Canada- bye, bye penny

[NEOWatcher]

One optimal point for a coin is where the metal is worth less than the denomination, but it actually costs more to make it that it's worth.
That'll keep them in circulation while making forging self-defeating.

The first part of that is important. I remember the great penny shortage of 1974. Copper was more expensive by weight than pennies. Everyone was hoarding them expecting to make profits on a further rise of price in copper.

[ravens_cry]

The most recent pennies were magnetic since they are just a thin layer of copper over some kind of steel. Which means 2012 pennies tend to RUST.

[Ara Pacis]

You know how the appeal to legitimate authority isn't a fallacy? Having experience with the manufacture of cash registers is legitimate authority in this discussion.

You know that I didn't write that he had committed a fallacy? I usually claim something as a fallacy if I am invoking it. Assuming he does have authority on the matter, which has not been qualified (Maybe he's a night watchman at the company, so how do I know what he knows about it it?), he didn't offer anything specific to my questions, just suppositions. An appeal to authority may be allowable an argument if its true and when it reinforces a useful statement, but using it as a means of ending discussion with an "I'm right because I know better" it starts to drift into counter-productive territory.

[Ara Pacis]

Except the US dollar coin is NOT imaginary, several versions are at least officially in circulation, including SBA, Sacajawea, and the new presidential dollars. The US quarter has a mass of 5.67g and a diameter of 24.26mm. The Sacajawea dollar has a mass of 8.1g and a diameter of 26.5mm; the SBA and presidential dollars are the same. The Loonie has a mass of 7.0g (changing this year to 6.27g) and a diameter of 26.5mm, so it's the same diameter but a little lighter than the US ones.

We weren't talking about extant coin designs, but an future coin design, which means it is not extant, so we can't claim it will have identical or similar characteristics since we do not know what characteristics it will have.

[Ara Pacis]

Seigniorage in the moden central bank scheme comes from the "profit" the cental bank makes which goes directly to the sovereign...

Perhaps I should have mentioned that I was referring to collectors taking them out of circulation, such as with the 50 States Quarters program.

[Ara Pacis]

Trebuchet was correct. (thank you)

No, he wasn't. He confused the past with the future, which is the subject under discussion.

I'm not sure what you are saying here so I'll skip this.

Volume and packing capacity as a physical property of the issues under discussion.

Gillian was correct. (thank you)

Her statement on word usage was factually correct, but not in conflict and it really didn't address what I wrote or what you wrote, so it's not really applicable. Nor does referring to her off-topic response answer the point I put to you.

Although; I'd like to add, that an appeal to authority is also a blind appeal. Again; I'm stating opinion based on my experience and only giving background for it. I am not saying that this is how it is, just that I've seen it that way.
Oh, and it's not really manufacturing, it's just mating the drawers to the rest of the electronics and displays

That's fair, but if you're going to claim authority I'd prefer that you answer my point instead of dismissing it. My point is that you're suggesting work-arounds instead of proper design, which may or may not work depending on layout of the drawer, cashflow and other factors that vary depending on the business using the register and its practices. Maybe they'll just buy new drawers/tray inserts, but that will cost them money and so they may lobby against it. Large corporations are resistant to change, at least in my experience from trying to change their practices.

I'll take your word for it and grant you authority if you want it. But since you work for the company, you do have a monetary incentive with regards to the issues under discussion, so we will need to keep that in mind. Authority comes with both pros and cons.

How can that be apples and oranges? We have a dollar bill, Canada had a dollar bill. We have a dollar coin, Canada went to a dollar coin. It's a direct analogy.

Because Canada is not the United States. We have a similar culture in some ways but are very different in other ways. The fact that we do a lot of things differently is evidence of this.

Like I said, I'm not sure how Canada did it, but they didn't seem to have a problem with it. (I think I remember being there during the transition and having both, but I can't even be sure of that)

I wasn't suggesting a transition period. I was suggesting having both forms full-time on a permanent basis, but not as a counter-proposal, only as an example to a concept you brought out of another thread.

Ok; so you like the bill better. That's fine and an opinion I can respect. But; arguing cash registers seems pointless to me.

Then why were you arguing with me in the first place?

Apparently you are arguing from a lack of knowledge of the Canadian coin system. I suggest you look up "Canada Two Dollar Coin".

I wasn't referring to Canadian coins. Nor was I responding to you in that comment.

That sounds like a sarcastic remark. A dollar coin would cost the government less than a dollar bill over their lifetime. (I don't know if it would work as you go up the scale though)

I was responding to someone else's post, so why do you think it was directed at you? Please take it down a notch.

Again, don't knock it if you don't know it. The Sacagawea Dollar is considerably different than the SBA, and is very noticable to me. Showing you a picture wouldn't really help because a lot of it is in the feel.

I'm not knocking it. I was stating the simple fact that I've never seen one in circulation. Please don't read anything into it.

[Taeolas]

So, wait a second, that contradicts what I found, which was that the weight of the coin wouldn't matter to the vending machines. Or do payphones validate the coins differently than vending machines?

Payphones may validate differently, or mechanisms may go differently depending on the company.

Most likely however, it's Bell Canada looking for another way to gouge customers.

[Gillianren]

You know that I didn't write that he had committed a fallacy? I usually claim something as a fallacy if I am invoking it. Assuming he does have authority on the matter, which has not been qualified (Maybe he's a night watchman at the company, so how do I know what he knows about it it?), he didn't offer anything specific to my questions, just suppositions. An appeal to authority may be allowable an argument if its true and when it reinforces a useful statement, but using it as a means of ending discussion with an "I'm right because I know better" it starts to drift into counter-productive territory.

How is "this is my experience as it pertains to working with cash registers" irrelevant to a direct reference to how things work with cash registers? After all, the information provided was how it was used in a directly analogous situation. Yes, the United States and Canada are two different countries. However, why assume that the US Mint will do things substantially differently? Wouldn't it make sense for them to use the Canadians' expertise in how to do things right, given how well it's worked before? And perhaps you also missed the point of my referring to a $2 coin as a "higher denomination" to make it be worth doing an inner coin of a different metal--it seems to be doing pretty well by the Canadians.

[NEOWatcher]

We weren't talking about extant coin designs, but an future coin design, which means it is not extant, so we can't claim it will have identical or similar characteristics since we do not know what characteristics it will have.

Why wouldn't they follow a model that works, why wouldn't they follow the path that they have set?

All my discussion is based on actual history of what has been done. Any discussion not related to today's analogies are insignificant until you can give us some idea of why it would be different or what you think this imaginary future coin design would be.

No, he wasn't. He confused the past with the future, which is the subject under discussion.

And the future is usually based upon past successes.

That's fair, but if you're going to claim authority I'd prefer that you answer my point instead of dismissing it. My point is that you're suggesting work-arounds instead of proper design, which may or may not work depending on layout of the drawer, cashflow and other factors that vary depending on the business using the register and its practices.

Yes; I'm talking about temporary workarounds. Not future design.

Maybe they'll just buy new drawers/tray inserts, but that will cost them money and so they may lobby against it. Large corporations are resistant to change, at least in my experience from trying to change their practices.

They respond to other issues that are far more costly without a lot of fuss. This issue would be a pittance.
And; I'm not advocating that business blindly accept new regulations, just that this particular one has a very small, one time impact compared to the benefits of the American taxpayer.

I'll take your word for it and grant you authority if you want it. But since you work for the company, you do have a monetary incentive with regards to the issues under discussion, so we will need to keep that in mind. Authority comes with both pros and cons.

Two of us have told you this is not an issue of authority, it is an observation. Why do you keep throwing this in?

Because Canada is not the United States. We have a similar culture in some ways but are very different in other ways. The fact that we do a lot of things differently is evidence of this.

What's wrong with using a successful example to base a discussion on?

I wasn't suggesting a transition period. I was suggesting having both forms full-time on a permanent basis, but not as a counter-proposal, only as an example to a concept you brought out of another thread.

Where did I state that having coins and paper would be on a permanent basis?

Then why were you arguing with me in the first place?

Because you seem to have this opinion that this would be a major stumbling block in the idea.
Is that your opinion? Is this a reason that we shouldn't convert from a $1 paper to a $1 coin?

I wasn't referring to Canadian coins. Nor was I responding to you in that comment.
I was responding to someone else's post, so why do you think it was directed at you? Please take it down a notch.

Why do you think I thought it was directed at me?
Why am I not allowed to comment on what you are presenting?
This is a public discussion board. It was a comment that I found worth commenting on.

I'm not knocking it. I was stating the simple fact that I've never seen one in circulation. Please don't read anything into it.

What am I reading into? I am pointing out that you are making decisions without a good feel for the facts.

[Trebuchet]

We weren't talking about extant coin designs, but an future coin design, which means it is not extant, so we can't claim it will have identical or similar characteristics since we do not know what characteristics it will have.

Is that a "royal we"? I don't think anyone's talking about it as hypothetical but you. The Treasury has millions of existing dollar coins in storage. It's completely illogical to think they'd change the key parameters if they were serious about switching over.

[Taeolas]

Touching briefly on how Canada handled the transition; I don't recall too clearly but IIRC, because the banks yanked the bills out of circulation as fast as they could, it was a relatively quick transition (a year or so at most). At the start, the Loonies would be tossed in with another coin slot if there wasn't a spare slot available (Similar to what they'd do if they got a 50cent piece). Then towards the end as coins became more common than bills, the bills would be tucked under another bill pile and the Loonies would go in a cup in the 1's slot. Something similar happened with the Toonies/2$ transition as well.

[Ara Pacis]

How is "this is my experience as it pertains to working with cash registers" irrelevant to a direct reference to how things work with cash registers? After all, the information provided was how it was used in a directly analogous situation.

My problem with his statement wasn't its relevance. It was how he ignored the relevance of my question.

Yes, the United States and Canada are two different countries. However, why assume that the US Mint will do things substantially differently? Wouldn't it make sense for them to use the Canadians' expertise in how to do things right, given how well it's worked before?

That's the question, isn't it. Will what worked with Canadians work with Americans? I don't know the answer, but I know some of the counter-arguments. Since the status quo is that the US has not retired the dollar bill or two dollar bill and has not successfully replaced it with a coin despite a couple attempts, that makes me the negative and you the affirmative. So, make your case that what worked with Canadians will work with Americans.

And perhaps you also missed the point of my referring to a $2 coin as a "higher denomination" to make it be worth doing an inner coin of a different metal--it seems to be doing pretty well by the Canadians.

No, I saw it. I just didn't have anything pressing to say in response. I didn't realize you were talking about the Canadian Toonie. I had forgotten it had such a design, but I'm more concerned with US coin and paper currency. It might be something to keep in mind with regard to the cost or production, as was mentioned by another poster upthread.

[Trebuchet]

That's the question, isn't it. Will what worked with Canadians work with Americans? I don't know the answer, but I know some of the counter-arguments. Since the status quo is that the US has not retired the dollar bill or two dollar bill and has not successfully replaced it with a coin despite a couple attempts, that makes me the negative and you the affirmative. So, make your case that what worked with Canadians will work with Americans.

I absolutely agree that acceptance of dollar coins in the US is extremely unlikely without the dollar bill being withdrawn. What worked for Canada was that they did exactly that, officially withdrawing the dollar bill two years after the introduction of the loonie. It helped, of course, that two-dollar bills were already in common circulation in Canada at the time, unlike the US.

[Ara Pacis]

Why wouldn't they follow a model that works, why wouldn't they follow the path that they have set?

The past designs for a US dollar coin were successful? I don't see them in circulation, so that seems to suggest they were/are, in fact, not successful.

All my discussion is based on actual history of what has been done. Any discussion not related to today's analogies are insignificant until you can give us some idea of why it would be different or what you think this imaginary future coin design would be.

That's been my point this whole time, that you can't tell me it will work until we know what the design will be. This whole tangent was about a successful transition to a US dollar coin, something that hasn't happened in the US, so there is no history of which you speak.

And the future is usually based upon past successes.

Again, what successes?

Yes; I'm talking about temporary workarounds. Not future design.

By admitting it's a temporary solution, it merely delays the cost. So, my original point is valid that it will cost them money. Why did you argue this with me?

They respond to other issues that are far more costly without a lot of fuss. This issue would be a pittance.
And; I'm not advocating that business blindly accept new regulations, just that this particular one has a very small, one time impact compared to the benefits of the American taxpayer.

You think there really is not a lot of fuss? Have you ever worked in sales or purchasing or accounting? Yes, businesses do spend money, but they prefer to spend it on 1 things they actually want to spend it on, and 2, things they thing will add something of benefit to the company to ultimately increase profit. They are often resistant to mandated changes or changes that force them to spend money to adapt. Even if there is no mandate to change drawers, they will be forced to respond, probably by spending money, and they won't like it. Not only will they have to buy drawers. They may have to change safes, rewrite cash-room procedures, re-shoot cashier training videos, re-assess the ergonomics of heavy coin money on money-handlers for it's potential to be a liability with regard to carpal tunnel or other potential physical ailments and then re-evaluate insurance, reschedule armored truck routes for a heavier, bulkier load that may require shorter routes and therefore more runs and more time and therefore more exposure to attack. Et Cetera.

Two of us have told you this is not an issue of authority, it is an observation. Why do you keep throwing this in?

On the contrary, Gillian's actually recognizing and promoting you as an authority. What she said it was not was a fallacy. So tell us, NEOWatcher, what's in it for you if the US changes to a coin system. Will you get overtime?

As a funny aside, I almost got a job a couple years ago working for a company that made cash-counting machines.

What's wrong with using a successful example to base a discussion on?

You stated upthread that it was a direct analogy, but that's only a superficial interpretation. The US is different in many important respects. Our population is 9-10 times larger, our economy is larger, our politics is fierce and our media play up even small differences of opinion with more effect because of this. US money is used throughout the world, not just in digital terms as a reserve currency but directly in many locations either as or in opposition to local currency. The total population that uses US currency is therefore much larger. A lot of that is in higher denomination bills, but some is smaller. If we get rid of the US dollar bill, we may see fewer users overseas as they wear out and then we can either start shipping larger, heavier loads of dollar coins if they still want them, or let their reliance on the US wane and risk losing US influence overseas. It may not be a major change... or maybe it will be, but are you willing to risk global stability over it?

Where did I state that having coins and paper would be on a permanent basis?

You didn't. I did. And I wasn't serious about it. Please try to follow along.

Because you seem to have this opinion that this would be a major stumbling block in the idea.
Is that your opinion? Is this a reason that we shouldn't convert from a $1 paper to a $1 coin?

Did I say it would be a major stumbling block? It may be one issue among many, as I've pointed out above, but it is representative of many other problems resulting from the same issue - lower packing density but with a heavier overall weight.

Why do you think I thought it was directed at me?

Didn't you? Are you going to tell me you actually thought I was being sarcastic to Publius and thought it was important to point that out?

Why am I not allowed to comment on what you are presenting?
This is a public discussion board. It was a comment that I found worth commenting on.

When you misconstrue comments to other people it becomes disruptive. But you're an adult and you can be as disruptive as the mods will allow.

What am I reading into? I am pointing out that you are making decisions without a good feel for the facts.

You took my comment out of context and reacted as if it were addressed to your conversation with me in order to try to score points by means of intentional misrepresentation. I was not "knocking it". I was stating that I had never seen a Sacagawea dollar coin, nothing more, nothing less. In that statement to Publius I made no remark about the Sacagawea dollar coin that could be construed as a decision with regard to which facts were of any relevance, much less whether I have a good feel for them or not.

Now, if you are going to say that my statement implies that the Sacagawea dollar coin is a poor coin design because my lack of seeing it means it does not have a wide circulation, then that would be a valid inference, but I didn't state that and more to the point, neither did you when you decided to argue it. If you are going to argue that your comment about the weight of the coin supports some point in its favor, for its ability to be distinguished from other coins by feel alone, my response is that it makes no difference or else it would have made a difference and would be of greater circulation.

Now, if you're going to argue that you were extrapolating that not having seen one makes me unfamiliar enough with the subject matter to not have a valid opinion, as you may be hinting in your response I quoted right above, then come out and say it. Then, I'll answer the same answer I've given to the same argument so far: others by context and I, by explicit statement, are talking about a future coin design, one which might succeed where others have not. If, on the other hand, you actually think that the Sacagawea and the Susan B. Anthony dollar coins have been successful, then make your case.

[Ara Pacis]

Is that a "royal we"? I don't think anyone's talking about it as hypothetical but you. The Treasury has millions of existing dollar coins in storage. It's completely illogical to think they'd change the key parameters if they were serious about switching over.

On the contrary, it's obvious by context. Commenters have mentioned issues and lack of success with the past and current US dollar coins. If we were to have a successful transition, we would need a design that would be successful.

[NEOWatcher]

The past designs for a US dollar coin were successful? I don't see them in circulation, so that seems to suggest they were/are, in fact, not successful.

I'm not talking about what the US did or what the US is doing. I'm talking about adopting a model that has worked for others.
I have repeatedly referred to the Canadian model, and you are continually questioning my comments by basing it on the failed US model. This results in you taking my statements out of context and evading the questions by referring to your own idea.
Let me rephrase the question that you failed to answer by replacing the pronouns with nouns to make it a much clearer.
Why couldn't the US follow the Canadian model which has already shown to work for them?
What difference is there in the US people rather than the Canadian people that would change the way the Canadian model would work in the US?

That's been my point this whole time, that you can't tell me it will work until we know what the design will be.

Because I believe the design issue has been solved and it's the US model which is based on "hoping it catches on" is what is failing now.

This whole tangent was about a successful transition to a US dollar coin, something that hasn't happened in the US, so there is no history of which you speak.

How many times do I have to repeat... I'm talking about the history of the Canadian model which should be adopted by the US.

Again, what successes?

Canadian.

By admitting it's a temporary solution, it merely delays the cost. So, my original point is valid that it will cost them money. Why did you argue this with me?

I never said it wouldn't cost money. I'm just of the opinion that the amount is minor.
And, in many cases a delay in cost does save money. Businesses do replace thier equipment on occasion. So; it can be as temporary as they are willing to do, and if it's temporary until the next equipment modification then it has saved money.

You think there really is not a lot of fuss? Have you ever worked in sales or purchasing or accounting? Yes, businesses do spend money, but they prefer to spend it on 1 things they actually want to spend it on, and 2, things they thing will add something of benefit to the company to ultimately increase profit. They are often resistant to mandated changes or changes that force them to spend money to adapt. Even if there is no mandate to change drawers, they will be forced to respond, probably by spending money, and they won't like it. Not only will they have to buy drawers. They may have to change safes, rewrite cash-room procedures, re-shoot cashier training videos, re-assess the ergonomics of heavy coin money on money-handlers for it's potential to be a liability with regard to carpal tunnel or other potential physical ailments and then re-evaluate insurance, reschedule armored truck routes for a heavier, bulkier load that may require shorter routes and therefore more runs and more time and therefore more exposure to attack. Et Cetera.

I don't doubt that those situations will exist, but I am of the opinion that it is not a big issue because (wait for it...) it wasn't a problem when it happened in Canada. Again, I'm using a real life example to base my opinion on.

On the contrary, Gillian's actually recognizing and promoting you as an authority.

That's between you and her. I have already stated clearly that I am commenting based on my own observations and not from an authoritative background. So please leave me out of any "authority" comments.

So tell us, NEOWatcher, what's in it for you if the US changes to a coin system. Will you get overtime?

So, you think I have a motive? No; I don't. Because if it's a drawer change, our company will not be involved. We deal in high volume new installations. In fact, the drawers are given to us by our customers and never go through our inventory.

My motive is helping the government save money. I am willing to accept a dollar coin if it saves money, and I don't have to sift through a bunch of crumpled torn dirty bills to find one that works in a vending machine.

You stated upthread that it was a direct analogy, but that's only a superficial interpretation.

Yes, it's a direct analogy, not a direct comparison. Something for me to base my opinion on.

"Our population is 9-10 times larger, our economy is larger"
Yes; that also means we have a larger volume of currency creation that we can save money on. Pluses and minuses on both sides.
"our politics is fierce and our media play up even small differences of opinion with more effect because of this. "
Yes; but it's also two sided. The balance may remain the same but just louder.

"US money is used throughout the world, not just in digital terms as a reserve currency but directly in many locations either as or in opposition to local currency. The total population that uses US currency is therefore much larger. A lot of that is in higher denomination bills, but some is smaller. "
Where is it used in such small denominations as the $1 bill and to what extent?
I have heard that US currency is valued in other countries, but I usually hear that in relation to larger denominations.

"If we get rid of the US dollar bill, we may see fewer users overseas as they wear out and then we can either start shipping larger, heavier loads of dollar coins if they still want them, or let their reliance on the US wane and risk losing US influence overseas."
We will also see it wear out much slower which greatly reduces the need to ship. Besides, the shipping is cheap based on some of the cheap heavy items that I see in the stores that were made overseas.

"It may not be a major change... or maybe it will be, but are you willing to risk global stability over it?"
My opinion is that the risk is small. We have done far worse things to other countries with no global stability problems. I think currency valuation and market fluctuations are much more of a problem than denomination design.

You didn't. I did. And I wasn't serious about it. Please try to follow along.

Then put a smiley on it before you accuse me of not following along. Your comment with no context of seriousness was an accusation as read.

Did I say it would be a major stumbling block?

I never said you did. I said you "seem" to have the opinion. And again, you fail to answer my question.

It may be one issue among many, as I've pointed out above, but it is representative of many other problems resulting from the same issue - lower packing density but with a heavier overall weight.

I have addressed those points.

Didn't you? Are you going to tell me you actually thought I was being sarcastic to Publius and thought it was important to point that out?

I did say "sound". If you took it as an accusation, I'm sorry, that was not my intent. I did think it was an interesting point of conversation though.

I was stating that I had never seen a Sacagawea dollar coin, nothing more, nothing less. In that statement to Publius I made no remark about the Sacagawea dollar coin that could be construed as a decision with regard to which facts were of any relevance, much less whether I have a good feel for them or not.

You were talking earlier about coin design and weights and how awful a new coin can be. The Sacagawea dollar is a physical real-life design directly related to that discussion as an example of what a coin can be like.

Ok, so "don't knock it" may have been out of place for me to say. I still hold it up as a valid example though.

If you are going to argue that your comment about the weight of the coin supports some point in its favor, for its ability to be distinguished from other coins by feel alone, my response is that it makes no difference or else it would have made a difference and would be of greater circulation.

I made that point directly in earlier posts about it's weight and feel. (in addition, refer to my comment about design vs method)

Then, I'll answer the same answer I've given to the same argument so far: others by context and I, by explicit statement, are talking about a future coin design, one which might succeed where others have not. If, on the other hand, you actually think that the Sacagawea and the Susan B. Anthony dollar coins have been successful, then make your case.

Where did you reference a possible future coin design? A lot of this discussion has been about the negatives of having a coin, not about the design of a coin. (again, refer to my comment about design vs method).

[Trebuchet]

The past designs for a US dollar coin were successful? I don't see them in circulation, so that seems to suggest they were/are, in fact, not successful.

They haven't been successful, but it's nothing to do with the design of the coin, it's because the government keeps printing dollar bills. The successful model is that of Canada, which killed the bills as they introduced the coins. This has been explained to you over and over.

[Van Rijn]

They haven't been successful, but it's nothing to do with the design of the coin, it's because the government keeps printing dollar bills.

They would be successful if people were given no choice? That's a strange definition of "successful."

I don't like the dollar coins. I can at least tell the colored ones aren't quarters, but they're far too heavy. Given a choice, I will keep using dollar bills.

[Van Rijn]

By the way, dollar coins are in circulation and available, just not very popular. I recently noticed I had one of the quarter lookalikes (same color, almost the same size). I really hate those.

[Solfe]

By the way, dollar coins are in circulation and available, just not very popular. I recently noticed I had one of the quarter lookalikes (same color, almost the same size). I really hate those.

You can pick those up at the post office stamp vending machines. They give coins back for change. Pay with a twenty, you can get a handful of them back.

I like them, but if someone handed me a hand full of coins, I wouldn't expect the quarter sized things to be anything other than quarters.

[Taeolas]

They would be successful if people were given no choice? That's a strange definition of "successful."

I don't like the dollar coins. I can at least tell the colored ones aren't quarters, but they're far too heavy. Given a choice, I will keep using dollar bills.

It's Currency. People aren't meant to have a choice with it; in fact a choice of a Nation's currency only introduce's confusion both with the local's and tourists/visitors. It's obvious that in order for the USDollar Coin to become more than a Franklin Mint collectable, a decent coin has to be introduced AND the bill has to be removed. Otherwise people won't use it. (That said, from the sounds of it, the current fad dollar coin sounds like it doesn't work. Part of the strength of the Loonie and Toonie when they came out was that they were obvious in your change pile. )

[Van Rijn]

It's Currency. People aren't meant to have a choice with it; in fact a choice of a Nation's currency only introduce's confusion both with the local's and tourists/visitors.

The argument was that if only they were forced on us they would be "successful." A lot of things can be "successful" if people are forced to use them. But that makes a mockery of the word "successful."

It's obvious that in order for the USDollar Coin to become more than a Franklin Mint collectable, a decent coin has to be introduced AND the bill has to be removed. Otherwise people won't use it.

Which makes my point, I think.

[NEOWatcher]

Ara Pacis (and anyone else interested in the discussion):
I feel that we have considerably derailed the thread.

I also think that we may be arguing two different ideas which is causing a confusion in what we are bantering about and causing friction between us.

So; To get things straightened out, I decided to start anew by clearly stating my opinion and doing it in a different thread.
I haven't brought our current discussion into it because I want to start with a clean slate and hopefully clear statement of my view before discussing anything that we have miscommunicated on. I am open (and appreciate) for you to include any points we discussed here in that thread.

Over here: The US Dollar Coin

[Ara Pacis]

They haven't been successful, but it's nothing to do with the design of the coin, it's because the government keeps printing dollar bills. The successful model is that of Canada, which killed the bills as they introduced the coins. This has been explained to you over and over.

And it has been explained that resistance prevented that from happening. Yes, the US government did not retire the dollar bill at the same time. Would that speed up/force adoption. Almost certainly. Why didn't the US government do that?

[Ara Pacis]

I saw you started a new thread, but I haven't read it yet. Since you said you want that clean, I'll address this post here.

I'm not talking about what the US did or what the US is doing. I'm talking about adopting a model that has worked for others.
I have repeatedly referred to the Canadian model, and you are continually questioning my comments by basing it on the failed US model. This results in you taking my statements out of context and evading the questions by referring to your own idea.

What questions am I evading? What idea of my own am I referring to? You're the one saying it will work, arguing to change the status quo, so the burden of evidence is upon you, not me. By trying to put the burden on me, shows that you are being evasive, not me. Don't you understand the basic rules of argumentation? I shouldn't have to do your job for you.

Let me rephrase the question that you failed to answer by replacing the pronouns with nouns to make it a much clearer.
Why couldn't the US follow the Canadian model which has already shown to work for them?
What difference is there in the US people rather than the Canadian people that would change the way the Canadian model would work in the US?

That's a good question... So, why haven't you addressed it? It's your proposal. Tell me what it is about Americans that is similar enough to Canadians to make such a proposal succeed?

Because I believe the design issue has been solved and it's the US model which is based on "hoping it catches on" is what is failing now.

As others here have mentioned, they don't think the design issue has been solved. I agree, the "hope" is doomed to failure.

How many times do I have to repeat... I'm talking about the history of the Canadian model which should be adopted by the US.

Repeating is the problem. You need to stop repeating it and actually explain how it is applicable to the US, which is the issue under discussion.

Canadian.

Canada is not the US. It should have been obvious that my comment was referring to successes that have occurred the US.

I never said it wouldn't cost money. I'm just of the opinion that the amount is minor.
And, in many cases a delay in cost does save money. Businesses do replace thier equipment on occasion. So; it can be as temporary as they are willing to do, and if it's temporary until the next equipment modification then it has saved money.

That's a good point, with regard to equipment which is changeable, such as cash-drawer trays. How applicable is it to safes or armored trucks?

I don't doubt that those situations will exist, but I am of the opinion that it is not a big issue because (wait for it...) it wasn't a problem when it happened in Canada. Again, I'm using a real life example to base my opinion on.

Again, you're failing to explain why what happened in Canada is applicable to the US. Since we're talking about size and mass and packing density, please perform the calculations for cash-flow, load limits for safes, armored trucks, roads (etc) and miles traveled and fuel use and cost (etc) using both Canadian bill-replacement coins and known US dollar coins and actually demonstrate that you're right instead of merely insisting it.

That's between you and her. I have already stated clearly that I am commenting based on my own observations and not from an authoritative background. So please leave me out of any "authority" comments.

You invoked her name by saying "Two of us have told you this is not an issue of authority". If you don't want me to keep arguing statements you make that are factually incorrect, then please stop making statements that are factually incorrect.

So, you think I have a motive? No; I don't. Because if it's a drawer change, our company will not be involved. We deal in high volume new installations. In fact, the drawers are given to us by our customers and never go through our inventory.

My motive is helping the government save money. I am willing to accept a dollar coin if it saves money, and I don't have to sift through a bunch of crumpled torn dirty bills to find one that works in a vending machine.

Okay, I'll just take your word for it.

Yes, it's a direct analogy, not a direct comparison. Something for me to base my opinion on.

I don't want to argue semantics, though you seem to like it instead of addressing the actual issue under discussion. Call it whatever you want, you need to actually demonstrate how the relationship exists and applies to the discussion. You think it's analogous? Fine, prove it.

"Our population is 9-10 times larger, our economy is larger"
Yes; that also means we have a larger volume of currency creation that we can save money on. Pluses and minuses on both sides.

What are the other pluses and minuses? I can think of some, such as those already mentioned, like "it will magnify the transition costs by 9-10 times. What effect on the probability of a transition do you think that will have?

"our politics is fierce and our media play up even small differences of opinion with more effect because of this. "
Yes; but it's also two sided. The balance may remain the same but just louder.

You think so? Can you explain your analysis?

"US money is used throughout the world, not just in digital terms as a reserve currency but directly in many locations either as or in opposition to local currency. The total population that uses US currency is therefore much larger. A lot of that is in higher denomination bills, but some is smaller. "
Where is it used in such small denominations as the $1 bill and to what extent?
I have heard that US currency is valued in other countries, but I usually hear that in relation to larger denominations.

Countries that have Officially Dollarized using US currency (wikipedia).

Countries using the U.S. dollar exclusively
British Virgin Islands
Caribbean Netherlands (from 1 January 2011)
East Timor (uses its own coins)
Ecuador (uses its own coins in addition to U.S. coins; Ecuador adopted the U.S. dollar as its legal tender in 2000. [44]
El Salvador
Marshall Islands
Federated States of Micronesia (Micronesia used the U.S. dollar since 1944 [45])
Palau (Palau adopted the U.S. dollar since 1944 [46])
Panama (uses its own coins in addition to U.S. coins. This country has adopted the U.S. dollar as legal tender since 1904). [47]
Turks and Caicos Islands

Countries using the U.S. dollar alongside other currencies
Bahamas
Uruguay[48]
Nicaragua
Cambodia (uses Cambodian Riel for many official transactions but most businesses deal exclusively in dollars)
Lebanon (along with the Lebanese pound)
Liberia (was fully dollarized until 1982 the year the National Bank of Liberia started to issue five dollar coins [49] ; U.S. dollar still in common usage alongside Liberian dollar)
Zimbabwe
Haiti uses the U.S Dollar alongside its domestic currency called "Gourde"
Vietnam (along with the Vietnamese Dong)

"If we get rid of the US dollar bill, we may see fewer users overseas as they wear out and then we can either start shipping larger, heavier loads of dollar coins if they still want them, or let their reliance on the US wane and risk losing US influence overseas."
We will also see it wear out much slower which greatly reduces the need to ship. Besides, the shipping is cheap based on some of the cheap heavy items that I see in the stores that were made overseas.

This is a good point. Coins are easier to counterfeit, but if we stick to a small denomination it may not be an issue.

"It may not be a major change... or maybe it will be, but are you willing to risk global stability over it?"
My opinion is that the risk is small. We have done far worse things to other countries with no global stability problems. I think currency valuation and market fluctuations are much more of a problem than denomination design.

You know, there's a difference between arguing whether something can happen (or not) and whether we should care if something happens. Can you show some evidence or analysis as to why your opinion that the risk is small should be accepted as valid?

Then put a smiley on it before you accuse me of not following along. Your comment with no context of seriousness was an accusation as read.

You seem to be laboring under the delusion that this sub-thread was of my doing. No, this was based on you referring to another thread where I suggest making a change to another system and you trying to suggest that I'm hypocritical as an ad hominem. I responded by pointing out the differences in the systems and the differences in the proposals and how a similar type or proposal in the system under discussion here would exist. Then, I illustrated that I would not be hypocritical because I actually would not object to that alteration to the system. That lack of objection, however, should not be construed as support or a proposal for such a change to actually occur. As should be obvious to anyone who was following the sub-thread (which of all people should include you), that I was "not serious" in suggesting such a proposal refers to the intent of demonstrating the flaw in your fallacy and was not, in fact, an attempt at humor wherein a smiley would be applicable. That you consider my statement to which this is your reply as an accusation of not following along, you are correct. I accuse you of not following along since it seems obvious that you don't understand the context of my statements as having originated in and being a continuation of a line of discussion from an absurd notion put forward by you.

I never said you did. I said you "seem" to have the opinion. And again, you fail to answer my question.

Continuing my last thought, not only should you "follow along", but you should read ahead. It strikes me as particularly useless for you to claim I don't answer a question that I address in the very next sentence.

I have addressed those points.

Hand-waving them away should not be confused with actually addressing them.

I did say "sound". If you took it as an accusation, I'm sorry, that was not my intent. I did think it was an interesting point of conversation though.

You were talking earlier about coin design and weights and how awful a new coin can be. The Sacagawea dollar is a physical real-life design directly related to that discussion as an example of what a coin can be like.

Ok, so "don't knock it" may have been out of place for me to say. I still hold it up as a valid example though.

I made that point directly in earlier posts about it's weight and feel. (in addition, refer to my comment about design vs method)

Okay, we can talk about it in context of this discussion if you want to make it relevant. My point is that (aside from not ascribing emotionality that I didn't have) you need to actually state your points and how they relate to the discussion, especially if you want it to support your over-all argument. I don't want to have to connect your dots because I might do it wrong and then it seems like I'm putting words in your mouth.

(to be continued)

[Ara Pacis]

Continued, to answer your last point with links and quotes by others about what we really are talking about.

Where did you reference a possible future coin design? A lot of this discussion has been about the negatives of having a coin, not about the design of a coin. (again, refer to my comment about design vs method).

Do I really need to link to each of my posts where I ask about size, mass, packing density or color or design? If you read what others have written, it's not just the negatives of having a coin, but actual negatives of having had the coins that were in actual circulation. If extant coin designs are the problem, then a new coin design is part of the solution. I started talking to you in this post about new coin designs by using an analogy with fruit, remember? I even wrote something earlier in this post, on page 1, where I imply that I'm referring to a new coin design by explaining how choices in size and weight would be a source of confusion.

SeanF understood that when he explicitely translates that for you in this post

If I may be so bold as to speak for Ara, quarters have always been coins, never bills, and a dollar coin would probably be different in size/weight than a quarter. Therefore, Ara suspects that looking at how cash registers/tellers handle quarters doesn't tell us much about how they would handle a hypothetical dollar coin.

(bold mine)

And I follow up with an explicit statement in this post

A Dollar coin may not be the same size as a quarter, it may be larger.

And then Publius responds in this post

To do it right, the new dollar coin (that would be used) needs to be readily identifiable as different from every other coin. We could make it smaller than a quarter, but to make it work, it would need to be easily distinguished. I'd go with a different color, making it gold or tan looking, and try to give it some distinctive feel. Let's see, I think the current presidential and Sacagawea coins are brass colored, but they have a tendency to tarnish, especially on the raised areas.

(bold mine)

Nowhere Man states in this post

I wish the US would drop the dollar bill (and the two-dollar bill), and start making one- and two-dollar coins.

Since we don't have a two-dollar coin (to my knowledge) that involves at least one new design and since he's not referring to extant designs, the one-dollar coin reference might mean a new design by context.

And DonM435 made a similar statement even earlier, in this post, on page 1:

I'd also replace the $5 and $1 with coins, and just maintain 50c and 10c pieces.

Also, on page 1, Buttercup, in this post, implies a design change is needed:

And besides, the newest coin dollars look too much, at quick glance, like a quarter; they're not golden-colored enough.

And then in this post, I make it plain as day

We're talking about the differences between US quarters and an imaginary US dollar coin.

Yes, I can see that as early as page 1, when you attack Buttercup in this post, that you are referring to extant (US?) dollar coin designs. However, it should be clear from the statements by others that they were not.

[Trebuchet]

And it has been explained that resistance prevented that from happening. Yes, the US government did not retire the dollar bill at the same time. Would that speed up/force adoption. Almost certainly. Why didn't the US government do that?

Cowardice on the part of 535 elected individuals. As has been noted earlier.

[Van Rijn]

Cowardice on the part of 535 elected individuals. As has been noted earlier.

That's just bizarre. Why is it cowardly to follow the wishes of the people who elected them? Why should they be forcing these things on us in the first place?

[HenrikOlsen]

The argument was that if only they were forced on us they would be "successful." A lot of things can be "successful" if people are forced to use them. But that makes a mockery of the word "successful."
Which makes my point, I think.

Successful means fulfilling the criterion for success. In terms of replacing a note with a coin, the criterion for success is the general adaption of it for use. That it happens without tool much pain is a bonus.

It's the lack of will to do what's needed to make them a success that made the previous ones failures.

And making them in a size and color that marks them as distinct is part of that, going with a previously failed design, which failed in part because of the design, will make the switch more painful than it needs to be.

Anyway, seeing how you still haven't joined the modern world on measurements, I don't doubt it's going to take a long time to get this change done unless you hit a runaway inflation event and have to remake all the money anyway.

[HenrikOlsen]

That's just bizarre. Why is it cowardly to follow the wishes of the people who elected them? Why should they be forcing these things on us in the first place?

Because it's the better choice even though you're too stubborn to admit it. (Note, collective you, not personal you)

That's actually one of the functions of government, making the best choices even though they're unpopular. This seems to have been lost in many modern societies.