Slashdot Mirror
Is It Time For the US To Ditch the Dollar Bill?
coondoggie writes "It seems well past time that the U.S. ditch its $1 bill — considering such a move could save the country somewhere in the neighborhood of $4 billion. But there is much resistance, or perhaps a lack of real consideration of the issue from most people. Watchdogs at the Government Accountability Office this week testified before a Congressional hearing on the topic, and said dollar coins could save $4.4 billion over 30 years (PDF), or an average of about $146 million per year."
Not gonna happen; we still have pennies, for chrissakes!
Irony? Yea, it's like goldy and bronzy, only it's made of iron!
How about the penny first.
That will just bump the tips up to higher denominations.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
With dollar coins?
Wait, they're saying we can save potentially billions of dollars, by simply changing our expectations and habits in a very slight and non-destructive fashion? Unless we can declare war on it as some kind of abstract ideological concept, nobody's going to go for that. This is America, dude, where we turn off the lights when we leave the bathroom to save the environment while we let petroleum producers dump thousands of tonnes of oil into the water because they half-assed the construction and bypassed most of the safety procedures. We come in peace, ignore the Predator drones.
The only sensible way to do this is to shove it down the average person's throat with them screaming bloody murder... only to find out a few years later that they actually like it better the new way. It's how things have always been done here. Don't ask me why, I don't know whether it's human nature, or there's something in the water that makes people this resistant to beneficial change, but will happily make useless changes to everything...
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
That's all there is to this comment. I throw away pennies. The only coins I save are quarters, and I only do that out of frustration. I don't carry a coin pouch. Seriously.
I saw this insightful comment and will post it here.
How about this! If we took the power away from a bunch of secret bank mobsters to PRINT MONEY and instead backed it with gold or some other finite, precious commodity, the dollar would retain its value.
I'm sick and tired of this implicit tax that I have just because I *HOLD* a dollar. Read Greenspan's "Gold and Economic Freedom" essay. Once it's started, that money which is printed out can only be repaid by printing more money. This is the shabby key to the (corporate/social) welfare state that exists today.
The reference is here: http://www.321gold.com/fed/greenspan/1966.html
According to Wolfram Alpha, $1 in 1950 had the approximate purchasing power of $9.54 today. So the dollar is the new dime. Pop quiz: did it make sense to print ten-cent notes in 1950? (Hint: no) Then why retain the $1 bill today?
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
We've tried several. The big problem is that the Treasury won't simply ditch the dollar bill in favor of coins. They try to issue the coins along with dollar bills, so of course people treat the coins as collectibles instead of currency and they never catch on.
The right way to do it is to just do it: issue the coins and stop issuing dollar bills. Bills would still be in circulation and accepted, but no new $1 bills would be issued to banks. If a bank orders $1s, it'd receive them in coins. Any dollar bills received by the Federal Reserve banks or the Treasury would be destroyed, and any replacement would be done with coins. I figure within a year we'd be on coins completely, most dollar bills would've been returned as worn and destroyed and with no new bills being issued coins would become so prevalent that they wouldn't be collectibles anymore.
Sweet!!!
You mean we'd get an immediate price drop for the usual $1.25+ it costs in the machines nowdays?!?!
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
It doesn't matter if anybody wants them or not, the solution is simple. Start making one dollar coins. Stop making one dollar bills. Very quickly, your entire economy has switched.
That's what happened in Canada. What, you think there wasn't resistance when we eliminated our one dollar bill or two dollar bill (which was far more commonly used than in the US)? Of course there was. And it didn't matter, because people didn't get a choice. The government decided they wanted to save money, so they did. It's not an election-level issue, so they could do that sort of thing.
The only reason that the dollar coin has not succeeded in the US is because the US government doesn't know how to do such transitions.
You have this backward. €1 and €2 are coins because of inflation, not the other way around. You shouldn't think twice about spending €1 on something because it isn't much money.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
We have a government where powerful politicians can openly claim that significant scientific theories are "lies from the pit of hell", and that came up with the TSA and Gitmo. They're inefficient and slow on purpose, do you really want these people to be able to take significant actions quickly and efficiently?
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Getting rid of $1 bills isn't despotism, it's pragmatism.
Should the US start printing 25-cent bills? 10-cent bills? More choice is better, right?
At a certain point, you have to realize that having unlimited choices is just silly. A $1 coin functions just as well in an economy as a $1 bill (and lasts longer, thus costing society less). If you don't like increasing amounts of change, do what most Americans do and use credit or debit cards.
As a side effect, use cash, save those increasing piles of change and you can put hundreds of dollars into your savings account every year just by rolling it all up.
That must be why the Swiss franc is so weak. They have 1, 2 and 5 franc coins and have for decades. Their smallest paper bill is a 10 franc note.
No, wait... the franc isn't weak. Guess that means these things don't correlate. :)
But this isn't one of those decisions. Removing the $1 bill saves the people money. It doesn't particularly help the government at all. So how is this despotism?
From what I've heard, vending machine manufacturers and operators hate dollar bills. Those scanners are easily faked out, but also have a high false-negative rate, get jammed with damaged bills, frustrate customers whose bills aren't new enough, etc. Vendors only started adding them to machines because they didn't want people to have to feed half a dozen (or more) coins into a machine to get a Pepsi.
A one-time conversion to accept $5 and $1 coins would result in much less hassle for the vending machine folks, because coin-counting devices are fairly difficult to fake out (you can't produce counterfeit metal quarters with a computer and inkjet printer) and much more reliable.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
So that's $146,000,000/yr.
No, no. That's not the right way to look at it. It's 4 BILLION being saved. What? Yes, that's over THIRTY years, but so what? Doesn't "4 BILLION" sound so much better than "1 BILLION" or even just "146 MILLION"?
Now we have the latest style of inflation: the number of years a small savings is multiplied by to produce the sensational amount to be reported by the media. With the budget, it's typically been 10 years (so they won't say "this cut to spending will save just 100 million", they report savings of "1 billion". Now it's 30 years. We've automatically saved three times as much as before!
if you hadn't noticed, there's a particularly loud virulent strain of "oppose all common sense progress as evil" in the USA
i know such stubborn blockheadedness isn't unique to the USA. but they seem more powerful here. how do other countries quash this loud ignorant sort?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Obviously, you didn't read the article in the link. The price of gold changes almost entirely because the value of the currency fluctuates. It isn't the other way around.
And to add something to that, what would you rather have: 1., a dollar whose purchasing value is a few PERCENT of what it was a few generations ago, or 2., a currency backed by an element whose true value is never going to fluctuate more than a few percent?
The REASON that the US left the gold standard was because of Keynsian economics. It's much easier to manipulate the economy when you have full control over the supply of a fiat currency. Read about what happened between the England and US in the '20s when there was gold price fixing. This is what led to the Depression!
I NEVER said that I wanted gold or silver-minted coins. I merely want a gold-backed system. Again, read the GP's link.
The problem with the gold standard is that it uses a division principle to adjust for inflation so that the rich get markedly richer while the poor literally starve. The point of fiat currency is that the stronger your GDP is the more money you can print without hurting your economy. Thus the guy who sits on his 100 million at 3% interest will meet inflation but the average worker every time we raise the minimum wage will see a vastly larger benefit. In short we need fiat currency to keep a modern economy working because of the huge surplus labor pool mixed with the insanely large world economy.
The purpose of fiat currency is to defraud the holder of the currency and advance the wellbeing of tyrants.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Yeah, cos that method worked well for IPv6
"We know what happens to people who stay in the middle of the road. They get run over." - Aneurin Bevan
No, it causes deflation.
Gold is basically fixed in quantity. Mining has little effect on the overall supply.
As the economy grows and the money supply is fixed, the value of money increases.
This shifts wealth to those people who hold cash, a non-productive asset.
This increase real interest rates, deterring investments in productive assets.
It is a horrible, horrible thing.
See “A Monetary History of the United States “ by Milton Friedman
That is nonsense. Money is is divisible. If your gold coin is worth too much to by a pair of boots, you exchange it for a smaller denomination. Deflation doesn't matter.
The requirement to use smaller denominations, mean the higher denominations are worth more. It seems that you are admitting deflation happens, but hand waving it away with a suggestion that it "doesn't matter". There is a lot of literature out there that says otherwise, and it is quite unlikely that deflation doesn't matter, so if you want to say deflation doesn't matter or is better than the current situation, then, the burden of proof is on you to show that.
Deflation has tangible negative effects on folks that are not rich -- when you borrow some money, the deflationary effect essentially means that you might never be able to pay back the loan, because the value of the gold in real terms that you have to pay back is increasing, on top of the actual interest charges; you can't know the economic growth in advance....
If the economic growth doesn't happen, there's no job for you to get to repay your loan or buy a house. If the economic growth does happen, and you owe money, then your debt becomes as much more burdensome as the rate of inflation caused by that growth, with a non-fiat currency.
It also means, that as the economy grows, wages will continuously go down -- a certain amount of gold becomes worth more over time, therefore, to be paying the same rate, the employers have to continuously decrease the amount of gold paid, and employers who hold large quantities of money have the advantage, since they receive money from the revenue making activities of their business, and there is a delay before they pay employees; whereas, in an inflationary environment, wages continuously increase, and this works to the disadvantage of the employer who has large quantities of cash, and to the advantage of the lower/middle-class laborers .
You can not increase the wealth and quality of life by inducing inflation.
Sure you can... inflation acts as a stimulus, encouraging new investment and revenue generating activities; just leaving your money in the bank is marginally penalized, due to the gradual decrease in value.
Investment is rewarded, with inflation and economic growth -- resulting in more productive use of the money, then sticking it in a bank account.
Non-inflationary currency rewards stagnation --- leave your money in safe keeping. It will just continuously be worth more and more over time, and you will need smaller and smaller denominations to pay for products and services with.
This means the other businesses you are buying products from, and laborers you are buying services from are at a disadvantage, because over time they are receiving smaller and smaller denominations of gold for their services.
E.g. You get just an artificial reward for holding onto the currency you obtained, before demand increased, instead of investing in profitable activities.
Not that there is a problem with saving money -- but it is nothing to base a system of trade on, at least not one that is expected to excel.