This looks like another example of where Americans have been fed incorrect
information, the resulting incorrect perception is everything, and why America
prefers some (apparent - not necessarily real) short term gain in exchange for
(not always immediately apparent) long term pain. The inefficiencies of paper
money are well documented - a coin can last 50 years, a paper note/bill less
than two. But there's also the huge (but hidden) inefficiency in each person
handling not only two forms of money in a typical transaction (paper and coin),
but also greatly increased numbers of either.
I remember seeing somewhere before on this subject that America rejects higher
denomination of coinage because they perceive that they will end up with more
change in their pockets/purses. Like with thinking converting to the metric
system is too expensive, the OPPOSITE is true! That perception is plain wrong.
America has the following coinage: 0.25, 0.10, 0.05, 0.01 - and that's it! Four
denominations only (I am ignoring the 0.50 coin, as it does not seem to be in
general usage). For paper money there is only the 1.00 bill and the 5.00 bill.
(I am ignoring everything above 5.00.)
Canada has the above, plus 1.00 and 2.00 coins - 6 denominations. Plus the 5.00
bill.
UK has 2.00, 1.00, 0.50, 0.20, 0.10, 0.05, 0.02, 0.01 - 8 denominations. Plus
the 5.00 note.
Now take a purchase that comes to, say, 3.92, paid for in coinage only.
US - 15 x 0.25, 1 x 0.10, 1 x 0.05, 2 x 0.01. That's an astonishing 19 coins -
not practical (too slow for one thing). Paper money will get used, thereby
giving you ever MORE change!
Canada - 1 x 2.00, 1 x 1.00, 3 x 0.25, 1 x 0.10, 1 x 0.05, 2 x 0.01 - 9 coins.
Getting much more feasible.
UK - 1 x 2.00, 1 x 1.00, 1 x 0.50, 2 x 0.20, 1 x 0.02. That's just 6 coins. In
practice, it means that for ANYTHING under 5.00, you are more likely to pay
with ONLY coins, meaning you end up with FEWER coins jangling away in your
pockets/purses - and only having to deal with one type of money (coins). That
means less time at the cash register = more efficient throughput of customers.
Even tendering, say, 4.00 for that purchase is no better for Americans. Unless
they pay with 16 quarters, an American has to tender 4 x 1.00 bills. He/she
will receive 1 x 0.05 and 3 x 0.01 in change (net increase of four coins).
A Canadian or a Brit can tender just 2 x 2.00 coins. A Canadian will receive 1
x 0.05 and 3 x 0.01 in change (net increase of two coins); a Brit will receive
1 x 0.05, 1 x 0.02 and 1 x 0.01 in change - a net increase of just one coin.
If in all three countries a 5.00 bill/note is tendered, an American will
receive 8 coins in change, a Canadian 5 coins and a Brit 4 coins in change.
So how can Americans get it so wrong? I have lived extensively and continually
travel in all three countries, and I can say from personal experience that in
the UK you have far fewer coins on you, as using coins only for small purchases
is a very practical proposition. Same more or less for Canada, as it too has
2.00 and 1.00 coins. In the US I ALWAYS end up with a huge pocketful of
quarters, dimes and nickels, which just accumulate until one day I decide to
aggregate them together and pay for something large with them - much to the
annoyance of the person at the cash register, who now has to sort through and
add up 20 or 30 coins or more.
Being different just for the sake of it does not always mean being better.
Being better means looking at how the rest of the world does something better
than you - and then improving on it.
John F-L
----- Original Message -----
From: John M. Steele
To: U.S. Metric Association
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 2:56 AM
Subject: [USMA:50973] Why mint coins no one wants?
Per this article on dollar coins, the US has $1.2 billion minted
reserve of the $1 coins already due to low demand, and by 2016 will have a
minted reserve of $2 billion of them.
At 8.1 g/coin (per the Mint), that is 16200 t of excess coins by 2016.
http://www.courierpostonline.com/article/20110816/OPINION03/108160335/Why-mint-coins-no-one-wants-
