Video: Edmund Moy Asked About Higher Denomination United States Coins

The first poll linked to framed a mindset at the start...


Thus is what I unofficially term a baited poll. Although the poll results CAN still be legit when this is done, it is proven to psychologically influence results. This is why the media uses this so often and major polls normally are way off of reality - especially during election times.

However - having said that

I remember both of these polls when they were taken.

As when the first poll linked to was taken, I submit again the validity (NOT THE RESULTS) of the first poll are not applicable to the current US situation anymore because Canadians were coerced into a coin long enough ago that Canadian economy is very influenced and full of spenders who do not remember a bill only economy.

They don't mind it as much b/c an awful lot of them have never had the choice. So it is not a legit thing to ask them of how they liked it when there were bills only.

The second link is one I asked them for the people who remember the ability to use bills and reading the responses you will find the people who had the bills have adapted (of course the country did not blow up - let's keep things sensible), but they preferred, overall not having heavy coinage. Also note there was not a presented mindset at the beginning - just straight questions showing no emotional attachment in either direction. This allows the people responding to have their own ideas come out more easily.

There was statements of getting USED to coin - but adpating is not favoring. There also was a post to CNN article of when - after the Loonie had been out already - the overall concept of the Toonie was not favored in a context that could be summed up as akin to a "not again" attitude.

And let's not forget this poll also which was not linked:
https://goccf.com/t/112046

And again note it does not specifically state for people who remember a bill only economy to answer. But we need all the cards on the table, so I incuded the link.

Where once again the concept of the coins is tolerated, but not favored. The facts, as shown by their own words are the the weight issue makes them not favorable overall.

Sure - IF people would only alter their way of thinking en masse the coins would not be in jars. Yes - people can change their habits - but history shows this does not happen in reality. Why should people HAVE to when there are other alternatives just as cost effective?

Again - theory is great - reality is different.

And once again the viable solution is offered suggesting revaluing our own coins and currency and using polymer notes. This is an efficient, cost effective solution (which will never be done anyway) and Americans (subtle?) still get to have their choice. The only people not liking it are those who, for some reason, are upset that we don't have coins like the rest of the world. Yankee Ingenuity needs more attention as it had done us well in the past and become a famous term worldwide.

On CCF we have been over cost effectiveness before and government reports for switching to coin did show a saving of taxpayer dollars - but not at the large rates they claimed due to oversights. But once again, where it hits home, the taxpayer dollars were save on paper in DC< whereas the costs at the consumer level go up and the little guy is again inconvenienced.

Just like Pavlov's dog, the coerced people don't die, but adapt. And as the polls here have shown, even to this day, the majority of people responding to the polls on CCF are not joyful or even passive about having this system forced upon them. There is no overwhelming - love.

So by all means - let's inconvenience everyone and have the same results. We will not die, we will adapt, there will be no civil war, and the few will be happy instead of the majority. I miss living in greater times when Americans were totally against allowing the government any more coercive powers than absolutely necessary. The camels nose is in the tent with people behind it trying to push it in.

You keep saying survived... I find it hard to believe someone as intelligent as you ever had any legitimate doubt the country would not continue.

Agreed - let's be clear...


Um... no... were FORCED to accept it. Let's not get the word "accept" confused with words/ideas such as favor, happily use, desire, would not not want bills if given the choice.

Also remember:
Only one poll was taken which specified ONLY Canadians qualified to answer whether coins are better or not (actually lived before the change) was taken. And people who lived with both said they "accepted"them, but overall said it was better the old way.
The other two polls did not ask people who had never had life experience both ways to answer. It was open for all... and they are not jumping for joy either! Who knows how they WOULD react if given the choice? They never had it!



Missing the point. Its not whether we are capable to be forced into something we don't want. I again find it hard to believe you think this would mean the end of life as we know it if we were forced. So of course we would be capable of being forced into it. This was never the issue.

The points are:
1. There is a solution based upon the majority being happy vs the few being happy.
2. Yankee Ingenuity has always set America apart as a leader - not a follower - and WE can solve the problem without coercion.

... so why play follow the leader and allow coercion when WE don't have to, and we STILL solve the problem while keeping government coercion to a minimum like it was designed (from our country's roots) to be?

I'd like to know.



edited for spelling

Missed the point.

A viable option to keep the majority happy is feasible. So why favor forcing?

Of course they have coerced in the past (not sure all of the cited examples are applicable to this situation - but its OK). This does not make coercion good or the right thing especially (focus here ) when there is a viable option to keep the majority happy

... why prefer coercion?

This brings to mind those in power forcing/coercing others to do things against their will and at their expense. Our government was setup to protect individual liberty, not to enforce the greater good. They had that in the old Soviet Union. I might be reading more in to this than you meant, so please take no offence if I did.

That said, the elimination of the cent is a no-brainer from my standpoint. It's a loser for the mint and is only kept around because some crony capitalist business owners bribe politicians to force it upon the American people. If individual businesses had to buy their coins directly from the mint, they'd find it easy to get by without them. This includes the vending industry which has few machines that use them anyway.

The problem with fiat currency isn't that it's worthless in a literal sense. It's that it can be manipulated by powerful politicians to force their will on the less powerful. If not for that, it would be preferred because the money supply wouldn't be tied to a metal which is dug up out of the ground and used for other purposes.

Yes, you probably did. I was speaking of the greater good for a functional representative democracy.

We elect leaders and they make the difficult decisions for us. We hope their acts make life better for the whole of society. You cannot please everyone, so the idea is to do what does the most good for the most people (and hopefully with the least cost).

Really, killing the cent and going with the dollar coin might make uncomfortable those who are averse to change, but they have no right to a one cent coin or a one dollar note. Not having certain notes or coins does not deprive one of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.

This is unlike Soviet Russia where seizing private property and silencing (eliminating) dissenters was routinely done "for the greater good."

Speaking of dissent... I would not silence Earle42 for having a different opinion (wrong as it is, wink-wink, just teasing). On the contrary, I would buy him a Pepsi and together we would be thankful for being in a country where we can disagree without fear.