why didnt they ever make them?
seventy-five cent pieces
- Thread starter splodenode
- Start date
seems like it would help make it less
Actually they considered it, but then they remembered the advice of one Dwight K. Shrute.
"Whenever I'm about to do something, I think, 'Would an idiot do that?' And if they would, I do not do that thing."
Because there's no use for them when a 50c piece and a quarter or more commonly three quarters both work just as well.
I think a 1c piece, a 5c piece, a 10c piece and a 25c piece covers all bases pretty well.
It's about time to do away with change all together.
And just make everything, after taxes, cost an even dollar?
Hmmm. Well, that might help the economy.
I say we do away with cash all together.
I agree. From now on, everyone should bring all their unwanted cash to me.
And just make everything, after taxes, cost an even dollar?
Hmmm. Well, that might help the economy.
I say we do away with cash all together.
I don't know about 75p pieces, but I will talk about old money...
Traditional British currency was based around easily divisible numbers.
12 pence in a shilling.. 20 shillings in a pound.
Also, for the most part, each coin was twice the value of the coin immediately smaller than it. This means that The Crown could release relatively few denominations, whilst being able to represent any cost with relatively few coins. And only 1 of each coin was needed in your purse to exactly pay for any random purchase.
One of the perks of this system is that you could have exact change for pretty much anything without needing to carry a lot of coins around with you.
The benefit of 12 being that it is easy to divide 12 into into 2,3,4,or 6 equal shares, unlike 10 which can only divide by 2 or 5. This means that in old money, shop prices were much more likely to be exactly covered by just one or two coins. So relatively few coins needed to change hands, and it was normal to be able to give exact change.
When we moved to decimal currency, we lost much of that user-friendliness. In decimal, you can't easily have a set of coins which double in value without getting a really odd relationship between a pound and the coin immediately below it. New pence have to snap to base 10 more frequently, ie, when moving up from 2x one power of ten, to 1/2 x the next power of ten.
The combined effects of the new currency are:
1. customers need to have multiple coins of each denomination --> more to carry around with you.
2. customers frequently receiving small change from their purchases --> you end up with a purse full of useless pennies, while the shops are always running out of them.
Traditional British currency was based around easily divisible numbers.
12 pence in a shilling.. 20 shillings in a pound.
Also, for the most part, each coin was twice the value of the coin immediately smaller than it. This means that The Crown could release relatively few denominations, whilst being able to represent any cost with relatively few coins. And only 1 of each coin was needed in your purse to exactly pay for any random purchase.
One of the perks of this system is that you could have exact change for pretty much anything without needing to carry a lot of coins around with you.
The benefit of 12 being that it is easy to divide 12 into into 2,3,4,or 6 equal shares, unlike 10 which can only divide by 2 or 5. This means that in old money, shop prices were much more likely to be exactly covered by just one or two coins. So relatively few coins needed to change hands, and it was normal to be able to give exact change.
When we moved to decimal currency, we lost much of that user-friendliness. In decimal, you can't easily have a set of coins which double in value without getting a really odd relationship between a pound and the coin immediately below it. New pence have to snap to base 10 more frequently, ie, when moving up from 2x one power of ten, to 1/2 x the next power of ten.
The combined effects of the new currency are:
1. customers need to have multiple coins of each denomination --> more to carry around with you.
2. customers frequently receiving small change from their purchases --> you end up with a purse full of useless pennies, while the shops are always running out of them.
In the states, all coins divide evenly into a dollar. That means we could have a 20 cent coin if we wanted to (we don't, no point), but not a 75 cent coin. Besides, it's not like people even use half dollars, why do we need a 3/4 dollar?
Yep. No reason to make anything between $0.50 and $1.00 with smaller denominations available.
Are you really arguing in favour of Lsd rather than decimalised currency?
It would be a bloody nightmare.
A 29-cent coin would come in handy
I can see the attraction.
I see what you did there.
Still, money doesn't really exist. It's just a claim on your countries assets. In the end, it's all a sham. It does, however, make shopping possible. So it's a necessary evil.
I had a dream once where my wallet was filled with bills of strange denominations. There were some $13.50 bills (George W. Bush was on it), $27 (Richard Nixon), $6.75 (Calvin Coolidge), $53 (Gerald Ford), and some others I didn't identify.
I didn't check my pockets in the dream, but if I had, I probably would have found some $0.75 coins.
I didn't check my pockets in the dream, but if I had, I probably would have found some $0.75 coins.
I'm saying that decimalized currency has some disadvantages over the old system.
Our use of base-ten numeracy is quite arbitrary really. If we could go back and redesign things it would probably have been better for us to choose a base-twelve arithmetic. The Ancient Egyptians I think used essentially a base-sixty system, which was a good choice because it had many divisors.
No.
Twenty has the same factors (two, two and five in decimal) whether you call it 10100 (binary) 24 (octal) 20 (decimal) or 14 (hexadecimal).
A quantity, and any factors, is the same regardless of what you call it. what matters is stiking a balance between how many different symbols are used and systems like binary having an excessive number of places for relatively small sums. Systems with a base that's a power of two (like octal and hexadecimal) can be handy in regards to digital technology because the technology is based on binary arithmetic and octal and hexadecimal digits correspond to the same pattern of binary digits (bits).
Decimal systems like metric measurements are so convenient because we're accustomed to doing math in base ten.
Systems like Roman numerals are a nightmare if you need to do anything more complex than some pretty basic arithmetic.
Similar threads
