document_title: FIFA Women's World Cup

question_text: when did the women's soccer team win the world cup

question_tokens: when did the women 's soccer team win the world cup

text: FIFA Women's World Cup

text: History[edit]

text: In 1988 – 58 years after the first Men's FIFA World Cup tournament in 1930 and approximately 17 years after the FA ban on women's football was eliminated in 1971[1] — FIFA hosted an invitational in China as a test to see if a global women's World Cup was feasible. Twelve national teams took part in the competition – four from UEFA, three from AFC, two from CONCACAF and one from CONMEBOL, CAF and OFC. The tournament saw European champion Norway defeat Sweden 1–0 in the final to win the tournament, while Brazil clinched third place by beating the hosts in a penalty shootout. The competition was deemed a success and on 30 June FIFA approved the establishment of an official World Cup, which was to take place in 1991 again in China.[2] Again, twelve teams competed, this time culminating in the United States beating Norway in the final 2-1.

text: In the 1999 edition, one of the most famous moments of the tournament was American defender Brandi Chastain's victory celebration after scoring the Cup-winning penalty kick against China. She took off her jersey and waved it over her head (as men frequently do), showing her muscular torso and sports bra as she celebrated. The 1999 final in the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, California had an attendance of 90,185, a world record for a women's sporting event.[3]

text: The 1999 and 2003 Women's World Cups were both held in the United States; in 2003 China was supposed to host it, but the tournament was moved because of SARS.[4] As compensation, China retained its automatic qualification to the 2003 tournament as host nation, and was automatically chosen to host the 2007 FIFA Women's World Cup. Germany hosted the 2011 FIFA Women's World Cup, as decided by vote in October 2007. In March 2011, FIFA awarded Canada the right to host the 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup. The 2015 edition saw the field expand from 16 to 24 teams.[5]

text: During the 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup, both Formiga of Brazil and Homare Sawa of Japan made a record of appearing in six World Cups,[6] a feat that had never been achieved before by either female or male players. Christie Rampone is the oldest player to ever play in a Women's World Cup match, at the age of 40 years.[7]

text: In March 2015, FIFA awarded France the right to host the 2019 FIFA Women's World Cup over South Korea.[8] The tournament will begin on 1 June 2019 and the final will be played on 30 June 2019[9]; both the opening and final matches will be played at Parc Olympique Lyonnais, a venue with a capacity of 58,000 in the Lyon suburb of Décines.

text: Format[edit]

text: Qualification[edit]

text: Qualifying tournaments are held within the six FIFA continental zones (Africa, Asia, North and Central America and Caribbean, South America, Oceania, Europe), and are organised by their respective confederations: Confederation of African Football (CAF), Asian Football Confederation (AFC), Confederation of North, Central America and Caribbean Association Football (CONCACAF), South American Football Confederation CONMEBOL, Oceania Football Confederation (OFC), and Union of European Football Associations UEFA). For each tournament, FIFA decides beforehand the number of berths awarded to each of the continental zones, based on the relative strength of the confederations' teams. The hosts of the World Cup receive an automatic berth in the finals. Since the 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup, the number of finalists increased from 16 to 24.[10]

text: Final tournament[edit]

text: The final tournament has featured between twelve and twenty-four national teams competing over about one month in the host nation(s). There are two stages: the group stage followed by the knockout stage.[11]

text: In the group stage, teams are drawn into groups of four teams each. Each group plays a round-robin tournament, in which each team is scheduled for three matches against other teams in the same group. The last round of matches of each group is scheduled at the same time to preserve fairness among all four teams. In the 2015 24-team format, the two teams finishing first and second in each group and the four best teams among those ranked third qualify for the round of 16, also called the knockout stage. Points are used to rank the teams within a group. Since 1994, three points have been awarded for a win, one for a draw and none for a loss (before, winners received two points).

text: The ranking of each team in each group is determined as follows:[11]

text:
Greatest number of points in group matches
Greatest goal difference in group matches
Greatest number of goals scored in group matches
If more than one team remain level after applying the above criteria, their ranking will be determined as follows:

Greatest number of points in head-to-head matches among those teams
Greatest goal difference in head-to-head matches among those teams
Greatest number of goals scored in head-to-head matches among those teams

If any of the teams above remain level after applying the above criteria, their ranking will be determined by the drawing of lots

tag: ol

text: The knockout stage is a single-elimination tournament in which teams play each other in one-off matches, with extra time and penalty shootouts used to decide the winner if necessary. It begins with the round of 16. This is followed by the quarter-finals, semi-finals, the third-place match (contested by the losing semi-finalists), and the final.[11]

text: Results[edit]

text:
Year
Host

Champions
Score
Runners-up

Third Place
Score
Fourth Place

Teams

1991
  China

United States
2–1

Norway

Sweden
4–0

Germany
12

1995
  Sweden

Norway
2–0

Germany

United States
2–0

China PR
12

1999
  United States

United States
0–0 a.e.t.
(5–4 pen)

China PR

Brazil
0–0 [A]
(5–4 pen)

Norway
16

2003
  United States

Germany
2–1 asdet

Sweden

United States
3–1

Canada
16

2007
  China

Germany
2–0

Brazil

United States
4–1

Norway
16

2011
  Germany

Japan
2–2 a.e.t.
(3–1 pen)

United States

Sweden
2–1

France
16

2015
  Canada

United States
5–2

Japan

England
1–0 a.e.t.

Germany
24

2019
  France

24

2023
 TBD

text: A No extra time was played.[12]

text:
Key:

a.e.t. — after extra time
asdet — after golden goal (sudden death) extra time
pen — penalty shootout

text: All-time performance[edit]

text:
#
Team
Titles
Runners-up
Third-place
Fourth-place
Total

1
 United States
3 (1991, 1999, 2015)
1 (2011)
3 (1995, 2003, 2007)
–
7

2
 Germany
2 (2003, 2007)
1 (1995)
–
2 (1991, 2015)
5

3
 Norway
1 (1995)
1 (1991)
–
2 (1999, 2007)
4

4
 Japan
1 (2011)
1 (2015)
–
–
2

5
 Sweden
–
1 (2003)
2 (1991, 2011)
–
3

6
 Brazil
–
1 (2007)
1 (1999)
–
2

7
 China PR
–
1 (1999)
–
1 (1995)
2

8
 England
–
–
1 (2015)
–
1

9
 Canada
–
–
–
1 (2003)
1

 France
–
–
–
1 (2011)
1

text: Attendance[edit]

text:
Tournament
Matches
Attendance
Ref

Total
Average
Highest

1
 1991 China
26
510,000
18,344
65,000
[13]

2
 1995 Sweden
26
112,213
4,316
17,158
[13]

3
 1999 USA
32
1,214,209
37,944
90,185
[13]

4
 2003 USA
32
679,664
21,240
34,144
[13]

5
 2007 China
32
1,190,971
37,218
55,832
[13]

6
 2011 Germany
32
845,751
26,430
73,680
[13][14]

7
 2015 Canada
52
1,353,506
26,029
54,027
[15]

text: Notes:

text:
The 2003 Women's World Cup was originally scheduled for China but re-located in May 2003 to the United States after a SARS outbreak in China.
The 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup set a new attendance record for all previous FIFA competitions other than the men's FIFA World Cup.[15]

text: Broadcasting[edit]

text: As of 2017[update], the 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup Final was the most watched soccer match in American history with nearly 23 million viewers until this summer where even more people watched a friendly between Manchester United and Real Madrid,[16] more than the 2015 NBA Finals and Stanley Cup.[17] It was also the most watched Spanish-language broadcast in tournament history.[16] More than 750 million viewers were reported to have watched the tournament worldwide.[18]

text: Awards[edit]

text: At the end of each World Cup, awards are presented to select players and teams for accomplishments other than their final team positions in the tournament. There are currently seven awards:

text:
The Golden Ball for the best player, determined by a vote of media members (first awarded in 1991); the Silver Ball and the Bronze Ball are awarded to the players finishing second and third in the voting respectively.
The Golden Boot (also known as the Golden Shoe) for the top goalscorer (first awarded in 1991). The Silver Boot and the Bronze Boot have been awarded to the second and third top goalscorers respectively.

If two or more players finish the tournament with the same number of goals, tiebreakers are used in the following order:

Most assists.
Fewest minutes played.

The Golden Glove Award for the best goalkeeper, decided by the FIFA Technical Study Group. First awarded in 2007 as "Best Goalkeeper"; current award name adopted in 2011.
The Best Young Player Award for the best player no older than age 21 as of 1 January of the year of the final tournament, decided by the FIFA Technical Study Group (first awarded in 2011).
The FIFA Fair Play Award for the team with the best record of fair play, according to the points system and criteria established by the FIFA Fair Play Committee (first awarded in 1991).
The All-Star Team, consisting of the best players of the tournament as determined by the FIFA Technical Study Group (first selected in 1999).
The Dream Team, consisting of the best players of the tournament as chosen by users of fifa.com (first selected in 2015).

text: Another award is presented a week after the final match:

text: The Goal of the Tournament, consisting of the tournament's best goal, as chosen by users of fifa.com from a shortlist of 12 goals selected by FIFA's web administrators (first awarded in 2015).

text: One past award is no longer presented:

text: The Most Entertaining Team Award for the team that has entertained the public the most during the World Cup, determined by a poll of the general public (awarded in 2003 and 2007).

text: Player records[edit]

text: Most goals[edit]

text:
Rank
Name
World Cup
Total

'91

'95

'99

'03

'07

'11

'15

1
 Marta

3
7
4
1
15

2
 Birgit Prinz

1
1
7
5
0

14

 Abby Wambach

3
6
4
1
14

4
 Michelle Akers
10
0
2

12

5
 Sun Wen
1
2
7
1

11

 Bettina Wiegmann
3
3
3
2

11

7
 Ann Kristin Aarønes

6
4

10

 Heidi Mohr
7
3

10

9
 Linda Medalen
6
2
1

9

 Hege Riise
1
5
3
0

9

 Christine Sinclair

3
3
1
2
9

12
 Kerstin Garefrekes

4
2
2

8

 Mia Hamm
2
2
2
2

8

 Kristine Lilly
0
3
2
2
1

8

 Liu Ailing
4
1
3

8

 Marianne Pettersen

3
3
2

8

 Célia Šašić

2
6
8

 Homare Sawa

0
0
3
0
5
0
8

text: Most tournaments[edit]

text:
#
Player
Appearances

1
 Formiga
6 (1995, 1999, 2003, 2007, 2011, 2015)

 Homare Sawa
6 (1995, 1999, 2003, 2007, 2011, 2015)

3
 Kristine Lilly
5 (1991, 1995, 1999, 2003, 2007)

 Bente Nordby
5 (1991*, 1995, 1999, 2003, 2007)

 Birgit Prinz
5 (1995, 1999, 2003, 2007, 2011)

 Karina LeBlanc
5 (1999*, 2003, 2007*, 2011, 2015*)

 Nadine Angerer
5 (1999*, 2003*, 2007, 2011, 2015)

 Christie Rampone
5 (1999, 2003, 2007, 2011, 2015)

text: *Did not play but was part of the squad.

text: Most matches[edit]

text:
#
Player
Matches

1
 Kristine Lilly
30

2
 Abby Wambach
25

3
 Formiga
24

 Julie Foudy
24

 Birgit Prinz
24

 Homare Sawa
24

7
 Joy Fawcett
23

 Mia Hamm
23

9
 Bente Nordby
22

 Hege Riise
22

 Bettina Wiegmann
22


document_title: Uniform civil code

question_text: the uniform civil code was discussed at length in the case of

root

text: Uniform civil code

text: British India (1858–1947)[edit]

text: The debate for a uniform civil code dates back to the colonial period in India. Prior to the British Raj, under the East India Company (1757-1858), they  tried to reform local social and religious customs. Lord William Bentinck, the Governor-General of India, tried to suppress sati, the prescribed death of a widow on her husband's funeral pyre, and passed the Bengal Sati Regulation, 1829. This was later extended outside Bengal to all English territories in India.

tag: p

text: The Lex Loci Report of October 1840 emphasised the importance and necessity of uniformity in codification of Indian law, relating to crimes, evidences and contract but it recommended that personal laws of Hindus and Muslims should be kept outside such codification.[2] According to their understanding of religious divisions in India, the British separated this sphere which would be governed by religious scriptures and customs of the various communities (Hindus, Muslims, Christians and later Parsis).[3] These laws were applied by the local courts or panchayats when dealing with regular cases involving civil disputes between people of the same religion; the State would only intervene in exceptional cases. Thus, the British let the Indian public have the benefit of self-government in their own domestic matters with the Queen's 1859 Proclamation promising absolute non-interference in religious matters.[4][5] The personal laws involved inheritance, succession, marriage and religious ceremonies. The public sphere was governed by the British and Anglo-Indian law in terms of crime, land relations, laws of contract and evidence—all this applied equally to every citizen irrespective of religion.[5]

text: Throughout the country, there was a variation in preference for scriptural or customary laws because in many Hindu and Muslim communities, these were sometimes at conflict;[3] such instances were present in communities like the Jats and the Dravidians. The Shudras, for instance, allowed widow remarriage—completely contrary to the scriptural Hindu law.[6] The Hindu laws got preference because of their relative ease in implementation, preference for such a Brahminical system by both British and Indian judges and their fear of opposition from the high caste Hindus.[6] The difficulty in investigating each specific practice of any community, case-by-case, made customary laws harder to implement. Towards the end of the nineteenth century, favouring local opinion, the recognition of individual customs and traditions increased.[5]

text: The Muslim Personal law (based on Sharia law), was not strictly enforced as compared to the Hindu law. It had no uniformity in its application at lower courts and was severely restricted because of bureaucratic procedures. This led to the customary law, which was often more discriminatory against women, to be applied over it. Women, mainly in northern and western India, often were restrained from property inheritance and dowry settlements, both of which the Sharia provides.[7] Due to pressure from the Muslim elite, the Shariat law of 1937 was passed which stipulated that all Indian Muslims would be governed by Islamic laws on marriage, divorce, maintenance, adoption, succession and inheritance.[7]

text: Legislative reforms[edit]

text: The  law discriminated against women by depriving them of inheritance, remarriage and divorce. Their condition, especially that of Hindu widows and daughters, was poor due to this and other prevalent customs.[8][9] The British and social reformers like Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar were instrumental in outlawing such customs by getting reforms passed through legislative processes.[10] Since the British feared opposition from orthodox community leaders, only the Indian Succession Act 1865, which was also one of the first laws to ensure women's economic security, attempted to shift the personal laws to the realm of civil. The Indian Marriage Act 1864 had procedures and reforms solely for Christian marriages.[11]

text: There were law reforms passed which were beneficial to women like the Hindu Widow Remarriage Act of 1856, Married Women's Property Act of 1923 and the Hindu Inheritance (Removal of Disabilities) Act, 1928, which in a significant move, permitted a Hindu woman's right to property.[8]

text: The call for equal rights for women was only at its initial stages in India at that time and the reluctance of the British government further deterred the passing of such reforms. The All India Women's Conference (AIWC) expressed its disappointment with the male-dominated legislature and Lakshmi Menon said in an AIWC conference in 1933,[10] "If we are to seek divorce in court, we are to state that we are not Hindus, and are not guided by Hindu law. The members in the Legislative assembly who are men will not help us in bringing any drastic changes which will be of benefit to us." The women's organisations demanded a uniform civil code to replace the existing personal laws, basing it on the Karachi Congress resolution which guaranteed gender-equality.[10]

text: The passing of the Hindu Women's right to Property Act of 1937, also known as the Deshmukh bill, led to the formation of the B. N. Rau committee, which was set up to determine the necessity of common Hindu laws. The committee concluded that it was time of a uniform civil code, which would give equal rights to women keeping with the modern trends of society but their focus was primarily on reforming the Hindu law in accordance with the scriptures. The committee reviewed the 1937 Act and recommended a civil code of marriage and succession; it was set up again in 1944 and send its report to the Indian Parliament in 1947.[10]

text: The Special Marriage Act, which gave the Indian citizens an option of a civil marriage, was first enacted in 1872. It had a limited application because it required those involved to renounce their religion and was applicable only to Hindus. The later Special Marriage (Amendment) Act, 1923 permitted Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and Jains to marry either under their personal law or under the act without renouncing their religion as well as retaining their succession rights.[12]

text: Post-colonial (1947–1985)[edit]

text: Hindu Code Bill and addition to the Directive Principles[edit]

text: The Indian Parliament discussed the report of the Hindu law committee during the 1948–1951 and 1951–1954 sessions. The first Prime Minister of the Indian republic, Jawaharlal Nehru, his supporters and women members wanted a uniform civil code to be implemented.[13] As Law Minister, B. R. Ambedkar was in charge of presenting the details of this bill. It was found that the orthodox Hindu laws were pertaining only to a specific school and tradition because monogamy, divorce and the widow's right to inherit property were present in the Shashtras.[13] Ambedkar recommended the adoption of a Uniform Civil Code.[14][15]  Ambedkar's frequent attack on the Hindu laws and dislike for the upper castes made him unpopular in the parliament. He had done research on the religious texts and considered the Hindu society structure flawed. According to him, only law reforms could save it and the Code bill was this opportunity.[16] He thus faced severe criticism from the opposition. Nehru later supported Ambedkar's reforms but did not share his negative view on Hindu society.[16]

text: The Hindu bill itself received much criticism and the main provisions opposed were those concerning monogamy, divorce, abolition of coparcenaries (women inheriting a shared title) and inheritance to daughters. The first President of the country, Rajendra Prasad, opposed these reforms; others included the Congress party president Vallabhbhai Patel, a few senior members and the Hindu fundamentalist parties. The fundamentalists called it "anti-Hindu" and "anti-Indian"; as a delaying tactic, they demanded a uniform civil code.[10] The women members of the parliament, who previously supported this, in a significant political move reversed their position and backed the Hindu law reform; they feared allying with the fundamentalists would cause a further setback to their rights.[8]

text: Thus, a lesser version of this bill was passed by the parliament in 1956, in the form of four separate acts, the Hindu Marriage Act, Succession Act, Minority and Guardianship Act and Adoptions and Maintenance Act. It was decided to add the implementation of a uniform civil code in Article 44 of the Directive principles of the Constitution specifying, "The State shall endeavour to secure for citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India."[17] This was opposed by women members like Rajkumari Amrit Kaur and Hansa Mehta.  According to academic Paula Banerjee, this move was to make sure it would never be addressed.[18] Aparna Mahanta writes, "failure of the Indian state to provide a uniform civil code, consistent with its democratic secular and socialist declarations, further illustrates the modern state's accommodation of the traditional interests of a patriarchal society".[18]

text: Later years and Special Marriage Act[edit]

text: The Hindu code bill failed to control the prevalent gender discrimination. The laws on divorce were framed giving both partners equal voice but majority of its implementation involved those initiated by men. Since the Act applied only to Hindus, women from the other communities remained subordinated. For instance, Muslim women, under the Muslim Personal Law, could not inherit agricultural land.[18] Nehru accepted that the bill was not complete and perfect, but was cautious about implementing drastic changes which could stir up specific communities. He agreed that it lacked any substantial reforms but felt it was an "outstanding achievement" of his time.[16] He had a significant role in getting the Hindu Code bill passed and laid down women-equality as an ideal to be pursued in Indian politics, which was eventually accepted by the previous critics of the bill.[16] Uniform civil code, for him, was a necessity for the whole country but he did not want it to forced upon any community, especially if they were not ready for such a reform. According to him, such a lack of uniformity was preferable since it would be ineffective if implemented. Thus, his vision of family law uniformity was not applied and was added to the Directive principles of the Constitution.[16]

text: The Special Marriage Act, 1954, provides a form of civil marriage to any citizen irrespective of religion, thus permitting any Indian to have their marriage outside the realm of any specific religious personal law.[12] The law applied to all of India, except Jammu and Kashmir. In many respects, the act was almost identical to the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, which gives some idea as to how secularised the law regarding Hindus had become. The Special Marriage Act allowed Muslims to marry under it and thereby retain the protections, generally beneficial to Muslim women, that could not be found in the personal law. Under this act polygamy was illegal, and inheritance and succession would be governed by the Indian Succession Act, rather than the respective Muslim Personal Law. Divorce also would be governed by the secular law, and maintenance of a divorced wife would be along the lines set down in the civil law.[citation needed]

text: Shah Bano case (1985)[edit]

text: After the passing of the Hindu Code bill, the personal laws in India had two major areas of application: the common Indian citizens and the Muslim community, whose laws were kept away from any reforms.[19] The frequent conflict between secular and religious authorities over the issue of uniform civil code eventually decreased, until the 1985 Shah Bano case. Bano was a 73-year-old woman who sought maintenance from her husband, Muhammad Ahmad Khan. He had divorced her after 40 years of marriage by triple Talaaq (saying "I divorce thee" three times) and denied her regular maintenance; this sort of unilateral divorce was permitted under the Muslim Personal Law. She was initially granted maintenance by the verdict of a local court in 1980. Khan, a lawyer himself, challenged this decision, taking it to the Supreme court, saying that he had fulfilled all his obligations under Islamic law. The Supreme court ruled in her favour in 1985 under the "maintenance of wives, children and parents" provision (Section 125) of the All India Criminal Code, which applied to all citizens irrespective of religion. It further recommended that a uniform civil code be set up. Besides her case, two other Muslim women had previously received maintenance under the Criminal code in 1979 and 1980.[7]

text: The Shah Bano case soon became nationwide political issue and a widely debated controversy.[19] Many conditions, like the Supreme court's recommendation, made her case have such public and political interest. After the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, minorities in India, with Muslims being the largest, felt threatened with the need to safeguard their culture.[19] The All India Muslim Board defended the application of their laws and supported the Muslim conservatives who accused the government of promoting Hindu dominance over every Indian citizen at the expense of minorities. The Criminal Code was seen as a threat to the Muslim Personal Law, which they considered their cultural identity.[7] According to them, the judiciary recommending a uniform civil code was evidence that Hindu values would be imposed over every Indian.[7]

text: The orthodox Muslims felt that their communal identity was at stake if their personal laws were governed by the judiciary.[7] Rajiv Gandhi's Congress government, which previously had their support, lost the local elections in December 1985 because of its endorsement of the Supreme Court's decision.[20] The members of the Muslim board, including Khan, started a campaign for complete autonomy in their personal laws. It soon reached a national level, by consulting legislators, ministers and journalists. The press played a considerable role in sensationalising this incident.[7]

text: An independent Muslim parliament member proposed a bill to protect their personal law in the parliament. The Congress reversed its previous position and supported this bill while the Hindu right, the Left, Muslim liberals and women's organisations strongly opposed it. The Muslim Women's (Protection of Rights on Divorce) was passed in 1986, which made Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code inapplicable to Muslim women. The debate now centred on the divinity of their personal law. A Muslim member of parliament made a claim emphasising the importance of the cultural community over national by saying that only a Muslim judge could intercede in such cases.[20] Bano later in a statement said that she rejected the Supreme Court's verdict. It also led to the argument defining a woman's right according to her specific community with political leader Jaffar Sharief saying, "today, in the Shah Bano's case, I am finding that many people are more sympathetic towards Muslim women than their own women. This is very strange."[20]

text: The politicisation led to argument having two major sides: the Congress and Muslim conservatives versus the Hindu right-wing and the Left. In 1987, the Minister of Social Welfare, Rajendra Kumari Bajpai, reported that no women were given maintenance by the Wakf Board in 1986. Women activists highlighted their legal status and according to them, "main problem is that there [are] many laws but women are dominated not by secular laws, not by uniform civil laws, but by religious laws."[20] The legal reversal of introducing the Muslim Women law significantly hampered the nationwide women's movement in the 1980s.[20]

text: Dispute post-1985[edit]

text: The debate for a uniform civil code, with its diverse implications and concerning secularism in the country, is one of the most controversial issues in twenty-first century Indian politics.[21] The major problems for implementing it are the country's diversity and religious laws, which not only differ sect-wise, but also by community, caste and region. Women's rights groups have said that this issue is only based on their rights and security, irrespective of its politicisation.[21] The arguments for it are: its mention in Article 44 of the Constitution, need for strengthening the unity and integrity of the country, rejection of different laws for different communities, importance for gender equality and reforming the archaic personal laws of Muslims—which allow unilateral divorce and polygamy. India is, thus, among the nations that legally apply the Sharia law. According to Qutub Kidwai, the Muslim Personal laws are "Anglo-Mohammadan" rather than solely Islamic.[21] The Hindu nationalists view this issue in concept of their law, which they say, is secular and equal to both sexes.[21] In the country, demanding a uniform civil code can be seen negatively by religious authorities and secular sections of society because of identity politics.[21] The Sangh Parivar and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)—one of the two major political parties in India, had taken up this issue to gain Hindu support.[21] The BJP was the first party in the country to promise it if elected into power.[21]

text: Goa is the only state in India which has a uniform civil code. The Goa Family Law, is the set of civil laws, originally the Portuguese Civil Code, continued to be implemented after its annexation in 1961.[22] Sikhs and Buddhists objected to the wording of Article 25 which terms them as Hindus with personal laws being applied to them.[23] However, the same article also guarantees the right of members of the Sikh faith to bear a Kirpan.[24]

text: In October 2015, Supreme Court of India asserted the need of a Uniform Civil Code and said that, "This cannot be accepted, otherwise every religion will say it has a right to decide various issues as a matter of its personal law. We don’t agree with this at all. It has to be done through a decree of a court".[25] On 30 November 2016, British Indian intellectual Tufail Ahmad unveiled a 12-point document draft of it, citing no effort by the government since 1950.The Law Commission of India on 31st August , 2018, said a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is "neither necessary nor desirable at this stage". In a 185-page consultation paper, the commission said secularism cannot contradict plurality prevalent in the country.[26][27]


document_title: Marginal utility

question_text: who came up with the law of diminishing marginal utility

question_tokens: who came up with the law of diminishing marginal utility

text: Marginal utility

text: Marginality[edit]

text: The term marginal refers to a small change, starting from some baseline level. As Philip Wicksteed explained the term,

text: Marginal considerations are considerations which concern a slight increase or diminution of the stock of anything which we possess or are considering[1]

text: Frequently the marginal change is assumed to start from the endowment, meaning the total resources available for consumption (see Budget constraint). This endowment is determined by many things including physical laws (which constrain how forms of energy and matter may be transformed), accidents of nature (which determine the presence of natural resources), and the outcomes of past decisions made by the individual himself or herself and by others.

text: For reasons of tractability, it is often assumed in neoclassical analysis that goods and services are continuously divisible. Under this assumption, marginal concepts, including marginal utility, may be expressed in terms of differential calculus. Marginal utility can then be defined as the first derivative of total utility—the total satisfaction obtained from consumption of a good or service—with respect to the amount of consumption of that good or service.

text: In practice the smallest relevant division may be quite large. Sometimes economic analysis concerns the marginal values associated with a change of one unit of a discrete good or service, such as a motor vehicle or a haircut. For a motor vehicle, the total number of motor vehicles produced is large enough for a continuous assumption to be reasonable: this may not be true for, say, an aircraft carrier.

text: Utility[edit]

text: Depending on which theory of utility is used, the interpretation of marginal utility can be meaningful or not. Economists have commonly described utility as if it were quantifiable, that is, as if different levels of utility could be compared along a numerical scale.[2][3] This has affected the development and reception of theories of marginal utility. Quantitative concepts of utility allow familiar arithmetic operations, and further assumptions of continuity and differentiability greatly increase tractability.

text: Contemporary mainstream economic theory frequently defers metaphysical questions, and merely notes or assumes that preference structures conforming to certain rules can be usefully proxied by associating goods, services, or their uses with quantities, and defines "utility" as such a quantification.[4]

text: Another conception is Benthamite philosophy, which equated usefulness with the production of pleasure and avoidance of pain,[5] assumed subject to arithmetic operation.[6] British economists, under the influence of this philosophy (especially by way of John Stuart Mill), viewed utility as "the feelings of pleasure and pain"[7] and further as a "quantity of feeling" (emphasis added).[8]

text:
Though generally pursued outside of the mainstream methods, there are conceptions of utility that do not rely on quantification.
For example, the Austrian school generally attributes value to the satisfaction of wants,[9][10][11] and sometimes rejects even the possibility of quantification.[12]
It has been argued that the Austrian framework makes it possible to consider rational preferences that would otherwise be excluded.[10]

text: In any standard framework, the same object may have different marginal utilities for different people, reflecting different preferences or individual circumstances.[13]

text: Diminishing marginal utility[edit]

text:
hideThis section has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)

The neutrality of this section is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (April 2014) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2012) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

 (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

tag: table

text: The concept in cardinal utility theory that marginal utilities diminish across the ranges relevant to decision-making is called the "law of diminishing marginal utility" (and is also known as Gossen's First Law). This refers to the increase in utility an individual gains from increasing their consumption of a particular good. "The law of diminishing marginal utility is at the heart of the explanation of numerous economic phenomena, including time preference and the value of goods ... The law says, first, that the marginal utility of each homogenous unit decreases as the supply of units increases (and vice versa); second, that the marginal utility of a larger-sized unit is greater than the marginal utility of a smaller-sized unit (and vice versa). The first law denotes the law of diminishing marginal utility, the second law denotes the law of increasing total utility."[14]

text: In modern economics, choice under conditions of certainty at a single point in time  is modeled via ordinal utility, in which the numbers assigned to the utility of a particular circumstance of the individual have no meaning by themselves, but which of two alternative circumstances has higher utility is meaningful. With ordinal utility, a person's preferences have no unique marginal utility, and thus whether or not marginal utility is diminishing is not meaningful. In contrast, the concept of diminishing marginal utility is meaningful in the context of cardinal utility, which in modern economics is used in analyzing intertemporal choice, choice under uncertainty, and social welfare.

text: The law of diminishing marginal utility is similar to the law of diminishing returns which states that as the amount of one factor of production increases as all other factors of production are held the same, the marginal return (extra output gained by adding an extra unit) decreases.

text: As the rate of commodity acquisition increases, marginal utility decreases. If commodity consumption continues to rise, marginal utility at some point may fall to zero, reaching maximum total utility. Further increase in consumption of units of commodities causes marginal utility to become negative; this signifies dissatisfaction. For example,

text:
beyond some point, further doses of antibiotics would kill no pathogens at all, and might even become harmful to the body.
to satiate thirst a person drinks water but beyond a point, consumption of more water might make the person vomit, hence leading to negative marginal and thus diminished total utility
it takes a certain amount of food energy to sustain a population, yet beyond a point, more calories cannot be consumed and are simply discarded (or cause disease).

tag: ul

text: Diminishing marginal utility is traditionally a microeconomic concept and often holds for an individual, although the marginal utility of a good or service might be increasing as well. For example:

text:
bed sheets, which up to some number may only provide warmth, but after that point may be useful to allow one to effect an escape by being tied together into a rope;
tickets, for travel or theatre, where a second ticket might allow one to take a date on an otherwise uninteresting outing;
dosages of antibiotics, where having too few pills would leave bacteria with greater resistance, but a full supply could effect a cure.
the third leg is more useful than the first two when building a chair.

text: As suggested elsewhere in this article, occasionally one may come across a situation in which marginal utility increases even at a macroeconomic level. For example, the provision of a service may only be viable if it accessible to most or all of the population, and the marginal utility of a raw material required to provide such a service will increase at the "tipping point" at which this occurs. This is similar to the position with very large items such as aircraft carriers: the numbers of these items involved are so small that marginal utility is no longer a helpful concept, as there is merely a simple "yes" or "no" decision.

text: Marginalist theory[edit]

text: Marginalism explains choice with the hypothesis that people decide whether to effect any given change based on the marginal utility of that change, with rival alternatives being chosen based upon which has the greatest marginal utility.

text: Market price and diminishing marginal utility[edit]

text: If an individual possesses a good or service whose marginal utility to him is less than that of some other good or service for which he could trade it, then it is in his interest to effect that trade. Of course, as one thing is sold and another is bought, the respective marginal gains or losses from further trades will change. If the marginal utility of one thing is diminishing, and the other is not increasing, all else being equal, an individual will demand an increasing ratio of that which is acquired to that which is sacrificed. (One important way in which all else might not be equal is when the use of the one good or service complements that of the other. In such cases, exchange ratios might be constant.[10]) If any trader can better his position by offering a trade more favorable to complementary traders, then he will do so.

text: In an economy with money, the marginal utility of a quantity is simply that of the best good or service that it could purchase. In this way it is useful for explaining supply and demand, as well as essential aspects of models of imperfect competition.

text: The paradox of water and diamonds[edit]

text: The "paradox of water and diamonds", usually most commonly associated with Adam Smith,[15] though recognized by earlier thinkers,[16] is the apparent contradiction that water possesses a value far lower than diamonds, even though water is far more vital to a human being.

text: Price is determined by both marginal utility and marginal cost, and here the key to the "paradox" is that the marginal cost of water is far lower than that of diamonds.

text: That is not to say that the price of any good or service is simply a function of the marginal utility that it has for any one individual nor for some ostensibly typical individual. Rather, individuals are willing to trade based upon the respective marginal utilities of the goods that they have or desire (with these marginal utilities being distinct for each potential trader), and prices thus develop constrained by these marginal utilities.

text: Quantified marginal utility[edit]

text:
Under the special case in which usefulness can be quantified, the change in utility of moving from state

S

1

{\displaystyle S_{1}}

 to state

S

2

{\displaystyle S_{2}}

 is

text:
Moreover, if

S

1

{\displaystyle S_{1}}

 and

S

2

{\displaystyle S_{2}}

 are distinguishable by values of just one variable

g

{\displaystyle g\,}

 which is itself quantified, then it becomes possible to speak of the ratio of the marginal utility of the change in

g

{\displaystyle g\,}

 to the size of that change:

text:
(where “c.p.” indicates that the only independent variable to change is

g

{\displaystyle g\,}

).

text: Mainstream neoclassical economics will typically assume that the limit

text: exists, and use “marginal utility” to refer to the partial derivative

text: Accordingly, diminishing marginal utility corresponds to the condition

text: History[edit]

text: The concept of marginal utility grew out of attempts by economists to explain the determination of price.  The term “marginal utility”, credited to the Austrian economist Friedrich von Wieser by Alfred Marshall,[17] was a translation of Wieser's term “Grenznutzen” (border-use).[18][19]

text: Proto-marginalist approaches[edit]

text: Perhaps the essence of a notion of diminishing marginal utility can be found in Aristotle's Politics, wherein he writes

text: external goods have a limit, like any other instrument, and all things useful are of such a nature that where there is too much of them they must either do harm, or at any rate be of no use[20]

text: (There has been marked disagreement about the development and role of marginal considerations in Aristotle's value theory.[21][22][23][24][25])

text: A great variety of economists have concluded that there is some sort of interrelationship between utility and rarity that affects economic decisions, and in turn informs the determination of prices. Diamonds are priced higher than water because their marginal utility is higher than water .[26]

text: Eighteenth-century Italian mercantilists, such as Antonio Genovesi, Giammaria Ortes, Pietro Verri, Marchese Cesare di Beccaria, and Count Giovanni Rinaldo Carli, held that value was explained in terms of the general utility and of scarcity, though they did not typically work-out a theory of how these interacted.[27]  In Della moneta (1751), Abbé Ferdinando Galiani, a pupil of Genovesi, attempted to explain value as a ratio of two ratios, utility and scarcity, with the latter component ratio being the ratio of quantity to use.

text: Anne Robert Jacques Turgot, in Réflexions sur la formation et la distribution de richesse (1769), held that value derived from the general utility of the class to which a good belonged, from comparison of present and future wants, and from anticipated difficulties in procurement.

text: Like the Italian mercantists, Étienne Bonnot, Abbé de Condillac, saw value as determined by utility associated with the class to which the good belong, and by estimated scarcity.  In De commerce et le gouvernement (1776), Condillac emphasized that value is not based upon cost but that costs were paid because of value.

text: This last point was famously restated by the Nineteenth Century proto-marginalist, Richard Whately, who in Introductory Lectures on Political Economy (1832) wrote

text: It is not that pearls fetch a high price because men have dived for them; but on the contrary, men dive for them because they fetch a high price.[28]

text: (Whatley's student Senior is noted below as an early marginalist.)

text: Marginalists before the Revolution[edit]

text: The first unambiguous published statement of any sort of theory of marginal utility was by Daniel Bernoulli, in “Specimen theoriae novae de mensura sortis”.[29]  This paper appeared in 1738, but a draft had been written in 1731 or in 1732.[30][31]  In 1728, Gabriel Cramer had produced fundamentally the same theory in a private letter.[32]  Each had sought to resolve the St. Petersburg paradox, and had concluded that the marginal desirability of money decreased as it was accumulated, more specifically such that the desirability of a sum were the natural logarithm (Bernoulli) or square root (Cramer) thereof.  However, the more general implications of this hypothesis were not explicated, and the work fell into obscurity.

text: In “A Lecture on the Notion of Value as Distinguished Not Only from Utility, but also from Value in Exchange”, delivered in 1833 and included in Lectures on Population, Value, Poor Laws and Rent (1837), William Forster Lloyd explicitly offered a general marginal utility theory, but did not offer its derivation nor elaborate its implications.  The importance of his statement seems to have been lost on everyone (including Lloyd) until the early 20th century, by which time others had independently developed and popularized the same insight.[33]

text: In An Outline of the Science of Political Economy (1836), Nassau William Senior asserted that marginal utilities were the ultimate determinant of demand, yet apparently did not pursue implications, though some interpret his work as indeed doing just that.[34]

text: In “De la mesure de l’utilité des travaux publics” (1844), Jules Dupuit applied a conception of marginal utility to the problem of determining bridge tolls.[35]

text: In 1854, Hermann Heinrich Gossen published Die Entwicklung der Gesetze des menschlichen Verkehrs und der daraus fließenden Regeln für menschliches Handeln, which presented a marginal utility theory and to a very large extent worked-out its implications for the behavior of a market economy.  However, Gossen's work was not well received in the Germany of his time, most copies were destroyed unsold, and he was virtually forgotten until rediscovered after the so-called Marginal Revolution.

text: The Marginal Revolution[edit]

text: Marginalism eventually found a foothold by way of the work of three economists, Jevons in England, Menger in Austria, and Walras in Switzerland.

text: William Stanley Jevons first proposed the theory in “A General Mathematical Theory of Political Economy” (PDF), a paper presented in 1862 and published in 1863, followed by a series of works culminating in his book The Theory of Political Economy in 1871 that established his reputation as a leading political economist and logician of the time. Jevons' conception of utility was in the utilitarian tradition of Jeremy Bentham and of John Stuart Mill, but he differed from his classical predecessors in emphasizing that "value depends entirely upon utility", in particular, on "final utility upon which the theory of Economics will be found to turn."[36] He later qualified this in deriving the result that in a model of exchange equilibrium, price ratios would be proportional not only to ratios of "final degrees of utility," but also to costs of production.[37][38]

text: Carl Menger presented the theory in Grundsätze der Volkswirtschaftslehre (translated as Principles of Economics) in 1871.  Menger's presentation is peculiarly notable on two points.  First, he took special pains to explain why individuals should be expected to rank possible uses and then to use marginal utility to decide amongst trade-offs. (For this reason, Menger and his followers are sometimes called “the Psychological School”, though they are more frequently known as “the Austrian School” or as “the Vienna School”.) Second, while his illustrative examples present utility as quantified, his essential assumptions do not.[11] (Menger in fact crossed-out the numerical tables in his own copy of the published Grundsätze.[39]) Menger also developed the law of diminishing marginal utility.[14] Menger's work found a significant and appreciative audience.

text: Marie-Esprit-Léon Walras introduced the theory in Éléments d'économie politique pure, the first part of which was published in 1874 in a relatively mathematical exposition.  Walras's work found relatively few readers at the time but was recognized and incorporated two decades later in the work of Pareto and Barone.[40]

text: An American, John Bates Clark, is sometimes also mentioned.  But, while Clark independently arrived at a marginal utility theory, he did little to advance it until it was clear that the followers of Jevons, Menger, and Walras were revolutionizing economics.  Nonetheless, his contributions thereafter were profound.

text: The second generation[edit]

text: Although the Marginal Revolution flowed from the work of Jevons, Menger, and Walras, their work might have failed to enter the mainstream were it not for a second generation of economists.  In England, the second generation were exemplified by Philip Henry Wicksteed, by William Smart, and by Alfred Marshall; in Austria by Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk and by Friedrich von Wieser; in Switzerland by Vilfredo Pareto; and in America by Herbert Joseph Davenport and by Frank A. Fetter.

text: There were significant, distinguishing features amongst the approaches of Jevons, Menger, and Walras, but the second generation did not maintain distinctions along national or linguistic lines.  The work of von Wieser was heavily influenced by that of Walras.  Wicksteed was heavily influenced by Menger.  Fetter referred to himself and Davenport as part of “the American Psychological School”, named in imitation of the Austrian “Psychological School”. (And Clark's work from this period onward similarly shows heavy influence by Menger.)  William Smart began as a conveyor of Austrian School theory to English-language readers, though he fell increasingly under the influence of Marshall.[41]

text: Böhm-Bawerk was perhaps the most able expositor of Menger's conception.[41][42]  He was further noted for producing a theory of interest and of profit in equilibrium based upon the interaction of diminishing marginal utility with diminishing marginal productivity of time and with time preference.[43] (This theory was adopted in full and then further developed by Knut Wicksell[44] and, with modifications including formal disregard for time-preference, by Wicksell's American rival Irving Fisher.[45])

text: Marshall was the second-generation marginalist whose work on marginal utility came most to inform the mainstream of neoclassical economics, especially by way of his Principles of Economics, the first volume of which was published in 1890.  Marshall constructed the demand curve with the aid of assumptions that utility was quantified, and that the marginal utility of money was constant (or nearly so).  Like Jevons, Marshall did not see an explanation for supply in the theory of marginal utility, so he synthesized an explanation of demand thus explained with supply explained in a more classical manner, determined by costs which were taken to be objectively determined.  (Marshall later actively mischaracterized the criticism that these costs were themselves ultimately determined by marginal utilities.[46])

text: The Marginal Revolution and Marxism[edit]

text: Karl Marx acknowledged that "nothing can have value, without being an object of utility",[47][48] but, in his analysis, "use-value as such lies outside the sphere of investigation of political economy",[49] with labor being the principal determinant of value under capitalism.

text: The doctrines of marginalism and the Marginal Revolution are often interpreted as somehow a response to Marxist economics. However the first volume of Das Kapital was not published until July 1867, after the works of Jevons, Menger, and Walras were written or well under way (In 1874 Walras published Éléments d'économie politique pure and Carl Menger published Principles of Economics in 1871) ; and Marx was still a relatively minor figure when these works were completed. It is unlikely that any of them knew anything of him. (On the other hand, Hayek or Bartley has suggested that Marx, voraciously reading at the British Museum, may have come across the works of one or more of these figures, and that his inability to formulate a viable critique may account for his failure to complete any further volumes of Kapital before his death.[50])

text: Nonetheless, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the generation who followed the preceptors of the Revolution succeeded partly because they could formulate straightforward responses to Marxist economic theory. The most famous of these was that of Böhm-Bawerk, Zum Abschluss des Marxschen Systems (1896),[51] but the first was Wicksteed's "The Marxian Theory of Value. Das Kapital: a criticism" (1884,[52] followed by "The Jevonian criticism of Marx: a rejoinder" in 1885[53]). Initially there were only a few Marxist responses to marginalism, of which the most famous were Rudolf Hilferding's Böhm-Bawerks Marx-Kritik (1904)[54] and Politicheskoy ekonomni rante (1914) by Никола́й Ива́нович Буха́рин (Nikolai Bukharin).[55] However, over the course of the 20th century a considerable literature developed on the conflict between marginalism and the labour theory of value, with the work of the neo-Ricardian economist Piero Sraffa providing an important critique of marginalism.

text: It might also be noted that some followers of Henry George similarly consider marginalism and neoclassical economics a reaction to Progress and Poverty, which was published in 1879.[56]

text: In the 1980s John Roemer and other analytical Marxists have worked to rebuild Marxian theses on a marginalist foundation.

text: Reformulation[edit]

text: In his 1881 work Mathematical Psychics, Francis Ysidro Edgeworth presented the indifference curve, deriving its properties from marginalist theory which assumed utility to be a differentiable function of quantified goods and services. Later work attempted to generalize to the indifference curve formulations of utility and marginal utility in avoiding unobservable measures of utility.

text: In 1915, Eugen Slutsky derived a theory of consumer choice solely from properties of indifference curves.[57] Because of the World War, the Bolshevik Revolution, and his own subsequent loss of interest, Slutsky's work drew almost no notice, but similar work in 1934 by John Richard Hicks and R. G. D. Allen[58] derived much the same results and found a significant audience. (Allen subsequently drew attention to Slutsky's earlier accomplishment.)

text: Although some of the third generation of Austrian School economists had by 1911 rejected the quantification of utility while continuing to think in terms of marginal utility,[12] most economists presumed that utility must be a sort of quantity. Indifference curve analysis seemed to represent a way to dispense with presumptions of quantification, albeit that a seemingly arbitrary assumption (admitted by Hicks to be a "rabbit out of a hat"[59]) about decreasing marginal rates of substitution[60] would then have to be introduced to have convexity of indifference curves.

text: For those who accepted that indifference curve analysis superseded earlier marginal utility analysis, the latter became at best perhaps pedagogically useful, but "old fashioned" and observationally unnecessary.[60][61]

text: Revival[edit]

text: When Cramer and Bernoulli introduced the notion of diminishing marginal utility, it had been to address a paradox of gambling, rather than the paradox of value.  The marginalists of the revolution, however, had been formally concerned with problems in which there was neither risk nor uncertainty.  So too with the indifference curve analysis of Slutsky, Hicks, and Allen.

text: The expected utility hypothesis of Bernoulli and others was revived by various 20th century thinkers, with early contributions by Ramsey (1926),[62] von Neumann and Morgenstern (1944),[63] and Savage (1954).[64] Although this hypothesis remains controversial, it brings not only utility, but a quantified conception of utility (cardinal utility), back into the mainstream of economic thought.

text: A major reason why quantified models of utility are influential today is that risk and uncertainty have been recognized as central topics in contemporary economic theory.[65] Quantified utility models simplify the analysis of risky decisions because, under quantified utility, diminishing marginal utility implies risk aversion.[66] In fact, many contemporary analyses of saving and portfolio choice require stronger assumptions than diminishing marginal utility, such as the assumption of prudence, which means convex marginal utility.[67]

text: Meanwhile, the Austrian School continued to develop its ordinalist notions of marginal utility analysis, formally demonstrating that from them proceed the decreasing marginal rates of substitution of indifference curves.[10]


document_title: History of the United States dollar

question_text: when did the us currency stop being backed by gold

text: History of the United States dollar

text: Background[edit]

text: By the end of 1778, Continental Currency retained only between 1⁄5 to 1⁄7 of its original face value. By 1780, Continental bills – or Continentals – were worth just 1⁄40 of their face value. Congress tried to reform the currency by removing the old bills from circulation and issuing new ones, but this met with little to no success. By May 1781, Continentals had become so worthless they ceased to circulate as money. Benjamin Franklin noted that the depreciation of the currency had, in effect, acted as a tax to pay for the war.[2] In the 1790s, after the ratification of the United States Constitution, Continentals could be exchanged for treasury bonds at 1% of face value.[3]

text: Congress appointed Robert Morris to be Superintendent of Finance of the United States following the collapse of Continental currency. In 1782, Morris advocated the creation of the first financial institution chartered by the United States. The Bank of North America was funded in part by specie loaned to the United States by France. Morris helped finance the final stages of the war by issuing notes in his name, backed by his own money. The Bank of North America also issued notes convertible into specie.[4] On July 6, 1785, the Continental Congress of the United States authorized the issuance of a new currency, the US dollar.

text: However, runaway inflation and the collapse of the Continental currency prompted delegates at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 to include the gold and silver clause in the United States Constitution, preventing individual States from issuing their own bills of credit. Article One states they were prohibited to "make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts."[5] Some people use this clause to argue that federal paper money is unconstitutional. [6][7]

text: The United States Mint was created by Congress following the passing of the Coinage Act of 1792. It was primarily tasked with producing and circulating coinage. The first Mint building was in Philadelphia, then the capital of the United States. The Mint was originally placed within the Department of State, until the Coinage Act of 1873 when it became part of the Department of the Treasury (in 1981 it was placed under the auspices of the Treasurer of the United States). The Mint had the authority to convert any precious metals into standard coinage for anyone's account with no seigniorage charge beyond refining costs.

text: Early history[edit]

text: After the creation of the U.S. dollar, the fledgling American administration of President George Washington turned its attention to monetary issues again in the early 1790s under the leadership of Alexander Hamilton, the Secretary of the Treasury at the time. Congress acted on Hamilton's recommendations in the Coinage Act of 1792, which established the dollar as the basic unit of account for the United States. The word dollar is derived from Low Saxon cognate of the High German Thaler. The most commonly circulated and readily available currency, used by common Americans, at this time, was the Spanish Peso, also known as the "Spanish milled dollar", which was valued for its high silver content.

text: In the early 19th century, gold rose in relation to silver, resulting in the removal from commerce of nearly all gold coins, and their subsequent melting. Therefore, in the Coinage Act of 1834, the 15:1 ratio of silver to gold was changed to a 16:1 ratio by reducing the weight of the nation's gold coinage. This created a new U.S. dollar that was backed by 1.50 g (23.22 grains) of gold. However, the previous dollar had been represented by 1.60 g (24.75 grains) of gold. The result of this revaluation, which was the first devaluation of the U.S. dollar, was that the value in gold of the dollar was reduced by 6%. Moreover, for a time, both gold and silver coins were useful in commerce.

text: In 1853, the weights of U.S. silver coins (except the dollar itself, which was rarely used) were reduced. This had the effect of placing the nation effectively (although not officially) on the gold standard. The retained weight in the dollar coin was a nod to bimetallism, although it had the effect of further driving the silver dollar coin from commerce. Foreign coins, including the Spanish dollar, were also, widely used,[8] as legal tender, until 1857.

text: With the enactment of the National Banking Act of 1863, during the American Civil War and its later versions that taxed states' bonds and currency out of existence, the dollar became the sole currency of the United States and remains so today.

text: During the 19th century the dollar was less accepted around the world than the British pound. Nellie Bly carried Bank of England notes on her 1889-1890 trip around the world in 72 days; she also brought some dollars, Bly wrote, "to use at different ports as a test to see if American money was known outside of America". Traveling east from New York, she did not see American money until she found $20 gold pieces used as jewelry in Colombo; there Bly found that as currency dollars were accepted at a 60% discount.[9]

text: In 1878, the Bland-Allison Act was enacted to provide for freer coinage of silver. This act required the government to purchase between $2 million and $4 million worth of silver bullion each month at market prices and to coin it into silver dollars. This was, in effect, a subsidy for politically influential silver producers.

text: The discovery of large silver deposits in the Western United States in the late 19th century created a political controversy. Due to the large influx of silver, the value of silver in the nation's coinage dropped precipitously. On one side were agrarian interests such as the United States Greenback Party that wanted to retain the bimetallic standard in order to inflate the dollar, which would allow farmers to more easily repay their debts. On the other side were Eastern banking and commercial interests, who advocated sound money and a switch to the gold standard. This issue split the Democratic Party in 1896. It led to the famous "cross of gold" speech given by William Jennings Bryan, and may have inspired many of the themes in The Wizard of Oz. Despite the controversy, the status of silver was slowly diminished through a series of legislative changes from 1873 to 1900, when a gold standard was formally adopted. The gold standard survived, with several modifications, until 1971.

text: Gold standard[edit]

text: Bimetallism persisted until March 14, 1900, with the passage of the Gold Standard Act, which provided that:

text: ...the dollar consisting of twenty-five and eight-tenths grains (1.67 g) of gold nine-tenths fine, as established by section thirty-five hundred and eleven of the Revised Statutes of the United States, shall be the standard unit of value, and all forms of money issued or coined by the United States shall be maintained at a parity of value with this standard...

text: Thus the United States moved to a gold standard, making both gold and silver the legal-tender coinage of the United States, and guaranteed the dollar as convertible to 1.5 g (23.22 grains) of gold.[10]

text: The gold standard was suspended twice during World War I, once fully and then for foreign exchange. At the onset of the war, U.S. corporations had large debts payable to European entities, who began liquidating their debts in gold. With debts looming to Europe, the dollar to British pound exchange rate reached as high as $6.75, far above the (gold) parity of $4.8665. This caused large gold outflows until July 31, 1914, when the New York Stock Exchange closed and the gold standard was temporarily suspended. In order to defend the exchange value of the dollar, the US Treasury Department authorized state and nationally chartered banks to issue emergency currency under the Aldrich-Vreeland Act, and the newly created Federal Reserve organized a fund to assure debts to foreign creditors. These efforts were largely successful, and the Aldrich-Vreeland notes were retired starting in November and the gold standard was restored when the New York Stock Exchange re-opened in December 1914.[11]

text: As the United States remained neutral in the war, it remained the only country to maintain its gold standard, doing so without restriction on import or export of gold from 1915 to 1917. During the participation of the United States as a belligerent, President Wilson banned gold export, thereby suspending the gold standard for foreign exchange. After the war, European countries slowly returned to their gold standards, though in somewhat altered form.[11][12]

text: During the Great Depression, every major currency abandoned the gold standard. Among the earliest, the Bank of England abandoned the gold standard in 1931 as speculators demanded gold in exchange for currency, threatening the solvency of the British monetary system. This pattern repeated throughout Europe and North America. In the United States, the Federal Reserve was forced to raise interest rates in order to protect the gold standard for the US dollar, worsening already severe domestic economic pressures. After bank runs became more pronounced in early 1933, people began to hoard gold coins as distrust for banks led to distrust for paper money, worsening deflation and depleting gold reserves.[11][12]

text: The Gold Reserve Act[edit]

text: In early 1933, in order to fight severe deflation Congress and President Roosevelt implemented a series of Acts of Congress and Executive Orders which suspended the gold standard except for foreign exchange, revoked gold as universal legal tender for debts, and banned private ownership of significant amounts of gold coin. These acts included Executive Order 6073, the Emergency Banking Act, Executive Order 6102, Executive Order 6111, the Agricultural Adjustment Act, 1933 Banking Act, House Joint Resolution 192, and later the Gold Reserve Act.[11] These actions were upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the "Gold Clause Cases" in 1935.[13]

text: For foreign exchange purposes, the set $20.67 per ounce value of the dollar was lifted, allowing the dollar to float freely in foreign exchange markets with no set value in gold. This was terminated after one year. Roosevelt attempted first to restabilize falling prices with the Agricultural Adjustment Act; however, this did not prove popular, so instead the next politically popular option was to devalue the dollar on foreign exchange markets. Under the Gold Reserve Act the value of gold was fixed at $35 per ounce, making the dollar more attractive for foreign buyers (and making foreign currencies more expensive for those holding dollars). This change led to more conversion of gold into dollars, allowing the U.S. to effectively corner the world gold market.[14][15]

text: The suspension of the gold standard was considered temporary by many in markets and in the government at the time, but restoring the standard was considered a low priority to dealing with other issues.[11][14]

text: Under the post-World War II Bretton Woods system, all other currencies were valued in terms of U.S. dollars and were thus indirectly linked to the gold standard. The need for the U.S. government to maintain both a $35 per troy ounce (112.53 ¢/g) market price of gold and also the conversion to foreign currencies caused economic and trade pressures. By the early 1960s, compensation for these pressures started to become too complicated to manage.

text: In March 1968, the effort to control the private market price of gold was abandoned. A two-tier system began. In this system all central-bank transactions in gold were insulated from the free market price. Central banks would trade gold among themselves at $35 per troy ounce (112.53 ¢/g) but would not trade with the private market. The private market could trade at the equilibrium market price and there would be no official intervention. The price immediately jumped to $43 per troy ounce (138.25 ¢/g). The price of gold touched briefly back at $35 (112.53 ¢/g) near the end of 1969 before beginning a steady price increase. This gold price increase turned steep through 1972 and hit a high that year of over $70 (2.25 $/g). By that time floating exchange rates had also begun to emerge, which indicated the de facto dissolution of the Bretton Woods system. The two-tier system was abandoned in November 1973. By then the price of gold had reached $100 per troy ounce (3.22 $/g).

text: In the early 1970s, inflation caused by rising prices for imported commodities, especially oil, and spending on the Vietnam War, which was not counteracted by cuts in other government expenditures, combined with a trade deficit to create a situation in which the dollar was worth less than the gold used to back it.

text: In 1971, President Richard Nixon unilaterally ordered the cancellation of the direct convertibility of the United States dollar to gold. This act was known as the Nixon Shock.

text: U.S. dollar value vs. gold value[edit]

text: The sudden jump in the price of gold after the demise of the Bretton Woods accords was a result of the significant prior debasement of the US dollar due to excessive inflation of the monetary supply via central bank (Federal Reserve) coordinated fractional reserve banking under the Bretton Woods partial gold standard. In the absence of an international mechanism tying the dollar to gold via fixed exchange rates, the dollar became a pure fiat currency and as such fell to its free market exchange price versus gold. Consequently, the price of gold rose from $35 per troy ounce (1.125 $/g) in 1969 to almost $500 (29 $/g) in 1980.

text: Shortly after the gold price started its ascent in the early 1970s, the price of other commodities such as oil also began to rise. While commodity prices became more volatile, the average exchange rate between oil and gold remained much the same in the 1990s as it had been in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.

text: Fearing the emergence of a specie gold-based economy separate from central banking, and with the corresponding threat of the collapse of the U.S. dollar, the U.S. government approved several changes to the trading on the COMEX. These changes resulted in a steep decline in the traded value of precious metals from the early 1980s onward.

text: In September 1987 under the Reagan administration the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury James Baker made a proposal through the International Monetary Fund to use a commodity basket (which included gold).[citation needed]

text: Silver standard[edit]

text: United States silver certificates were a type of representative money printed from 1878 to 1964 in the United States as part of its circulation of paper currency.[16] They were produced in response to silver agitation by citizens who were angered by the Fourth Coinage Act, and were used alongside the gold-based dollar notes. The silver certificates were initially redeemable in the same face value of silver dollar coins, and later in raw silver bullion.

text: Since the early 1920s, silver certificates were issued in $1, $5, and $10 denominations. In the 1928 series, only $1 silver certificates were produced. Fives and tens of this time were mainly Federal Reserve notes, which were backed by and redeemable in gold. In 1933, Congress passed the Agricultural Adjustment Act which included a clause allowing for the pumping of silver into the market to replace the gold. A new 1933 series of $10 silver certificate was printed and released, but not many were released into circulation.

text: In 1934, a law was passed in Congress that changed the obligation on Silver Certificates so as to denote the current location of the silver.

text: The last government regulation regarding the silver standard was in 1963, when President John F. Kennedy issued Executive Order 11110, delegating to the Treasury Secretary his authority to authorize the US Department of Treasury to issue silver certificates for any silver held by the U.S. Government in excess of that not already backing issued certificates. This was necessary because of Kennedy's signing of Public Law 88-36 on the same day, one of the effects of which was a repeal of the Silver Purchase Act of 1934-this act had authorized the Treasury Secretary to purchase silver bullion and issue silver certificates against it. Silver certificates continued to be issued for a short period of time in the $1 denomination, but were discontinued in late 1963.

text: Use as international reserve currency[edit]

text: History[edit]

text: World War II devastated European and Asian economies while leaving the United States' economy relatively unharmed.[17] As European governments exhausted their gold reserves and borrowed to pay the United States for war material, the United States accumulated large gold reserves. This combination gave the United States significant political and economic power following the war.[18]

text: The Bretton Woods agreement codified this economic dominance of the dollar after the war. In 1944, Allied nations sought to create an international monetary order that sustained the global economy and prevented the economic malaise that followed the First World War. The Bretton Woods agreement laid the foundations for an international monetary order that created rules and expectations for the international economic system. It created the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the predecessor of the World Bank, and an international monetary system based on fixed exchange rates. It valued the dollar at $35 per ounce of gold and the remaining signatories pegged their respective currency relative to the dollar, leading some economists to argue that Bretton Woods “dethroned”[19] gold as the default asset.[20]

text: While Bretton Woods institutionalized the dollar's importance following the war, Europe and Asia faced dollar shortages. The international community needed dollars to finance imports from the United States to rebuild what was lost in the war.[21] In 1948 Congress passed the European Recovery Program - generally known as the Marshall Plan – giving dollars to European countries to purchase imports needed to rebuild their economies. The plan helped European countries by providing them dollars to purchase the imports needed to produce exports, eventually allowing the countries to export enough of their own goods to obtain the dollars necessary to sustain their economies without reliance on any Marshall-like plan. At the same time, Joseph Dodge worked with Japanese officials and Congress to pass the Dodge Plan in 1949, which worked similarly to the Marshall Plan, but for Japan rather than Europe.[20]

text: The Marshall and Dodge plans' successes have brought new challenges to the U.S. dollar. In 1959, dollars in circulation around the world exceeded U.S. gold reserves, which became vulnerable to the equivalent of a bank run. In 1960, Yale economist Robert Triffin described the problem to Congress: either the dollar was not freely available and other countries could not afford to import American goods, or the dollar was freely available but confidence that the dollar could be converted to gold would wane.[22]

text: Eventually, the United States chose to devalue the dollar. During the early 1960s American officials largely prevented the conversion of dollars to gold with a series of "gentlemanly" agreements and other policies – which included the London Gold Pool - but these actions were not sustainable; the danger of a run on U.S. gold reserves was too high.[23] With Nixon's election in 1968, American officials became increasingly concerned until Nixon finally issued Executive Order 11615 in August 1971, ending the direct convertibility of dollars to gold. He said, "We must protect the position of the American dollar as pillar of monetary stability around the world… I am determined that the American dollar must never again be hostage in the hands of the international speculators."[24] This became known as the Nixon Shock and marked the dollar's transition from the gold standard to a fiat currency.

text: Impact[edit]

text: The United States enjoys some benefits because the dollar serves as the international reserve currency. The United States is less likely to face a balance of payments crisis.

text: The position of the dollar as the international reserve currency also has a cost: the American government is more likely to forego fiscal expansionary policies in order to maintain confidence in the dollar.[25]

text: United States Notes[edit]

text: A United States Note, also known as a Legal Tender Note, was a type of paper money that was issued from 1862 to 1971 in the U.S. Having been current for over 100 years, they were issued for longer than any other form of U.S. paper money. They were known popularly as "greenbacks" in their day, a name inherited from the Demand Notes that they replaced in 1862.

text: While issuance of United States Notes ended in January 1971, existing United States Notes are still valid currency in the United States today, though rarely seen in circulation.

text: Both United States Notes and Federal Reserve Notes are parts of the national currency of the United States, and both have been legal tender since the gold recall of 1933. Both have been used in circulation as money in the same way. However, the issuing authority for them came from different statutes.[26] United States Notes were created as fiat currency, in that the government has never categorically guaranteed to redeem them for precious metal - even though at times, such as after the specie resumption of 1879, federal officials were authorized to do so if requested.

text: The difference between a United States Note and a Federal Reserve Note is that a United States Note represented a "bill of credit" and was inserted by the Treasury directly into circulation free of interest. Federal Reserve Notes are backed by debt purchased by the Federal Reserve, and thus generate seigniorage for the Federal Reserve System, which serves as a lending intermediary between the Treasury and the public.

text: Fiat standard[edit]

text: Today, like the currency of most nations, the dollar is fiat money, unbacked by any physical asset. A holder of a federal reserve note has no right to demand an asset such as gold or silver from the government in exchange for a note.[27] Consequently, some proponents of the intrinsic theory of value believe that the near-zero marginal cost of production of the current fiat dollar detracts from its attractiveness as a medium of exchange and store of value because a fiat currency without a marginal cost of production is easier to debase via overproduction and the subsequent inflation of the money supply.

text: In 1963, the words "PAYABLE TO THE BEARER ON DEMAND" were removed from all newly issued Federal Reserve notes. Then, in 1968, redemption of pre-1963 Federal Reserve notes for gold or silver officially ended. The Coinage Act of 1965 removed all silver from quarters and dimes, which were 90% silver prior to the act. However, there was a provision in the act allowing some coins to contain a 40% silver consistency, such as the Kennedy Half Dollar. Later, even this provision was removed, with the last circulating silver-content halves minted in 1969. All previously silver coins minted for general circulation are now clad. During 1982, the composition of the cent was changed from copper to zinc with a thin copper coating. The content of the nickel has not changed since 1946.[citation needed] Silver and gold coins are produced by the U.S. government, but only as non-circulating commemorative pieces or in sets for collectors.

text: All circulating notes, issued from 1861 to present, will be honored by the government at face value as legal tender. This means that the federal government will accept old notes as payments for debts owed to the federal government (taxes and fees), or exchange old notes for new ones, but will not redeem notes for gold or silver, even if the note states that it may be thus redeemed. Some bills may have a premium to collectors.[citation needed]

text: The only exception to this rule is the $10,000 gold certificate of Series 1900, a number of which were inadvertently released to the public because of a fire in 1935. A box of them was literally thrown out a window. This set is not considered to be "in circulation" and, in fact, is stolen property. However, the government canceled these banknotes and removed them from official records. Their value, relevant only to collectors, is approximately one thousand US dollars.[28]

text: According to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, there is $1.2 trillion in total US currency in worldwide circulation as of July 2013.[29]

text: Color and design[edit]

text: The federal government began issuing currency like the Spanish dollars during the American Civil War. As photographic technology of the day could not reproduce color, it was decided the back of the bills would be printed in a color other than black. Because the color green was seen as a symbol of stability, it was selected. These were known as "greenbacks" for their color and started a tradition of the United States' printing the back of its money in green. The author of that invention was chemist Christopher Der-Seropian.[citation needed] In contrast to the currency notes of many other countries, Federal Reserve notes of varying denominations are the same colors: predominantly black ink with green highlights on the front, and predominantly green ink on the back. Federal Reserve notes were printed in the same colors for most of the 20th century, although older bills called "silver certificates" had blue highlights on the front, and "United States notes" had red highlights on the front.

text: In 1928, sizing of the bills was standardized (involving a 25% reduction in their current sizes, compared to the older, larger notes nicknamed "horse blankets").[30] Modern U.S. currency, regardless of denomination, is 2.61 inches (66.3 mm) wide, 6.14 inches (156 mm) long, and 0.0043 inches (0.109 mm) thick. A single bill weighs about fifteen and a half grains (one gram) and costs approximately 4.2 cents for the Bureau of Engraving and Printing to produce.

text: Microprinting and security threads were introduced in the 1991 currency series.

text: Another series started in 1996 with the $100 note, adding the following changes:

text:
A larger portrait, moved off-center to create more space to incorporate a watermark.
The watermark to the right of the portrait depicting the same historical figure as the portrait. The watermark can be seen only when held up to the light (and had long been a standard feature of all other major currencies).
A security thread that will glow pink when exposed to ultraviolet light in a dark environment.[31] The thread is in a unique position on each denomination.
Color-shifting ink that changes from green to black when viewed from different angles. This feature appears in the numeral on the lower right-hand corner of the bill front.
Microprinting in the numeral in the note's lower left-hand corner and on Benjamin Franklin's coat.
Concentric fine-line printing in the background of the portrait and on the back of the note. This type of printing is difficult to copy well.
The value of the currency written in 14pt Arial font on the back for those with sight disabilities.
Other features for machine authentication and processing of the currency.

text: Annual releases of the 1996 series followed. The $50 note June 12, 1997, introduced a large dark numeral with a light background on the back of the note to make it easier for people to identify the denomination.[32] The $20 note in 1998 introduced a new machine-readable capability to assist scanning devices. The security thread glows green under ultraviolet light, and "USA TWENTY" and a flag are printed on the thread, while the numeral "20" is printed within the star field of the flag. The microprinting is in the lower left ornamentation of the portrait and in the lower left corner of the note front. As of 1998[update], the $20 note was the most frequently counterfeited note in the United States. The new design of the $5 and $10 notes were released in 2000.

text: May 13, 2003, The Treasury announced that it would introduce new colors into the $20 bill, the first U.S. currency since 1905 (not counting the 1934 gold certificates) to have colors other than green or black. The move was intended primarily to reduce counterfeiting, rather than to increase visual differentiation between denominations. The main colors of all denominations, including the new $20 and $50, remain green and black; the other colors are present only in subtle shades in secondary design elements. This contrasts with notes of the euro, Australian dollar, and most other currencies, where strong colours are used to distinguish each denomination from the other.

text: The new $20 bills entered circulation October 9, 2003, the new $50 bills, September 28, 2004. The new $10 notes were introduced in 2006 and redesigned $5 bills began to circulate March 13, 2008. Each will have subtle elements of different colors, though will continue to be primarily green and black. The Treasury said it will update Federal Reserve notes every 7 to 10 years to keep up with counterfeiting technology. In addition, there have been rumors that future banknotes will use embedded RFID microchips as another anti-counterfeiting tool.[33]

text: The 2008 $5 bill contains significant new security updates. The obverse side of the bill includes patterned yellow printing that will cue digital image-processing software to prevent digital copying, watermarks, digital security thread, and extensive microprinting. The reverse side includes an oversized purple number 5 to provide easy differentiation from other denominations.[34]

text: On April 21, 2010, the U.S. Government announced a heavily redesigned $100 bill that featured bolder colors, color shifting ink, microlenses, and other features. It was scheduled to start circulating on February 10, 2011, but was delayed due to the discovery of sporadic creasing on the notes and "mashing" (when there is too much ink on the paper, the artwork on the notes are not clearly seen). The redesigned $100 bill was released October 8, 2013.[35] It costs 11.8 cents to produce each bill.[36]

text: "The soundness of a nation's currency is essential to the soundness of its economy. And to uphold our currency's soundness, it must be recognized and honored as legal tender and counterfeiting must be effectively thwarted," Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said at a ceremony unveiling the $20 bill's new design. Prior to its current design, the most recent redesign of the U.S. dollar bill was in 1996.

text:
Current $20 bill front.

Current $20 bill back.

text: As a result of a 2008 decision in an accessibility lawsuit filed by the American Council of the Blind, the Bureau of Engraving and Printing is planning to implement a raised tactile feature in the next redesign of each note, except the $1 and the current version of the $100 bill. It also plans larger, higher-contrast numerals, more color differences, and distribution of currency readers to assist the visually impaired during the transition period.[37] In 2016, the Treasury announced a number of design changes to the $5, $10 and $20 bills; to be introduced in this next redesign. The redesigns include:[38][39]

text:
The back of the $5 bill will be changed to showcase historical events at the pictured Lincoln Memorial by adding portraits of Marian Anderson (due to her famous performance there after being barred from Constitution Hall due to her race), Martin Luther King Jr.'s (due to his famous I Have A Dream speech), and Eleanor Roosevelt (who arranged Anderson's performance).
The back of the $10 bill will be changed to show a 1913 march for women's suffrage in the United States, plus portraits of Sojourner Truth, Lucretia Mott, Susan B. Anthony, Alice Paul, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton.
On the $20 bill, Andrew Jackson will move to the back (reduced in size, alongside the White House) and Harriet Tubman will appear on the front.


document_title: The Land of Steady Habits

question_text: the land of steady habits where was it filmed

text: The Land of Steady Habits

text: Plot[edit]

text: Anders Hill has recently divorced his wife Helene and quit his job in finance for an early retirement, and is having a difficult time coping. Anders’ adult-son Preston is a recovering addict who still lives with Helene in the family home that Anders has left.

text: Anders remains enamoured of his ex-wife, despite his string of one night stands since their divorce. He shows up at the annual Christmas party she co-hosts with Sophie Ashford, a neighbor and friend of Helene. Isolated at the party, he goes outside and joins Sophie and Mitchell's son Charlie and some of Charlie's friends. They urge Anders to smoke from a bong, and he is surprised to discover, afterward, that the marijuana is laced with PCP. Later at the party, Charlie overdoses and is taken to the hospital.

text: Sometime after, Anders, who is still the formal owner of the family home he has left to Helene, and, thusly, responsible for the mortgage, finds that he cannot afford to retire as well as pay off the house, and has fallen behind with the payments. He approaches a friend for a loan, however, the friend instead takes Anders to a strip club where he meets Barbara, a woman who is on a date. Anders and Barbara hit it off and end up sharing a cab home, and in his drunken stupor Anders gives his old address and breaks into his old home upsetting Helene and Preston.

text: Days later, Preston stops by Anders' condo to reveal he has a job delivering alcohol but is homeless, having been kicked out of the family home by Helene. However, Anders tells him he cannot stay the night and urges him to grow up. That night, Charlie visits Anders and tells him he has broken out of the hospital, as his parents want him to go to rehab and he needs to run away but wants Anders to look after his pet turtle. Charlie later dies of an overdose, his corpse discovered by Preston.

text: Charlie's death causes Preston to be welcomed back into the family home by Helene. On Christmas Eve, when the Hills and Ashfords traditionally celebrate dinner together, Preston finds his Dad and convinces him to stop by for dinner. Over the course of the dinner, Anders reveals that Charlie and himself had gotten high together a few times. This revelation leads to Sophie telling Anders that Helene had been cheating on him for two years. Mitchell then attacks Anders by smashing his cigar into Anders’ forehead.

text: A few months later, everyone has moved on. Rather than keep the house, Helene has moved out with her boyfriend. Preston has decided to return to grad school, getting his own apartment. Anders continues to date Barbara, is settling into retired life, and is looking after Charlie's turtle.

text: Cast[edit]

text:
Ben Mendelsohn as Anders Hill
Edie Falco as Helene Hill, Anders’ ex-wife and Preston’s mother
Thomas Mann as Preston Hill, Helene and Anders' son
Elizabeth Marvel as Sophie Ashford, Helene’s best friend
Michael Gaston as Mitchell Ashford, Sophie’s husband
Charlie Tahan as Charlie Ashford, Sophie and Mitchell's son
Bill Camp as Donny, Helene’s boyfriend
Josh Pais as Larry Eastwood, a friend of Anders
Connie Britton as Barbara, Anders’ love-interest
Natalie Gold as Dana
Victor Slezak as Wes Thompsan

text: Production[edit]

text: On August 20, 2014, it was reported that Nicole Holofcener would write and direct an adaptation of Ted Thompson's novel The Land of Steady Habits for Fox Searchlight.[2] In January 2017, Ben Mendelsohn, Edie Falco, and Thomas Mann were set to star in the film, which, it was revealed, was to be financed and distributed by Netflix.[3] In February  2017, Connie Britton joined the cast.[4] In March 2017, Elizabeth Marvel joined the cast.[5]

text: By March 17, 2017, The Land of Steady Habits had begun filming in Tarrytown.[6]

text: Release[edit]

text: The Land of Steady Habits had its world premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival on September 12, 2018.[7] It was released exclusively to Netflix on September 14, 2018.[8]