"Real" Money

Ed Hendricks wrote:
note.boy wrote:
"Ed Hendricks" wrote in message
...
note.boy wrote:
Many modern diesel engines are now so good that even the most
committed petrolhead would consider buying a car that has one.

Many are quicker to 60 mph than the nearest equivalent petrol engine
and the MPG is about 20% to 33% better. Billy
You cannot buy a diesel automobile in California. Has something to
do with the state's very restrictive emmission control laws. That's
a bummer. I agree that diesel-powered cars is one way to reduce fuel
consumption without sacrificing power. However, if ALL cars in the
world were diesel powered it would only temporarily delay the
inevitable. The world needs to seriously pursue a cheap, renewable
alternative energy source.

--
©¿©¬
~
Ed Hendricks


I presume that someone somewhere is working on the pollution law
problem as there must be a lot of cash to be made from a diesel
engine that complies.

It's not so much a pollution law problem as it is a polluting engine
problem. But it's a mute point. Unless they perfect that diesel engine
that runs on vegetable oil, it will still need fossil fuel.

Strangely the cost of diesel in the UK was below that of petrol until
diesel cars became more popular, now it's the other way round. Billy

So you are the guys responsible for the increase in price for diesel fuel!
:-) It wasn't that many years ago that diesel fuel was less than half the
cost of gasoline in the US. Now it is normally more expensive. I can
remember when diesel fuel was 10 cents per gallon (of course gasoline was
only 24 cents per gallon). It sounds cheap until you consider that the
normal wage was about $60 per week. :-)


If you are referring to $60 per week in "Real" money, then that would be
about $480 per week in "Todays" money. Also, 24 cents per gallon in
"Real" money would be about $1.92 per gallon in "Todays" money.

The value, or buying power, of a silver or gold dollar hasn't changed
one wit in the past century. It will still purchase exactly what it did
before.

What has changed is the inflated paper representation of the dollar,
including the clad counterfeits, which are worth whatever the FED says
they are worth on any given day.

PC wrote:
"Joe Fischer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 "Bruce Remick" wrote:

The public doesn't always choose the most efficient combinations of bills
and coins. If they did, our 50 and $2 bill would be used more. They're
still available but people choose to use two quarters or two ones.
Bruce
I guess there are people who carry 100 and 50
dollar notes, but I don't know any.

The 50 is a useless denomination,

Much, much better than 100 dollar bills if you want to change currency.
Certain years of 100 dollar bills are outright refused. I never had a
problem with a 50.


Do you mean that if I tried to spend, for example, a 1972 series $100
bill, that it might be refused? I thought they had to be accepted until
they were all finally taken in.

I know that $500 bills and above are still legal tender, but they have
to be taken to a bank, and exchanged. However, $100 bills are not
obsolete, and should be accepted no matter what design or date.

I did have trouble about two years ago with an old red seal $5 bill. It
was too ragged to collect, and the kid at the store thought he should
call the cops. What a riot.

Fred Shecter wrote:
Senate hearing was chaired by Byron Dorgan.

Fed spokesperson was Louise Roseman. She touted availability of pure
golden dollar boxes by banks/financial institutions is requested instead
of commingled dollar coins. This policy changed just a couple of months
after her testimony (very annoying).

http://www.moneyfactory.gov/newmoney...ouiseRoseman50

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boardd...17/default.htm

And for something more recent:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boardd...19/default.htm

I know there is more out there including many GAO reports that I've
provided links to in the past.

Here are a couple of goodies:
http://www.frbservices.org/Cash/commemcoin.html

http://www.frbservices.org/FedFlash/....html#article3

http://www.usmint.gov/downloads/mint...ams/Mailer.pdf

-Fred Shecter
http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQfgtpZ1QQ...shreadv ector


All very interesting articles. The problem, as I see it, is that all of
the new dollar coins so far have been issued as commemoratives, and have
not been properly released for circulation as our other coins are.

This may or may not be intentional, but after these releases have
failed, the FED has given Congress a report stating that the public does
not want the new coins. I doubt that the public has been polled at all.

What they ought to try, IMO, is to halt issuance of $1 notes until the
coin supply is exhausted, and then resume the paper issues again. Also,
if paper were demanded during the interim, then $2 notes could be put
into circulation to take up the slack.

Personally, I was very happy with the Ike dollars, and would prefer them
and $2 bills rather than the new small dollars. Once again, we are being
strong-armed by the vending industry. The trouble with a small, quarter
sized dollar, is that in the end, they will actually become the
equivalent of the quarter.

gogu wrote:
? "Christian Feldhaus" ?????? ??? ??????
...
wrote:

If not, which country carried on coinage after
LBJ eliminated silver coinage?
Don't know when that was, but Germany made silver circulation coins
until 1974, Austria until 1973, Netherlands until 1967, Switzerland
until 1969.


The Greek silver coin of 20 drachmas was minted in 1960 and circulated
until around 1974 IIRC.


A number of countries continued to circulate silver for a few years
after the US quit, but finally they all went to tokens.

I was in Greece a number of times during the early 1970's, and I had a
large number of the 1973 series with the reproductions of ancient Greek
coinage. They are all gone, given to the kids, etc., but I would really
like to have a set now. They were really something, with the owl and
Pegasus and the others. Greece is a country with some real history,
compared with most of the rest of us.

The new Euro coinage seems to be so sterile compared to the individual
European coins that existed before.

Dik T. Winter wrote:
In article Padraic Brown writes:
...
The only reason that coins that old can still be spent in the USA is that
the coinage system is way overdue for reform, that's nothing to be proud of.

Not at all. It's a matter of we haven't introduced laws that
specifically demonetise old money and our economy has never been so
****ty that our money needs demonetising. That _is_ something to be
proud of.

Perhaps. But that means that when (for some reasons) all those coins come
up again, the central bank (in your case the federal bank) has to have
enough resources to refund all those old coins.

The Bank of Scotland will still give face value for notes issued by them as
far back as 1695. Billy

The only difference is that there are apparently laws in the UK that
give a cut-off year for when various older coins and notes are no
longer able to circulate. We just don't bother with that.
Yes. Otherwise coins from some 800 years ago would still be valid.

The problem is that until the 1730's, most coins were hand struck. This
meant that they weren't round, that they weren't of uniform thickness
and weight, and they didn't stack well.

Also, their purity was questionable from year to year (don't forget "Old
Coppernose!) Please see:

http://history.wisc.edu/sommerville/...&%20edward.htm

Debasement has always ended in disaster.

"Chip Flintknapper" wrote in message
link.net...
Dik T. Winter wrote:
In article Padraic Brown
writes:
...
The only reason that coins that old can still be spent in the USA is
that
the coinage system is way overdue for reform, that's nothing to be
proud of.

Not at all. It's a matter of we haven't introduced laws that
specifically demonetise old money and our economy has never been so
****ty that our money needs demonetising. That _is_ something to be
proud of.

Perhaps. But that means that when (for some reasons) all those coins
come
up again, the central bank (in your case the federal bank) has to have
enough resources to refund all those old coins.

The Bank of Scotland will still give face value for notes issued by
them as
far back as 1695. Billy

The only difference is that there are apparently laws in the UK that
give a cut-off year for when various older coins and notes are no
longer able to circulate. We just don't bother with that.
Yes. Otherwise coins from some 800 years ago would still be valid.

The problem is that until the 1730's, most coins were hand struck. This
meant that they weren't round, that they weren't of uniform thickness
and weight, and they didn't stack well.

Also, their purity was questionable from year to year (don't forget "Old
Coppernose!) Please see:

http://history.wisc.edu/sommerville/...&%20edward.htm

Debasement has always ended in disaster.

You're a bit out with the date of 1730's as all UK coins were milled from
around 1660.

The weight of coins was closely regulated so even hammered coins going back
several centuries would be of uniform weight, they had to be. Having 240
pennies making one pound (£1) stems from the fact that 240 hammered silver
pennies were made from one pound of silver, not 239 or 241 but 240.

Hammered coins were not perfectly round as you say but their thickness was
fairly uniform. An annual test of coins to check their weigh and metal
purity, "The Trial Of The Pyx", has been held since mediaeval times and is
still held today.

It would be more accurate to state that "concealed" debasement always ends
in disaster, for example the UK moving from 50% silver content to zero
silver content in 1947 did not end in disaster. Billy

? "Chip Flintknapper" ?????? ??? ??????
link.net...
gogu wrote:
? "Christian Feldhaus" ?????? ??? ??????
...
wrote:

If not, which country carried on coinage after
LBJ eliminated silver coinage?
Don't know when that was, but Germany made silver circulation coins
until 1974, Austria until 1973, Netherlands until 1967, Switzerland
until 1969.


The Greek silver coin of 20 drachmas was minted in 1960 and circulated
until around 1974 IIRC.



A number of countries continued to circulate silver for a few years
after the US quit, but finally they all went to tokens.

I was in Greece a number of times during the early 1970's, and I had a
large number of the 1973 series with the reproductions of ancient Greek
coinage. They are all gone, given to the kids, etc., but I would really
like to have a set now. They were really something, with the owl and
Pegasus and the others. Greece is a country with some real history,
compared with most of the rest of us.

:-)
Every country has its own history and you should be proud for it.
I have some doubles, so if you really want them just drop me an e-mail
(remove all the lines and capital letters from my address...).
I'll send you what I have, no charge of course;-)
Though they are not all UNC they are nice, AU I would say.

rgrds

--

E' mai possibile, oh porco di un cane, che le avventure
in codesto reame debban risolversi tutte con grandi
puttane! F.d.A

Coins, travels and mo http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/golanule/my_photos
http://gogu.enosi.org/index.html


The new Euro coinage seems to be so sterile compared to the individual
European coins that existed before.

On Fri, Chip Flintknapper wrote:

Joe Fischer wrote:
And a look in the foreign coin box at any flea
market or coin dealer shows just how easy it is for
coins to become worthless.

Well sure. First you debase the coins to cheap brass, and then you
replace them with worthless paper banknotes.

A Chucky-Cheese token has more intrinsic value than a U.S. Quarter.

You are generalizing and not stating the difference
between the US coins and others.

Maybe you weren't here when it was mentioned that
the total amount of gold in the whole world would not be
enough to back the currency needed for the 15 Trillion
US economy that is on the books, and certainly would
not be enough for the 2 Trillion under the table economy.

I didn't think much of the sandwich coins when
they came out, but the nickel surface is hard enough
that it shows almost no heavy nicking and very little
wear on quarters and dimes that have been in
circulation for 40 years.

Frankly, I don't think anybody can describe
a better coin system (although the low relief of
recent may be a problem), and the paper is fine,
it fits the wallets we carry, and the dollar bill is
the real oil that lubricates the wheels of the
economy.

Perhaps the fact that most other countries
changed coin metals several times is what causes
them to be so plentiful in junk boxes.

There is absolutely no single thing that has
enough intrinsic value to use to back either the
US coinage or currency, the important thing is
that what exists remains as it is, but a dollar coin
smaller and thicker might be acceptable, intrinsic
value isn't needed any more for money than it
is for credit cards or promissory notes.

The next dollar coin should be designed
more with the consideration of BOTH human
transactions and vending machine use, and
no consideration given to intrinsic value.

Joe Fischer
x

On 31 Jan 2007 20:31:10 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 13:08:37 -0500, Padraic Brown wrote:
On 28 Jan 2007 15:06:10 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

The English one-pound coin is a great example. About the size of a
nickel, double-thick, milled edge, and brass in color. Immediately
distinguishable from anything else in your pocket. The problem with the
US dollar coin is that they keep re-introducing new versions of it, with
the same fundamental design flaw - size.

You're about 30 years too late for the size argument. The modern
dollar coin is quite small, only marginally larger than the ever
popular quarter.

Yes, I know, I live here.

But they want it to work in
vending machines. So they keep releasing a design which is backward
compatible with the very problem that makes it fatally flawed in the
first place.

The only real "flaw" in the scheme is that there are still dollar
notes. Americans are not going to change over to dollar coins no
matter how sensible the design parameters!

I still maintain that if the coin was substantially different than the
others, adoption would be more widespread, regardless of the existance
of $1 bills.

I wouldn't mind trying a smaller, thicker coin, but I honestly think
the size of the present dollar coin is not the problem. You can make
the best dollar coin ever, but if the dollar bill is still produced in
practically unlimited quantities and if the dollar coin is never
actually used in commerce FROM the banks and stores, then it will
suffer the same system defeat that the present iteration of the coin
is suffering.

Padraic

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 06:43:08 GMT, Chip Flintknapper
wrote:

note.boy wrote:
"Joe Fischer" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 11:36:19 GMT, "note.boy"
wrote:

The cent is worth more than the Japanese
Yen, and worth a hundred basic monetary units of
some countries in Asia.
The cent is the real money.

Joe Fischer


Keeping the one cent coin so that old ladies can save them in jars is no
reason to keep it going.

The sole purpose of the one cent coin seems to be to make change, which then
goes into a jar, your aunt's habit actually supports my point of view and
not yours, they don't circulate so why have them.

Do the Japanese have a one yen coin?


Yes they do. Please see:

Yep, and it used to be the equal of the US dollar! As was the old
Mexican peso (now around 10000 to the dollar).

http://www.geocities.com/tokyo/Island/6653/jcoins.htm

Do the Asian countries you refer to have a coin in their lowest monetary
unit? Billy

Probably not. I'm sure the Japanese dropped their sen coins sometime
after WWII.

Padraic

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com