.
As one of the “ignornat pricks” referred to above, a quick caveat. My issue is not with the ruling – I have nothing against blind people. My issue is with the courts going “mad” telling us all what for. At one time in our history, the Legislative branch made the law and courts interpreted it. Today, many judges act like King George (post above) and create judgements, rules and procedures without regard to the very people who were elected by the people to create laws for the people.
The Courts are a co-equal branch of government, rightfully stepping in where the legislative and/or executive branches fail to uphold the constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. That is their job. I suggest that austincompany go back and take a civics course.
My issue is with the courts going “mad” telling us all what for. At one time in our history, the Legislative branch made the law and courts interpreted it.
yeah, well, the theory is that democratic majority-rules government needs some help now in then to protect the rights of minorities.
This ruling doesn’t infringe on anyone’s liberty so I don’t understand the stink, other than your above-stated philosophical objection to the Court applying existing Law (the ADA) to a new challenge.
This left-libertarian has no philosophical objection to ANY branch of government extending liberty and making us a freer and better society; democracy itself doesn’t have that sterling a history in this area over the past 150 years.
To add to Will’s reply regarding the Court’s stepping in, realize that almost all Court actions will by definition entail overturning popular sentiment, whether through direct democracy (referendums) or representative democracy (legislative or executive) actions.
What is so surprising by opposition to this judicial decision is that it applied existing law passed by Congress and signed by a President. If anything, it merely logically applied the expressed will of the people.
Is it the fact that it was a Clinton appointee that has got all you detractors up in a dander?
Blind people should not have to rely on other’s honesty to ensure legitimate transactions. The decision was soundly grounded in the 14th Amendment’s “equal protection” clause and the ADA. I, for one, just can’t see what the fuss is all about.
Okielawyer,
Why would almost all court actions overturn popular sentiment? It seems to me that if courts follow the law–law that presumably reflects popular sentiment–it would almost always rule in accord w/ popular sentiment. I find it hard to imagine a lowly federal district court judge would last long on the bench if he routinely acted against popular sentiment.
Holmes said hard cases make bad law, meaning the law is not designed to answer and can’t answer every issue that might arise for every last litigant. Better that remedies in hard cases be narrowly tailored such that no new law is created.
In any event, what can this judge do? His ruling has no precedential or enforcement value outside of his district. Will he demand the Treasury change the bills it sends to his little federal district? Absurd, of course, and why he should have dismissed the suit when it arrived.
However, assuming we are to allow this court to order the Treasury on designing its currency, blindness makes a hard case. The intent of the ADA is to accomodate handicaps as much as is reasonably possible. Given there are many alternatives to folding money available today (e.g., coins, debit cards, credit cards, etc.), it seems that retooling the money presses at great expense to the general fisc to accomodate the blind might be unreasonably burdensome.
As I am learning in my old age, “…damn the cost!” The attitude of many of the above is that the government (and businesses) must make all things available to everyone – regardless of cost.
Perhaps it is the businessman in me, or maybe history. Our company spent in the six figures over the last ten years making our public spaces compliant with ADA. Money that we could have used for R&D or employee benefits. And how many people have actually used these ADA compliant facilites? Two. And one said she would have come in anyway with assistance.
So forgive me, ye liberals flush with excess cash, when I see yet another dictate from high demanding yet another costly change to satisfy a small minority. A minority that, in all probablity, did not place feely-touchy money high on the list of their demands from sighted peoples across our great land.
Ever since the beginning of the euro in 2000 I have been saying that the US dollar is for the blind.
Since then the dollar has changed – about 40% more visible even for the blind ones.
DonKei:
Why would almost all court actions overturn popular sentiment?
Because courts protect minority interests / rights, which, by definition are unprotected in popular sentiment. Just one example: the Bill of Rights protects unpopular speech, because popular speech doesn’t need protection.