eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) (09/16/85)
> 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