Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2011 May 22

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 22

Cats and yarn

--Karen7474 (talk) 01:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Why are cats so instinctively attracted to yarn? I can't knit when my cat is in the room.Karen7474 (talk) 01:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The simple answer: Cats love to chase things, especially things that move in a prey-like fashion. When you're knitting, your yarn moves, then stops, then moves, then stops. They're instinctively drawn to kill and eat it. I feel your pain, though. I have four cats - I gave up crocheting when I got a kitten. She was incessant. (Don't let them eat it, unless you want to see string coming out both ends. Eep.) Foofish (talk) 02:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

That might be handy, when you want to hang them up to dry. :-) StuRat (talk) 03:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think they'll usually eat it, other than perhaps the tiniest inadvertent nip (which will likely do no harm). They're interested in the thrill of the chase, not the taste of the yarn. 114.78.188.155 (talk) 08:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

They might not eat it on purpose, but the backwards pointing filiform papillae on cats' tongues can force the yarn down the gullet accidentally. Matt Deres (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Cats do eat on purpose roughage, often grass, to help their digestion and deal with furballs. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

If your cat does eat yarn, as sometimes happens, and it starts to pass, don't pull it out, as that can seriously harm or kill your cat. John M Baker (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

if that happens, cut off the yarn as close as possible to cat, and keep cutting it off as it appears to stop the cat pulling on it. The yarn can cause a 'shirring' effect in the gut if pulled. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 20:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Cell phone upside down?

I was watching an episode of Heroes and noticed something that I thought was strange. This screenshot shows a woman holding a cellphone. The camera angle is from her lap, basically. So you're looking up at her as she's speaking on the phone. The darker bit on the cell phone near the top of the image is the cover for the headphone jack. The wording next to the silver bit at the bottom says "Lock". So, is this (in my experience with cell phones) an unusual phone in that it has the lock button and headphone jack on the bottom of the phone? Or did the actress just screw up and hold the phone incorrectly? Not the most interesting of questions, I know, but forgive me. Dismas|^(talk) 09:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

From my experience many or even most phones do have the headphone jack at the bottom of the phone so I wouldn't call the unusual. I don't know about lock buttons, the only phone I've ever used with a physical sliding lock button had it at the side which seems a good place for it but given how uncommon it is I don't now if there's really any common location. P.S. Also worth remembering this is potentially a prop, perhaps the lock button is even just part of the prop and is put there so it's unlikely to be seen. Nil Einne (talk) 09:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Every cellphone I have ever owned (all Nokia) had the headphone socket on the bottom except for the one I have now - it's socket is on the top. None has a "lock" button. I'm a bit puzzled about why anyone would automatically expect the socket to be on top, surely it can be just about anywhere on the "edge". The bit you have identified as the "the cover for the headphone jack" looks to me a lot like a USB socket. Roger (talk) 09:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to make out in the picture but when I had the video playing in full screen, the headphone symbol was visible on the rubber cover. It wasn't the USB symbol. And all but my first cell phone have had the headphone jack on the top. Dismas|^(talk) 10:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Most valuable non-drug crops by area cultivated?

In countries like Afghanistan, Myanmar, and Columbia, growing opium and coca is obviously very profitable. Trying to get farmers to voluntarily grow other crops is obviously a big challenge. My question is: per hectare cultivated, what are the most valuable "licit" (non-drug) crops? I'm interested in any horticulture, so feel free to include trees, shrubs, etc. Include those which need a particular climate / soil type, however rare. Just please exclude truffles and other fungi - (they aren't "plants"). Also please exclude those crops that generally can't be "cultivated", such as Kopi Luwak. I'm assuming a situation where quality cultivation techniques, expertise, logistics, supplies and equipment are all available, enabling efficient output. (Note: this is not a homework question. I've puzzled about this question for a while). Eliyohub (talk) 11:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

According to one North Dakota study "the average profit per acre on cash-rented land was $133 for pinto beans, $83 for barley, $74 for canola, $53 for soybeans, $33 for spring wheat and $17 for oil sunflowers. However, corn lost an average of $34 per acre in 2009." which covers the big crops, I think. (I can only view a cached version of hte source, which I won't link, but you can google that.) This is clearly dwarfed by wine, which in some parts makes $5,500 per acre (since we're allowing the special climatic and location conditions). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

According to here (which has some cites) mentions vanilla ($480,000 per acre (!) - might want to check that, specifically about the costs); Ginseng $30k an acre; Strawberries $20k. Tobacco is mentioned, but I can't see a figure. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit) My brief research has thrown up tomato, strawberry, vanilla, ginseng (big upfront costs, though). Not sure about hardwood trees (which take years to develop, but can fetch high prices). Vanilla needs to be polinated by hand, which is very labour-intensive. I saw that straightdope forum thread too. Does anything come close to the profits of drug cultivation, though? And if not, what comes closest? Eliyohub (talk) 11:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Illegal crop cultivation is resisted by a Carrot and stick approach and this question is about metaphorical carrots. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

What about saffron? Roger (talk) 11:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Saffron is very valuable, but the yield per acre is very low. 58.170.214.229 (talk) 11:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

So, should all countries with a large pool of cheap labour and suitable climate / soil be taking up vanilla cultivation? Or am I missing something? I accept the price may be temporarily inflated (the Madagascar floods), but even if it fell by 75% to $120,000 per acre it would seem to be way out of proportion. What's missing in this picture? Why aren't more countries taking it up? 58.170.214.229 (talk) 11:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Possibly. There are lots of problems with primary product dependency, and moving to a more niche product like vanilla exacerbates those issues. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 13:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Madagascar suffered floods and lost a lot of their crop, making the price spike. Culinary and perfume tastes can change, reducing demand and price. But couldn't these problems be mitigated simply by the farmer buying a futures contract or saving for a rainy day? And, to re-iterate the original question, can anything culitvable compare to drug cultivation in terms of profit? What about Musk deer? With "live" harvesting techniques (i.e. not killing the deer) could it help afghans compete with the opium trade? (I know this is livestock, not plants, but I'm just curious). 121.219.104.148 (talk) 14:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm no economist, but assuming the soils and climate of Afghanistan, Myanmar and Colombia are suitable for vanilla, wouldn't the price of vanilla plummet from oversupply? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

[1] discusses some of the issues surrounding growing more vanilla in Uganda Nil Einne (talk) 10:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

There's information available about the vanilla trade online -- apparently, Coca Cola is the largest consumer of vanilla (it's a significant ingredient in their cola) and they tried to shift to vanillin the vanilla industry was going to take a tremendous hit but the new coke failed and you can read about it online by googling for those terms. There's probably no market for any more vanilla in large quantities because the market seems very structured around Madagascar, but this was a theoretical question. To veer a bit, though, using the farmland for something else would likely provide greater return, and if we can make up whatever perfect soil conditions, perhaps you'll allow me to make up perfect parking lot necessity conditions, like that of midtown Manhattan :) DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Not directly answering the Q, but I see 2 solutions to Afghanistan growing illegal drugs:

1) Legalize drugs. This will lower the price and allow them to grow their crop without having to hide from authorities, which drives them to seek protection from the Taliban.

2) Offer permanent financial incentives not to grow drugs. Don't give cash, as the Taliban will get their hands on it and use it to buy weapons. Instead, after inspecting a farmer's field and finding it to be drug-free, give them lots of food, clothing, and other supplies. Yes, the Taliban might get hold of those, too, but would have extra work to turn them into weapons. Those inspections would need to be frequent, or else the farmers might harvest a poppy field, destroy the evidence, then get their handouts, too. StuRat (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure farmers will be happy with your 'no cash' policy? Or are you going to threaten to kill them if they don't agree to your conditions? Nil Einne (talk) 10:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Why on Earth would I threaten to kill them ? You haven't noticed that my suggestions are completely on the "carrot" side, with no "stick" at all ? And, in lawless areas, getting a big pile of cash might well be a death sentence, as some bandits (possibly Taliban) will come and take it and probably kill them, too. Bandits don't get quite so excited about school books and women's clothes (well, maybe a few might). StuRat (talk) 05:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems more likely they will be killed for dealing with you and not even having anything in return to pay up when the bandits come. (Do you really think anyone is more likely to kill someone who can provide them a steady stream of income vs those who can't provide them jackshit?) Your suggestions may be on the 'carrot' side but you are saying you'll only provide certain carrots, even though these are probably not the carrots they really want. You're not providing an opportunity for them to advance in the way they desire, nor to protect themselves because you've decided they can't be trusted. Not only that but rather then allowing them to develop an agricultural and trade system that works for them, your asking them to just take what you provide, the food (and for that matter other supplies) I'm guessing primarily coming from the highly subsidied US producers rather then local producers making them dependent on you forever. I could be wrong, but I think unless your very generous or use violence to get your way, the farmers are just going to say screw you and your patriarchal attitudes and deal with the drug dealers who as nasty as they may be, are likely to pay them in whatever way they want, cash or equivalent if thats it (one would presume if that really is too risky they could decide that for themselves) and let them decide for themselves what to do with what they earn. (And yes this would probably include paying protection money to bandits, paying off corrupt officials etc which may not be ideal but from the farmers POV is likely to be better then ending up dead or their crop etc lost, stolen or destroyed because they couldn't afford to pay the right people.) It's definitely how I would feel and I'm not even an Afghani farmer. In other words, the reason why I suggested you need to threaten to kill them is because that's the only way your plan is likely to succeed, using violence to convince them to take your 'deal'.... Nil Einne (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I probably should have resisted but I got to thinking while cycling and couldn't. Is your imaginary scenario between bandit and farmer something like this? Nil Einne (talk) 01:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a poppy grower as an upwardly mobile position, do you ? They will be paid as little as possible, which is probably just enough more than legit crops to get the farmers to cooperate (or perhaps even less than legit crops, if the bandits rely on violence to intimidate the farmers). On the other hand, under my plan, the land would be available to grow other legit crops, in addition to the subsidy (sufficient to live on, at least) they get for not growing poppy. Thus, any money they could make off the legit crops would be pure profit. Now, violence by the drug cartels is a concern, that's where a strong military presence by the US and allies is required (where US troops stay with the farmers, as opposed to sweeping the area periodically and then leaving). It would be nice if you could first eliminate all the bad guys, then start the subsidy program, but, eliminating the drug revenues is an important part of getting rid of the bad guys, so both approaches must be taken simultaneously. Also, giving goods directly to the farmers is a better use of US funds than giving them to the corrupt central government of Afghanistan. StuRat (talk) 05:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that if you really want to maximise your value-added per hectare, you process the foodstuff as much as possible on-site. Get labels, like organic and fair-trade. Peppercorns of different colours in a fancy jar rather than just peppercorns. It helps if you know the whims of the upmarket Western consumer well. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The correct answer to this question is that there is no correct answer. THere are far too many unknowns (climate, soil, labour costs etc) to even arrive at a general theoretical answer. And then there are the risk factors. You cannot predict future prices (which depend to some extent on the decisions that others in a similar situation make), and it is often more rational to go for a 'less risky' strategy than the theoretical 'best' one. 'Market forces' may suggest that growing nothing but potatoes makes economic sense. Experience may show otherwise. And then there is the question as to whether you are going for short-term profit, or sustainability. You can increase crop yeilds greatly by pumping out groundwater... and leave a desert to your children. In the context of Afghanistan, there is also the problem of delivering your crops to market in a situation where the transport infrastructure is heavily compromised by corruption, bribery and the like. It is entirely possible that opium poppies aren't the most profitable crop, but are instead the crop that is easiest to guarentee some sort of income from. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Poppy has some strong advantages to the local farmers. It's a yearly crop, so you can rapidly change to poppy production when the political and market conditions are favourable. The farmers know how to cultivate and process it. It grows well under local conditions. The product has high value, is easy to transport, and does not spoil. It's not easy to compete with that. Also, of course, both the US and the EU subsidising their local farming to the hilt does not really help the world market... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Serious question: How valuable are these illegal crops? I have been under the impression that every step of the drug trade involved a large markup, so that the packagers, wholesalers, transporters, and dealers, etc., were all adding a large overhead to the cost. My impression has been that the farmers get paid well, but only a few times more than they might make from legitimate crops, and not orders of magnitude more. Obviously it is to the dealers benefit to keep the payments to farmers as low as they reasonably can. So what do we really know about the value of illicit crops to the farmer? Dragons flight (talk) 06:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that actually matters, though. Let's say the drug cartel could pay up to $1000 an acre, but currently only pays $200 an acre. You may come along with a crop that pays $250 an acre, but then the drug producers would just up their offer. So, unless you have a crop that pays more than the maximum the drug producers can offer, you're not going to win. StuRat (talk) 06:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Agarwood and Pink Ivory seem to be extremely valuable types of wood. Neutrality^talk 06:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Coins and notes

I think I have asked this previously, but cannot remember when. Why do people use coins for low-valued cash units and notes for high-valued cash units? At the moment, I can only think of two possible reasons:

• Coins are far more durable, making them easier to handle in more frequent transactions.
• Notes allow for more intricate security features, which are required in transactions worth a large amount.

Am I right here, and are there other reasons? JIP | Talk 19:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "cash unit", JIP? It's easy to see why one would not pay a $100 charge in coins, or could not pay for a 20-cent box of matches with a note. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I think they are asking why there isn't a $100 coin and 20-cent note 82.43.89.63 (talk) 20:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

82.43.89.63 is right. By "cash unit" I mean a physical object that has been officially designated to convey the specified monetary value in a single object. JIP | Talk 20:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Your question was oddly worded, then. It's not about what "people use", because people use whatever notes and coins their governments make for them to use. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

People do make choices, though, which is why the US 1-dollar coin and 2-dollar bill are such rare birds. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it has more of a historical basis. According to Banknote#Banknotes in Europe, it wasn't convenient to transport large quantities of coins in medieval Europe, so paper took over that function. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

But it is an interesting question. We used to have 10/- (ten shilling) and £1 notes in the UK before decimalisation. They were replaced by coins (though there are still £1 in Scotland), and later £2 coins were also issued. There is a clear supposition here that coins should be used below some value and notes above; but I don't recall any reasons given. --ColinFine (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It's important to keep in mind that when all this was implemented originally, a pound or dollar was a good amount of money. A day's wages or more! Most working class people would not be wandering around town with a wallet full of paper money. Paper money was basically a tool for the rich, and maybe the occasional big-ticket purchase for the working class. APL (talk) 22:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Why make handling cash any harder than it already is for an impoverished blind person? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we have answered the question at all. Why is it not reversed? Why don't governments around the world make $100 coins and 10 cents notes (or equivalents)? Is it a question of difference of cost of making these kinds of artefacts?--Lgriot (talk) 08:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Given the weight of a silver dollar, imagine lugging a hundred of them around, and maybe the choice of paper money for large denominations will become clearer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

That breaks down at some point. I often have several dimes and quarters in my pocket. Paper notes would make them weigh quite a bit less. Though I rarely have a $20 bill, so a coin would be fine. And I don't think I'm that unusual in this respect, especially with the prevalence of debit cards. I think the OP's original ideas are quite right when it comes down to the why's of coins and notes. And, though he put it in small text for some reason, Cuddlyable makes a good point about the handicapped or elderly. Those people likely have a hard time with coins. But bills are bigger and easier to read. Dismas|^(talk) 08:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Ease of reading is not a big advantage to a blind person, which is what whoever the numberless Cuddlyable is must have meant. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

First; many peoples registered as blind have a limited degree of vision, and some jurisdictions deliberately print banknotes' values in large numbers, or add other ovious symbols, to help that portion of the 'blind' population.

Second; some jurisdictions also make each denomination of banknote a different size, and may add other features, which can aid even totally blind people to distinguish them. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195> 90.201.110.142 (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I would say because of their size and weight, coins are generally much easier to lose then notes. Nil Einne (talk) 09:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Ten cent notes have been printed. In the US Military in the 1940s - 60s cent notes were printed. See here. Sumsum2010·T·C 23:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The major advantage of coins is their durability. In an unscientific survey – taking a random handful of eight low-denomination coins from the dish on my desk – 50% are more than a decade old, and 25% are more than twenty-five years old. For comparison, the average lifetime of small-denomination U.S. banknotes ranges from 16 to 42 months: [2]. Nearly half of all the banknotes minted by the U.S. government are one-dollar bills. This article pegs the expected lifespan of circulating coins at 30 years, and of paper dollar bills at just 17 months. In 2000, it was estimated that a switch to dollar coins would save a bit more than half a billion dollars per year in minting costs.

Coins in the U.S. are also more accessible than banknotes to the blind or vision impaired. U.S. paper notes are all the same color (or nearly, with the recent redesigns), shape, and size. The vision impaired, the elderly, and out-of-country tourists all have difficulty telling notes of different denominations apart. Coins, on the other hand, have a range of sizes, weights, colors, and patterns of edging about their circumferences; different denominations can be readily distinguished by appearance or by touch. Some countries (the U.S. will soon be one) have attempted to incorporate tactile features into their notes, however these marks tend to wear out with time. Euro notes (among many other non-U.S. notes) of different denominations are at least clearly different in size and color.

Paper notes are more costly for applications involving automated handling and counting. Vending machines and parking meters accepting only coins are cheaper and more reliable than ones that have to handle banknotes. SEPTA (a transit service) reported that counting and handling dollar coins would cost them about a tenth as much as dealing with the same number of dollar bills. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

So that makes coins more durable, cheaper and more reliable to use, and easier to tell apart. Why do banknotes exist at all then? Is it only because they're lighter and capable of more advanced security features? JIP | Talk 17:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if the answers have changed substantially since this question was raised a couple of weeks ago? The fact is, the US government gives us a choice of 1-dollar bills and 1-dollar coins. And the overwhelmingly popular choice is 1-dollar bills. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

In some sense, it's like the metric system. An across-the-board switch from one system to another would be significantly expensive to carry out. It's basically inertia: Why change just to be changing? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

If coins are so great, why were banknotes invented in the first place? Using only coins all along would have saved the trouble of switching to only coins. Well, I guess the reason why banknotes were invented is that they were originally statements that their holder has the right to so-and-so many coins instead of actual currency, and they just gradually became actual currency over time. JIP | Talk 18:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Paper is obviouly much more convenient to carry than heavy metal objects (except to the vision-impaired, as noted). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

But then, why are notes always more valuable than coins? Wouldn't it make more sense to have one heavy object equal several light ones, instead of one light object equal several heavy ones? JIP | Talk 18:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

They're not always more valuable, as in the US we have the much-used dollar bill and the much-ignored dollar coin. And why weigh down your pockets with 20 large coins when a 20 dollar bill weighs almost nothing? Wallets typically have either no change holder at all or a small change holder. So folks might carry just enough coins ("small change") as they feel the need to, and the rest might go into a big jar at home, to be taken to the bank and get deposited or exchanged for bills once it gets full (and very heavy). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that you in the US have both dollar bills and dollar coins at the same time. But still I think notes are always not less valuable than coins. Or can you name any place in the world where notes are less valuable than coins? But anyway, my earlier question is still valid. If we assume that one $1 coin weighs a gram, and one $100 note weighs .01 grams, then the weight difference between the coins and the note of the same monetary value is ten-thousand-fold. If it were the other way around (with $1 notes and $100 coins) the weight ratio and the monetary value ratio would be identical. I really cannot see any other reason for notes being higher (or equal) valued than coins other than hysterical raisins or better security features. JIP | Talk 19:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I dont think bugsy is really answering the question when he talk about the weight of coins - if you could have a £20 coin there is no reason it would weigh more than a £1 coin now that the value of the coin is not the metatal it is made of. why cant you have a £20 coin for the blind??? Sally james langley (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the point made by Baseball Bugs may be key to answering this question. He says: "The fact is, the US government gives us a choice of 1-dollar bills and 1-dollar coins. And the overwhelmingly popular choice is 1-dollar bills."

Coins have less intellectual appeal. They make the person spending them feel brutish. Paper money appeals to our sense of being intellectual beings. When we spend paper cash we feel that we are exchanging the concept of value instead of exchanging a physical object of value. This boosts our sense of being refined entities rising above the mere animal kingdom. Objects of value can be exchanged by some species but I am not aware of any form of life exchanging symbolic value.

I also can't help but laugh at JIP's obvious spell-check accident: "hysterical raisins". Bus stop (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

It's deliberate. I'm well aware it's supposed to be spelled "historical reasons", but (particularly because of being a computer programmer by trade) I just happen to like the deliberate misspelling "hysterical raisins". JIP | Talk 19:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

lol! hysterical raisins have no sense of history Bus stop (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

And I can't help laughing at the assertion that coins "make the person spending them feel brutish". I've spent more than a few coins in my time, and I've never felt "brutish" or anything like it. Ever. The other twaddle about our sense of being "intellectual and refined beings" being enhanced by using notes - let's have a citation, eh, Bus stop. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

But it is true—you have to get in touch with your inner giant. Bus stop (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

When I first registered here, one of the user names I considered was User:The Cornish Ogre, an allusion to my favourite short story ever, but I thought it might intimidate too many people. Plus, I can't truthfully claim to have any Cornish genealogical connections. Plus, it didn't ring true with my well-known gentleness and sweetness of nature, not to mention my world-famous modesty. But it felt good for a while. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

"the US government gives us a choice of 1-dollar bills and 1-dollar coins. And the overwhelmingly popular choice is 1-dollar bills"—that's just silly nonsense, Bugs. Where do you get your dollar bills from? No one (well, almost no one) goes to the bank to make a cash withdrawal and asks for a stack of a hundred singles. Virtually all small-denomination currency (be it in the form of notes or coins) enters circulation as change given in cash transactions with merchants. And merchants in the United States – with the few exceptions I mentioned, including vending machine operators and small-transaction-heavy transit operators – have no direct incentive to make the transition to dollar coins. Indeed, for most of them there will be a slight increase in inconvenience since coins and notes will circulate in parallel for a couple of years. As long as no merchants are putting coins into circulation, none will have to handle them. (Even if a few merchants buck the trend and distribute coins, they'll disappear into the tills of other merchants, and never be seen again.) In the United States I have never had a "choice" about whether to use dollar bills or adopt the coins; the only time I have ever received them is as change from vending machines. How often have you been offered the "choice", Bugs? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

This coin has about $1467 of gold in it; this counts as a decent calculation for inflation's effects ... so in 1924 you could have bought a bad used car with this one coin.

Though I have no definite proof, I think the answer is that each generation has been doing what their parents did. Our article section Economy of the Song Dynasty#Paper currency (and the next section) notes that in 9th century China, the first generally circulating paper banknotes were developed because merchants were sick and tired of "the weight and bulk of so many copper coins in each transaction". This makes sense when the value of the coin is basically the same as the value of the metal with which it was minted, but the answer is not satisfactory when you consider, as mentioned above, a differently shaped and minted copper coin that is worth 10,000 of the regular coins, or 1,000,000. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

As a related fun fact, the US $10 coin is still being made. Right now they're doing president's wives (not strictly First Ladies.) on the obverse to parallel the current dollar coins with presidents' faces on them.

The $10 coins have (if my math is right) over $700 worth of gold in them, and are available from the mint for about $925. APL (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Are those actual legal tender coins, or are they just souvenirs? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe that they're actual legal tender coins. Although it's kind of a joke since they're worth a lot more than their face value.

They also make souvenir "medals" with the same design out of bronze. (Without the text that indicates that it's money) Here's Mrs Lincoln's. APL (talk) 02:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I think what you need to keep in mind is the relative value of the raw materials involved and the price of actually making coins and notes on the one hand and the face value of the "cash unit“. The value of the raw materials can not be higher than the face value or people would just collect the coins and sell them for their raw materials. The value of the raw materials plus the price of making the coins can not be much lower than the face value of the “cash unit” or people would start making them in their back yards.

As minting coins isn’t all that expensive this means that for a $100,- coin you would have to use close to $100,- in gold. That in turn would make it cumbersome to carry around a couple of hundred dollars. This was one of the reasons why paper money has been invented in the first place.--Zoppp (talk) 11:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

That argument has lost some weight (ha!) in recent years. The current spot price of gold is about 1500 USD per ounce, or about 50 USD per gram. U.S. banknotes weigh about one gram apiece. So a $50 bill and $50 worth of pure gold weigh just about the same amount. A hundred thousand dollars in pure gold weighs about two kilograms (or four pounds): just twice what an equal-valued stack of hundreds would weigh. Just how much cash do you need to carry around with you? If the gold is alloyed to increase its durability, a 10 karat coin (about 40% gold) worth $20 would weigh about as much as a $20 bill. (In practice, coins are slightly heavier than notes, running to between about 2 and 10 grams apiece for U.S. currency. Any reasonable amount of cash is not going to come to an inconvenient weight; a ten-karat gold coin weighing as much as a U.S. quarter would contain more than a hundred dollars' worth of gold.)

Of course, the real problem with gold coins – and implementing a de facto gold standard – is that it means the value of money is governed by the market for gold, rather than by any rational monetary policy. For example, for a variety of reasons the price of gold has jumped five-fold over the last ten years; that would have played remarkable havoc with the economy of any country that relied on the specific value of gold to back their currency. For a nation like the United States, there's an additional problem that the world supply of gold probably wouldn't be sufficient to replace its paper currency with gold or gold-backed coins. Depending on the day's price of gold, the total amount of gold ever mined is roughly comparable to the amount of U.S. cash in circulation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

So the cost of the raw materials needs to be consistently proportional to the monetary value - if the cost of the raw materials is too high, people will hoard cash for the raw material itself, but if it's too low, people will start making their own cash. Gold cannot be used as raw material because its value changes too much. Large-valued coins made of metals with a stable price would get too big to carry around, assuming the ratio between the cost of the raw materials and the cash value should be the same. Does this mean, then, that the cost of making banknotes is that much higher than the cost of making coins that the cost ratio stays the same? Paper surely can't be that expensive, the main costs have to come from the actual creation process. But how does that explain that a 500 € note is worth 100 times as much as a 5 € note even though it's made of almost the same amount of the exact same materials? JIP | Talk 17:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The raw materials need to cost less then the monetary value, but it is not likely that people would make their own coins even if the materials were much cheaper. Because coins are metal, they are not all that easy to make and require special equipment like a hydraulic press and dies. There really is no reason a government would need to use gold in a $20 coin, if you wanted to use nickel or copper, they could do that. I mean the UK has a 2 pound coin and they are not copied all that often are they? Googlemeister (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The ratio of raw material to face value may be okay for a 2pound coin. For a 100pound coin the ratio will be a lot different. If you have basically the same cost for the raw materials the investment in special equipment pales in comparison.

The difference with bank notes lies in the safety features. You may think about those features as a way to make it too expensive to counterfeit them. With coins you don't have watermarks and the like which is why the cost fo raw materials can be low for notes and has to be high for coins (compared to face value).--Zoppp (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

So the reason why we have banknotes at all is that, instead of coins that have to rely on the cost of raw materials to be difficult to counterfeit, they can rely on advanced security features such as watermarks and holograms? Actually, I came to think, individual bank notes are serial-numbered. In contrast, every single coin of the same currency of the same value from the same issue is exactly identical. The reason for this is, of course, that serial-numbering coins would be insanely expensive because of the differences in the making process. JIP | Talk 19:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

It is possible to strike coins with various security features, from milling and multiple metals to holograms and coloured inlays. With a sufficiently high-value coin, serial numbering would surely be a possibility. I'm very dubious that security measures are the reason why high-value coins (other than bullion) are rare. The intrinsic value of a note is almost nothing, so coins with sufficient anti-forgery features could surely be made with little or no intrinsic value. Warofdreams talk 11:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Then I have not yet found a valid reason for the existence of banknotes at all, other than hysterical raisins: they were originally invented about a millennium ago as statements that their holder has the right to so-and-so many coins, and then just sort of gradually caught on. If banknotes had never been invented, we could happily manage by only ever using coins. JIP | Talk 17:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

While their plan of starting their own currency from nothing and then naming it after an existing major world currency turned out to be a bad idea, the people at the NORFED mint did a good job of making coins that had a material value that closely matched their face value. Unfortunately the article Liberty Dollar is more about their legal difficulties than with the money they actually made. APL (talk) 19:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it, the Liberty Dollar folks weren't actually distributing coins with high material value; they issued tokens against gold and silver bullion reserves held in a vault. I will note that the Liberty Dollar people were being rather disingenuous (arguably deceitful) in the way that they marketed their currency as being 'backed' by metal. Since they don't (or didn't) want the value of the Liberty Dollar to float freely against the real U.S. dollar, they regularly re-based their currency as the price of the metals changed on the market. Had the Liberty Dollar people actually circulated gold and silver coins, those coins would have been melted down over the last few years as their intrinsic metal value rapidly exceeded their face value. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I may be wrong. I know that their paper 'money' worked like you describe. (Which seems crazy to me. Who would trust currency backed metals in the vault of some random small company?) But I was under the impression that their coinage was backed by the metal in the coin itself. Their website (Wayback Machine Link) claims that their $20 coin is silver.

JIP, paper isn't very expensive, not even the fancy paper they use for money, but it wears out fast. A paper dollar needs to be destroyed and re-printed about once every three years. Coins can easily stay in circulation fifty years or more. This makes them far cheaper to produce in the long run. APL (talk) 19:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Compared to face value of the coin or note, the production costs of individual dollars is small. During debate on the United States $1 Coin Act of 1997, the reported cost to mint dollar coins was put at about eight cents, while the cost to print dollar bills was pegged at about four cents. So even a twofold difference in lifespan would justify the choice of a coin over a banknote on the basis of cost. In practice, the coins will last ten to twenty times as long in circulation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Do banknotes have any real advantages over coins that would justify using them at all so that if they had never been invented, inventing them now would help the situation instead of hindering it? JIP | Talk 17:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Now? Nah, it probably wouldn't be worth the effort. But before digital transactions became commonplace, it was convenient that you could move large amounts of money around without the aid of a wheelbarrow.

Again, it's a historical accident that we're using bills for less than you could buy a sandwich with. Imagine if you needed to buy an entire ship-full of precious cargo. You can't do a bank-transfer because the ship-captain's bank account is in a different country and wire-transfers won't be invented for thousands of years. It's easier for everyone involved if you can just exchange some documents that signify certain amounts of value. APL (talk) 20:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)