[agitator]

Bills were introduced over several years (95-97 IIRC) to introduce a dual currency ostensibly to reduce counterfeiting & money laundering by Leahey & Kerry. There was to be no currency recall - however - careful reading of the bills indicated that exchange of old money for the new "domestic" money was to be on a dollar for dollar basis; exchange of the old or new "domestic" money for the new "external" money would be by *value*.

It was clear to me at the time that this represented a dual currency system where the "value" (or exchange rate) of the two currencies were *not* linked.

Knowing how the value of the (alleged) dollar is in proportion to how much it is inflated by greedy politicians with their fingers on the printing presses, it is not inconceivable that we might wind up with the Rubles while foreign settlements between governments and multi-nationals would be conducted with dollars as we know them today.

This is not my imagination, the bills existed at the time and I didn't read them incorrectly. I recently looked for copies of them and found incomplete portions of them on the web but not the original text - the offending portions of which were in the last couple of paragraphs.

[Starwind]

There was to be no currency recall - however - careful reading of the bills indicated that exchange of old money for the new "domestic" money was to be on a dollar for dollar basis; exchange of the old or new "domestic" money for the new "external" money would be by *value*.

It was clear to me at the time that this represented a dual currency system where the "value" (or exchange rate) of the two currencies were *not* linked.

These seem contradictory statements. Could you please clarify? If domestic and foreign bills exchange at a "dollar for dollar basis" wouldn't their value in fact be linked and equivalent? Could you give an example of what you meant by exchange by "value"?