21 Jul 12
Originally posted by rwingettUtter nonsense. We have discussed this before and you have never ever given any actual rationalization for such a ridiculous stance.
If all economies were localized then everyone would prosper.
Everyone across the world. Your wealth wouldn't get siphoned off to enrich plutocrats in western countries as it does now in a globalized market.
It would just get siphoned off locally?
Of course what you really want is to continue the siphoning whilst stopping any of the siphoned riches flowing back.
21 Jul 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo, we've never talked about it. You come out with your ridiculous arguments and I ignore them. As I will do once again. You seem to use the same words as me, but I don't think we're talking about the same thing at all as you continually attribute things to my position which I do not hold. As a matter of fact, I don't think you have the slightest idea what 'local economies' are about. Here are a few links for you to educate yourself. Once you've done that then we can have a meaningful discussion. Otherwise I'm afraid that we'll just continue talking past one another.
Utter nonsense. We have discussed this before and you have never ever given any actual rationalization for such a ridiculous stance.
[b]Everyone across the world. Your wealth wouldn't get siphoned off to enrich plutocrats in western countries as it does now in a globalized market.
It would just get siphoned off locally?
Of course what you really want is to continue the siphoning whilst stopping any of the siphoned riches flowing back.[/b]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buy_local
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_currency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_exchange_trading_system
22 Jul 12
Originally posted by stevemccThe small denominations don't disappear, only the small-denomination cash. Prices aren't affected in any way, so there's no multiple/compound cost increase. Of course, it wouldn't stop unscrupulous business from charging more and blaming the government, but we consumers are far too savvy to let them get away with that, aren't we?
It's very interesting to hear of countries that legislated that rounding would reduce some prices.
Else, the cost of everything would increase, the cost of items comprised of multiple parts (e.g. automobiles) would go up more significantly, and in sum, you'd see the single largest rise in the cost of living ever.
So, while its a no-brainer to some, I ha ...[text shortened]... ld be passed in the United States, and without it I would be opposed to eliminating pennies.
22 Jul 12
Originally posted by FMFThe replacement of small notes by coins happens frequently, because coins are more durable (e.g., our pound note gave way to a pound coin when I was a child). But since that is really just the replacement of one token of exchange for another, it's surely a different matter from phasing out a small denomination entirely.
Here in Indonesia they are [b]phasing in a new coin to replace the smallest denomination note, 1,000 Rupiah.[/b]
22 Jul 12
Most currencies have inflation. So we are essentially phasing in smaller denominations every year. It makes sense, then to once in a while phase out the smallest denominations.
What was the smallest denomination in the US 100 year ago? What would the equivalent be now (in terms of purchasing power)?
I have an old half penny in my coin collection. Does the UK still have those? Was there a smaller denomination than that?
22 Jul 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe smallest denomination historically in Britain was the farthing ("fourthing", i.e., a quarter of a penny), which, since there were then 240 pence to the pound, was worth around a thousandth of a pound. This coin went out of use about fifty years ago, leaving the halfpenny as our smallest. With decimalisation, we held on to the halfpenny coin, but since a pound was now worth 100 pence, this new half penny was worth more than twice as much as the old. We still had these half penny coins when I was a small child, but they were phased out when I was five or six. So our smallest coin now, the penny, is worth nearly ten times as much as the smallest circulating coin in the 1950s.
Most currencies have inflation. So we are essentially phasing in smaller denominations every year. It makes sense, then to once in a while phase out the smallest denominations.
What was the smallest denomination in the US 100 year ago? What would the equivalent be now (in terms of purchasing power)?
I have an old half penny in my coin collection. Does the UK still have those? Was there a smaller denomination than that?
23 Jul 12
Originally posted by TeinosukeThe cost of coupons, even bills is significant. My problem is with "If cards were used, the exact sum could still be charged."
The US penny and nickel (1-cent and 5-cent pieces) apparently cost more to produce than their face value.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18586854
Surely, withdrawing the penny, or even both of these coins, from circulation is a no-brainer. Small purchases could be rounded to the nearest ten cents if paid in cash; legislation could mandate that th ...[text shortened]... at a nickel is physically bigger than a dime), or switching to cheaper metals.
Any thoughts?
Call me paranoid, but I don't want government snoops being able to know everything I buy, when and where.
Over the last two or three centuries, banking, almost always in concert with governments, has intentionally degraded the money supply by various means, originally by crudely shaving metallic coins, and more recently by monetary policy, heavily taxing everyone without the messy declaration of higher rates.
It is axiomatic that electronic money will be even easier to manipulate, and defraud users of purchasing power.
In the '50s, I seldom had more than a dollar at a time, so the small coins meant something. Why not fix our monetary system so that inflation is not a given. The worthlessness of small coins is a symptom not the disease.
23 Jul 12
Originally posted by rwingettI liked your direction with local currencies. However, local economies, or isolation is and always has been a shortcut to poverty, economic stagnation, and cultural wastelands.
If all economies were localized then everyone would prosper. Everyone across the world. Your wealth wouldn't get siphoned off to enrich plutocrats in western countries as it does now in a globalized market.
The poorest, and most backward areas of the world, have been and are, the most isolated by geography primarily. Intentional isolation generally makes the geographic isolation worse yet.
23 Jul 12
Originally posted by stevemccOur prices are in dollars and cents, e.g. $7.99 or $2.37. Supermarket dockets have lots of these unrounded amounts on them. The total may be $126.73 or $84.98. If I pay by card I'll pay the exact amount (these amounts total $211.71); if I had paid by cash I would have paid $126.75 and $85.00, totalling $211.75. That's a massive 4c extra I would have to pay for the privilege of using cash.
I don't follow this. Please explain.
If they remove our 5c piece as they're planning to do soon, my cash payment would be $126.70 and $85.00, totalling $211.70. That's actually 1c less that I would have to pay for using cash.
All financial transactions are recorded in exact dollars and cents, only when someone actually uses currency does a rounding occur. Over a day a typical small retail store has "rounding adjustment" at banking time of less than 20c.
It hasn't bothered Australians one little bit to lose their 1c and 2c, I doubt losing the 5c will bother us either.
23 Jul 12
Originally posted by twhitehead"Most currencies have inflation."
Most currencies have inflation. So we are essentially phasing in smaller denominations every year. It makes sense, then to once in a while phase out the smallest denominations.
What was the smallest denomination in the US 100 year ago? What would the equivalent be now (in terms of purchasing power)?
I have an old half penny in my coin collection. Does the UK still have those? Was there a smaller denomination than that?
The question should be why, and can it be prevented? Today's dollar store, is really a $1 to $5 store, and yesterdays equivalent was Woolworth's 5 & 10. Lots of useful things sold for a dime.
23 Jul 12
Originally posted by TeinosukeBut surely that is 'relative to the pound' not actual worth. How many loaves of bread does your smallest coin buy and how many did the farthing buy?
So our smallest coin now, the penny, is worth nearly ten times as much as the smallest circulating coin in the 1950s.