NH store uses $2 bills and 50¢ coins
Paul Anderson
yesterday about a merchant in Colebrook NH who uses half-dollars and $2
bills as "normal money" at his store.
<http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Colebrook+merchant+make
s+his+money+work+for+him&articleId=c6b01735-f0cc-48ab-89e4-954bf713b0ac>
Paul
Drago the Wolf
These are the two "odd" denominations they SHOULD be concentrating on
getting circulating. NOT dollar coins. We already have $1 bills, but
we do not have a 50 cent bill or a $2 coin circulating, so, lets
concentrate on getting a couple forms of currency who's DENOMINATION
does not even circulate. We already have a "$1 unit" circulating, so I
think we need to worry more about a 50 cent unit and a $2 unit
circulating, more than trying to fight over "which $1 unit should
circulate"
Besides, at least most regular cash registers have $2 bill slots and
half dollar coin slots. No need to worry about $1 coins, as they
TRUELY ARE "the unit of currency with no space for it in the cash
register"
Drago the Wolf
Oh, and need I mention that ALL self-checkout and vending machines
made today, tomorrow and beyond SHOULD be equipt to accept and
dispense $2 bills and halves as needed? I think NOT.
Flame
E4A043.140...@news.charter.net:
The US should look at the route Canada took. We abandoned the $1 bill in
favor of a $1 coin in the 70's and saved millions in printing costs as the
coins last decades longer. We did the same to our $2 bill in the 80's.
I am a bill collector and miss new issues of both denominations but I can't
ignore the savings to the government by making this change.
Also, as the US has proved a couple of times, you can not make a $1 coin be
accepted unless you withdraw the paper equivalent at the same time.
As for 50 cent coins - they exist up here but are just as rare in
circulation.
Flame
Michael Benveniste
> Oh, and need I mention that ALL self-checkout and vending machines
> made today, tomorrow and beyond SHOULD be equipt to accept and
> dispense $2 bills and halves as needed?
Shall we send you the bill to modify all these machines?
Simple truth. The majority of people living in the U.S. have
never thought of a half-dollar as a circulating coin, because
they had for all practical purposes stopped circulating years
before they were born.
I don't know when the $2 bill last saw widespread circulation,
but it wasn't in my lifetime. There's just no perceived need
for either denomination. Unless and until the next round of
double digit inflation, inertia will rule.
--
Mike Benveniste -- m...@murkyether.com (Clarification Required)
Its name is Public opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles
everything. Some think it is the voice of God. -- Mark Twain
Drago the Wolf
> "Drago the Wolf" <malanutt4l...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Oh, and need I mention that ALL self-checkout and vending machines
> > made today, tomorrow and beyond SHOULD be equipt to accept and
> > dispense $2 bills and halves as needed?
>
> Shall we send you the bill to modify all these machines?
>
No, you shalln't. These machine companies have been a round PLENTY of
DECADES, to make modifying these machines, chump change. They can
spend a few millions or tens of millions of dollars to change "how"
they make their machines. After the first time they change their
machine manufature technique, the cost is over. Its not like the
issues I addressed about "redesigned" money, where they'd have to
reprogram machines to take the new designs. But do not go telling me
that the vending industry has not been around long enough to be able
to pay for these modifications, that would also "gain" them more money
in the long run. Not "much" more money, but more is better than less.
> Simple truth. The majority of people living in the U.S. have
> never thought of a half-dollar as a circulating coin, because
> they had for all practical purposes stopped circulating years
> before they were born.
I an before those times, but I would STILL STRINGLY love to see halves
in general circuation again, and even though they want to mint "more"
quarters with all of these damn programs going on, making halves
circulate would save probably hundreds of thousands to millions of
dollars a year, due to dealing with less quarters. Sure, a half uses
about a much metal as a quarter does, but a circulating half would
also SAVe vendors money, such as parking meter companies if people
used halves instead of quarters, because they would STILL be using
LESS coins. So, vendors would probably be a lot happier having to make
less trips to their machines to empty the quarter tubes.
>
> I don't know when the $2 bill last saw widespread circulation,
> but it wasn't in my lifetime. There's just no perceived need
> for either denomination. Unless and until the next round of
> double digit inflation, inertia will rule.
The same reason for the half, and the reason they reissued the $2 bill
in the first place: TO SAVE MONEY. They just had no idea that people
would reject $2s after all the time they were not used. This was said
in a coin and currency book I once read. They said that the government
had hoped to save millions by taking half of the load off the $1
bill's back. But they never really seem to have "encouraged" the
circulation of the half or $2, which they should now do, with
inflation and all.
My simple truth is that, banks and the FED SHOULD have a policy in
place where the FED send so much of ALL denominations to banks
INCLUDING halves and $2s, and the small banks SHOULD hand out $2s and
halves as needed, as their policy, and what else should be included in
their policy is, what ever change you are given, is what you get. They
should not give people "those two quarters, or those four $1 bills" if
they request them. Except in cases where you are a store who needs
their "singles" or quarters, but they should still be also getting a
suply of $2s and halves along with those quarters and $1s. But you
should also STILL be able to request certain "higher" bills, like say
you want it in $5s, $10s, $20s, $50s, $100s, or a higher denomination,
should the U.S. ever issue one again. THAT would be acceptable. But
common people who are just cashing a check or withdrawing a certain
amount of money should be given a half, and/or one or two $2s as
needed. People can, and will get over accepting a new denomination or
two, and may even start to "like" it.
shreadvector
> Paul Anderson <paulrander...@charter.net> wrote in news:paulranderson-
> E4A043.14083106072...@news.charter.net:
50 cent coins will never circulate because they do not work in vending
machines. Everyday vending machines cannot accommodate such a huge
coin. They already accommodate the small dollar coin. The vending
mechanisms are identical for the USA and Canada and there are internal
switches to set programming ("USA Only" or "USA/CAN"). An internal
switch cannot magically make the internal tubes and coin pathways
larger to accommodate the half dollar coin.
Twos can circulate and have slowly increased in circulation (mainly
because of the Web, not USENET whic virtually everyone has
abandonded). Halves will never increase in circulation. And dollar
coins are already in use and circulating. In the USA they have not
"replaced" the rag dollar, but they are used in a variety of
applications including vending machines for parking lots, mass
transit, snacks, coin-op laundry, coin-op pool tables, etc. and some
folks actually use them as <gasp> "money" when buying stuff at stores
and restaurants.
Canada and Euroland knew what to do: eliminate the unit paper
denomination and use the coin.
Savings are not just in pringint cost, but also in seignorage profit
vs. the cost of borrowing to issue a Federal Reserve Note. Seignorage
for a huge half dollar coin is not worth it, especially when consumers
will be unable to use them in any vending machine. There is one
business that would *LOVE* a flood of halves into consumers pockets:
COINSTAR. They will reap huge profits when consumers dump their halves
into the machines and pay the 9-point-whatever percent fees.
Michael Benveniste
>> Shall we send you the bill to modify all these machines?
> No, you shalln't. These machine companies have been a round PLENTY of
> DECADES, to make modifying these machines, chump change. They can
> spend a few millions or tens of millions of dollars to change "how"
> they make their machines.
It's so easy to spend other people's money, ain't it?
If such a mandate was put in place, the vending companies would pass
those costs on to the people buying or leasing the machines, who in
turn will pass the costs on to the rest of us. So if you don't
pay the bill, people who don't share your love will end up doing so.
> But do not go telling me that the vending industry has not
> been around long enough to be able to pay for these
> modifications, that would also "gain" them more money
> in the long run. Not "much" more money, but more is better
> than less.
Why should how long the industry has been around matter at all?
You're asking the vending companies to risk merely "a few millions
or tens of millions of dollars" _now_ on your assertion that they'd
make money in the long run.
BTW, I estimate the costs to be in the billions of dollars, not a
paltry "tens of millions." For example, there are around 5 million
parking meters alone in the U.S., and most would have to be replaced
instead of retrofitted.
I doubt very much that any risk adjusted rate of return justifies
such investment, nor did it at any point in the history of the
industry.
> I an before those times, but I would STILL STRINGLY love
> to see halves in general circuation again, and even though
> they want to mint "more" quarters with all of these damn
> programs going on.
Love is an emotion. Vending machine companies aren't interested in
love except as it impacts the bottom line.
"They," meaning the U.S. Mint, want to mint more quarters due to
seigniorage; it costs less than a quarter to make a quarter. This
makes collecting a form of voluntary taxation similar to a state-run
lottery. The "damn programs" have nothing to do with meeting the
needs of circulation and everthing to do with political hackery.
> Sure, a half uses about [twice as] much metal
> as a quarter does, but a circulating half would also SAVe
> vendors money, such as parking meter companies if people
> used halves instead of quarters, because they would STILL be using
> LESS coins. So, vendors would probably be a lot happier having to make
> less trips to their machines to empty the quarter tubes.
You're ignoring the recurring extra costs of having to deal with an
extra denomination. Your parking meter example is a good illustration
of this. A parking meter of any given size which accepted halves and
quarters would have to be emptied _more_ often, not less, than one
which accepts only smaller coins.
First, the coin path inside the meter would have to be larger to
accept the bigger coin. This would reduce the available space for
coin storage. Second, if the parking meter was to use tubes to
store the coins instead of dropping them into a common hopper, the
"vendor" would have to empty the meter either when the tubes for
quarters filled up _or_ the tubes for halves filled up.
Since a half is twice the volume of a quarter and twice the value,
you lose the advantage of a common pool. One or the other set of
tubes would fill up more often than if the same volume was dedicated
to just one. The same is true for any vending machine.
> The same reason for the half, and the reason they reissued the $2 bill
> in the first place: TO SAVE MONEY. They just had no idea that people
> would reject $2s after all the time they were not used.
Who is "they" in this case? $2 bills weren't (and aren't) used
because people don't find them to be worth the effort.
Common usage of $2 bills would save the government money, since a
$2 bill costs half as much to print as two $1 bills. If you could
replace half the dollar bills made each year with $2 bills, it would
save the taxpayers about 62 million dollars per year.
The seigniorage gain (if any) for half dollars is _much_ less,
because a half uses twice as much raw materials. It currently
costs the mint more than twice as much to produce a half as
it does a quarter.
But it's likely to cost banks and businesses money, since the
sorting and handling costs of having another denomination are
considerably higher than the savings in storage costs.
> My simple truth is that, banks and the FED SHOULD have a policy in
> place where the FED send so much of ALL denominations to banks
> INCLUDING halves and $2s, and the small banks SHOULD hand out $2s and
> halves as needed, as their policy, and what else should be included in
> their policy is, what ever change you are given, is what you get.
Reality check time.
The Federal Reserve fills orders placed by banks. Banks in
turn order the cash to meet the needs of their customers. If
those customers wanted halves, dollar coins, or two dollar bills
they could order them. They don't, so those denominations simply
sit in vaults.
So your "simple truth" reduces to a no less than the forced
distribution of coins and bills based on what you want and what
other people, as evidenced by the free market, don't want.
> They should not give people "those two quarters, or those four
> $1 bills" if they request them.
Banks would be legally obligated not to make change? The mind
boggles.
> People can, and will get over accepting a new denomination or
> two, and may even start to "like" it.
In other words, you admit that people don't want them today.
Yyou're demanding the government mandate things so it can
save some money despite its citizens' own preferences. You're
doing so despite deep and obvious flaws in your cost analysis.
I would resent and reject such a forced distribution plan,
and my guess is that a large majority of voters would do the
same.
Drago the Wolf
> 50 cent coins will never circulate because they do not work in vending
> machines. Everyday vending machines cannot accommodate such a huge
> coin. They already accommodate the small dollar coin. The vending
> mechanisms are identical for the USA and Canada and there are internal
> switches to set programming ("USA Only" or "USA/CAN"). An internal
> switch cannot magically make the internal tubes and coin pathways
> larger to accommodate the half dollar coin.
Oh Fred, please,
We had already discussed that there was a way to equip ALL vending
machine to take a U.S. $2 coin, should the $1 rag go, and the $2 rag
bocome more popular, so popular in fact, that the U.S. would replace
it with a $2 coin as Canada did YOU SAID "Vending machines can be
"taught" to accept a U.S. $2 coin, just as they can and likely are,
equipt to accept Canadian $2 coins" and get this, I measured and
compared a Canadian $2 coin to a U.S. half, and the diference in size
of the "Canadian $2 coin Vs. the U.S. half" is roughly the same size.
Actually the U.S. half IS a little bit bigger BUT it is an EVEN
SMALLER difference than a "U.S. or Canadian $1 coin Vs. a U.S. or
Canadian quarter" So IF we do ever get a $2 coin, here in the U.S.,
while they are upgrading machines to take our new $2 coins, they
SHOULD also add a half tube to the machines. It can NOT possibly cost
all that much to add two new coin tubes if the vendor is already
adding "one" coin tube anyway. So, install two tubes (on for halves
and one for $2 coins) and replace each vending macing faceplates to
take the larger coin. I see many cases where a half would come in WAY
more handy than two quarters. There are those gumball and mini-toy
machines that charge 50 cents to get one item, and is paid for with
two slots for two quarters. That (using two quarters instead of ONE
half) creates DOUBLE the chances of that machine jamming up, should
one, or both coin slots fail to tak those two quarters for some
reason. Then the vendor has to come out to fix the problems, costing
him money that would not "totally" eliminate the risk, but it WOULD
cut that "risk" in "half" (No pun intended)
>
> Twos can circulate and have slowly increased in circulation (mainly
> because of the Web, not USENET whic virtually everyone has
> abandonded). Halves will never increase in circulation. And dollar
> coins are already in use and circulating. In the USA they have not
> "replaced" the rag dollar, but they are used in a variety of
> applications including vending machines for parking lots, mass
> transit, snacks, coin-op laundry, coin-op pool tables, etc. and some
> folks actually use them as <gasp> "money" when buying stuff at stores
> and restaurants.
>
> Canada and Euroland knew what to do: eliminate the unit paper
> denomination and use the coin.
They ALSO learned to issue 200 and 500 paper units in Euroland, at
least. Yet ANOTHER thing we Americans NEED to do.
>
> Savings are not just in pringint cost, but also in seignorage profit
> vs. the cost of borrowing to issue a Federal Reserve Note. Seignorage
> for a huge half dollar coin is not worth it, especially when consumers
> will be unable to use them in any vending machine. There is one
> business that would *LOVE* a flood of halves into consumers pockets:
> COINSTAR. They will reap huge profits when consumers dump their halves
> into the machines and pay the 9-point-whatever percent fees.- Hide quoted text -
>
Yes Fred, *evil grin*,
Remember, EVEN coinstar machine could NOT take dollars OR "halves" at
one time, and I remembered how they "upgraded" their machines to take
BOTH odd denominations. SO, if "they" can reprogram and equip "their"
machines to take halves, then I must ask, "What's stoping ALL other
vendors from upgrading for halves?" Seriously, I do LOVE the $1 coin,
and I REALLY wish we could get rid of $1, $2, and possibly $5 bills,
in favor of coins, IF the $5 coin did not "kill" the $2 coin's
circulation. However, I just do NOT see the government getting rid of
the rag dollar. You told me all of these "wonderous stories" about
Congress introducing legislation to get rid of both the rag dollar and
the cent, as early as late 2008. And don't say you didn't say that,
because you told me that in an email. Well, its more than half way
through 2010, and closer than further to 2011, so, WHERE is this
legislation at? I check the internet A LOT to see if I can find
anything about abolishing $1 bills in favor of dollar coins, but have
so far, picked up NOTHING. Where is your proof that the Obama
Administration is legislating the elimination of the $1 rag and the
Zincoln? They really SHOULD do this, since they are always looking for
way to save money, so, why have they not considered this issue/option
to save money? Its a simple solution, yet you do not see anyone in
Congress advocating it anymore, as if they have given up for ever. I
am sorry Fred, but I want to see some "proof" of your words.
All I am saying is that ALL VENDING MACHINES, MANUFACTURED TODAY,
TOMORROW, AND BEYOND, SHOULD BE MADE TO ACCEPT HALVES. (And I am NOT
"yelling" in those "caps" I just wanted to get my "point" along.) Half
dollar denomination coins, as well as $2 bills ARE a JUSTIFIED
denomination. Otherwise the U.S. government would not have even
"authorized" these two denominations. Especially seeing as the
govenrnent dropped their plans they originally had, to authorize
printing $3 bills. Maybe IF they get rid of the one cent coin, they
could redesign the half to be the size of the cent, but maybe a bit
"thicker" than a cent, but still copper plated OR a "polygon shape"
similar to the Canadian $1 coin, so that, even if they still make the
half a "silver" colored coin, you could easily tell a half from a cent
by thickness and shape. Or, eliminate the cent, make the nickel the
size of the cent, and make the half the size of the nickel. Problem
solved, as far as "that huge coin" issue goes.
> - Show quoted text -
Scott Stevenson
<m...@murkyether.com> wrote:
>"Drago the Wolf" <malanu...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Oh, and need I mention that ALL self-checkout and vending machines
>> made today, tomorrow and beyond SHOULD be equipt to accept and
>> dispense $2 bills and halves as needed?
>
>I don't know when the $2 bill last saw widespread circulation,
>but it wasn't in my lifetime. There's just no perceived need
>for either denomination. Unless and until the next round of
>double digit inflation, inertia will rule.
Well, it's just one data point, but I just asked my mom, who started
working as a cashier in the mid 40's. She said she saw maybe one a
month in the 40's and 50's.
That makes sense, because if I look at
http://www.uspapermoney.info/serials/all___b.html it looks like there
were just over half a billion deuces printed between 1928 and the last
delivery of the $2 USN's in 1965. That's less that the number of
1957B $1 SC's printed.
take care,
Scott