backtop


Print 47 comment(s) - last by The Raven.. on Apr 17 at 12:38 PM


  (Source: tqn.com)
The Royal Canadian Mint is holding a contest for software developers to create apps for MintChip

Canada is looking to trade in traditional coin currency for a digital version that can be exchanged using devices like smartphones, and it's looking for some help from software developers.

The Royal Canadian Mint is looking to axe its coin business, which it has had for over 100 years. Instead, it wants to use a digital currency called MintChip.

MintChip is a secure microchip that would allow people to pay for small transactions using technology like smartphones, tablets, USB sticks, computers and clouds. However, like cash, the transactions would be anonymous.

"There's been a very huge growing digital economy that is really going to be fueled by smartphones and mobile being the next big thing," said Marc Brûlé, the Royal Canadian Mint's chief financial officer.

In order to get MintChip moving along, the Royal Canadian Mint is holding a contest for software developers and techies to develop applications using MintChip. The winner will receive about $50,000 in gold coins and wafers.

According to Interac, a Canadian organization that allows enterprises with proprietary networks to connect and exchange electronic financial transactions, MintChip will be a hit amongst "big players" that are looking to get into the small electronic payments industry. Caroline Hubberstey, an Interac spokesperson, said the value of small cash and coin transactions is $90 billion, and companies want a piece of that as it emerges.

"You're seeing competitors that have been in the space in a while and new competitors looking at the payments market as an opportunity," said Hubberstey.

The idea of mobile payments is not new. Google released Google Wallet last year while VISA, PayPal and ISIS (which is a NFC venture between AT&T, Verizon Wireless and T-Mobile) have all offered mobile payment systems. However, MintChip will differ from these because it will be anonymous.

The 500 contest spots for MintChip app development filled in only four days.

Source: The Star



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By HoosierEngineer5 on 4/12/2012 4:51:32 PM , Rating: 3
Now, the currency will no longer have ANY intrinsic value. Completely virtual. Why does this feel so wrong?




By seraphim1982 on 4/12/2012 5:03:32 PM , Rating: 2
Totally agree... the day where an embedded chip controls everything we are and own is coming...


By AssBall on 4/12/2012 5:30:11 PM , Rating: 2
Considering the US Quarter is worth like about 5 cents or something, it is not like currency is properly based anyway.

/shrug


By AssBall on 4/12/2012 5:31:25 PM , Rating: 2
That's actually just melt value.

Pennies actually cost 50% more to manufacture than they are worth. Stupid eh?


By bjacobson on 4/12/2012 7:11:28 PM , Rating: 4
well, takes money to make money.


By Milliniar on 4/12/2012 7:25:39 PM , Rating: 2
speaking of the penny...we in canada already got rid of them.


By ShaolinSoccer on 4/12/2012 7:57:53 PM , Rating: 1
What do you mean you got rid of them? So instead of getting back 4 cents in change, you get zero? Man.... that would add up quick...


By n00bxqb on 4/12/2012 9:36:46 PM , Rating: 2
To clarify, Canada has not stopped using pennies, but they did stop producing them, at least temporarily.


By swampfred on 4/13/2012 1:50:18 AM , Rating: 2
For cash transactions only, after tax final totals of:
$x.x1 and $x.x2 are rounded down to $x.x0
$x.x3 and $x.x4 are rounded up to $x.x5

For cheque, debit card, credit card, online, and other non-cash transactions, there is no rounding. See http://www.budget.gc.ca/2012/themes/theme2-info-en...

The possibility of an unscrupulous shopkeeper adjusting his prices so that the purchase of each item plus tax yields a 3c or 4c amount, but if the customer buys two or more items, then all his work was for naught.

Lastly, New Zealand has done without both 1c coins and 5c coins since Nov.2006 and they seem to be managing alright.


By Dr of crap on 4/13/2012 12:46:01 PM , Rating: 2
Really do you think 4 cents will break you?
Round up or round down. Or use the damn pennies at the counter. I'll leave more for you.

I'll happy to see the penny go. And since my cash transaction or so small, I use debit cards most of all, I really don't car if the nickel goes as well.

There are studies / vidoes of people not stopping to pick up pennies on the gorund because they're not worth anything!


By Mint on 4/13/2012 4:39:22 PM , Rating: 2
Just read an article with a cute closing sentence:
quote:
And so this is what we’ve come to: the richest country in the world, eying a penniless neighbor with envy.


By tastyratz on 4/16/2012 12:54:01 PM , Rating: 2
I know I don't. I usually throw pennies in the street. Someone will pick them up if they want them, but it's not worth my time. My cheap wife gets mad when I do, but the age of the penny is dead. Mathematically it matters. Financially it doesn't. I could agree to stopping production in the us.


By Spookster on 4/13/2012 10:34:05 AM , Rating: 2
That would never happen here in the U.S. Because how would the late night info-mercials convince us to act now in the next 30 minutes to take advantage of a great low price and buy their products for only $19.99 because it's really not $20 so it must be a good deal.


RE: Complete opposite of the original use for money...
By Etsp on 4/12/2012 5:31:07 PM , Rating: 2
What's the intrinsic value of a $100 bill?


By shabby on 4/12/2012 6:18:12 PM , Rating: 2
$3.50


By Alexvrb on 4/13/2012 9:54:21 PM , Rating: 2
Damn Lochness Monster!


By seamonkey79 on 4/12/2012 7:41:30 PM , Rating: 1
After they're completely worthless as money, you can still tape a bunch of them together and make a coat to survive through winter with, or make some cotton fiber based undies.


By DNAgent on 4/12/2012 10:28:54 PM , Rating: 2
Before or *after* I wipe?


By mattclary on 4/12/2012 10:28:31 PM , Rating: 2
In a post-apocalyptic world overrun by zombies, the U.S. currency will go up in value as it can be used for toilet paper.


RE: Complete opposite of the original use for money...
By rs2 on 4/12/2012 8:00:16 PM , Rating: 2
I think you're missing the point. What is the intrinsic value of a $100 bill? The half a cent worth of paper and ink that it's printed on/with? It's not like it's backed by gold anymore, and even if it was, what is the intrinsic value of a chunk of shiny metal? Sure gold might carry a lot of weight in the market today, but given the right post-apocalyptic scenario that could change rather quickly as soon as people realize that you can't eat gold. Well technically you can, but you don't get any nutritional benefit out of doing so.

For most people the money in their bank account is already just a number in a computer anyways. The bank doesn't keep a pile of cash on hand to match the actual amount of funds that people have deposited. And when you request a transfer of funds to some third-party institution, they don't actually ship any cash to the third-party, they just electronically swap some numbers around.

So I really don't see how this is any different. In a large number of cases currency is already "completely virtual". This just adds one more.


By BansheeX on 4/13/2012 12:10:43 AM , Rating: 5
You're missing the point of gold. Gold's scarcity is protected because everyone has to work to obtain it, right down to the gold mining companies. Governments and bankers want a currency that a small group of people can issue, but everyone else has to work for. Taxes elicit too much resistance because people can see and quantify taxes. They can't necessarily see their money gradually losing scarcity over time, and politicians will always blame price increases on speculators while falsifying inflation statistics.

Someone in 1957 made the equivalent of $30 an hour minimum wage today. Minimum wage was $1.00 and dollars were redeemable 1oz silver notes. This is why Ron Paul is right. Things like health insurance and gas feeling too expensive are by and large symptoms of government spending way, way more than revenue and then borrowing or printing the difference. We would not be whining so much a country if we simply sought sound money above all else. Instead, the country would rather stay stupid and bicker about gay marriage or something.


RE: Complete opposite of the original use for money...
By Paj on 4/13/2012 7:20:12 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Things like health insurance and gas feeling too expensive are by and large symptoms of government spending way, way more than revenue and then borrowing or printing the difference


Health insurance is private in the US. What does the government have to do with it?

I'd say its more to do with fiscal policies, privatisation and lack of public investment (at least where the US is concerned)

Oil prices are more to do with two wars in the middle east and the practice of gambling on futures.


By Ringold on 4/13/2012 8:30:57 AM , Rating: 2
Run-away costs are the problem of privatization? What about the recent headlines of GSA tax-payer funded junckets to Hawaii makes you confident the government would ever do a better job?

The problem with health-care started as a result of WW2 wage controls that forced companies to delve in to things other than monetary compensation to attract labor. Now the problem is that the government and way the market has been structured separates the consumers of health care from any notion at all of what the services they consume cost. Virtually no one does price comparison shopping when they can even though prices can vary hugely from one hospital or clinic to another.

The only way to bring incentives in to the mix that would dampen health inflation is to change that, but there's no appetite for it on the left. The left goes to their local DMV and Post Office or VA or go through airport security and think what an amazing job those people are all doing and can only countenance government control as a solution.


By Reclaimer77 on 4/13/2012 11:52:28 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Health insurance is private in the US. What does the government have to do with it?


Okay you should leave these discussions and never return after posting this. Our system is anything but completely "private", and the Government has LOTS to do with it. Tens of thousands of regulations for one thing.

quote:
Oil prices are more to do with two wars in the middle east and the practice of gambling on futures.


Wrong again.

Seriously your ignorance is shocking. Go away kid.


By bah12 on 4/13/2012 10:10:23 AM , Rating: 2
All true. For any that have a couple hours (ouch!). These are two great videos. Don't get me wrong they are EXTREMELY depressing, but IMO everyone should watch them. BTW I don't necessarily agree with they "fix", but the problem is still catastrophic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc3sKwwAaCU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsmbWBpnCNk&feature...

They are the primary reason why, when I hear about X president is better than Y president, I just don't care. As Debt vs GDP has risen every year since the 80's. Why does it....well if you watch these videos it must or the virtual dollar that we have today would collapse.

It boils down to a simple math problem really if P is actual money, then the very act of loaning P to get P+I fails because I is virtual money.

Think of it this way if there were only 10 P's in the world and I have them all. Now I loan you 5 and you have to pay me back 5+1 in 1 year. Where do you get the extra 1? The only way this works is if I make all the little I's you pay me over the year, readily available for you to earn. The moment I horde or keep any for myself the system fails as there simply isn't enough P to pay back P+1 . In other words the formual P=P+I fails.

It was called usury (making money off of just having money), and was banned by most governments before global trade made it necessary. That was back when governments (aka Kings) HAD all the money, they still knew the dangers of usury.

Now to put on my tin foil hat, if you think government has anything to do with the money supply you are mistaken. Government has not controlled the economy for quite some time, banks really do run the world. Something on the order of 95% of all "money" is bank credit. Of that 95% very little is backed by anything but an IOU on a bank ledger.


By Solandri on 4/13/2012 2:37:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It boils down to a simple math problem really if P is actual money, then the very act of loaning P to get P+I fails because I is virtual money.

Think of it this way if there were only 10 P's in the world and I have them all. Now I loan you 5 and you have to pay me back 5+1 in 1 year. Where do you get the extra 1?

This is the fundamental misunderstanding of economics which seems to afflict gold bugs. Economics is not a zero-sum game. There is no conservation of money principle like there is conservation of mass or energy. Just because there are 10 Ps in the world at one point in time does not mean there will always be 10 Ps in the world.

Joe is a chicken farmer. Each day his chickens lay two dozen eggs. His family eats one dozen, and the other dozen go bad. His family wishes they had something to drink besides well water.

Frank is a dairy cow farmer. Each day his cows give 2 gallons of milk. His family drinks one, and the other gallon goes bad. His family wishes they had something to eat besides corn.

One day the two talk to each other, realize they have a solution, and agree to swap 1 gallon of milk for a dozen eggs each day. Both families are happier, fewer resources go to waste. The economic value of the two farms has increased. That is, their productivity has gone up even though they're producing exactly the same amount of stuff as they were before the trade.

That is where the new P comes from. I borrow 5 Ps from you because I think I know of a way I can use them to make 8 Ps worth of value. In a year, I have my 8 Ps, I pay you your 5+1, and pocket the extra 2 for myself. You are assuming there are 10 Ps in the world and there only ever will be 10 Ps. That's not the case. Money is a representation of productivity. The increase in wealth (Ps) in this example came from increased productivity - eggs and milk which were previously going bad were used more productively.

This is why gold sucks as a currency. Its value depends on the amount of gold in the system, not on the economic productivity of the system. If the increase in amount of gold (new mining) roughly matches the increase in economic productivity, then it works fine. But if there's ever a mismatch, it falls apart. In particular, if the economy starts growing faster than gold mining increases, the people who are hoarding gold get richer for doing absolutely nothing.

You want a currency whose quantity you can manipulate to closely match the country's growing economic productivity. And you want it to grow slightly faster than that productivity (inflation) to encourage people to find something useful (productive) to do with it; stuffing it under their mattress will result in it losing value due to inflation.


By bah12 on 4/13/2012 4:41:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You are assuming there are 10 Ps in the world and there only ever will be 10 Ps. That's not the case. Money is a representation of productivity.
I somewhat disagree. If money represents production, then by definition it is also represents consumption (aka spending/debt). Therefore 10 P's are all there is UNTIL bank debt creates more P's. The problem with this is obvious, without more debt the bubble bursts.

Don't get me wrong I'm not a gold standard nut either, but I do see the pitfalls of using Bank issued debt as 95% of what you would call money in the system today. Actual printed money is rather pointless, since virtually none of the money that exists actually exists as physical currency.

quote:
You want a currency whose quantity you can manipulate to closely match the country's growing economic productivity.
I agree, however I'd assume the you in your comment is that you want a currency that you (the peoples elected government) can manipulate. I agree, but in the current system the government is just another borrower, the true power lies with the banks as they create the new P's NOT government.

I don't have the solution, but I also don't choose to think there is no problem either. IMHO there is a HUGE need for monetary reform, and it should be the #1 item on the voting ticket.


RE: Complete opposite of the original use for money...
By Mint on 4/13/2012 5:03:00 PM , Rating: 2
These people are really annoying and I suggest you don't waste more time with them.

BansheeX, bah12, and other gold nuts: You don't understand that money is a tool for transactional purposes only, not for long term wealth storage. If we had steady 5% inflation over the last 25 years instead of 2%, the economy would have turned out exactly the same (if not better, as we would have more flexibility with rates). Real wages would be the same, real healthcare cost would be the same, real interest rates would be the same, etc. All prices and wages would simply be scaled.

A backed currency would HURT the economy:
A) there's less incentive to invest it (directly or indirectly), because it doesn't lose value
B) it's free income for the rich as currently they are getting less than 0% real interest for a big chunk of the $14T debt
C) the central bank can't regulate the supply of money, leading to potential bank runs and general instability.
D) as the economy grows you get deflation because the money supply is fixed

Go look at Greece to see what happens when they don't have control over their currency. Deflation, inability to float their economy's prices relative to others, and a just an all round cluster****.

Damnit, looks like I didn't follow my own advice...


By BansheeX on 4/13/2012 7:59:25 PM , Rating: 3
First of all, I dispute your inflation stats. If you calculate inflation the way we do today back in the 70s, then inflation reads out the same impossibly low number as today and everyone was just imagining things, including Paul Volcker who thrust rates to 20% to stop inflation.

The number 1 cause for the housing bubble and the stock bubble that prededed it was interest rate manipulation. And the last bubble is now U.S. Treasuries. The fed is in a perpetual box right now, they raise rates even a little and all the banks holding those crap loans die again. They keep them artificially low, and there's a good chance the currency loses reserve status.

Bank runs are a far lesser evil and purge the economy of crap banks. People only care what their banks do with their deposits if they fear losing their deposit. FDIC was stupid, but at least they regulated what banks could do for a while, too bad they eventually bribed enough politicians to allow gambling with federally insured deposits.

The quantity of gold does not matter. When products increase relative to the supply of gold, the value of gold goes up, causing prices to go down. This does not create "deflation" in the bad sense. Prices decline in electronics all the time despite inflation, people don't theoretically wait forever to buy just because prices are always going down. Your arguments are ridiculous, the highest GDP growth this country ever had was under gold standard years.

And no, Greece would not be better off with a printing press. Printing money without increasing production just causes prices to go up, so you're not getting anywhere. Thousands of countries have tried this, Weimar Germany, Zimbabwe, etc. It doesn't work. Their lenders would also fear being paid back in counterfeit notes, which defeats the purpose of lending money. You lend money to achieve greater buying potential later, but if prices go up faster than your interest is paying out, you're just being swindled.


RE: Complete opposite of the original use for money...
By Mint on 4/13/2012 9:19:26 PM , Rating: 2
The methods were changed because they were flawed. Do you really expect me to believe that we averaged 9% inflation for the last 15 years, as suggested by the pre-1980 method? That money is worth 1/3 of what it was in 1997? Low income people on welfare would literally be starving death if that was the case. You need hedonic adjustments, or else a huge part of economic progress has zero value in GDP assessment.

The wealthy (corps, people, countries) are not going to burn $10T of assets by throwing away bonds. If they don't want US debt or dollars, then they'll have to buy US goods or capital instead, which will boost the economy. Exchanging for another currency just makes it someone else's problem. What you fear is in fact the cure to a sluggish economy.

I don't care about the odd bank dying from bank runs. I care about people messing with the money supply and screwing the entire economy. Price declines in electronics are meaningless. Price declines in everything necessitates wage cuts, but you know those will be very non-uniform, with execs and unions resisting them and the burden falling on everyone else disproportionately. Everything gets unbalanced and the economy gets screwed. Then there's the saving problem I'll discuss at the end of this post.

Yes, Greece would be WAY better off with its own currency. It has an enormous trade deficit, and without a Drachma to devalue as the market wills, it needs to lower prices and wages on everything for an equivalent effect, but it simply happens too slowly and unevenly when everything is in Euros. To them, the Euro is like a backed currency (it's backed by the economy of the rest of Europe), and people buy stuff from other countries because it's cheaper (effectively their money has more buying power than it should).

What you are basically asking for is for the US economy to contract and stagnate. Entities keeping their money in the bank (look at excess reserves: even with 0% interest, the banks can't find worthy borrowers) or buying bonds (at -ve real interest) are doing so because they don't want to invest in US companies and don't want to buy US goods. Give them a backed currency, and it becomes even more attractive to let your money sit around doing nothing. This feeds back into itself, reducing the effective money in circulation, causing more deflation, making saving look even more attractive, resulting in less demand and less investment. Then at some point maybe this pile of idling money gets used and you get rapid inflation.

Congrats, you just created a 10x worse instability than the one you falsely claim gets solved.


By BansheeX on 4/14/2012 3:29:55 AM , Rating: 3
The methods weren't flawed, they were objective. Subjective exclusions based on quality discounts and substitution are bogus. The commission set out to understate inflation and that's what they did.

Devaluing your currency, defaulting on your obligations via counterfeit, does not resolve the fundamental imbalance of the Greek economy, which is that too many of its people are spending more than they're producing. A printing press is not a magic wand that makes that go away. They need to cut government services to what they can afford through tax revenue, this isn't that complicated, just undesirable from the standpoint of a whiny welfare state that wants everything despite the inability to pay for it. A structured default where their creditors agree to a huge haircut would be the best scenario, it's their fault for lending.

Rather than get into some long protracted argument, I'll just say this: the gold standard worked for over a hundred years, it worked under the rapid growth of the Industrial Revolution. None of the things you say will happen happened under a gold standard when we were on it. You sound like every other socialist college professor who would rather pretend that a gold standard never existed. Nixon wanted to pay for all the stupid FDR programs plus a pointless war without raising taxes, so he ended the gold standard and printed money. He said it was temporary at the time, too. Idiots chose to leave it for idiotic reasons, gold didn't fail to serve as a medium of exchange. In the meantime, we've gone from the world's largest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor nation. The average man can no longer support a wife and kids on his own. Enabling politicians to play election-time candyman with debt is a recipe for disaster and you're about to witness some crazy stuff over the next 10 years.


RE: Complete opposite of the original use for money...
By Mint on 4/14/2012 9:54:57 AM , Rating: 1
Devaluation is a very powerful negative feedback against instability. It makes imports more expensive to Greeks and exports cheaper to others. This results in more local production, reduces spending, and thus addresses the trade deficit.

I already told you why the gold standard worked then and won't work now, and you ignored it. Go read that before bringing up irrelevant and inapplicable historical policy. There's nothing socialist about this, as it applies just as well to a society without any social safety net.

You're like someone with rising blood-pressure wanting to throw out his meds because he thinks they're not working, when in fact doing so only makes the problem worse. It went up because there's a lot of other factors involved.

Inflation is not the only factor in an economy. Wages are going down because there's less value for general labor. Healthcare costs are going up due to people taking advantage of supply/demand issues and the inability of clients to properly evaluate what they're getting. If you get rid of inflation and fractional reserve banking, you create more problems, not fewer.


By The Raven on 4/17/2012 12:38:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
it applies just as well to a society without any social safety net.
Not true since with a backed currency you can't print money to cover costs of foolishly promised/implemented safety nets. So add safety nets and you need a fiat currency. Need a fiat currency and you will get people defending one. And they shouldn't be called safety nets. They should be called something more like "recklessness permits." I mean who do you know who thinks about what their money is being invested in when they have a FDIC insured account? No one.

So tell me again how there is nothing socialist behind the fear of a gold standard.
quote:
You're like someone with rising blood-pressure wanting to throw out his meds because he thinks they're not working, when in fact doing so only makes the problem worse. It went up because there's a lot of other factors involved.
You on the other hand are like that chick on My Strange Addiction who is convinced that the urine she is drinking is saving her for her cancer. Sure it hasn't killed her yet, but that doesn't mean that it is good for her.
quote:
Wages are going down because there's less value for general labor.
Are you talking about wages adjusted for inflation? Because when you factor in the aforementioned rising HC costs that are largely covered via employer I think wages/compensation are actually up.
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/AWI.html

I'm asking you to clarify on this before I tell you to get your facts straight.


By Mint on 4/13/2012 9:30:28 PM , Rating: 2
BTW, you still didn't address my core argument: Money is a transactional tool, not something to be used for guaranteed wealth preservation. Put it to use if you don't want to convert your wages into material goods right away; if you do, then it won't matter what inflation is.

Backed currencies worked in rapidly growing economies where wealth preservation wasn't good enough and you'd be a moron to settle for 0%. That's not the case today.


By wordsworm on 4/13/2012 12:55:59 AM , Rating: 2
Did you think that the paper with the numbers on it has any intrinsic value? If you did, you've been duped. Lots of folks thought that paper money was a bad idea. The problem with valuable metal coins is that the edges always got shaved... no matter what you choose, there's a going to be a problem.


By Flunk on 4/13/2012 9:08:27 AM , Rating: 2
Currency hasn't had "intrinsic value" since we ended the gold standard. Currency is tied to the economy of the country that produced it, virtual or paper it doesn't really matter.

Paper doesn't prove value better than electronic formats, you're just used to the notion that it has worth.


By gamerk2 on 4/13/2012 9:17:28 AM , Rating: 2
In a market economy, everything is worth what his purchaser will pay for it. There is no intrinsic value to any currency standard, because any standard can (and will) have its worth fluctuate wildly over periods of time.

Gold has value because people want it to have value. Same with the USD and other floating currencies. If people no longer want gold, or the USD, or any other currency, then its value plummets.

Point being, virtual currency will gain or lose value based on whether or not people will trade in it. Same as any other currency. The only difference is the medium the currency is traded in.


What about the strippers?
By StuckMojo on 4/12/2012 8:51:41 PM , Rating: 3
Because Canada has a $2 coin, it's not uncommon at all to tip with a coin at a strip club, and it's somewhat uncommon to tip a $5 bill.

Won't some pleeeeeease think of the strippers?!? :P




RE: What about the strippers?
By Mathos on 4/12/2012 10:25:27 PM , Rating: 4
Do they do a handstand and let you put the coin in the slot for safe keeping? :D


RE: What about the strippers?
By chmilz on 4/13/2012 10:22:47 AM , Rating: 2
Depending on the province. In Alberta, you can't touch strippers, so they put posters and stuff on their twat or ass and you toss loonies and toonies at them and you try to score to win, or some variation of that. Sometimes the object is to get your coins to simply stick. It's as close as you can get to feeding the slot machine without actually pushing the coins down.


Sweet
By Adam M on 4/12/2012 5:30:04 PM , Rating: 4
I don't know if I would embrace this kind of move if it were made by my own government, I am however perfectly ok with Canada doing it. Hopefully it means fewer useless coins in my pockets and in my change jar. I have always wondered how if no one will take a Canadian quarter, how do they get in to circulation in the first place. I can never slip one of those by.




Coins: Who Needs Them!?!
By DaveLessnau on 4/12/2012 9:55:36 PM , Rating: 2
According to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penny_%28United_State...

the US penny was first introduced in 1793. Using this chance-found page:

http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/result.php...

it looks like a penny, when it was first introduced, was worth somewhere between $0.28 or $5.16 (depending on how you measure it) in today's dollars. If the lower value is correct, and if the early Americans had no trouble accepting the penny as their base unit, then we shouldn't even have anything lower than a quarter in circulation today. If the higher value is correct (and it's probably more correct than the lower value), then we shouldn't have anything lower than a $5 bill in circulation.

So, what the US should do is get rid of all coins under a dollar, make the dollar coin the new smallest denominator coin (and it wouldn't get mixed up with a quarter any more since there wouldn't be any quarters), and get rid of the $1 bill.

No need for some newfangled, high-tech gizmo to replace a simple coin.




RE: Coins: Who Needs Them!?!
By JBird7986 on 4/12/2012 11:00:35 PM , Rating: 2
Except that in the early days of the republic, the cent was not the lowest denomination coin. That honor went to the half-cent, which was produced along-side the cent until 1857.


debasement
By stilltrying on 4/12/2012 10:27:21 PM , Rating: 3
This is nothing more than defacto currency debasement. They have debased it out of existence via inflation. Stealth theft




What about the strippers?
By StuckMojo on 4/12/2012 8:53:04 PM , Rating: 2
Because Canada has a $2 coin, it's not uncommon at all to tip with a coin at a strip club, and it's somewhat uncommon to tip a $5 bill.

Won't some pleeeeeease think of the strippers?!? :P




Yesterday's News
By enmaku on 4/16/2012 12:16:56 PM , Rating: 2
So the Canadian mint is making a proprietary version of Bitcoin then?




Open Source Government
By Shig on 4/12/2012 5:05:39 PM , Rating: 1
This is a great initiative and other governments should copy it.

1. Government admits it is wasting a lot of tax payer money.

2. Government asks for help from the innovative private sector.

3. Government awards cash prizes for the best innovative solutions that save tax payer money and are easy to use.

4. Less waste and private job creation.

Top US candidates:

-Broken welfare system
-Broken Tax Code
-Broken Post Office
-Broken health care




“Then they pop up and say ‘Hello, surprise! Give us your money or we will shut you down!' Screw them. Seriously, screw them. You can quote me on that.” -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng referencing patent trolls














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki