Many folks felt this way about seat belts, recycling, and quitting smoking but changes have finally been accepted. Sometimes it takes forever but things can and often do change. As for the dollar coin? Unfortunately, as long as people actually believe that the US Public "needs" to accept the coin before the paper dollar can get eliminated, then Congress will NEVER eliminate it. Even on the brink of Bankruptcy, that worthless paper buck will be around because, we wouldn't want to disappoint the public. Now for the truth of the matter. Multiple versions of the exact same currencies have NEVER been able to co-exist within an economy. NEVER. To even consider that they could is just foolish. The public, which is you and me and The Smith Family up the road. which goes to the store and hands over our $20 bills (the most "used" bill) don't really care what we receive in change as long as two factors are present: 1. The change is correct 2. The change can be spent The general population doesn't care. It's the "merchants" and "banks" that care since they would need to change their policies, pick up a few more "FULLY DEDUCTIBLE OVERHEAD CHARGES" and then train the peons that manage the cash drawers to be able to identify a one dollar coin. If the Federal Government ceased authorizing the manufacturing of one dollar notes AND stepped up production of One Dollar Coins, the entire country could be converted in a years time. Tops. EVERYBODY would save money and coin collecting would soar to new heights. BUT, it's that little phase that causes everybody to stumble: "It has failed to be adopted by the majority of the population" News Flash: Income Tax failed to be adopted by the majority of the population but, its a law and everybody does it anyway.
lately when i go to a bank the tellers always ask if the customers want bills or coins. most say they dont care (and as a result get $1 coins). stores around here almost always have some in the drawer from people spending them, but dont give them in change unless you ask. also, since stores refuse to give $50 bills in change for some reason, why don't they use the extra cash register slot for twos? do they expect to give checks/$100 bills as change? the twos always go under the drawer where the checks and large bills should go
Like I said, in my post..."The only way it will become accepted is if they drop the dollar note and they don't seem willing to do that." I agree that a dollar coin is a better option than the note...but the population is not going to accept it unless the note is dropped. There clearly has been no effort to do so. If that is the case, then my belief is we should stop wasting money on the coin. If we decide to actually do it properly (by getting rid of the note)...then it would work. Until then, the coin is a waste of money and resources IMHO. As for seat belts, smoking, recycling, ect...many of those things were legally mandated. Seat belts became required by law and the Surgeon Generals Warning became legally required. With recycling...people got deposits back (that's not a law, but it's an incentive). There was a general "legal" incentive. That is not happening with the coin and when people don't have a reason to do something...they don't. If they didn't have a choice, there would be complaining for a while...but eventually it would get accepted. As for increasing the number of new coin collectors...I don't care in this sense because it would also reduce the number of new currency collectors which is another hobby I also enjoy. So, in that respect...I see that as a neutral change.
Coinweek article from a few years ago... http://www.coinweek.com/featured-ne...ing-on-the-future-of-money-dollars-and-sense/ Partial quote... "Former Mint Director Diehl made a strong case for replacing dollar notes with coins. He explained that the key to a successful dollar coin program includes several elements, namely, getting rid of paper dollars, explaining the cost savings to the public, and making the coins readily available, which has been a major problem since the 2007 launch of the presidential dollar coin. Mr. Diehl said that the Federal Reserve Bank has a clear preference for paper dollars, mainly because they get them at cost from the Bureau of Printing and Engraving, which is minimal, whereas they pay full face value for dollar coins, which only cost the Mint 18 cents to produce. In addition, when the presidential dollar program was launched in 2007 the FRB instituted a requirement that banks had only two weeks to order each new coin, so it was impossible for banks to keep the coins in stock, and the coins continued to pile up in FRB vaults. Dollar coins were declared a failure, but they were never really given a chance. Mr. Diehl also drew from his experience launching the Sacagawea dollar in 2000. Because he was aware of the FRB’s preference for notes and the fact that they told the Mint they would not make the coins available unless the Mint could first demonstrate demand for the coins, which created a Catch-22 situation, Mr. Diehl bypassed the BEP and had Wal-Mart distribute the coins. Wal-Mart distributed 100 million coins in a few weeks and wanted more, and demand clearly exceeded expectations. He ended by pointing out that the FRB’s preference for dollar notes is easily explained by the hundreds of billions in seigniorage they would lose by getting rid of notes, and that he questions their current estimate that paper dollars now last 56 months. He wonders why bills would suddenly last so much longer than they used to. Former OMB Director Miller provided the opposing argument, that replacing dollar notes with coins is a “budget gimmick,” not a serious cost-cutting measure. He noted traditional opposition to coins, the tendency to save rather than use them, what he views as the questionable assumptions behind the GAO’s estimates of cost savings from moving to coins, and finally, that the seigniorage benefit is really a tax on Americans, that is “an interest-free loan consumers would be forced to give the government,” and that it is a regressive tax because higher-income taxpayers tend to use non-cash payments like debit cards more than lower-income Americans." Done quoting stuff for now.
One more good link with real quotes from real laws http://mintnewsblog.com/2014/03/201...-design-candidates-ronald-reagan-not-present/ Outlines the ambiguities of the law regarding Carter, Reagan, etc.
First let me say that was a good arguement you presented there. You should have been a politician. I wanted to address the last paragraph of your argument where you had stated that this change would reduce the number of currency collectors if the $1 bill was dropped resulting in a neutral change. I for one disagree with this completely because there are more currency that people collect than just $1 bills, the majority of currency collectors go after older bills and whatever they receive in change that is worthwhile, most new currency collectors start by finding star notes which can be found in other denominations than the $1 bill. Personally I collect $50 bills,$20 star notes, $5 star notes, Errors, confederate currency and gold/silver certificates. I had gotten into currency when I received a $5 star note in my change one day. Now I have 5 $1 star notes,3 $5 star notes, 1 $20 star note etc... Bottom line: Currency collectors are not limited to the $1 bill so to say that this would reduce the number of currency collectors and increase coin collectors over the change of a $1 bill to a $1 coin would be a false statement. If any change occurs in the collecting world of coins ¤cy it would be a positive increase on either side.
Yes, and there are more coins that people collect other than $1 coins. My point was...any "new coin collectors" that appeared due to the forced use of $1 coins (due to the removal of the bill) would probably be offset by the fewer new currency collectors it would cause. My statement was directed at Lyds comment about the force circulation of $1 coins creating more coin collectors.
Is that not the case already? my view as this will not effect the currency collecting world because there already are $1 coins. Grandma gives her grandson a sacajewea dollar on his birthday every year gets him to become a coin collector.
God almighty, why can't we follow the Canadian's example? They rid themselves of the paper dollar back in the eighties and they love their loonies and Toonies. The American public would do the same if someone where to step up to the plate and make a decision. Trouble is, American politico's don't want to do that. They're more interested in getting re-elected.
In the thread that I originally quoted...someone stated that they believed one additional benefit we would see if the US got rid of the $1 note and only had a $1 coin would be an increase in new coin collectors. My only point was that such an increase would be "neutral" because such a change would have the inverse result on new currency collectors. You are right...most serious currency collectors don't collect $1 notes in circulation, they prefer older notes. What you are forgetting is the more serious coin collectors are the exact same way. However, just like new coin collectors...new currency collectors begin with notes in circulation. The most commonly collected note for a new currency collector: $1 FRNs. If the $1 FRN went away, we would more than likely see a reduction in new currency collectors. That is why I believe that the increase in coin collectors we might see in this scenario is somewhat "neutral." I think you are exactly right. I think the main problem is the US population is somewhat lazy and doesn't like change. On the surface, even though this makes complete fiscal sense, it seems like a big change. Again, people don't like change. If I were a politican, I would be worried that if I instigated such a change...it would be unpopular amongst the populous (as a whole) and it might affect my chances at reelection. One of the unfortunate things about democracy is that in order to have elected officials who make their living being elected officials...those officials need to worry about their livelihood.
Kentucky said: ↑ So to counteract the lack of creativity we go back 100 years for inspiration? This is reminiscent of all the sequel movies that have been made because no one has any good ideas. I am sure there are good ideas out there, but then again I am an optimist.
Well if Peter had any influence in politics as far as minting coinage goes then we could possibly have a contest to design new coins. I bet then we could instill some creativity in new coinage. Quite frankly I think everything went downhill once everyone stopped putting in the extra time to improve the quality of the desired product. For example where I live at there are a lot of remarkable 1830's buildings here. You would not find such quality workmanship today. As for coins you look at the artistic masterpieces that we had in the 1800s that depicted images that had represented the American Values and way of life. I can't understand why Americans today prefer cheap products over quality products . This is entirely unamerican to me because we throughout History have always worked hard to build our country to what it is today. Do not tell me it is because big businesses want to increase their products we the people have more power then them. Without us those businesses are nothing. America does not need to change into something new. We should rather in most areas revert to the old ways that had made this country great.
When it comes to coin design...I think it is a little more involved than you may realize. Now, I am not speaking of dead presidents on our coins verses deceptions of Liberty. I am speaking about the quality of the design itself. The relief, the detail and the beauty. While I'm not going to say any of our Presidents currently depicted were handsome or ugly...what I am talking about is simply the artistry of the coins design. Coins today are far different than they were 100 years ago. Yes, you may say that the designs are far less inspired, much flatter, and lack detail and you would be correct. However, this is not solely because artists (or even the government officials) lack creativity or are lazy. The process to mint a circulation coin...and the needs of that coin are fair different today than they were 100+ years ago. First, they have to mint far more coins. To do that as economically as possible, they want to make the coin minting machinery (dies, presses, ect) last as long as possible. One way to do this is reduce the complexity of the design. On top of that, as metal prices have gone up...we have had to change the composition of our coins. Coins aren't made out of silver anymore...they are made from a much harder nickel-clad alloy. Making coins out of this material in high volume causes much more wear and tear on machinery. To help combat this, the relief and detail of the designs has had to be reduced. If you look at the modern commemorative coins...you will see wonderful artistry and inspired design. We haven't lost the ability to do that. However, modern economics has forced circulation coinage to be of reduced quality. You could still put Lady Liberty on our coins...but she wouldn't be the same lady we are accustomed to.
I think one of the main reasons the $1 coin has not been accepted is because the $1 bill still being produced. Take the $1 bill away and the $1 coin will start seeing some use. One potential source of opposition to such a plan would be vending machine owners, but they've had 15 years to prepare for the $1 coins, more if you include the SBA dollars. So they get no sympathy from me. My vote: Retire both the $1 bill and the penny in 2017 and start coming out with some artistic designs. (Not simply redesigns of older designs)
This! It's the ONLY way that the people of the country will ever "profit" from a dollar coin which is a very sad state of affairs.
