Dollars and Sense
(Author's note: Mea culpa for that incredibly cheesy post title... but I had to)
The US Mint has announced recently that they’re giving the dollar coin another go. You probably already know the dollar coin as “that annoying quarter you get from the post office.” It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anybody, seeing how it’s been tried twice before--- once as Susan B. in 1979, and more recently as Sacagawea at the beginning of the decade.
Americans have historically been loath to switch to metal dollars for various reasons (most prominently their desire to be unlike Canadians--- as we see from our lukewarm reception to both professional hockey and socialized health care). Yet the Mint is remaining upbeat about the latest incarnation of the US Looney. Its reason, it states, is due to the design on the obverse (face) of the coin. It plans to put pictures of each of the presidents, in order, on the coins to the pace of four per year. This thinking is based on the principle behind the runaway success of the 50 States quarters, which has turned many innocent bystanders into closet amateur coin collectors (admit it, you've got a collection too).
Of course, the presidents don't have the same resonation with the American people as the States do. I live in New York, therefore the New York quarter (year 2000, thank you very much) is one that stands out in my mind. Likewise, people from Kansas probably get excited by the Kansas state quarter, featuring a buffalo. And let's not forget North Dakota citizens, who undoubtedly get excited about their state's unique design-- one that features two buffalo (big hand for North Dakota).
I just don't see the same reaction to the presidential dollars. I mean, how many illegitimate relatives can Thomas Jefferson possibly have?
(I should say here, however, that there is GREAT news for Grover Cleveland fans. That's right, he gets two separate coins for serving two nonconsecutive terms. Amazing)
Now, the addition of the coins into circulation is bound to have benefits aside from general geekiness. One aspect that is bound to be overlooked is its effect on the stripping industry. Now, one might argue that stripper revenue would decrease-- after all, if dollar bills weren't around, you can't just go shoving 5's into g-strings. And, take it from me, strippers hate lose change.
Of course, that argument only works if you believe that stripping is an elastic consumer expense (elasticity is an economics term that measures the effect of changing price on demand-- inelastic goods are goods that don't rise and fall as easily with price, such as milk and gasoline; elastic goods tend to be luxury items, like pomegranate juice or diamond grillz). In reality, I believe fairly strongly that stripping tends to be an inelastic service, much the same as public transportation. It's not as if people are going to stop going to strip clubs, they're just going to gripe about the price more vocally, like when gas prices rose so heavily.
This could present a real boom for the stripping industry, with profits rising to record levels. Before you know it, with all the increased cash distribution, strippers could be buying houses in Beverly Hills and leasing their private jets to the relatively poverty-stricken executives of Exxon. We could be seeing a huge turnaround here. If paper dollars ever become completely phased out, invest your mortgage in nipple tassels and Chanel #5. Don't think twice about it. Just trust me on this one.
Will the paper dollar ever become phased out completely? Doubtful. Americans have been as excited to embrace the dollar coin as they were to embrace Clear Pepsi. If it's not a change that directly benefits everybody, then good luck, US Mint. I mean, we're not Europe.
But if it does, and through some fluke choice by the government it certainly could, count me first in line to collect. After all, somebody's going to have to find out how those Chester Arthurs bounce.
posted by BJC @ 12:44 PM
Your thoughts (0 so far)
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home