• frezik
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    9 hours ago

    There’s an argument we shouldn’t even be issuing $100 bills in the first place. Counterfeiters have to spend money to copy money. A $1 or $5 bill isn’t worth the cost. A $50 is getting there, but if you put extra anti-counterfeiting measures around it, then it’s pushed out of reach again.

    Once you reach a $100 bill, though, it’s hard to have enough anti-counterfeiting measures while also being cheap enough to produce by the actual US Mint. Drop it entirely, and the problem goes away.

    • deo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      33 minutes ago

      Sorry, I’m gonna be that person… The US Mint makes coins, not the paper money. The Bureau of Engraving and Printing is responsible for printing, among other things, the paper money.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      28 minutes ago

      There was a very good reason for it back when physical money was more necessary. Now, there’s essentially no purpose except crime. Almost all purchases are payed cashless. If you really want to use cash, almost no transactions are prohibitive just using $20s or $50s. Maybe buying a car or house would be tough, and I’m sure someone does that with cash, but that’d just be the cost of choosing to use cash.