And if the value of the silver in the quarter goes up enough people will just hoard them and spend paper.
Yes, just like in times past, but then make another quarter size coin face value $10 or whatever would be appropriate.
Why would they want to trouble themselves like that and make less profit in the bargain. Surely your not suggesting "reform?"
Because all commodities eventually rise in price. Since that is true, eventually the intrinsic value of the coin will be more than its face value, which will lead to Gresham's law hoarding. The net effect of this will be no change for commerce, causing the loss of billions of dollars. For what reason? So a few coin collectors will feel better about their coins?
Because once the value of the commodity changes the coins are no good anymore because they will not remain in circulation. That means the expense of minting new coins comes along to replace all of those removed from circulation. It's just common sense, you cannot use an item as money when the value of that item is constantly changing. Money has to have a fixed, set value. A dollar cannot be a dollar one day and a dollar fifty or two dollars the next.
Sounds to me that if this occurred, there would not be a loss in billions, but a gain in billions. Moreover, the government will have made money on the hoarded coins and will do the same on subsequent mintings. Should the price of PM drop and the hoarded coins come back into circulation, then the government mints less or none at all, thus saving money. Seems simple to me (not simple minded either).
I agree, plus the loss of productivity because there is no way to make change. In Mexico and other countries that tried to make "hard" money, once the intrinsic value approached face value coins would disappear and commerce would be seriously hampered. This would lead to lower economic activity, costing billions if it happened in the US. Yes, in a perfect world it would be nice to have a silver dollar with a $.99 melt value as your currency. Since we know, however, that inflation will always increase commodity pricing, we simply cannot due this without periodically incurring economic disruptions makes it the case that its not worth the cost to our economy to attempt it. If someone wishes to own X amount of a PM, they should simply buy the PM themselves, and not involve our economy. Just my opinion.
They had a small change shortage in Italy in the 70's. I can't remember what caused it unless they were strike or something. But it did hinder transactions. I had to take a slice of pizza as change once after buying (guess what?) a slice of pizza.
You know what you need to do ? You need to study the history of money for the last 2,000 years. No, I'm not being a smart-aleck and I am not being facetious. I'm just being honest. And you wouldn't even have to study the history of money in the whole world, just Europe would be more than enough. By doing that you would come to realize and understand that every scenario you can possibly think of involving money made of precious metals has already happened dozens, if not hundreds, of times over the course of history. Having money made of or backed by precious metals was a mess from day one, and every single day after that. It caused no end of problems, disputes, wars, nationwide economic failures, and it restricted trade. Having money made of or backed by precious metals simply does not work.
i can see where you are coming from and now that copper is over 3/lb how are the billions in copper coin going to effect this.silver has seen this value in earlier times with far less production numbers.do you see this creating a new situation or is it a different yet similar animal.i know that you guys are talking about a standard,but i was just curious.