Mint Stopping Dollar Coin Production - Washpost

See what happens if you "listen" to the "majority" -- instad of saving 5 to 6 billion dollars they now "save" 50 million. Yeah, a great deal.

Australia, New Zealand, Canada have successfully introduced 1 and 2 dollar coins, Britian 1 and 2 pound coins. Here in the Euro Zone we have 1 and 2 Euro coins...but only the Americans are unable to make the switch. If it weren't so ridiculous and sad one had to laugh out loud.

What would be right in the long run is to continue to make the dollar coins and get rid of the dollar bill. We are the last developed nation in the world seemingly incapable of getting rid of the note for our base unit and moving it to a coin. Embarrassing considering we were the first country to make it to the moon, but we can't seem to let go of $1 rags.

The 1 & 2 Euro coins are doing well. I remember (and still have some of) the 5c, 10c, 25c, 1, 2½, 5 Gulden coins from the Netherlands and the paper script as well; 5, 10, 25, 50, 100, 250 and 1000. It was very colorful and beautiful paper money, especially the 50 with the zonnebloem (sun flower) and bee.

Just a week ago, I read about issues in getting US coins to Zimbabwe for them to use.

http://allafrica.com/stories/201112120928.html

Finance Minister, Tendai Biti, said recently that government had faced logistical problems in bringing the coins, suggesting that high costs could have hindered the plan.

I do agree that the US should elimate the cent coin and dollar banknote.

Then will be space in the cash drawer for the dollar coin and two dollar note.

But remember, the dollar coin does weigh more than the dollar note.....

Ken

Earle42.....You obviously are passionate about this topic & have spent a good bit of time thinking about it.

I'd be interested to hear a little more about the price increase you see as inevitable. I could see an increase in some prices if the penny was discontinued, but don't have a clue as to why a switch from dollar bills to coins would cause a price increase. Was a study done that shows an increase in prices after Canada switched?




I don't understand this argument at all. Assuming excess profits go towards the national debt(I'm skeptical & think it probably goes into the general fund) how is that not saving taxpayers money? Any money that goes towards paying the national debt is money that doesn't come from taxes. By definition that is a savings to the taxpayer.

I have been wondering for some time when this would come to a skreetching halt.

Earle, I love you and agree with you a lot, but we will never come to an agreement on this.

My experience with Canada and Canadians is the exact opposite of Earle's.

I know more than a few Canadians; I almost married one twelve years ago and do regular business with several today. Every one of them still kids me about our "funny" money, which goes beyond coinage.

Not a single one of them has ever complained about the switch to Loonies and Toonies. Actually, almost all of them have praised it; usually as being another reason whey they are better than us (to which I usually remind them the last time they won Lord Stanley's Cup). None have ever had pockets-full of dollar and two dollar coins; only one or two at time (which I always liberate from them if it is one I do not have).

My more politically charged northern friends actually blame those referenced price increases on NAFTA (enacted two years before the Toonie) as being "US Biased" (but that is not an issue for this thread).

Of course, we have a large Canadian membership on CCF. Maybe some of them can post a comment?

My point is that as far as I still know, Canada survived the change in their change. We can, too.

To me, this decision is just another example of the incompetence that exists in our nation's government (again, an issue for another thread).

@jbuck - Interesting point on the Canadians saying it was NAFTA and not the Loonies. I had not heard of this.

@trdhrdr



The only thing more I can tell you is that in 1987, after the Loonie was introduced, there was an initial increase in the costs of everything. The Canadians I was around always said it was b/c the government had devalued their dollar to being "pocket change." In other words the dollar became something like a "quarter" - very easily spent - a psychological devaluation, yes, but with real life ramifications.

You can read on the web where there was a price increase initially - its no secret.

However, I am not sure what the discrepancy is between what my friend jbuck has said about NAFTA and what I saw/was told during that time. I was dealing with the average Joe Canuck at the time and not government politics. I do not doubt jbuck as I have never heard about NAFTA's role in this before.




I know what I experienced twenty five years ago (wow-that number hit me like a ton of bricks - that long ago already?!) in 1987 (although now jbuck says some of the cost was NAFTA - I do not know). Been there, done that, seen that, saw it called an "mistake" at the time by the (then eye-witness to the event) then-bankers and then-citizens in Canada, and saw them calling us "dumb" for not learning from their mistake!

Add to this that when researching modern pro-dollar coin websites, not all of the facts are as solid as they present them. Moot points are used for support -- such as: "Well everyone else is doing it...! So what! I am an American and we have an earned, proud record of not following the crowd (Yankee Ingenuity and all). We have been leaders and innovators overall. If our forefathers followed the crowd, we might not even have free speech and our other rights.

Other cited web site "proofs" send up a flag. A website showing data from weighing a candy bar and saying that carrying dollar coins in you pocket is no more of a bother than the candy is ridiculous since no one was forcing people to carry candy bars daily. Showing the dollar coin is lighter than 4 quarters as a way to discount the "weight" issue is also not as valid as they present it b/c the number of dollar bills in a wallet is normally going to be much more in value than anyone would ever think of carrying in quarters! The comparison is not as applicable as implied.

Another point I see a failure on is that yes, it is easy to measure the profits the mint makes from producing these coins and then say this is a good number on which to base a savings to the taxpayer. However, I would like to see (if at all possible - which I doubt) how much more the individual on the street had to pay out when prices on everything rose wen the Loonie was introduced. There also was an added cost passed onto the consumer by institutions (like banks) who had to pay more to exchange masses of these for larger bills.

Per person these costs could not have been overwhelming. But the sum total for the entire population would have been a legitimate value to subtract from the computed savings. Also, since the savings are computed over a 30 year period, another subtraction SHOULD be in the devaluation of the money over that time period. It sounds good to say they save so many billions of dollars. but I would rather have the actual worth of a billion dollars from 30 years ago than the worth of it today.

I am skeptical of the "proof" that is given since it is too easy to find problems with it. I remember days of too much change in my pockets in Canada. I was glad to get rid of it. I would like to see more discussion to these issues on the websites.

I also wonder what would happen if the US just decided to make polymer notes? It might make this whole discussion moot anyway? I'd also like to see the polymer notes backed with something substantial like PMs.