Let’s stop producing both the cent and nickel.
On Super Bowl Sunday, President Trump announced That the federal government would stop producing money. Good for him. This is long too late.
This week I contacted a former maritime student, Stephanie King, who approached me in 2006 with a thesis topic. When students had ideas for the subject of subjects that other faculties found strange or unusual, the faculty would advise the student to come to me, probably because they considered me strange and unusual. I prefer to call it open -minded.
Stephanie told me that she wanted to write a thesis in which he argued for eliminating the cent. I am not saying the tendency to say yes to thesis topics for which the person already knows the answer he or she wants. I have to see a solid case in such situations. So I asked questions. The big one was: “What does it cost to produce a cent?” After Stephanie replied that the costs had already exceeded one cent, I agreed to supervise her thesis.
It was a pleasant experience. I always enjoyed supervising statements for which the authors were motivated and knew where they wanted to go. The thesis is entitled: “Ordinary cent? The role of money in the US economy, ‘December 2006. It can be found here.
Here is the summary of her thesis:
This dissertation analyzes the impact that the elimination of money would have on the US and the global economies. This analysis is then compared with the policy of the Ministry of Defense not to use money in one of its overseas bases and investigates the advantages and disadvantages of this way of acting on the stock markets and its customers. The purpose of this dissertation is to identify the financial burden, if present, of maintaining money in the US currency to both the government and its citizens. The body of this dissertation is investigating whether the US government should continue the production and use of money or whether the model of the DOD could work in the larger economy. This dissertation shows that the most important approach that the government could follow to tackle this issue is the current legislation proposed by the representative of Arizona, Kolbe, who proposes that the government is stopping producing cents, and that companies are the companies Use completion approach to treat with all transactions that end in money.
And here is one of the most important paragraphs:
Every year the American currency produces millions of new money to get into circulation. The cent is the most produced currency, but it is the least circulated currency in the American economy. If this is the case, it is easy to ask why the government continues to produce new money. Historically, the production of money and their subsequent sale to banks has resulted in large money for the government, in the form of cigario -rag. In recent years, this profit has decreased considerably from what it was in the past, mainly due to the increase in the costs of copper and zinc that is used to produce the cent. In May 2006, the American Mint announced that by the end of the tax year the cent would cost more to produce than what his nominal value was worth. That is why this signiority would no longer exist. Not only would the government not earn a profit with the production of money, but it would also lose money by producing them. As a result, the government would subsidize the production of money, even though they are the least scattered currency in the economy.
The costs for producing a cent have increased considerably, since Timothy Taylor, the Sprayable economist” Recently noticed.
Indeed, as Tim demonstrated, it is now also time to stop producing the nickel.