It now costs less to maintain the $1 bill than to replace it with coins.
They're probably figuring the coin would last no longer than coins do now on average. In fact a one dollar coin would last over 30 years in circulation with no inflation. Even after they reduced it to the value of the present quarter it would still last over 20 years.
The only logical solution is to discontinue the cent and make the nickel out of aluminum (not legal tender). After a period of adjustment the nickel should be reduced in size to the point of making a profit on the coin.
There will be massive savings and profit from converting the existing cu/ ni nickel to make clad coins and then in reducing the size of the aluminum nickel.
Of course it won't happen and instead they'll spend countless millions in studies and lay the costs of the studies on quarters. The government will continue to undermine the cash system because they don't like cash. We'll keep the one dollar bill that spreads germs and the penny that spreads toxic zinc. The status quo is inviolable and sacrosanct.
It now costs less to maintain the $1 bill than to replace it with coins.
U.S. CURRENCY
Financial Benefit of Switching to a $1 Coin Is Unlikely, but Changing Coin Metal Content Could Result in Cost Savings
What GAO Found
GAO’s analysis found that replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin would likely result in a net loss to the government over 30 years. GAO found the government would incur a loss of about $611 million if notes were actively replaced and about $2.6 billion if $1 notes were replaced gradually (see figure). These simulations represent the first time GAO has found that replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin would result in a net loss to the government rather than a net benefit. GAO’s estimates are based on current data and economic projections, which have changed over time. For example, the lifespan of the $1 note has more than doubled since a 2011 GAO analysis, from 3.3 years to 7.9 years, largely due to changes in note processing technology. Stakeholders generally identified few benefits from replacing $1 notes with $1 coins. Seven of 10 stakeholders GAO met with said that replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin would result in additional costs. For example, armored carriers told GAO that their transportation costs would increase because coins weigh more than notes.
@privatecoin said:
Getting rid of the cent and nickel would be nothing but another tax on the working class. Literally if support ending them then you support our money being worth nothing more than colored toilet paper.
Poor people would benefit the most by getting rid of worthless coinage. Rich people don't even stand in line behind people who pay cash.
Put ten on the nickel and five on the cent for a start— eliminate the dime-size. No major changes in production; coin wrangling machinery would be happy. No need to make halves since we don’t use them.
@Fraz said:
Put ten on the nickel and five on the cent for a start— eliminate the dime-size. No major changes in production; coin wrangling machinery would be happy.
the 10 on the nickel would mean it's still a money loser
The only logical solution is to discontinue the cent and make the nickel out of aluminum (not legal tender). After a period of adjustment the nickel should be reduced in size to the point of making a profit on the coin.
There will be massive savings and profit from converting the existing cu/ ni nickel to make clad coins and then in reducing the size of the aluminum nickel.
Of course it won't happen and instead they'll spend countless millions in studies and lay the costs of the studies on quarters. The government will continue to undermine the cash system because they don't like cash. We'll keep the one dollar bill that spreads germs and the penny that spreads toxic zinc. The status quo is inviolable and sacrosanct.
It now costs less to maintain the $1 bill than to replace it with coins.
U.S. CURRENCY
Financial Benefit of Switching to a $1 Coin Is Unlikely, but Changing Coin Metal Content Could Result in Cost Savings
What GAO Found
GAO’s analysis found that replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin would likely result in a net loss to the government over 30 years. GAO found the government would incur a loss of about $611 million if notes were actively replaced and about $2.6 billion if $1 notes were replaced gradually (see figure). These simulations represent the first time GAO has found that replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin would result in a net loss to the government rather than a net benefit. GAO’s estimates are based on current data and economic projections, which have changed over time. For example, the lifespan of the $1 note has more than doubled since a 2011 GAO analysis, from 3.3 years to 7.9 years, largely due to changes in note processing technology. Stakeholders generally identified few benefits from replacing $1 notes with $1 coins. Seven of 10 stakeholders GAO met with said that replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin would result in additional costs. For example, armored carriers told GAO that their transportation costs would increase because coins weigh more than notes.
I believe if this report were ran again, the numbers would be more in favor of not replacing the dollar bill.
the 10 on the nickel would mean it's still a money loser
Triage, no one can fix it.
If it costs a nickel to mint a dime, a half dime that is smaller than the dime would not be a money loser. Honestly the nickel should have been an aberration in order to stabilize the currency in the aftermath of the civil war. Nickel coinage should've ended after silver reappeared or during WWII.
the 10 on the nickel would mean it's still a money loser
Triage, no one can fix it.
If it costs a nickel to mint a dime, a half dime that is smaller than the dime would not be a money loser. Honestly the nickel should have been an aberration in order to stabilize the currency in the aftermath of the civil war. Nickel coinage should've ended after silver reappeared or during WWII.
Because there's an advantage in tiny coins????
The half dime made sense when there was silver coinage. There's really no need for it now.
the 10 on the nickel would mean it's still a money loser
Triage, no one can fix it.
If it costs a nickel to mint a dime, a half dime that is smaller than the dime would not be a money loser. Honestly the nickel should have been an aberration in order to stabilize the currency in the aftermath of the civil war. Nickel coinage should've ended after silver reappeared or during WWII.
Because there's an advantage in tiny coins????
The half dime made sense when there was silver coinage. There's really no need for it now.
Instead of going backwards, let's go digital.
Let's not. It won't be the leap forward you think it will.
The only logical solution is to discontinue the cent and make the nickel out of aluminum (not legal tender). After a period of adjustment the nickel should be reduced in size to the point of making a profit on the coin.
There will be massive savings and profit from converting the existing cu/ ni nickel to make clad coins and then in reducing the size of the aluminum nickel.
Of course it won't happen and instead they'll spend countless millions in studies and lay the costs of the studies on quarters. The government will continue to undermine the cash system because they don't like cash. We'll keep the one dollar bill that spreads germs and the penny that spreads toxic zinc. The status quo is inviolable and sacrosanct.
It now costs less to maintain the $1 bill than to replace it with coins.
U.S. CURRENCY
Financial Benefit of Switching to a $1 Coin Is Unlikely, but Changing Coin Metal Content Could Result in Cost Savings
What GAO Found
GAO’s analysis found that replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin would likely result in a net loss to the government over 30 years. GAO found the government would incur a loss of about $611 million if notes were actively replaced and about $2.6 billion if $1 notes were replaced gradually (see figure). These simulations represent the first time GAO has found that replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin would result in a net loss to the government rather than a net benefit. GAO’s estimates are based on current data and economic projections, which have changed over time. For example, the lifespan of the $1 note has more than doubled since a 2011 GAO analysis, from 3.3 years to 7.9 years, largely due to changes in note processing technology. Stakeholders generally identified few benefits from replacing $1 notes with $1 coins. Seven of 10 stakeholders GAO met with said that replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin would result in additional costs. For example, armored carriers told GAO that their transportation costs would increase because coins weigh more than notes.
I believe if this report were ran again, the numbers would be more in favor of not replacing the dollar bill.
Idk, I smell politics from the paper industry behind this (just a hunch, no proof that I know of). How about adding a $2 coin like Canada did? Are they losing money and switching back to paper?
The only logical solution is to discontinue the cent and make the nickel out of aluminum (not legal tender). After a period of adjustment the nickel should be reduced in size to the point of making a profit on the coin.
There will be massive savings and profit from converting the existing cu/ ni nickel to make clad coins and then in reducing the size of the aluminum nickel.
Of course it won't happen and instead they'll spend countless millions in studies and lay the costs of the studies on quarters. The government will continue to undermine the cash system because they don't like cash. We'll keep the one dollar bill that spreads germs and the penny that spreads toxic zinc. The status quo is inviolable and sacrosanct.
It now costs less to maintain the $1 bill than to replace it with coins.
U.S. CURRENCY
Financial Benefit of Switching to a $1 Coin Is Unlikely, but Changing Coin Metal Content Could Result in Cost Savings
What GAO Found
GAO’s analysis found that replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin would likely result in a net loss to the government over 30 years. GAO found the government would incur a loss of about $611 million if notes were actively replaced and about $2.6 billion if $1 notes were replaced gradually (see figure). These simulations represent the first time GAO has found that replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin would result in a net loss to the government rather than a net benefit. GAO’s estimates are based on current data and economic projections, which have changed over time. For example, the lifespan of the $1 note has more than doubled since a 2011 GAO analysis, from 3.3 years to 7.9 years, largely due to changes in note processing technology. Stakeholders generally identified few benefits from replacing $1 notes with $1 coins. Seven of 10 stakeholders GAO met with said that replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin would result in additional costs. For example, armored carriers told GAO that their transportation costs would increase because coins weigh more than notes.
I believe if this report were ran again, the numbers would be more in favor of not replacing the dollar bill.
Idk, I smell politics from the paper industry behind this (just a hunch, no proof that I know of). How about adding a $2 coin like Canada did? Are they losing money and switching back to paper?
Don't wholes last much longer than singles? Isn't the life expectancy of a single 18 months?
God Bless, CRHer700
Do unto others what you expect to be done to you.
the 10 on the nickel would mean it's still a money loser
Triage, no one can fix it.
If it costs a nickel to mint a dime, a half dime that is smaller than the dime would not be a money loser. Honestly the nickel should have been an aberration in order to stabilize the currency in the aftermath of the civil war. Nickel coinage should've ended after silver reappeared or during WWII.
Because there's an advantage in tiny coins????
The half dime made sense when there was silver coinage. There's really no need for it now.
Instead of going backwards, let's go digital.
Yes the cost of making a half dime is less than a five cents. That's it, that's the advantage
The only logical solution is to discontinue the cent and make the nickel out of aluminum (not legal tender). After a period of adjustment the nickel should be reduced in size to the point of making a profit on the coin.
There will be massive savings and profit from converting the existing cu/ ni nickel to make clad coins and then in reducing the size of the aluminum nickel.
Of course it won't happen and instead they'll spend countless millions in studies and lay the costs of the studies on quarters. The government will continue to undermine the cash system because they don't like cash. We'll keep the one dollar bill that spreads germs and the penny that spreads toxic zinc. The status quo is inviolable and sacrosanct.
It now costs less to maintain the $1 bill than to replace it with coins.
U.S. CURRENCY
Financial Benefit of Switching to a $1 Coin Is Unlikely, but Changing Coin Metal Content Could Result in Cost Savings
What GAO Found
GAO’s analysis found that replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin would likely result in a net loss to the government over 30 years. GAO found the government would incur a loss of about $611 million if notes were actively replaced and about $2.6 billion if $1 notes were replaced gradually (see figure). These simulations represent the first time GAO has found that replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin would result in a net loss to the government rather than a net benefit. GAO’s estimates are based on current data and economic projections, which have changed over time. For example, the lifespan of the $1 note has more than doubled since a 2011 GAO analysis, from 3.3 years to 7.9 years, largely due to changes in note processing technology. Stakeholders generally identified few benefits from replacing $1 notes with $1 coins. Seven of 10 stakeholders GAO met with said that replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin would result in additional costs. For example, armored carriers told GAO that their transportation costs would increase because coins weigh more than notes.
I believe if this report were ran again, the numbers would be more in favor of not replacing the dollar bill.
Idk, I smell politics from the paper industry behind this (just a hunch, no proof that I know of). How about adding a $2 coin like Canada did? Are they losing money and switching back to paper?
The paper industry did lobby to keep the dollar bill. Canada does not have a report saying whether it costs more to keep the dollar coin now. Maybe coins are costing Canada more, who knows
the 10 on the nickel would mean it's still a money loser
Triage, no one can fix it.
If it costs a nickel to mint a dime, a half dime that is smaller than the dime would not be a money loser. Honestly the nickel should have been an aberration in order to stabilize the currency in the aftermath of the civil war. Nickel coinage should've ended after silver reappeared or during WWII.
Because there's an advantage in tiny coins????
The half dime made sense when there was silver coinage. There's really no need for it now.
Instead of going backwards, let's go digital.
Digital sucks. You're a coin collector, getting rid of coins is hypocrisy.
God Bless, CRHer700
Do unto others what you expect to be done to you.
I think if we bring back the Capped Bust half dollar, all of the world problems would be solved.
"But seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you" Matthew 6:33. Young fellow suffering from Bust Half fever.
BHNC #AN-10
JRCS #1606
the 10 on the nickel would mean it's still a money loser
Triage, no one can fix it.
If it costs a nickel to mint a dime, a half dime that is smaller than the dime would not be a money loser. Honestly the nickel should have been an aberration in order to stabilize the currency in the aftermath of the civil war. Nickel coinage should've ended after silver reappeared or during WWII.
Because there's an advantage in tiny coins????
The half dime made sense when there was silver coinage. There's really no need for it now.
Instead of going backwards, let's go digital.
Let's not. It won't be the leap forward you think it will.
I'm already 99% digital. I won't notice the difference.
The only logical solution is to discontinue the cent and make the nickel out of aluminum (not legal tender). After a period of adjustment the nickel should be reduced in size to the point of making a profit on the coin.
There will be massive savings and profit from converting the existing cu/ ni nickel to make clad coins and then in reducing the size of the aluminum nickel.
Of course it won't happen and instead they'll spend countless millions in studies and lay the costs of the studies on quarters. The government will continue to undermine the cash system because they don't like cash. We'll keep the one dollar bill that spreads germs and the penny that spreads toxic zinc. The status quo is inviolable and sacrosanct.
It now costs less to maintain the $1 bill than to replace it with coins.
U.S. CURRENCY
Financial Benefit of Switching to a $1 Coin Is Unlikely, but Changing Coin Metal Content Could Result in Cost Savings
What GAO Found
GAO’s analysis found that replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin would likely result in a net loss to the government over 30 years. GAO found the government would incur a loss of about $611 million if notes were actively replaced and about $2.6 billion if $1 notes were replaced gradually (see figure). These simulations represent the first time GAO has found that replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin would result in a net loss to the government rather than a net benefit. GAO’s estimates are based on current data and economic projections, which have changed over time. For example, the lifespan of the $1 note has more than doubled since a 2011 GAO analysis, from 3.3 years to 7.9 years, largely due to changes in note processing technology. Stakeholders generally identified few benefits from replacing $1 notes with $1 coins. Seven of 10 stakeholders GAO met with said that replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin would result in additional costs. For example, armored carriers told GAO that their transportation costs would increase because coins weigh more than notes.
I believe if this report were ran again, the numbers would be more in favor of not replacing the dollar bill.
Idk, I smell politics from the paper industry behind this (just a hunch, no proof that I know of). How about adding a $2 coin like Canada did? Are they losing money and switching back to paper?
Don't wholes last much longer than singles? Isn't the life expectancy of a single 18 months?
Not any more. The longer life of bills is why it became less advantageous. FED says 6.6 years for $1 bills.
the 10 on the nickel would mean it's still a money loser
Triage, no one can fix it.
If it costs a nickel to mint a dime, a half dime that is smaller than the dime would not be a money loser. Honestly the nickel should have been an aberration in order to stabilize the currency in the aftermath of the civil war. Nickel coinage should've ended after silver reappeared or during WWII.
Because there's an advantage in tiny coins????
The half dime made sense when there was silver coinage. There's really no need for it now.
Instead of going backwards, let's go digital.
Digital sucks. You're a coin collector, getting rid of coins is hypocrisy.
I don't collect anything modern. And people who collect saddles aren't required to eliminate cars.
@Fraz said:
…. People might go crazy buying and hoarding if the mint stopped making metallic.
I doubt it. Didn't happen in Europe when they went to the Euro. The experiment had been done.
I’ll believe that. However, the Europeans did not hoard the upper half of the non-precious metallic for sixty years before the introduction of the Euro. We do not spend halves and dollar coins. We’ll act differently.
@Fraz said:
…. People might go crazy buying and hoarding if the mint stopped making metallic.
I doubt it. Didn't happen in Europe when they went to the Euro. The experiment had been done.
I’ll believe that. However, the Europeans did not hoard the upper half of the non-precious metallic for sixty years before the introduction of the Euro. We do not spend halves and dollar coins. We’ll act differently.
I'm not sure we're "hoarding" them. We just don't use them in commerce.
the 10 on the nickel would mean it's still a money loser
Triage, no one can fix it.
If it costs a nickel to mint a dime, a half dime that is smaller than the dime would not be a money loser. Honestly the nickel should have been an aberration in order to stabilize the currency in the aftermath of the civil war. Nickel coinage should've ended after silver reappeared or during WWII.
Because there's an advantage in tiny coins????
The half dime made sense when there was silver coinage. There's really no need for it now.
Instead of going backwards, let's go digital.
Let's not. It won't be the leap forward you think it will.
I'm already 99% digital. I won't notice the difference.
It's actually 0% digital at the moment. The Fed is currently trial running our CBDC. There's a world of difference between physical money being represented digitally and actual digital currency. Each digital dollar will have a block-chain "serial number" and will be tracked each time that specific dollar is spent.
It will also come with "rules" for use, such as expiration dates, or limited purchases. Using too much water or electricity? You can't buy anymore this month. If you think it's not real, then research China's CBDC and their social credit system that's tied to it. People who haven't been paying attention or think it won't happen here are in for a rude awakening.
the 10 on the nickel would mean it's still a money loser
Triage, no one can fix it.
If it costs a nickel to mint a dime, a half dime that is smaller than the dime would not be a money loser. Honestly the nickel should have been an aberration in order to stabilize the currency in the aftermath of the civil war. Nickel coinage should've ended after silver reappeared or during WWII.
Because there's an advantage in tiny coins????
The half dime made sense when there was silver coinage. There's really no need for it now.
Instead of going backwards, let's go digital.
Let's not. It won't be the leap forward you think it will.
I'm already 99% digital. I won't notice the difference.
It's actually 0% digital at the moment. The Fed is currently trial running our CBDC. There's a world of difference between physical money being represented digitally and actual digital currency. Each digital dollar will have a block-chain "serial number" and will be tracked each time that specific dollar is spent.
It will also come with "rules" for use, such as expiration dates, or limited purchases. Using too much water or electricity? You can't buy anymore this month. If you think it's not real, then research China's CBDC and their social credit system that's tied to it. People who haven't been paying attention or think it won't happen here are in for a rude awakening.
This is another very good reason to support my point.
The only logical solution is to discontinue the cent and make the nickel out of aluminum (not legal tender). After a period of adjustment the nickel should be reduced in size to the point of making a profit on the coin.
There will be massive savings and profit from converting the existing cu/ ni nickel to make clad coins and then in reducing the size of the aluminum nickel.
Of course it won't happen and instead they'll spend countless millions in studies and lay the costs of the studies on quarters. The government will continue to undermine the cash system because they don't like cash. We'll keep the one dollar bill that spreads germs and the penny that spreads toxic zinc. The status quo is inviolable and sacrosanct.
It now costs less to maintain the $1 bill than to replace it with coins.
U.S. CURRENCY
Financial Benefit of Switching to a $1 Coin Is Unlikely, but Changing Coin Metal Content Could Result in Cost Savings
What GAO Found
GAO’s analysis found that replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin would likely result in a net loss to the government over 30 years. GAO found the government would incur a loss of about $611 million if notes were actively replaced and about $2.6 billion if $1 notes were replaced gradually (see figure). These simulations represent the first time GAO has found that replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin would result in a net loss to the government rather than a net benefit. GAO’s estimates are based on current data and economic projections, which have changed over time. For example, the lifespan of the $1 note has more than doubled since a 2011 GAO analysis, from 3.3 years to 7.9 years, largely due to changes in note processing technology. Stakeholders generally identified few benefits from replacing $1 notes with $1 coins. Seven of 10 stakeholders GAO met with said that replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin would result in additional costs. For example, armored carriers told GAO that their transportation costs would increase because coins weigh more than notes.
I believe if this report were ran again, the numbers would be more in favor of not replacing the dollar bill.
Idk, I smell politics from the paper industry behind this (just a hunch, no proof that I know of). How about adding a $2 coin like Canada did? Are they losing money and switching back to paper?
Don't wholes last much longer than singles? Isn't the life expectancy of a single 18 months?
Not any more. The longer life of bills is why it became less advantageous. FED says 6.6 years for $1 bills.
Since when does it change from 1.5 to 6.6 in such a short time? From my searching of one dollar bills, here are some approximate statistics on series dates
as follows: pre-2013=<1%, 2013=~15%, 2017=~30%, 2017A=~40%, and 2021=~14%.
God Bless, CRHer700
Do unto others what you expect to be done to you.
I don't want to go fully digital for the reasons mentioned by @Manifest_Destiny, but it's obvious that minting cents and nickels is a losing proposition and we definitely don't need them anymore. It doesn't matter how poor someone is, cents are worthless to virtually everyone and nickels aren't far behind. We ALL foot the bill for wasteful government spending, it's not relegated to one economic class. For cash transactions, we could round to the nearest .10 and no one would be even remotely impacted by that. you might overpay by 4 cents one transaction, and underpay by .03 on the next one. I can count one one hand how many times I've used cash to pay for something at a store this year. Even if I did, what would that mean? That i'm down $1.16 at the end of the year?
The argument that coin collectors should want coins to continue to be minted doesn't make sense, either. Part of the reason I'm not interested in series like Washington quarters, Jefferson nickels, Roosevelt dimes and Lincoln cents is because I see them all the time. If cents and nickels were removed from circulation, that might create some type of nostalgic effect that might positively affect collector interest some decades down the line.
@DeplorableDan said:
I don't want to go fully digital for the reasons mentioned by @Manifest_Destiny, but it's obvious that minting cents and nickels is a losing proposition and we definitely don't need them anymore. It doesn't matter how poor someone is, cents are worthless to virtually everyone and nickels aren't far behind. We ALL foot the bill for wasteful government spending, it's not relegated to one economic class. For cash transactions, we could round to the nearest .10 and no one would be even remotely impacted by that. you might overpay by 4 cents one transaction, and underpay by .03 on the next one. I can count one one hand how many times I've used cash to pay for something at a store this year. Even if I did, what would that mean? That i'm down $1.16 at the end of the year?
The argument that coin collectors should want coins to continue to be minted doesn't make sense, either. Part of the reason I'm not interested in series like Washington quarters, Jefferson nickels, Roosevelt dimes and Lincoln cents is because I see them all the time. If cents and nickels were removed from circulation, that might create some type of nostalgic effect that might positively affect collector interest some decades down the line.
All true, but then where will parking lot cents come from for people to post asking questions about their errors?
That is has happened is not amazing. Every economy on earth is required to adapt and adjust to inflation and other pressures. What IS amazing is that we are too idiotic, collectively, to do anything about it.
Again, my proposal is to eliminate the $5 note, $2 note, and $1 note, and all of our current circulating coinage.
Then, create a very small, (3CS size) copper dime, for a limited 10 or 20 year run, a quarter roughly the size of a dime, a half-dollar roughly the size of a nickel, a dollar as big as a quarter, and a bimetallic $5 coin the size of a current half-dollar. We could mint a small number of changing commemorative $2 coins, if desired. In short order we could eliminate the $10 note as well, substituting a coin for that.
This proposal would be suitable for a few decades, maybe, and it would keep coins relevant.
IMO, a person should be able to buy a simple lunch with pocket change, as can be done in most other countries in the world.
the 10 on the nickel would mean it's still a money loser
Triage, no one can fix it.
If it costs a nickel to mint a dime, a half dime that is smaller than the dime would not be a money loser. Honestly the nickel should have been an aberration in order to stabilize the currency in the aftermath of the civil war. Nickel coinage should've ended after silver reappeared or during WWII.
Because there's an advantage in tiny coins????
The half dime made sense when there was silver coinage. There's really no need for it now.
Instead of going backwards, let's go digital.
Let's not. It won't be the leap forward you think it will.
I'm already 99% digital. I won't notice the difference.
It's actually 0% digital at the moment. The Fed is currently trial running our CBDC. There's a world of difference between physical money being represented digitally and actual digital currency. Each digital dollar will have a block-chain "serial number" and will be tracked each time that specific dollar is spent.
It will also come with "rules" for use, such as expiration dates, or limited purchases. Using too much water or electricity? You can't buy anymore this month. If you think it's not real, then research China's CBDC and their social credit system that's tied to it. People who haven't been paying attention or think it won't happen here are in for a rude awakening.
This is another very good reason to support my point.
The only logical solution is to discontinue the cent and make the nickel out of aluminum (not legal tender). After a period of adjustment the nickel should be reduced in size to the point of making a profit on the coin.
There will be massive savings and profit from converting the existing cu/ ni nickel to make clad coins and then in reducing the size of the aluminum nickel.
Of course it won't happen and instead they'll spend countless millions in studies and lay the costs of the studies on quarters. The government will continue to undermine the cash system because they don't like cash. We'll keep the one dollar bill that spreads germs and the penny that spreads toxic zinc. The status quo is inviolable and sacrosanct.
It now costs less to maintain the $1 bill than to replace it with coins.
U.S. CURRENCY
Financial Benefit of Switching to a $1 Coin Is Unlikely, but Changing Coin Metal Content Could Result in Cost Savings
What GAO Found
GAO’s analysis found that replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin would likely result in a net loss to the government over 30 years. GAO found the government would incur a loss of about $611 million if notes were actively replaced and about $2.6 billion if $1 notes were replaced gradually (see figure). These simulations represent the first time GAO has found that replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin would result in a net loss to the government rather than a net benefit. GAO’s estimates are based on current data and economic projections, which have changed over time. For example, the lifespan of the $1 note has more than doubled since a 2011 GAO analysis, from 3.3 years to 7.9 years, largely due to changes in note processing technology. Stakeholders generally identified few benefits from replacing $1 notes with $1 coins. Seven of 10 stakeholders GAO met with said that replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin would result in additional costs. For example, armored carriers told GAO that their transportation costs would increase because coins weigh more than notes.
I believe if this report were ran again, the numbers would be more in favor of not replacing the dollar bill.
Idk, I smell politics from the paper industry behind this (just a hunch, no proof that I know of). How about adding a $2 coin like Canada did? Are they losing money and switching back to paper?
Don't wholes last much longer than singles? Isn't the life expectancy of a single 18 months?
Not any more. The longer life of bills is why it became less advantageous. FED says 6.6 years for $1 bills.
Since when does it change from 1.5 to 6.6 in such a short time? From my searching of one dollar bills, here are some approximate statistics on series dates
as follows: pre-2013=<1%, 2013=~15%, 2017=~30%, 2017A=~40%, and 2021=~14%.
There were changes to how bills were processed which allowed dollar bills to stay in circulation longer.
the 10 on the nickel would mean it's still a money loser
Triage, no one can fix it.
If it costs a nickel to mint a dime, a half dime that is smaller than the dime would not be a money loser. Honestly the nickel should have been an aberration in order to stabilize the currency in the aftermath of the civil war. Nickel coinage should've ended after silver reappeared or during WWII.
Because there's an advantage in tiny coins????
The half dime made sense when there was silver coinage. There's really no need for it now.
Instead of going backwards, let's go digital.
Let's not. It won't be the leap forward you think it will.
I'm already 99% digital. I won't notice the difference.
It's actually 0% digital at the moment. The Fed is currently trial running our CBDC. There's a world of difference between physical money being represented digitally and actual digital currency. Each digital dollar will have a block-chain "serial number" and will be tracked each time that specific dollar is spent.
It will also come with "rules" for use, such as expiration dates, or limited purchases. Using too much water or electricity? You can't buy anymore this month. If you think it's not real, then research China's CBDC and their social credit system that's tied to it. People who haven't been paying attention or think it won't happen here are in for a rude awakening.
This is another very good reason to support my point.
The only logical solution is to discontinue the cent and make the nickel out of aluminum (not legal tender). After a period of adjustment the nickel should be reduced in size to the point of making a profit on the coin.
There will be massive savings and profit from converting the existing cu/ ni nickel to make clad coins and then in reducing the size of the aluminum nickel.
Of course it won't happen and instead they'll spend countless millions in studies and lay the costs of the studies on quarters. The government will continue to undermine the cash system because they don't like cash. We'll keep the one dollar bill that spreads germs and the penny that spreads toxic zinc. The status quo is inviolable and sacrosanct.
It now costs less to maintain the $1 bill than to replace it with coins.
U.S. CURRENCY
Financial Benefit of Switching to a $1 Coin Is Unlikely, but Changing Coin Metal Content Could Result in Cost Savings
What GAO Found
GAO’s analysis found that replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin would likely result in a net loss to the government over 30 years. GAO found the government would incur a loss of about $611 million if notes were actively replaced and about $2.6 billion if $1 notes were replaced gradually (see figure). These simulations represent the first time GAO has found that replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin would result in a net loss to the government rather than a net benefit. GAO’s estimates are based on current data and economic projections, which have changed over time. For example, the lifespan of the $1 note has more than doubled since a 2011 GAO analysis, from 3.3 years to 7.9 years, largely due to changes in note processing technology. Stakeholders generally identified few benefits from replacing $1 notes with $1 coins. Seven of 10 stakeholders GAO met with said that replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin would result in additional costs. For example, armored carriers told GAO that their transportation costs would increase because coins weigh more than notes.
I believe if this report were ran again, the numbers would be more in favor of not replacing the dollar bill.
Idk, I smell politics from the paper industry behind this (just a hunch, no proof that I know of). How about adding a $2 coin like Canada did? Are they losing money and switching back to paper?
Don't wholes last much longer than singles? Isn't the life expectancy of a single 18 months?
Not any more. The longer life of bills is why it became less advantageous. FED says 6.6 years for $1 bills.
Since when does it change from 1.5 to 6.6 in such a short time? From my searching of one dollar bills, here are some approximate statistics on series dates
as follows: pre-2013=<1%, 2013=~15%, 2017=~30%, 2017A=~40%, and 2021=~14%.
Not to ignore your research. The FED would know as they put bills into circulation and also take them out.
the 10 on the nickel would mean it's still a money loser
Triage, no one can fix it.
If it costs a nickel to mint a dime, a half dime that is smaller than the dime would not be a money loser. Honestly the nickel should have been an aberration in order to stabilize the currency in the aftermath of the civil war. Nickel coinage should've ended after silver reappeared or during WWII.
Because there's an advantage in tiny coins????
The half dime made sense when there was silver coinage. There's really no need for it now.
Instead of going backwards, let's go digital.
Let's not. It won't be the leap forward you think it will.
I'm already 99% digital. I won't notice the difference.
It's actually 0% digital at the moment. The Fed is currently trial running our CBDC. There's a world of difference between physical money being represented digitally and actual digital currency. Each digital dollar will have a block-chain "serial number" and will be tracked each time that specific dollar is spent.
It will also come with "rules" for use, such as expiration dates, or limited purchases. Using too much water or electricity? You can't buy anymore this month. If you think it's not real, then research China's CBDC and their social credit system that's tied to it. People who haven't been paying attention or think it won't happen here are in for a rude awakening.
That is a worst case prediction. It is not the way it needs to work. For example, neither the social credits or expiration dates or limited purchases apply to crypto currencies. Digital currencies absolutely do NOT need to operate that way. Why not look at Bahamas or Jamaica rather than China?
the 10 on the nickel would mean it's still a money loser
Triage, no one can fix it.
If it costs a nickel to mint a dime, a half dime that is smaller than the dime would not be a money loser. Honestly the nickel should have been an aberration in order to stabilize the currency in the aftermath of the civil war. Nickel coinage should've ended after silver reappeared or during WWII.
Because there's an advantage in tiny coins????
The half dime made sense when there was silver coinage. There's really no need for it now.
Instead of going backwards, let's go digital.
Let's not. It won't be the leap forward you think it will.
I'm already 99% digital. I won't notice the difference.
and the unbanked? who's going to eat the transaction costs for the other 1%?
the 10 on the nickel would mean it's still a money loser
Triage, no one can fix it.
If it costs a nickel to mint a dime, a half dime that is smaller than the dime would not be a money loser. Honestly the nickel should have been an aberration in order to stabilize the currency in the aftermath of the civil war. Nickel coinage should've ended after silver reappeared or during WWII.
Because there's an advantage in tiny coins????
The half dime made sense when there was silver coinage. There's really no need for it now.
Instead of going backwards, let's go digital.
Let's not. It won't be the leap forward you think it will.
I'm already 99% digital. I won't notice the difference.
It's actually 0% digital at the moment. The Fed is currently trial running our CBDC. There's a world of difference between physical money being represented digitally and actual digital currency. Each digital dollar will have a block-chain "serial number" and will be tracked each time that specific dollar is spent.
It will also come with "rules" for use, such as expiration dates, or limited purchases. Using too much water or electricity? You can't buy anymore this month. If you think it's not real, then research China's CBDC and their social credit system that's tied to it. People who haven't been paying attention or think it won't happen here are in for a rude awakening.
That is a worst case prediction. It is not the way it needs to work. For example, bibs if the social credits or expiration dates or limited purchases apply to crypto currencies. Digital currencies absolutely do NOT need to operate that way. Why not look at Bahamas or Jamaica rather than China?
@DeplorableDan said:
I don't want to go fully digital for the reasons mentioned by @Manifest_Destiny, but it's obvious that minting cents and nickels is a losing proposition and we definitely don't need them anymore. It doesn't matter how poor someone is, cents are worthless to virtually everyone and nickels aren't far behind. We ALL foot the bill for wasteful government spending, it's not relegated to one economic class. For cash transactions, we could round to the nearest .10 and no one would be even remotely impacted by that. you might overpay by 4 cents one transaction, and underpay by .03 on the next one. I can count one one hand how many times I've used cash to pay for something at a store this year. Even if I did, what would that mean? That i'm down $1.16 at the end of the year?
The argument that coin collectors should want coins to continue to be minted doesn't make sense, either. Part of the reason I'm not interested in series like Washington quarters, Jefferson nickels, Roosevelt dimes and Lincoln cents is because I see them all the time. If cents and nickels were removed from circulation, that might create some type of nostalgic effect that might positively affect collector interest some decades down the line.
sales taxes would round to cent intervals. then forcing people to round back to nickels or dime would have the masses revolt even if we agree it'll be a wash
the 10 on the nickel would mean it's still a money loser
Triage, no one can fix it.
If it costs a nickel to mint a dime, a half dime that is smaller than the dime would not be a money loser. Honestly the nickel should have been an aberration in order to stabilize the currency in the aftermath of the civil war. Nickel coinage should've ended after silver reappeared or during WWII.
Because there's an advantage in tiny coins????
The half dime made sense when there was silver coinage. There's really no need for it now.
Instead of going backwards, let's go digital.
Let's not. It won't be the leap forward you think it will.
I'm already 99% digital. I won't notice the difference.
It's actually 0% digital at the moment. The Fed is currently trial running our CBDC. There's a world of difference between physical money being represented digitally and actual digital currency. Each digital dollar will have a block-chain "serial number" and will be tracked each time that specific dollar is spent.
It will also come with "rules" for use, such as expiration dates, or limited purchases. Using too much water or electricity? You can't buy anymore this month. If you think it's not real, then research China's CBDC and their social credit system that's tied to it. People who haven't been paying attention or think it won't happen here are in for a rude awakening.
That is a worst case prediction. It is not the way it needs to work. For example, bibs if the social credits or expiration dates or limited purchases apply to crypto currencies. Digital currencies absolutely do NOT need to operate that way.
the 10 on the nickel would mean it's still a money loser
Triage, no one can fix it.
If it costs a nickel to mint a dime, a half dime that is smaller than the dime would not be a money loser. Honestly the nickel should have been an aberration in order to stabilize the currency in the aftermath of the civil war. Nickel coinage should've ended after silver reappeared or during WWII.
Because there's an advantage in tiny coins????
The half dime made sense when there was silver coinage. There's really no need for it now.
Instead of going backwards, let's go digital.
Let's not. It won't be the leap forward you think it will.
I'm already 99% digital. I won't notice the difference.
It's actually 0% digital at the moment. The Fed is currently trial running our CBDC. There's a world of difference between physical money being represented digitally and actual digital currency. Each digital dollar will have a block-chain "serial number" and will be tracked each time that specific dollar is spent.
It will also come with "rules" for use, such as expiration dates, or limited purchases. Using too much water or electricity? You can't buy anymore this month. If you think it's not real, then research China's CBDC and their social credit system that's tied to it. People who haven't been paying attention or think it won't happen here are in for a rude awakening.
That is a worst case prediction. It is not the way it needs to work. For example, bibs if the social credits or expiration dates or limited purchases apply to crypto currencies. Digital currencies absolutely do NOT need to operate that way. Why not look at Bahamas or Jamaica rather than China?
the 10 on the nickel would mean it's still a money loser
Triage, no one can fix it.
If it costs a nickel to mint a dime, a half dime that is smaller than the dime would not be a money loser. Honestly the nickel should have been an aberration in order to stabilize the currency in the aftermath of the civil war. Nickel coinage should've ended after silver reappeared or during WWII.
Because there's an advantage in tiny coins????
The half dime made sense when there was silver coinage. There's really no need for it now.
Instead of going backwards, let's go digital.
Let's not. It won't be the leap forward you think it will.
I'm already 99% digital. I won't notice the difference.
and the unbanked? who's going to eat the transaction costs for the other 1%?
They won't be unranked. They will have a Federal Reserve account
the 10 on the nickel would mean it's still a money loser
Triage, no one can fix it.
If it costs a nickel to mint a dime, a half dime that is smaller than the dime would not be a money loser. Honestly the nickel should have been an aberration in order to stabilize the currency in the aftermath of the civil war. Nickel coinage should've ended after silver reappeared or during WWII.
Because there's an advantage in tiny coins????
The half dime made sense when there was silver coinage. There's really no need for it now.
Instead of going backwards, let's go digital.
Let's not. It won't be the leap forward you think it will.
I'm already 99% digital. I won't notice the difference.
It's actually 0% digital at the moment. The Fed is currently trial running our CBDC. There's a world of difference between physical money being represented digitally and actual digital currency. Each digital dollar will have a block-chain "serial number" and will be tracked each time that specific dollar is spent.
It will also come with "rules" for use, such as expiration dates, or limited purchases. Using too much water or electricity? You can't buy anymore this month. If you think it's not real, then research China's CBDC and their social credit system that's tied to it. People who haven't been paying attention or think it won't happen here are in for a rude awakening.
That is a worst case prediction. It is not the way it needs to work. For example, bibs if the social credits or expiration dates or limited purchases apply to crypto currencies. Digital currencies absolutely do NOT need to operate that way.
the 10 on the nickel would mean it's still a money loser
Triage, no one can fix it.
If it costs a nickel to mint a dime, a half dime that is smaller than the dime would not be a money loser. Honestly the nickel should have been an aberration in order to stabilize the currency in the aftermath of the civil war. Nickel coinage should've ended after silver reappeared or during WWII.
Because there's an advantage in tiny coins????
The half dime made sense when there was silver coinage. There's really no need for it now.
Instead of going backwards, let's go digital.
Let's not. It won't be the leap forward you think it will.
I'm already 99% digital. I won't notice the difference.
It's actually 0% digital at the moment. The Fed is currently trial running our CBDC. There's a world of difference between physical money being represented digitally and actual digital currency. Each digital dollar will have a block-chain "serial number" and will be tracked each time that specific dollar is spent.
It will also come with "rules" for use, such as expiration dates, or limited purchases. Using too much water or electricity? You can't buy anymore this month. If you think it's not real, then research China's CBDC and their social credit system that's tied to it. People who haven't been paying attention or think it won't happen here are in for a rude awakening.
That is a worst case prediction. It is not the way it needs to work. For example, bibs if the social credits or expiration dates or limited purchases apply to crypto currencies. Digital currencies absolutely do NOT need to operate that way. Why not look at Bahamas or Jamaica rather than China?
You must have missed the past few years when they shut down businesses and fired people. I'm sure control of our bank accounts will be different though.
the 10 on the nickel would mean it's still a money loser
Triage, no one can fix it.
If it costs a nickel to mint a dime, a half dime that is smaller than the dime would not be a money loser. Honestly the nickel should have been an aberration in order to stabilize the currency in the aftermath of the civil war. Nickel coinage should've ended after silver reappeared or during WWII.
Because there's an advantage in tiny coins????
The half dime made sense when there was silver coinage. There's really no need for it now.
Instead of going backwards, let's go digital.
Let's not. It won't be the leap forward you think it will.
I'm already 99% digital. I won't notice the difference.
and the unbanked? who's going to eat the transaction costs for the other 1%?
They won't be unranked. They will have a Federal Reserve account
really? the fed res going to change to a bank and put jpm bac and others out of business? will the federal reserves be paying interest? where will jpm bac get capital for, say, commercial lending?
De-banking, also known within the banking industry as de-risking, is the closure of people's or organizations' bank accounts by banks that perceive the account holders to pose a financial, legal, regulatory, or reputational risk to the bank.
accounts get flagged and closed for "suspicious activity." that's not going away with a cbdc, it will get worse as investigators will have more access which will lead to more questions instead of answers. more people will get roped in, instead of more people being electronically cleared. when the government questions your legitimacy, you have to trot out physical evidence outside of the blockchain transactions.
as it is right now, there are investigators that flag suspicious activity to "de-risk" banks of "suspicious people." they have the electronic bank statements. yet they're not quite sure enough to launch an investigation. and how's the level of suspicion going to change to proof having evidence not in electronic statements, but read on a blockchain?
=-=-=-
the feds/fbi asked some tweets be censored on twitter without a court order. twitter complied. many feel it justified. i don't think it a stretch that people bs'ing others with "such and such polling place had a fire. the vote is tomorrow" getting the moral equivalent of a traffic ticket. want snap? disability? better not be a repeat offender.
the 10 on the nickel would mean it's still a money loser
Triage, no one can fix it.
If it costs a nickel to mint a dime, a half dime that is smaller than the dime would not be a money loser. Honestly the nickel should have been an aberration in order to stabilize the currency in the aftermath of the civil war. Nickel coinage should've ended after silver reappeared or during WWII.
Because there's an advantage in tiny coins????
The half dime made sense when there was silver coinage. There's really no need for it now.
Instead of going backwards, let's go digital.
Let's not. It won't be the leap forward you think it will.
I'm already 99% digital. I won't notice the difference.
and the unbanked? who's going to eat the transaction costs for the other 1%?
They won't be unranked. They will have a Federal Reserve account
really? the fed res going to change to a bank and put jpm bac and others out of business? will the federal reserves be paying interest? where will jpm bac get capital for, say, commercial lending?
and the 1%?
Or a new federal entity. It's not that hard to service a digital database.
the 10 on the nickel would mean it's still a money loser
Triage, no one can fix it.
If it costs a nickel to mint a dime, a half dime that is smaller than the dime would not be a money loser. Honestly the nickel should have been an aberration in order to stabilize the currency in the aftermath of the civil war. Nickel coinage should've ended after silver reappeared or during WWII.
Because there's an advantage in tiny coins????
The half dime made sense when there was silver coinage. There's really no need for it now.
Instead of going backwards, let's go digital.
Let's not. It won't be the leap forward you think it will.
I'm already 99% digital. I won't notice the difference.
It's actually 0% digital at the moment. The Fed is currently trial running our CBDC. There's a world of difference between physical money being represented digitally and actual digital currency. Each digital dollar will have a block-chain "serial number" and will be tracked each time that specific dollar is spent.
It will also come with "rules" for use, such as expiration dates, or limited purchases. Using too much water or electricity? You can't buy anymore this month. If you think it's not real, then research China's CBDC and their social credit system that's tied to it. People who haven't been paying attention or think it won't happen here are in for a rude awakening.
That is a worst case prediction. It is not the way it needs to work. For example, bibs if the social credits or expiration dates or limited purchases apply to crypto currencies. Digital currencies absolutely do NOT need to operate that way. Why not look at Bahamas or Jamaica rather than China?
You must have missed the past few years when they shut down businesses and fired people. I'm sure control of our bank accounts will be different though.
Apples and oranges.
Can you point to the catastrophic problems in the Bahamas and Jamaica? They seem to have it working.
The only thing they potentially have with digital currency is more data. Any pernicious act they could do digitally, they could also do with paper money.
It is also not even mandatory that the government control the blockchain. Cryptos operate privately.
Caution needs to be taken in developing such a currency, obviously, including appropriate guardrails. But there is no reason why it can't be made to work without all the abuses you envision. And it is inevitable, even if it won't be immediate.
stop making cents, nickels and dollar notes, easy big savings, they'll still stay in circulation for years, people will adjust and appreciate not burning billions of dollars a year
the 10 on the nickel would mean it's still a money loser
Triage, no one can fix it.
If it costs a nickel to mint a dime, a half dime that is smaller than the dime would not be a money loser. Honestly the nickel should have been an aberration in order to stabilize the currency in the aftermath of the civil war. Nickel coinage should've ended after silver reappeared or during WWII.
Because there's an advantage in tiny coins????
The half dime made sense when there was silver coinage. There's really no need for it now.
Instead of going backwards, let's go digital.
Let's not. It won't be the leap forward you think it will.
I'm already 99% digital. I won't notice the difference.
It's actually 0% digital at the moment. The Fed is currently trial running our CBDC. There's a world of difference between physical money being represented digitally and actual digital currency. Each digital dollar will have a block-chain "serial number" and will be tracked each time that specific dollar is spent.
It will also come with "rules" for use, such as expiration dates, or limited purchases. Using too much water or electricity? You can't buy anymore this month. If you think it's not real, then research China's CBDC and their social credit system that's tied to it. People who haven't been paying attention or think it won't happen here are in for a rude awakening.
That is a worst case prediction. It is not the way it needs to work. For example, bibs if the social credits or expiration dates or limited purchases apply to crypto currencies. Digital currencies absolutely do NOT need to operate that way. Why not look at Bahamas or Jamaica rather than China?
You must have missed the past few years when they shut down businesses and fired people. I'm sure control of our bank accounts will be different though.
Apples and oranges.
Can you point to the catastrophic problems in the Bahamas and Jamaica? They seem to have it working.
The only thing they potentially have with digital currency is more data. Any pernicious act they could do digitally, they could also do with paper money.
It is also not even mandatory that the government control the blockchain. Cryptos operate privately.
Caution needs to be taken in developing such a currency, obviously, including appropriate guardrails. But there is no reason why it can't be made to work without all the abuses you envision. And it is inevitable, even if it won't be immediate.
It's government abuse in both cases, so it's apples to apples. Canada froze the bank accounts of everyone they could identify in the bridge protests. That's a better example than a small tourist island. Bottom line - I think government will abuse their power because they have in the past. If you think "this time it will be different", then that's up to you.
the 10 on the nickel would mean it's still a money loser
Triage, no one can fix it.
If it costs a nickel to mint a dime, a half dime that is smaller than the dime would not be a money loser. Honestly the nickel should have been an aberration in order to stabilize the currency in the aftermath of the civil war. Nickel coinage should've ended after silver reappeared or during WWII.
Because there's an advantage in tiny coins????
The half dime made sense when there was silver coinage. There's really no need for it now.
Instead of going backwards, let's go digital.
Let's not. It won't be the leap forward you think it will.
I'm already 99% digital. I won't notice the difference.
It's actually 0% digital at the moment. The Fed is currently trial running our CBDC. There's a world of difference between physical money being represented digitally and actual digital currency. Each digital dollar will have a block-chain "serial number" and will be tracked each time that specific dollar is spent.
It will also come with "rules" for use, such as expiration dates, or limited purchases. Using too much water or electricity? You can't buy anymore this month. If you think it's not real, then research China's CBDC and their social credit system that's tied to it. People who haven't been paying attention or think it won't happen here are in for a rude awakening.
That is a worst case prediction. It is not the way it needs to work. For example, bibs if the social credits or expiration dates or limited purchases apply to crypto currencies. Digital currencies absolutely do NOT need to operate that way. Why not look at Bahamas or Jamaica rather than China?
You must have missed the past few years when they shut down businesses and fired people. I'm sure control of our bank accounts will be different though.
Apples and oranges.
Can you point to the catastrophic problems in the Bahamas and Jamaica? They seem to have it working.
The only thing they potentially have with digital currency is more data. Any pernicious act they could do digitally, they could also do with paper money.
It is also not even mandatory that the government control the blockchain. Cryptos operate privately.
Caution needs to be taken in developing such a currency, obviously, including appropriate guardrails. But there is no reason why it can't be made to work without all the abuses you envision. And it is inevitable, even if it won't be immediate.
It's government abuse in both cases, so it's apples to apples. Canada froze the bank accounts of everyone they could identify in the bridge protests. That's a better example than a small tourist island. Bottom line - I think government will abuse their power because they have in the past. If you think "this time it will be different", then that's up to you.
We're rather off topic. I'm an anarchist by nature, libertarians don't go far enough. But that is another matter. But the same people that are anti'digital are anti-crypto which is the ultimate anarchist currency. So I fail to see how their embrace of the FED is rooted in distrust of government.
the 10 on the nickel would mean it's still a money loser
Triage, no one can fix it.
If it costs a nickel to mint a dime, a half dime that is smaller than the dime would not be a money loser. Honestly the nickel should have been an aberration in order to stabilize the currency in the aftermath of the civil war. Nickel coinage should've ended after silver reappeared or during WWII.
Because there's an advantage in tiny coins????
The half dime made sense when there was silver coinage. There's really no need for it now.
Instead of going backwards, let's go digital.
Let's not. It won't be the leap forward you think it will.
I'm already 99% digital. I won't notice the difference.
It's actually 0% digital at the moment. The Fed is currently trial running our CBDC. There's a world of difference between physical money being represented digitally and actual digital currency. Each digital dollar will have a block-chain "serial number" and will be tracked each time that specific dollar is spent.
It will also come with "rules" for use, such as expiration dates, or limited purchases. Using too much water or electricity? You can't buy anymore this month. If you think it's not real, then research China's CBDC and their social credit system that's tied to it. People who haven't been paying attention or think it won't happen here are in for a rude awakening.
That is a worst case prediction. It is not the way it needs to work. For example, bibs if the social credits or expiration dates or limited purchases apply to crypto currencies. Digital currencies absolutely do NOT need to operate that way. Why not look at Bahamas or Jamaica rather than China?
You must have missed the past few years when they shut down businesses and fired people. I'm sure control of our bank accounts will be different though.
Apples and oranges.
Can you point to the catastrophic problems in the Bahamas and Jamaica? They seem to have it working.
The only thing they potentially have with digital currency is more data. Any pernicious act they could do digitally, they could also do with paper money.
It is also not even mandatory that the government control the blockchain. Cryptos operate privately.
Caution needs to be taken in developing such a currency, obviously, including appropriate guardrails. But there is no reason why it can't be made to work without all the abuses you envision. And it is inevitable, even if it won't be immediate.
Printing unlimited paper money becomes a click of a button that creates a trillion dollars in half a second. Imagine that kind of inflation. Also, if people don't do what Uncle Sam wants, well well, he'll just make it so that you either starve, dehydrate, and wither away to death or do what he says. He doesn't care.
God Bless, CRHer700
Do unto others what you expect to be done to you.
the 10 on the nickel would mean it's still a money loser
Triage, no one can fix it.
If it costs a nickel to mint a dime, a half dime that is smaller than the dime would not be a money loser. Honestly the nickel should have been an aberration in order to stabilize the currency in the aftermath of the civil war. Nickel coinage should've ended after silver reappeared or during WWII.
Because there's an advantage in tiny coins????
The half dime made sense when there was silver coinage. There's really no need for it now.
Instead of going backwards, let's go digital.
Let's not. It won't be the leap forward you think it will.
I'm already 99% digital. I won't notice the difference.
It's actually 0% digital at the moment. The Fed is currently trial running our CBDC. There's a world of difference between physical money being represented digitally and actual digital currency. Each digital dollar will have a block-chain "serial number" and will be tracked each time that specific dollar is spent.
It will also come with "rules" for use, such as expiration dates, or limited purchases. Using too much water or electricity? You can't buy anymore this month. If you think it's not real, then research China's CBDC and their social credit system that's tied to it. People who haven't been paying attention or think it won't happen here are in for a rude awakening.
That is a worst case prediction. It is not the way it needs to work. For example, bibs if the social credits or expiration dates or limited purchases apply to crypto currencies. Digital currencies absolutely do NOT need to operate that way. Why not look at Bahamas or Jamaica rather than China?
You must have missed the past few years when they shut down businesses and fired people. I'm sure control of our bank accounts will be different though.
Apples and oranges.
Can you point to the catastrophic problems in the Bahamas and Jamaica? They seem to have it working.
The only thing they potentially have with digital currency is more data. Any pernicious act they could do digitally, they could also do with paper money.
It is also not even mandatory that the government control the blockchain. Cryptos operate privately.
Caution needs to be taken in developing such a currency, obviously, including appropriate guardrails. But there is no reason why it can't be made to work without all the abuses you envision. And it is inevitable, even if it won't be immediate.
It's government abuse in both cases, so it's apples to apples. Canada froze the bank accounts of everyone they could identify in the bridge protests. That's a better example than a small tourist island. Bottom line - I think government will abuse their power because they have in the past. If you think "this time it will be different", then that's up to you.
We're rather off topic. I'm an anarchist by nature, libertarians don't go far enough. But that is another matter. But the same people that are anti'digital are anti-crypto which is the ultimate anarchist currency. So I fail to see how their embrace of the FED is rooted in distrust of government.
I'm not anti crypto. It's decentralized. CBDC's are centralized crypto. I'm anti centralization.
Comments
They're probably figuring the coin would last no longer than coins do now on average. In fact a one dollar coin would last over 30 years in circulation with no inflation. Even after they reduced it to the value of the present quarter it would still last over 20 years.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/d19300.pdf
U.S. CURRENCY
Financial Benefit of Switching to a $1 Coin Is Unlikely, but Changing Coin Metal Content Could Result in Cost Savings
Poor people would benefit the most by getting rid of worthless coinage. Rich people don't even stand in line behind people who pay cash.
Put ten on the nickel and five on the cent for a start— eliminate the dime-size. No major changes in production; coin wrangling machinery would be happy. No need to make halves since we don’t use them.
Oh yeah, add reeding to the new ones.
the 10 on the nickel would mean it's still a money loser
Triage, no one can fix it.
I believe if this report were ran again, the numbers would be more in favor of not replacing the dollar bill.
If it costs a nickel to mint a dime, a half dime that is smaller than the dime would not be a money loser. Honestly the nickel should have been an aberration in order to stabilize the currency in the aftermath of the civil war. Nickel coinage should've ended after silver reappeared or during WWII.
Because there's an advantage in tiny coins????
The half dime made sense when there was silver coinage. There's really no need for it now.
Instead of going backwards, let's go digital.
Let's not. It won't be the leap forward you think it will.
Idk, I smell politics from the paper industry behind this (just a hunch, no proof that I know of). How about adding a $2 coin like Canada did? Are they losing money and switching back to paper?
Don't wholes last much longer than singles? Isn't the life expectancy of a single 18 months?
God Bless, CRHer700
Do unto others what you expect to be done to you.
Yes the cost of making a half dime is less than a five cents. That's it, that's the advantage
The paper industry did lobby to keep the dollar bill. Canada does not have a report saying whether it costs more to keep the dollar coin now. Maybe coins are costing Canada more, who knows
Digital sucks. You're a coin collector, getting rid of coins is hypocrisy.
God Bless, CRHer700
Do unto others what you expect to be done to you.
I think if we bring back the Capped Bust half dollar, all of the world problems would be solved.
"But seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you" Matthew 6:33. Young fellow suffering from Bust Half fever.
BHNC #AN-10
JRCS #1606
He is a dealer as well. People might go crazy buying and hoarding if the mint stopped making metallic.
I'm surprised the US Mint hasn't thought of a 24k gold version of it yet
I'm already 99% digital. I won't notice the difference.
Not any more. The longer life of bills is why it became less advantageous. FED says 6.6 years for $1 bills.
I don't collect anything modern. And people who collect saddles aren't required to eliminate cars.
I doubt it. Didn't happen in Europe when they went to the Euro. The experiment had been done.
I’ll believe that. However, the Europeans did not hoard the upper half of the non-precious metallic for sixty years before the introduction of the Euro. We do not spend halves and dollar coins. We’ll act differently.
I'm not sure we're "hoarding" them. We just don't use them in commerce.
It's actually 0% digital at the moment. The Fed is currently trial running our CBDC. There's a world of difference between physical money being represented digitally and actual digital currency. Each digital dollar will have a block-chain "serial number" and will be tracked each time that specific dollar is spent.
It will also come with "rules" for use, such as expiration dates, or limited purchases. Using too much water or electricity? You can't buy anymore this month. If you think it's not real, then research China's CBDC and their social credit system that's tied to it. People who haven't been paying attention or think it won't happen here are in for a rude awakening.
My mother and her sisters damn sure didn’t use in commerce the hundreds that they were “saving”.
This is another very good reason to support my point.
Since when does it change from 1.5 to 6.6 in such a short time? From my searching of one dollar bills, here are some approximate statistics on series dates
as follows: pre-2013=<1%, 2013=~15%, 2017=~30%, 2017A=~40%, and 2021=~14%.
God Bless, CRHer700
Do unto others what you expect to be done to you.
I don't want to go fully digital for the reasons mentioned by @Manifest_Destiny, but it's obvious that minting cents and nickels is a losing proposition and we definitely don't need them anymore. It doesn't matter how poor someone is, cents are worthless to virtually everyone and nickels aren't far behind. We ALL foot the bill for wasteful government spending, it's not relegated to one economic class. For cash transactions, we could round to the nearest .10 and no one would be even remotely impacted by that. you might overpay by 4 cents one transaction, and underpay by .03 on the next one. I can count one one hand how many times I've used cash to pay for something at a store this year. Even if I did, what would that mean? That i'm down $1.16 at the end of the year?
The argument that coin collectors should want coins to continue to be minted doesn't make sense, either. Part of the reason I'm not interested in series like Washington quarters, Jefferson nickels, Roosevelt dimes and Lincoln cents is because I see them all the time. If cents and nickels were removed from circulation, that might create some type of nostalgic effect that might positively affect collector interest some decades down the line.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
All true, but then where will parking lot cents come from for people to post asking questions about their errors?
That is has happened is not amazing. Every economy on earth is required to adapt and adjust to inflation and other pressures. What IS amazing is that we are too idiotic, collectively, to do anything about it.
Again, my proposal is to eliminate the $5 note, $2 note, and $1 note, and all of our current circulating coinage.
Then, create a very small, (3CS size) copper dime, for a limited 10 or 20 year run, a quarter roughly the size of a dime, a half-dollar roughly the size of a nickel, a dollar as big as a quarter, and a bimetallic $5 coin the size of a current half-dollar. We could mint a small number of changing commemorative $2 coins, if desired. In short order we could eliminate the $10 note as well, substituting a coin for that.
This proposal would be suitable for a few decades, maybe, and it would keep coins relevant.
IMO, a person should be able to buy a simple lunch with pocket change, as can be done in most other countries in the world.
There were changes to how bills were processed which allowed dollar bills to stay in circulation longer.
Not to ignore your research. The FED would know as they put bills into circulation and also take them out.
That is a worst case prediction. It is not the way it needs to work. For example, neither the social credits or expiration dates or limited purchases apply to crypto currencies. Digital currencies absolutely do NOT need to operate that way. Why not look at Bahamas or Jamaica rather than China?
https://www.afi-global.org/newsroom/blogs/central-bank-digital-currency-lessons-from-the-bahamas/#:~:text=The SandDollar is a digital,value backed by foreign reserves.
and the unbanked? who's going to eat the transaction costs for the other 1%?
naive to think a cbdc wont evolve to that
sales taxes would round to cent intervals. then forcing people to round back to nickels or dime would have the masses revolt even if we agree it'll be a wash
Paranoid to think it must
They won't be unranked. They will have a Federal Reserve account
You must have missed the past few years when they shut down businesses and fired people. I'm sure control of our bank accounts will be different though.
really? the fed res going to change to a bank and put jpm bac and others out of business? will the federal reserves be paying interest? where will jpm bac get capital for, say, commercial lending?
and the 1%?
De-banking, also known within the banking industry as de-risking, is the closure of people's or organizations' bank accounts by banks that perceive the account holders to pose a financial, legal, regulatory, or reputational risk to the bank.
let's focus on the word "pose" versus "is"
accounts get flagged and closed for "suspicious activity." that's not going away with a cbdc, it will get worse as investigators will have more access which will lead to more questions instead of answers. more people will get roped in, instead of more people being electronically cleared. when the government questions your legitimacy, you have to trot out physical evidence outside of the blockchain transactions.
as it is right now, there are investigators that flag suspicious activity to "de-risk" banks of "suspicious people." they have the electronic bank statements. yet they're not quite sure enough to launch an investigation. and how's the level of suspicion going to change to proof having evidence not in electronic statements, but read on a blockchain?
=-=-=-
the feds/fbi asked some tweets be censored on twitter without a court order. twitter complied. many feel it justified. i don't think it a stretch that people bs'ing others with "such and such polling place had a fire. the vote is tomorrow" getting the moral equivalent of a traffic ticket. want snap? disability? better not be a repeat offender.
Or a new federal entity. It's not that hard to service a digital database.
Apples and oranges.
Can you point to the catastrophic problems in the Bahamas and Jamaica? They seem to have it working.
The only thing they potentially have with digital currency is more data. Any pernicious act they could do digitally, they could also do with paper money.
It is also not even mandatory that the government control the blockchain. Cryptos operate privately.
Caution needs to be taken in developing such a currency, obviously, including appropriate guardrails. But there is no reason why it can't be made to work without all the abuses you envision. And it is inevitable, even if it won't be immediate.
stop making cents, nickels and dollar notes, easy big savings, they'll still stay in circulation for years, people will adjust and appreciate not burning billions of dollars a year
It's government abuse in both cases, so it's apples to apples. Canada froze the bank accounts of everyone they could identify in the bridge protests. That's a better example than a small tourist island. Bottom line - I think government will abuse their power because they have in the past. If you think "this time it will be different", then that's up to you.
We're rather off topic. I'm an anarchist by nature, libertarians don't go far enough. But that is another matter. But the same people that are anti'digital are anti-crypto which is the ultimate anarchist currency. So I fail to see how their embrace of the FED is rooted in distrust of government.
Printing unlimited paper money becomes a click of a button that creates a trillion dollars in half a second. Imagine that kind of inflation. Also, if people don't do what Uncle Sam wants, well well, he'll just make it so that you either starve, dehydrate, and wither away to death or do what he says. He doesn't care.
God Bless, CRHer700
Do unto others what you expect to be done to you.
I'm not anti crypto. It's decentralized. CBDC's are centralized crypto. I'm anti centralization.