US Coin Vs Dollar - I Asked The Canadians

Let's also keep in mind that this is a coin forum and there is a bias as to what we'd prefer. You'd need to poll thousands of people from all over just to get an accurate idea of how Americans would accept the dollar coin. Thus far we (Americans) seem to prefer the dollar bill since there's such a large surplus of dollar coins.
I paid a library fine of $1 at the library with a dollar coin and the librarian says, "Ah, been riding on the train have we" as that's what they give in return for cash. She was right.

Actually, the reason I brought it back up this time is b/c on the other discussions, the actual factors which pro-bill people were/are saying kept being shoved off as invalid. Some people were making up hypothetical situations to "prove" the issues invalid.

It has now been established that the weight, etc. is fact. This also shows blogs etc. which poo-poo these concepts, and of which some have been cited, do not have the full situation in hand to consider before making a final decision. This makes it easy to suspect (note that word) personal desires are being factored into the equation and not just pure logic/data.

In previous discussions the idea of polymer notes was suggested (with room left for IF they would save money) - and, initially, the suggestion was accepted as if it was trampling a sacred cow. Where is the logic? And, being fully honest here, I was trying to see how avidly people wanted to stick to their opinions rather than openly discuss the issue and learn what the Canadians had shared with me when the Presidential dollars were first introduced. This is part of my nature and habit from being a teacher.

Personally, I am in favor of a "best" solution. Americans have always been known for "Yankee Ingenuity." I think we can come up with a better way of solving the problem. Keeping the general populace happy and saving the money is what I would like to see happen. I guess it is in my nature although it sometimes costs me personal opinions/wants -- but it is always is best ion the long run. Until someone takes the time to explore all avenues, I cannot believe the best (key word) solution has been found.

If it turns out eliminating the bill is the best route - then do it. If it turns out polymer notes do both jobs - then make them. If it turns out a new series of coins/bills made such that values will be reassigned so a dollar is worth something, then do it. However, as has been show with all these threads, an air of legitimacy has not been given in full exploration of all avenues towards a solution.

Imagine how people felt when gold coins were no longer in use and they had to use paper instead? That had to be a huge disappointment, since gold is valued much greater than notes. Or maybe not, since the notes are lighter? It would be interesting to hear from someone back then.

The solution has been honestly told at least 100 times in this forum. Just get rid of the $1 note. There is no other way. A $1 polymer note is cheaper, long term, but it still doesn't last as long as the coin and it leads to the coin not being used.

This math is bothering me.

3 cents is 3 one hundredths (.03) not one 3 hundredth (~.0033), so one dollar would buy 33 loaves (33*.03=.99). And $1.59 * 33 = $52.47.

Franklin, - thanks for this - I was trying to fight off a migraine (real - not a buzzword) and knew there was a problem. Its just too easy to make errors when I am like that.

Sorry, but right back at you!

If you read my posts, you will see where I said I believe the coins are, most likely, cost effective.

In other threads kill-the-bill people were going to an extreme in nay-saying the arguments others from the no-coin-only viewpoint were posting. Like I said, some were even making hypothetical situations "proving" any stated opposition (read excuses by the naysayers) was a fairy tale. This always throws up a flag in my mind that more than fact is being used in the reasoning process (read ... possible, though usually unnoticed emotional motivations).

This thread - which I initiated - was to show what really happens/happened. And the inquiry was worded so as to allow the truth to surface about the validity of the complaints - despite any personal viewpoint. As a result, the complaints are not longer classified as "excuses" but are QED'd as valid.

What does this mean? It means that, although probably correct on the initial savings issue, some kill-the-bill people now can see that an actual, countrywide experience, supports what some were saying (adamantly sometimes) was nonsense.




Maybe I am not understanding, but this seems you say it is illogical to ask for information (collect data) from experienced people/countries? After all, the suggested videos by the people who went through it were national broadcasts showing the overall opinions. It was not just asking 2 or three people. The very title of the article shows the reporter knew the general Canadian viewpoint ... he knew they would not be scratching their heads over "reinforce pockets ... again."

People with personal experience were asked to contribute so people without personal experience could understand the reality of the situation -- instead of assuming actual ramifications.

Ignoring their collective experience and calling it anecdotal (definition - regarded as unreliable or hearsay) goes against the well established saying that those who refuse to study history are doomed to repeat it.

... illogical?




Actually, again, I have been trying to get people to open their minds and see if there even is another solution other than kill-bills. The first time I mentioned polymers in another thread, some ad hominem posts resulted while others dodged the issue altogether and were not even willing to say they could be an option if someone would look into it.

Now you and some others have said there might be another option. This was definitely NOT how the suggestion that a solution might be found to please the majority and save money was first responded to - by any means.

You hit the nail on the head that time!

The only thing I have to add is, I don't think it is even possible to do a realistic study on it, by countries like Canada, Australia, etc. that have gone through the switch already.

Maybe looking at their annual budgets to see how they have changed or improved? The US Mint posts one, but I don't think other countries post theirs to the public. Anyone want to search their web sites for their annual budget reports?

Ever heard of "preaching to the choir?"

The cost effectiveness was already duscussed in other threads and agreed upon!

This thread was started b/c of a suggestion by jbuck in another thread on a related issue:
https://goccf.com/t/110925&whichpage=5

jbuck said:



So, again, is it the sacred cow syndrome pulling this back to something already agreed upon?

Don't just argue to kill the bill - kill the cow as well