Have you seen the new $20 bill yet? Let me tell you, it's nothing to write home about and it's certainly not worth $32 million in advertising. It's still only worth 20 bucks. It still looks like 20 bucks. The American public will be very receptive to them: we like money, no matter what it looks like.* Instead of spending $32 million in advertising, maybe they should have just mailed out $32 million in new $20's. (That way they can advertise for the post office and the new bills at the same time.) If I had received a new $20 from the government, I would most likely spend it. That's the goal of the advertising, right...that we spend the money? Well guess what: if I receive a new $20, no matter if the government gives it to me or I receive it as change for a transaction or I find it on the sidewalk, I, along with most other Americans will spend it as if it were an old "greenback" $20. No amount of advertising would make me want to spend it any more or any less.
*Unless, of course, you're talking about a Sacajewea Dollar. Now that's a product that needed help catching on.
Posted by christin at October 27, 2003 05:35 PM | TrackBackno, the point is so joe dude won't go "what the heck is this?" while doing a deal and then blow john dude's head off.
Posted by: bobw at October 27, 2003 05:56 PMyou should be an economist--I'm not kidding, you missed your calling.
Posted by: Matthew at October 27, 2003 07:00 PMI love your economic theory! We should all write to our Congressional reps and get them on this bandwagon before they introduce the new $50 bill or the new $100! :-)
Posted by: Rus at October 27, 2003 07:27 PMIf we were to send $32.0 million worth of twenties across America plus a 37 cent postage, then that would mean 1,570,937 people across America would recieve them. Sounds like a lot, but that is only 31,418 people per state. If each state were divided into somewhere around 60 counties/parishes that would mean only 523 people per county/parish would recieve twenties. If each county/parish within each state had an average of 10 cities, then 52 people per city would recieve twenties. Thats $1,040.00 per city, $10,460.00 per county, $628,360.00 per state and a total postage revenue of $581,246.69 to help our economy recover from the $32.0 million that was depleted from the twenty-dollar-money-mailout advertising campaign that will ultimatley increase the total number of twenty dollar bills on the market, which will decrease the actual value of those twenty dollar bills.
Sorry to be so annal, I'm bored at work.
Posted by: svenska at October 28, 2003 10:23 AMHa. I like Bob's theory! Ha.
Yea, I was really disappointed, too. I thought we were in for some super technicolor money.
Everytime I see a new $20 I think it has big coffee stain in the middle. I think it is a very odd color scheme they are using. It kind of looks like European money, but not at all as visually appealing.
Posted by: Ben D. at October 28, 2003 08:17 PMChristin, regardless of Svenska's math, your suggestion makes a lot more sense than the advertisements.
Wile E Coyote...supah genius...
I was kind of dissapointed with the new bills after they built it up so much. It looks kind of queer. A 'peach' spot on my green currency? Whatever.
Posted by: Patrick at October 30, 2003 09:40 AMthat the currency would be devaluated in the mailouts assumes that more twenties were printed to cover the cost of the giveaway. If 32m was given to taxpayers to spend rather than being spent on advertising, then the currency's value would remain constant. Also, you can't mail cash, so the government could have just evenly distributed a tax credit to everyone and avioded the postage costs. That way everyone would have gotten about ten cents--lord knows I need it.
So though Svenska's math is good, his/her economics is a little lacking. Either way, the point that advertising cash is a big, fat waste of money was well made, but considering the quote that is now on your blog, I am questioning your calling as an economist. Necessity, is, I suppose, a relative term, but people motivated by potential profits to create things that make our lives easier and more fulfilling are most certainly not lazy. Well, most of them, anyway.
Posted by: Matthew at November 3, 2003 03:36 PM"I am questioning your calling as an economist."
Oh no. All my hopes and dreams: shattered ; )
I was mostly joking in my original post. I do see the point of advertising the cash. For example: counterfeits of the new bills are already in circulation. Since people are not all that familiar with the currency yet, counterfeits are easily passed. By advertising the security features of the new bills, the public knows what to look for.
I guess I just wanted some free money.
That still doesn't explain why the post office has to advertise stamps. Hey, where else are we going to get them?
Posted by: Patrick at November 5, 2003 10:30 AMSorry, the questioning your calling thing was not a result of me disagreeing with your post, I liked it, that's why I said I thought you should be an economist in the first place. I reneged on that though, when I disagreed with that Agatha Christie quote you put up that also dealt with economics. They were both lighthearted comments anyway, but I wanted to clear that up.
Posted by: Matthew at November 5, 2003 03:14 PMI knew you were joking. I was too.
Chalk another one up to lack of inflection in blogging.