Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site ssc-vax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder
From: eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder)
Newsgroups: net.invest
Subject: Re: Currency Recall (paper vs. metal money)
Message-ID: <217@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 16-Sep-85 16:21:43 EDT
Article-I.D.: ssc-vax.217
Posted: Mon Sep 16 16:21:43 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 18-Sep-85 02:27:50 EDT
References: <245@cylixd.UUCP>, <1472@cbosgd.UUCP> <638@bu-cs.UUCP>
Organization: Boeing Aerospace Co., Seattle, WA
Lines: 27

> Re: Photocopying technology making counterfeiting too easy
> 
> What always struck me as strange was that small denominations are struck
> in metal and large on paper. Reversing that would make counterfeiting a
> lot harder (or at least unprofitable) and would make more sense (to me
> anyhow, being as the coins I assume are more expensive to produce.)  Do
> some countries do this? Or am I missing something?
> 
> 	-Barry Shein, Boston University
> 
     Last I heard, a paper dollar cost three cents to produce.  Coins
must cost less than one cent, since the mint makes a profit on coining
pennies.  But paper dollars have a life of 18 months, while coins have
a life measured in decades.  In my pocket is a nickel minted in 1939.
At home I have a silver dollar with no special coin collector value, just your averag
that is over a hundred years old and quite servicible.  In the long
run, coins are cheaper to maintain.  With checks and credit cards,
there is no reason to carry large quantities of coin around.  A
pocketful of precious-metal bearing coins would be perfectly adequate
for day-to-day expenses, and not weigh much.

     Here's a table for those who wonder what happened to our money:
Year     % Gold backing at official price of gold 
1950     64
1960     46
1970     15
1977     10.5


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com