Canada drops the penny - Page 2

Deneb · 11th April 2012, 05:21 AM

Originally Posted by Skepticemea

AHHH! That makes sense. Although making your $2 coin smaller than your $1 coin doesn't.

Their enormous 50 cent coins make no sense, though.

Brian-M · 11th April 2012, 05:43 AM

Originally Posted by Brown

I just received my first plastic bills. I have a 50 in my wallet and my neighbor showed me a 100. The bills have a distinct feel (one texture on the see-through parts and another on the opaque parts) and I understand the bills are hard to rip.

We've had plastic notes for ages over here. While they are difficult to deliberately rip, they do somehow get ripped anyway. Once or twice, I've seen fresh new bills come out of an ATM with a tear in them (but it's very rare for that to happen).

Plus if you do something silly like hide a couple of notes under the inner-sole of your shoe and walk around on them for a few weeks the pigment/color can get rubbed off in places. Don't ask me how I know this.

Originally Posted by rjh01

Edit. Had $1 and $2 coins for years. $1 and $2 notes are rarely (read never) seen.

I've still got one of each stashed away, along with a couple of 1c and 2c coins. Even got a commemorative $5 coin. When I first saw one of those as a kid, I thought they'd be replacing the $5 note with a coin like they did with the $1 and $2. Glad they didn't, the $5 coin is far too big.

I also had some higher denomination paper notes stashed away, until I ended up broke for a while and spent them.

Originally Posted by Skepticemea

AHHH! That makes sense. Although making your $2 coin smaller than your $1 coin doesn't.

I agree. But I do remember a science-fiction story, where a local is explaining their currency and saying that the smaller gold coins are worth more than the larger gold coins because they're purer. So it could make sense... if we used actual gold instead of aluminium bronze, which just happens to be a gold color.

timhau · 11th April 2012, 06:07 AM

Originally Posted by Skepticemea

AHHH! That makes sense. Although making your $2 coin smaller than your $1 coin doesn't.

I sort of assumed the Aussies were being good Commonwealth subjects and modeled their $2 coin after the British one-pound lump.

Skepticemea · 11th April 2012, 06:22 AM

Originally Posted by timhau

I sort of assumed the Aussies were being good Commonwealth subjects and modeled their $2 coin after the British one-pound lump.

And their $1 coin after our £2 coin?

*adoptsObelixaccent*

These Aussies are crazy!

Hawk one · 11th April 2012, 07:26 AM

Originally Posted by bjornart

When using cash your purchase is rounded to the nearest possible value (unless that's zero), when using debet or credit cards, which make up the vast majority of transactions anyway, you pay the exact price in kroner and øre.

I think - but only think, don't know - that one reason debit/credit cards are more popular in Norway than USA, is that we have much stricter rules on what the banks are allowed to do with the information. For someone like CORed (I believe you live in USA, but I might of course be wrong), there are other reasons than being criminal where you'd like to keep your transactions to yourself.

Madalch · 11th April 2012, 09:22 AM

Originally Posted by Brian-M

But I do remember a science-fiction story, where a local is explaining their currency and saying that the smaller gold coins are worth more than the larger gold coins because they're purer. So it could make sense... if we used actual gold instead of aluminium bronze, which just happens to be a gold color.

I seem to recall that this is the reason that dimes are smaller than pennies and nickels- the dime (until 1967 in Canada, at least) was silver, whereas the other coins weren't.

OnlyTellsTruths · 15th April 2012, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by CORed

I think you mean zinc futures. The US cent has been made out of copper plated zinc since 1983 (this was a cost saving measure). There are still plenty of the old copper (actually bronze, but mostly copper) ones circulating.

Originally Posted by Astrodude

See, I'm a fan of the penny in principle. A one cent coin might help against inflation by providing more liquidity in cash transactions and I'm not yet sold on completely relying on debit and credit cards. The main problem is that the American penny costs more to make than it's worth.

Not anymore they don't. They only cost half a cent to make.

Yay it's a chance to link to my old thread!

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=163493

Also, when I created that thread 3 years ago the pre-1982 pennies were worth 1.5x. Now they are worth 2.5x!!

http://www.coinflation.com/

Furcifer · 15th April 2012, 10:12 PM

I feel personally responsible for this. For the last 10 years I've been waging a personal war against the penny. My apologies to all of the hapless cashiers who could only stare vacantly at me as I dodged their efforts to put the stupid things in my hands like they were cancer.

We won people, we won. Celebrate with me and put all of you nickels and dimes into those charity boxes beside the register. Let's prove them all wrong. Let's face it, nickels are pretty much worthless and dimes are just a PITA for adult sized fingers to handle anyways.

jasonpatterson · 15th April 2012, 11:10 PM

Originally Posted by Astrodude

The main problem is that the American penny costs more to make than it's worth.

The main problem with the penny is that it costs money for people to use it when you consider the additional time that is required compared to $0.05 increments.

Costing more to make than it's worth is only a consideration if either A) the melt value of the coin is greater than its worth (this IS the case for older copper pennies, which are worth about 2.5 cents each) or B) the penny were a single use item. It's illegal in the US to melt down coins for sale, but of course it's still done.

Compare a hypothetical plastic quarter costing $0.025 to produce that would circulate for 1 year before becoming too damaged to be useful to a metal quarter costing $0.40 to produce that lasts 50 years in circulation. The metal quarter is a better deal. To be clear, I'm completely making up these numbers and don't see a compelling reason why we shouldn't try to make the production of coins cheaper, but the cost of production is not the only factor that should be considered.

megaresp · 15th April 2012, 11:52 PM

Originally Posted by Nogbad

...pennies and tuppence (a large coin) just clutter up the pocket...

The size, weight and general worthlessness of the 2p coin is a crime against the pockets of humanity. Easy to acquire and difficult to get rid of - it's the currency equivalent of Silvia Browne.

Information Analyst · 16th April 2012, 01:34 AM

Originally Posted by Nogbad

Over the years we have withdrawn the farthing and the ha'penny and pounds are now coins although you still get the occasional paper pound in Scotland.

I can't see the penny lasting much longer - it is worth less now than the ha'penny when it was withdrawn. To be honest pennies and tuppence (a large coin) just clutter up the pocket. Rounding up (as inevitably they will) will be inflationary though

As has been noted, though, losing the samllest denomination coins will not necessarily mean that all prices will be rounded to the nearest 5p. That said, most shops outside of supermarkets seem to do that already.

On multiple purchases of non-rounded prices, the most a customer will "lose" if they pay in cash is 4p, and I daresay retailers will find ways to deal with that. In the case of the supermarkets, they could simply credit a customer's loyalty card with the points equivalent, or else print out a credit slip/money off voucher (i.e. as Sainsbury's already does for price-matching purposes).

Information Analyst · 16th April 2012, 01:36 AM

Originally Posted by Skepticemea

Was caught short and had to spend a 40p at Euston at the weekend. Now that's inflation!

You should have gone to Victoria or Waterloo - only 30p there!

Information Analyst · 16th April 2012, 01:39 AM

Originally Posted by Skepticemea

I'm guessing that Nogbad was around at the time of decimalisation. Massive price inflation occurred.

Actually, that's a myth, fostered by the inevitable fact that people only noticed and got worked up about prices that were rounded up, as opposed to the ones that were rounded down. If anything, the rate of inflation around the time of decimalisation dropped slightly, but overall wasn't really out of step with rates in preceding or subsequent years.

Information Analyst · 16th April 2012, 01:41 AM

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

I thought it was two Jews fighting over a penny.

(I have no Jewish ancestry or thrifty Jewish relatives, but I'm still allowed to tell such jokes.)

In the UK it's said to be Scotsmen, or Yorkshiremen in certain bits of England.

(Yorkshire-born and bred, and bloody proud of it!)

Skepticemea · 16th April 2012, 01:55 AM

Originally Posted by Information Analyst

Actually, that's a myth, fostered by the inevitable fact that people only noticed and got worked up about prices that were rounded up, as opposed to the ones that were rounded down. If anything, the rate of inflation around the time of decimalisation dropped slightly, but overall wasn't really out of step with rates in preceding or subsequent years.

Not according to this:

http://safalra.com/other/historical-...ce-conversion/

6.4% in 1970 to 9.4% in 1971. It skyrocketed in the mid-70s, but it still increased by nearly 50% in the year we got rid of the frupny. Perhaps not all due to decimalisation but it's no wonder that people earning at the time attribute a change in currency with an increase in prices.

Information Analyst · 16th April 2012, 04:31 AM

Originally Posted by Skepticemea

Not according to this:

http://safalra.com/other/historical-...ce-conversion/

6.4% in 1970 to 9.4% in 1971. It skyrocketed in the mid-70s, but it still increased by nearly 50% in the year we got rid of the frupny. Perhaps not all due to decimalisation but it's no wonder that people earning at the time attribute a change in currency with an increase in prices.

This was covered in Channel 4's 'Secret History' programme on decimalisation 2000, although I may be mis-remembering the issue when raised with the senior civil servent responsible at the time. He certainly said that the rate of inflation did not significantly change, but he may have been talking about months, rather than years. Certainly this doesn't show any wild changes in the RPI on Table 4 around decimalisation in Feb 1971, although I was obviously wrong about a decrease.

Skepticemea · 16th April 2012, 04:40 AM

Originally Posted by Information Analyst

This was covered in Channel 4's 'Secret History' programme on decimalisation 2000, although I may be mis-remembering the issue when raised with the senior civil servent responsible at the time. He certainly said that the rate of inflation did not significantly change, but he may have been talking about months, rather than years. Certainly this doesn't show any wild changes in the RPI on Table 4 around decimalisation in Feb 1971, although I was obviously wrong about a decrease.

Fair enough. I doubt anyone calculate the impact of decimalisation over the course of one month ie, it only rose by x% from Feb to March and that's the point where you stop calculating it's effect.

I may look for more information on this as I'm interested in how long a currency change might affect the finances of a country. There'll be more data available now with the problems occuring in the Eurozone.

Battman · 21st April 2012, 09:28 PM

Originally Posted by Brian-M

What about dropping the $1 note and using coins instead? I've heard that the US has been trying to do that since the 70's, but the government doesn't have the balls to stop production of $1 notes.

We replaced our $1 and $2 notes with gold-colored (aluminium bronze) coins in the 80's. Well worth the change.

Canada introduced its $1 coin back in the eighties followed a few years later by the $2 coin. The $1 coin has the queen on one side and a loon on the other side, so it was quickly nicknamed the "Loonie" (C'mon, ya gotta love a country that calls its currency the Loonie.) It's great reaching into your pocket and pulling out enough spare change o buy lunch with.
I think the problem with the United States introducing $1 coins, is the government trying to placate all of the special interest groups that get all up in arms and threaten to sue whoever they possibly can for some perceived injustice that they may be suffering from. Remember "New Coke"? After all, the government's main job is to try and get re-elected.

11th April 2012, 05:21 AM	#41
Deneb Scholar Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 78	Originally Posted by Skepticemea AHHH! That makes sense. Although making your $2 coin smaller than your $1 coin doesn't. Their enormous 50 cent coins make no sense, though.
Deneb Scholar Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 78	__________________ Knowledge is gained through effort, Wisdom is bred through suffering, Sanity is sustained by love.

11th April 2012, 05:43 AM	#42
Brian-M Daydreamer Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Downunder Posts: 4,246	Originally Posted by Brown I just received my first plastic bills. I have a 50 in my wallet and my neighbor showed me a 100. The bills have a distinct feel (one texture on the see-through parts and another on the opaque parts) and I understand the bills are hard to rip. We've had plastic notes for ages over here. While they are difficult to deliberately rip, they do somehow get ripped anyway. Once or twice, I've seen fresh new bills come out of an ATM with a tear in them (but it's very rare for that to happen). Plus if you do something silly like hide a couple of notes under the inner-sole of your shoe and walk around on them for a few weeks the pigment/color can get rubbed off in places. Don't ask me how I know this. Originally Posted by rjh01 Edit. Had $1 and $2 coins for years. $1 and $2 notes are rarely (read never) seen. I've still got one of each stashed away, along with a couple of 1c and 2c coins. Even got a commemorative $5 coin. When I first saw one of those as a kid, I thought they'd be replacing the $5 note with a coin like they did with the $1 and $2. Glad they didn't, the $5 coin is far too big. I also had some higher denomination paper notes stashed away, until I ended up broke for a while and spent them. Originally Posted by Skepticemea AHHH! That makes sense. Although making your $2 coin smaller than your $1 coin doesn't. I agree. But I do remember a science-fiction story, where a local is explaining their currency and saying that the smaller gold coins are worth more than the larger gold coins because they're purer. So it could make sense... if we used actual gold instead of aluminium bronze, which just happens to be a gold color.
	__________________ "That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim Last edited by Brian-M; 11th April 2012 at 05:45 AM.

11th April 2012, 06:07 AM	#43
timhau NWO Litter Technician Join Date: May 2004 Location: East of Sweeden Posts: 9,651	Originally Posted by Skepticemea AHHH! That makes sense. Although making your $2 coin smaller than your $1 coin doesn't. I sort of assumed the Aussies were being good Commonwealth subjects and modeled their $2 coin after the British one-pound lump.
	__________________ When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord, in his wisdom, doesn't work that way. I just stole one and asked Him to forgive me. - Emo Philips

11th April 2012, 07:26 AM	#45
Hawk one Emperor of the Internet Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Right below The Hat. Posts: 12,844	Originally Posted by bjornart When using cash your purchase is rounded to the nearest possible value (unless that's zero), when using debet or credit cards, which make up the vast majority of transactions anyway, you pay the exact price in kroner and øre. I think - but only think, don't know - that one reason debit/credit cards are more popular in Norway than USA, is that we have much stricter rules on what the banks are allowed to do with the information. For someone like CORed (I believe you live in USA, but I might of course be wrong), there are other reasons than being criminal where you'd like to keep your transactions to yourself.
	__________________ Boynott everything! Roxane - My evil feeds on your hatred. I am like a big evil thing that feasts on hatred and probably also fear. Nom nom. Roxane is a ninja star without me.

11th April 2012, 09:22 AM	#46
Madalch The Jester Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: The wet coast. Posts: 8,698	Originally Posted by Brian-M But I do remember a science-fiction story, where a local is explaining their currency and saying that the smaller gold coins are worth more than the larger gold coins because they're purer. So it could make sense... if we used actual gold instead of aluminium bronze, which just happens to be a gold color. I seem to recall that this is the reason that dimes are smaller than pennies and nickels- the dime (until 1967 in Canada, at least) was silver, whereas the other coins weren't.
	__________________ As the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is incapable of resolving approaches zero. -Vaarsuvius It's a rum state of affairs when you feel like punching a jar of mayonnaise in the face. -Charlie Brooker

11th April 2012, 06:22 AM	#44
Skepticemea Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: London, UK Posts: 2,277	Originally Posted by timhau I sort of assumed the Aussies were being good Commonwealth subjects and modeled their $2 coin after the British one-pound lump. And their $1 coin after our £2 coin? adoptsObelixaccent These Aussies are crazy!

15th April 2012, 12:26 PM	#47
OnlyTellsTruths Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 5,786	Originally Posted by CORed I think you mean zinc futures. The US cent has been made out of copper plated zinc since 1983 (this was a cost saving measure). There are still plenty of the old copper (actually bronze, but mostly copper) ones circulating. Originally Posted by Astrodude See, I'm a fan of the penny in principle. A one cent coin might help against inflation by providing more liquidity in cash transactions and I'm not yet sold on completely relying on debit and credit cards. The main problem is that the American penny costs more to make than it's worth. Not anymore they don't. They only cost half a cent to make. Yay it's a chance to link to my old thread! http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=163493 Also, when I created that thread 3 years ago the pre-1982 pennies were worth 1.5x. Now they are worth 2.5x!! http://www.coinflation.com/
OnlyTellsTruths Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 5,786	__________________ ________________________

15th April 2012, 10:12 PM	#48
Furcifer miscreant Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: hohm Posts: 13,379	I feel personally responsible for this. For the last 10 years I've been waging a personal war against the penny. My apologies to all of the hapless cashiers who could only stare vacantly at me as I dodged their efforts to put the stupid things in my hands like they were cancer. We won people, we won. Celebrate with me and put all of you nickels and dimes into those charity boxes beside the register. Let's prove them all wrong. Let's face it, nickels are pretty much worthless and dimes are just a PITA for adult sized fingers to handle anyways.

15th April 2012, 11:10 PM	#49
jasonpatterson Philanthropic Misanthrope Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Space, The Final Frontier Posts: 2,180	Originally Posted by Astrodude The main problem is that the American penny costs more to make than it's worth. The main problem with the penny is that it costs money for people to use it when you consider the additional time that is required compared to $0.05 increments. Costing more to make than it's worth is only a consideration if either A) the melt value of the coin is greater than its worth (this IS the case for older copper pennies, which are worth about 2.5 cents each) or B) the penny were a single use item. It's illegal in the US to melt down coins for sale, but of course it's still done. Compare a hypothetical plastic quarter costing $0.025 to produce that would circulate for 1 year before becoming too damaged to be useful to a metal quarter costing $0.40 to produce that lasts 50 years in circulation. The metal quarter is a better deal. To be clear, I'm completely making up these numbers and don't see a compelling reason why we shouldn't try to make the production of coins cheaper, but the cost of production is not the only factor that should be considered.
	__________________ Sandra's seen a leprechaun, Eddie touched a troll, Laurie danced with witches once, Charlie found some goblins' gold. Donald heard a mermaid sing, Susie spied an elf, But all the magic I have known I've had to make myself. - Shel Silverstein

15th April 2012, 11:52 PM	#50
megaresp Muse Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: In me head Posts: 516	Originally Posted by Nogbad ...pennies and tuppence (a large coin) just clutter up the pocket... The size, weight and general worthlessness of the 2p coin is a crime against the pockets of humanity. Easy to acquire and difficult to get rid of - it's the currency equivalent of Silvia Browne.
	__________________ I've been called a "Big Thinker", but curiously, only by people with a lisp.

16th April 2012, 01:34 AM	#51
Information Analyst Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: London, UK Posts: 1,071	Originally Posted by Nogbad Over the years we have withdrawn the farthing and the ha'penny and pounds are now coins although you still get the occasional paper pound in Scotland. I can't see the penny lasting much longer - it is worth less now than the ha'penny when it was withdrawn. To be honest pennies and tuppence (a large coin) just clutter up the pocket. Rounding up (as inevitably they will) will be inflationary though As has been noted, though, losing the samllest denomination coins will not necessarily mean that all prices will be rounded to the nearest 5p. That said, most shops outside of supermarkets seem to do that already. On multiple purchases of non-rounded prices, the most a customer will "lose" if they pay in cash is 4p, and I daresay retailers will find ways to deal with that. In the case of the supermarkets, they could simply credit a customer's loyalty card with the points equivalent, or else print out a credit slip/money off voucher (i.e. as Sainsbury's already does for price-matching purposes).

16th April 2012, 01:36 AM	#52
Information Analyst Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: London, UK Posts: 1,071	Originally Posted by Skepticemea Was caught short and had to spend a 40p at Euston at the weekend. Now that's inflation! You should have gone to Victoria or Waterloo - only 30p there!

16th April 2012, 01:39 AM	#53
Information Analyst Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: London, UK Posts: 1,071	Originally Posted by Skepticemea I'm guessing that Nogbad was around at the time of decimalisation. Massive price inflation occurred. Actually, that's a myth, fostered by the inevitable fact that people only noticed and got worked up about prices that were rounded up, as opposed to the ones that were rounded down. If anything, the rate of inflation around the time of decimalisation dropped slightly, but overall wasn't really out of step with rates in preceding or subsequent years.

16th April 2012, 01:41 AM	#54
Information Analyst Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: London, UK Posts: 1,071	Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer I thought it was two Jews fighting over a penny. (I have no Jewish ancestry or thrifty Jewish relatives, but I'm still allowed to tell such jokes.) In the UK it's said to be Scotsmen, or Yorkshiremen in certain bits of England. (Yorkshire-born and bred, and bloody proud of it!)

16th April 2012, 01:55 AM	#55
Skepticemea Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: London, UK Posts: 2,277	Originally Posted by Information Analyst Actually, that's a myth, fostered by the inevitable fact that people only noticed and got worked up about prices that were rounded up, as opposed to the ones that were rounded down. If anything, the rate of inflation around the time of decimalisation dropped slightly, but overall wasn't really out of step with rates in preceding or subsequent years. Not according to this: http://safalra.com/other/historical-...ce-conversion/ 6.4% in 1970 to 9.4% in 1971. It skyrocketed in the mid-70s, but it still increased by nearly 50% in the year we got rid of the frupny. Perhaps not all due to decimalisation but it's no wonder that people earning at the time attribute a change in currency with an increase in prices.

16th April 2012, 04:31 AM	#56
Information Analyst Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: London, UK Posts: 1,071	Originally Posted by Skepticemea Not according to this: http://safalra.com/other/historical-...ce-conversion/ 6.4% in 1970 to 9.4% in 1971. It skyrocketed in the mid-70s, but it still increased by nearly 50% in the year we got rid of the frupny. Perhaps not all due to decimalisation but it's no wonder that people earning at the time attribute a change in currency with an increase in prices. This was covered in Channel 4's 'Secret History' programme on decimalisation 2000, although I may be mis-remembering the issue when raised with the senior civil servent responsible at the time. He certainly said that the rate of inflation did not significantly change, but he may have been talking about months, rather than years. Certainly this doesn't show any wild changes in the RPI on Table 4 around decimalisation in Feb 1971, although I was obviously wrong about a decrease.
	Last edited by Information Analyst; 16th April 2012 at 04:32 AM.

16th April 2012, 04:40 AM	#57
Skepticemea Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: London, UK Posts: 2,277	Originally Posted by Information Analyst This was covered in Channel 4's 'Secret History' programme on decimalisation 2000, although I may be mis-remembering the issue when raised with the senior civil servent responsible at the time. He certainly said that the rate of inflation did not significantly change, but he may have been talking about months, rather than years. Certainly this doesn't show any wild changes in the RPI on Table 4 around decimalisation in Feb 1971, although I was obviously wrong about a decrease. Fair enough. I doubt anyone calculate the impact of decimalisation over the course of one month ie, it only rose by x% from Feb to March and that's the point where you stop calculating it's effect. I may look for more information on this as I'm interested in how long a currency change might affect the finances of a country. There'll be more data available now with the problems occuring in the Eurozone.

21st April 2012, 09:28 PM	#58
Battman Scholar Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Out on the bald prairie Posts: 90	Originally Posted by Brian-M What about dropping the $1 note and using coins instead? I've heard that the US has been trying to do that since the 70's, but the government doesn't have the balls to stop production of $1 notes. We replaced our $1 and $2 notes with gold-colored (aluminium bronze) coins in the 80's. Well worth the change. Canada introduced its $1 coin back in the eighties followed a few years later by the $2 coin. The $1 coin has the queen on one side and a loon on the other side, so it was quickly nicknamed the "Loonie" (C'mon, ya gotta love a country that calls its currency the Loonie.) It's great reaching into your pocket and pulling out enough spare change o buy lunch with. I think the problem with the United States introducing $1 coins, is the government trying to placate all of the special interest groups that get all up in arms and threaten to sue whoever they possibly can for some perceived injustice that they may be suffering from. Remember "New Coke"? After all, the government's main job is to try and get re-elected.
	Last edited by Battman; 21st April 2012 at 09:32 PM.