I absolutely, categorically deny in the strongest terms being a “right wing nutjob”. There are basically no such people on Lemmy.
I am simply making a point that we don’t know what the “marijuana-related charge” is. Deporting a person to a country they’ve never been is never going to be a good thing.
I am not accusing anyone of anything. I’m saying we don’t know what the “marijuana-related charge” is based just on this article.
Removed by mod
I feel like every few years, the same thing happens:
During the era of payphones, a quarter was still significant money so it was still worth the time to adjust the machinery. Nowadays, there are typically only four machines that people regularly interact with that accept quarters:
These machines take coins, but generally deal in such small-dollar amount terms that replacing the coinage mechanisms just isn’t worth it in 2025. That’s the biggest issue with coinage reform plans. Hell, not even when the UK decimalised their currency did they change the size and weight of the coins, for exactly this reason. An old shilling was the same size, weight, and value as a new 5p coin and no changes had to be made to the machines.
Now, the problem is that while coin usage (and cash usage in general) is on the decline, these systems must still function for the percentage of people who want to use cash. And you definitely have a moral right to use cash and be able to conduct your daily life in cash if you want, either for privacy reasons, or because for small transactions it’s just simpler.
I have to agree with the sentiment expressed by the social media posts shown in the article. If your country’s electricity infrastructure is so fragile that a monkey could take it offline then it’s probably time to take a hard look at investing in improving its resilience.
I will edit my original comment. There is no reason that they couldn’t circulate in foreign exchange markets given the correct infrastructure. That infrastructure current doesn’t exist and to my knowledge would be unprofitable to construct.
I want to add a third thing to this list:
The parties in power surely pay lip service to the issues that concern the young but very rarely do they actually do anything about it.
These things don’t need to make sense. They very much don’t make sense. They are still real phenomena that need to be dealt with. You’re expressing a sentiment that I find is very common on Lemmy—that if it doesn’t make sense then it can be ignored.
If public sentiment is against a change that is perceived to be arbitrary and without benefit then you will encounter very real public opposition. There will be political repercussions to making this change. You will be slandered by pundits in the news and you personally will gain a reputation as a hard-ass who makes things hard for no reason (regardless of whether that’s true or justified), which causes problems for your future job security as now politicians think they can score easy political points by firing you. It wouldn’t be a consideration on Planet Vulkan, but on Earth, this effect is real and must be considered, whether you think it’s logical or not.
Coins don’t circulate in foreign exchange markets. They haven’t circulated for over a century. There are, however, reasons for this. You’ve already correctly pointed out that one of them is because coins are heavier. The second reason is because ATMs don’t dispense coins but they do dispense notes. When people go to the bank and withdraw money, they don’t receive coins unless specially requested. And despite the need for small change in these foreign countries, the logistical challenges of providing coins to them over notes are still too high for coins to find their way into circulation. Coins enter circulation in the US when businesses order them from the bank, which in turn orders them from the Federal Reserve, which receives them from the Mint. Banks abroad don’t bother with coins because they’re far more difficult to transport and distribute than notes, making it an unprofitable service to offer account holders, and they can’t just order them from the Federal Reserve—they need to go through a third party which increases costs. In addition to that, USD banknote-counting machines are prevalent worldwide. It’s rare to encounter a USD coin-counting machine abroad. The logistical network to distribute USD cash globally is built for notes, not coins, and that’s why trying to introduce coins in a foreign market is like trying to jam a square peg into a round hole. You’re going to find that every single step is going to be ever so slightly more frustrating than distributing notes, which all adds up to the point of impracticality.
“Because that’s the way it is” is very often a good reason not to do something new. That’s because of the human aspect of introducing these reforms. There’d better be a very good reason to change or you will encounter a lot of public opposition just because people don’t like change.
There is no reason that coins don’t can’t circulate in foreign markets but the fact remains that they don’t (Edit: for lack of infrastructure to support the logistical challenges of distributing coins). You cannot explain that away. It is simply not possible to adapt in the situations I describe. Saying that “they’ll adapt” is a very hand-wavey excuse that doesn’t address the issues with retiring this denomination. Without a $1 note, people in the countries that need it will just not use the US dollar and will choose a currency that has the denominations they need. In Zimbabwe’s case, people would be forced off the US dollar and onto a currency that is willing to provide them with the small change that they need. In that case, probably the South African rand.
That’s one potential solution. It’s also just un-decimalising the dollar in its cash form.
The quarter is the biggest problem with this plan. There’s just too much stuff that runs on quarters and quarters themselves as a currency denomination have too much cultural staying power.
Unfortunately, there being a 25¢ coin rather than the more globally-common 0.20 piece means that it isn’t practical to retire the nickel because it will still be possible to get non-multiples of 10¢.
$1 notes are important, not because of any reason in the US (dollar coins would work equally well in almost any application), but because the US dollar circulates widely in foreign countries that are suffering hyperinflation of their local currencies and have thus informally dollarised. There, US coinage is basically non-existent meaning the lowest denomination that can be transacted in USD cash is $1. See the situation in Zimbabwe where American banknotes circulate until they literally fall apart or the ink has all faded away off.
So the existence of a $1 note is paramount to keeping the economies of these countries going. It would be impossible to conduct business if the smallest denomination is $5 and your $4 an hour salary is paid in cash.
Remember, as unfortunate as it is, much of the US’s monetary policy is driven by the fact that the US dollar isn’t just America’s currency. It’s the entire world’s currency.
Look no further than the dissent to United States v. Wong Kim Ark (when the Supreme Court ruled that the passage you cited grants citizenship by birthright), written by Chief Justice Melville Fuller, the mastermind behind such legal opinions as:
Anyway, he wrote:
the children of Chinese born in this country do not, ipso facto, become citizens of the United States unless the fourteenth amendment overrides both treaty and statute
and
[Birthright citizenship means] the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.
So in other words, he was willing to rule that the constitution is optional as long as you are using it against undesirable races in order to get his way.
One can still fantasize about a brighter future, can they?
Rikers Island becoming the new seat of the American government wasn’t something I had on my bingo card
Machiavelli wrote about this. People don’t need to love you for your power to be secure, and in fact, it’s far preferable to be respected because people fear you than to be respected because people love you.
I’ve heard it said before that most of China’s geopolitical strategies can be explained with two statements:
I point my finger at Joe Manchin and Kristen Synema for sinking the DC Admission Act back in 2021. We were this close to a 51st state! The bill had already passed the House of Representatives and had the support of every other Democrat. Biden said he’d sign it.
Lot of derision but not much explanation as to how this strange system came to be.
Many state constitutions in the US were written in the 18th and 19th centuries. The key differences relevant here to this discussion were that during these times, suffrage was far more restricted, and communities were far more sparsely populated and isolated.
Prior to the 20th century, suffrage was not universal and generally was restricted to wealthy white men of status, who, as a consequence of their socioeconomic standing, also tended to be more educated and thus better suited to rationally judge the qualifications of office-seekers. A consequence of universal suffrage is that the education level of the average voter goes down.
Most Europeans severely underestimate how few people lived in these states and across how much land they occupied. The US typically granted statehood to its territories when they reached the mid to high five digits in population. The majority of Western states are the same size as the largest European countries. Let me use California as an illustrative example. Its statehood was granted in 1850 and it had a population of 92,597. So just imagine essentially a group of people fewer in number than a single small European city trying to run a piece of territory the size of Germany (California is actually bigger than Germany by 69,000 km²).
What happens in such a scenario is that communities become very isolated and insular. They get used to running their own affairs since basically any model of centralised government is going to fail when your population density is 0.2 people per km².
Understand that aside from tightly-knit indigenous communities (who were branded as “savages” and categorically excluded from participation in so-called “civilised” society) this was literally unsettled land. Empty plains, dry desert, and wild forest for hundreds of kilometres around where there was no law but those of physics.
In these isolated communities, you still need to fill the required leadership roles, but you run into the issue where nobody is particularly qualified to these offices and further still, the townsfolk don’t really want to just elect a single person to fill all the other offices by appointments. Rather the best way to fill these offices is by election where the community can get together and decide collectively who is best qualified for office. So how it would go is that everyone entitled to suffrage would, every other year, ride their horses into the county seat, which could take hours, and then listen to the candidates’ campaign pitches, vote for whomever they thought was the most qualified for sheriff and county judge, and then go home and never hear from those people again for months on end.
As a result, when these territories were granted statehood, most delegates to the conventions that wrote the state constitutions saw no reason to deviate from these established methods for picking local office-holders.
Edit: I realise this also doesn’t explain why these constitutions haven’t been amended to allow for appointed judges in the modern US. The reason is because politics in the US is extremely cutthroat and anyone who proposes such an amendment is taking a rather unnecessary risk with their political career because their political opponents can then attack them for taking away power from the voters in favour of “unelected bureaucrats”.
Okay, fair criticism