Quote:
Originally Posted by Hotobu
Just because the penny is eliminated doesn't necessarily that prices will suddenly occur in multiples of 5. Prices could remain as they are, it's how you pay that would be effected.
|
What are you even talking about? How could prices remain as they are? How could you pay $.79 for a Snickers bar? You'd have to round up, which would cause you to pay more. Further, how would you receive your due change? If the pennies are removed, then the store would have no way of giving you what is owed. Functionally, you'd be paying $.80 for a candy bar while the store gets away with claiming that it costs less than that amount.
Quote:
As for rounding it wont make much of a difference at all. If you round up at 2.5+ cents and round down at 2.4 - statistically speaking you're going to break even over the course of a lifetime.
|
Technically, no. You'd lose in the long run.
How many retailers do you seriously believe will take the hit by setting prices that are rounded down? None will, I assure you. When a business stands to benefit from the extra pennies derived from rounding up, they will always give themselves that benefit. Once again, the lack of available percentages makes it all to easy to manipulate the price scales to the store's favor.
Here's an example. Gasoline is priced to include fractions of a penny. A typical price today would be $3.03.9, or three dollars and three and nine-tenths cents per gallon. Theoretically, you could purchase only one gallon and pay exactly the posted price, but you couldn't possibly receive that one-tenth of a penny that is due to you as change. We have no way to physically represent such a small amount. Technically, they owe it to you, but it's ultimately your loss. For every ten gallons of gasoline purchased, the station earns a free penny. Over the course of a year, that can really add up.
Your cost is rounded up by default, taking advantage of unrepresentable numbers. This is why eliminating the penny is a poor idea. Stores could continue to charge unrounded fractions, but there'd be no feasible way to deliver the remainders.
I am not an expert mathemetician or financial plotter, but I still carry concerns that eliminating the penny will result in hyperinflation of our economy.
Our current system is based upon a Base 100 set. A dollar is representative of 100 pennys. It is $1.00; this is how we mathematically represent it, using the Base 100 decimal system.
A system in which the nickel is the lowest denomination would be a Base 20 system, as there are twenty nickels in the standard dollar. The net value would be identical to one hundred pennies, but it would only require twenty pieces to achieve the same value.
Yet how do you accurately represent this in the current decimal system? Figures such as $1.65 seem simple enough, rounded out to the nickel, right? But hold on! Can't do that! You're technically saying that there's one-hundred sixty-five pennies involved, not thirty-eight nickels. The decimal system represents pennies, not nickels. Nickels are merely considered to be collective representations of five pennies, for purposes of quicker tabulation.
But suppose we abandon the penny and stick with a numerical representation that isn't entirely accurate anyhow. The nickel, essentially, becomes the new penny. It's the lowest figure by which prices may move. Therefore, whenever prices rise, they will do so a nickel at a time. This is a much more significant jump than a penny's increase. Once again, consider gasoline. It's alarming enough to see the price jump by several pennies in one week. Imagine the shock of seeing it rise by a nickel each time.
Unfortunately, the gold standard, the basis upon which our currency is given trade value, is based entirely upon the power of 1%. Internationally, the price of gold does not always remain rounded off to the nearest nickel. It rises and falls by pennies each day. In a given year, its value may experience, for pure example, a $0.23 gain.
Yet what happens when the value of gold is rising by percentages of one, while our prices increase by percentages of five? Inflation, that's what. The net gains of gold would be unable to keep up with the disproportionate cost increases in goods and services. Inflation weakens the American dollar, and it also cuts the net value of our gold reserve. We have to accept that gold is priced on an international market; if it's based upon domestic markets, our currency has absolutely no representative value overseas. Therefore, the system by which the price of gold rises and falls should dictate the system we use to represent our gold reserves. That system is a Base 100 set, not a Base 20.
"But gee, we eliminated the half-penny and did just fine." This is because the half-penny was a value that was, in fact, smaller than the lowest base increment that we use to measure the value of the gold reserve. We can safely eliminate those fractions and not jeopardize our system of representational values.
The penny is the most basic unit of currency we possess - it's the unit by which all other forms of our currency are calculated. Although it's not always a practical value, it's an essential value because all other values in our system can be converted to pennies. Yet it's also a small enough value that it allows much greater flexibility in our pricing system than having a nickel base would allow. There are far more options in a field of 100 than a field of 20.
I sincerely hope this makes sense to people. It's a difficult concept to convey, especially when supporters would negligently oversimplify their argument by saying that nickels are still negotiable in terms of whole dollars. Just because a dollar is divisible by both factors does not mean that is a proportionately even adjustment. The math is deceptive. It's fundamentally a poor basis for endorsing what boils down to American lazyness.
Unless the whole world is willing to adjust to a system in which .01% has no representable value, we cannot functionally abandon the penny. That's the simple fact of our global economic system.