Showing posts with label vlogbrothers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label vlogbrothers. Show all posts

Thursday, August 14, 2014

Pennies and Nickels

Abraham Lincoln on the American penny
What do pennies represent to you? Are they pieces of copper that weigh down your change purse? Are they coins that the cashier hands back after you give him a ten dollar bill? Or are they something more, a mark of the great sentimentality that we Americans tend to have? Either way, facts are facts, and the facts are the following: pennies are slowing down our economy, burdening our national debt, and creating huge problems, all because we can’t bring ourselves to part with the shiny reddish coins that have been with us since the late sixteenth century.

In the United States of America, the currency used is in the form of coins and dollar bills. The lowest amount of money in circulation is the penny, which is technically worth one one-hundredth of a dollar. In reality, however, the metal used to make the penny is worth more than twice that amount. In 2013, the cost it took the United States Mint to manufacture one penny is 2.41 cents, which means the government spent nearly $169 million in just 2013 to put $70 million in pennies into circulation. Robert M. Whaples, professor of economics at Wake Forest University and an expert on the history of the US economy, also estimated that the United States loses roughly $900 million a year on penny production and handling. It is clear, to taxpayers, that this is not only a huge loss of money, but also easily avoidable. In fact, in 1972, although a penny was worth what a nickel is worth today, the economy managed very well without a coin that is worth the equivalent of a penny today. This shows that a monetary value that is one one-hundredth of a dollar is totally unnecessary for a successful economy to work. And also, as Professor Whaples said, “There's this cash drawer sitting there with four slots for coins. Currently, there's (a slot for) a penny, a nickel, a dime and a quarter. If you freed up that penny space, there would be an open place and, naturally, we would move to using a $1 coin. The Federal Reserve has estimated that replacing paper $1 bills with more durable $1 coins could save $500 million a year." Taking away pennies and dollar bills and replacing them with dollar coins could save our nation as a whole nearly a billion dollars. If solving this problem is as easy as removing a few coins from circulation, why has it garnered so little attention from the members of Congress who are so busily looking for ways to pay off our national debt?

Money aside, there is also another benefit of losing the penny. The National Association of Convenience Stores and the Walgreens drugstore chain have estimated that handling pennies adds 2 to 2.5 seconds per cash transaction. Assume that the average citizen makes one such transaction every day, therefore wasting about 730 seconds a year. The median worker earns just over $36,000 a year, or about 0.5 cents per second, so working with pennies costs him $3.65 annually. This means that nationally, while we’re fiddling with these near-worthless flat discs of bacteria, we’re losing billions a year. What part of keeping the penny makes sense at all? In July of 2006, Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.) decided to take action on this issue by introducing a bill that would get rid of the penny. He revealed that in the first half of the year 2006 alone, the U.S. government minted 4.8 billion pennies, and since it cost nearly 3.5 cents to make and distribute each penny, that robbed taxpayers of $115 million. However, even with such strong evidence and practical sense, Rep. Kolbe could not pass this bill, and the penny remained.

Consumers may worry that rounding up on costs could potentially lose them a few dollars a year. This has been proven false by many experimental studies, including one which looked at hundreds of thousands of transactions, and found that after all other taxes and fees were added, rounding prices to the nearest nickel actually led to a net gain for customers. Moreover, we have a precedent to follow by. Canada, along with many other nations, got rid of the penny, and saved billions of dollars. A study conducted by the Bank of Canada ahead of the decision to retire the penny concluded that there would be no significant impact on inflation. About a year into Canada's penniless phase, this has proven true, much like it has in other countries.

The US also has some experience with eliminating defunct currency. In 1857, it stopped minting the half-cent coin after Congress realized that its purchasing power (the equivalent of around 11 cents today) and cost of production had made it impractical. This move led to no immediate or long-term effects on the value of U.S. currency. Furthermore, some Americans are already used to a life without pennies. U.S. military bases abroad gave up on the coins around 30 years ago. The Department of Defense told the Los Angeles Times in 2008 that they were simply "too heavy and are not cost-effective to ship." Why aren’t we following suit? The penny costs too much, wastes time and energy, and has no functional value to our society. Is sentimentality worth the price of all that?

The only cost to bring pennies out of circulation is our sentimental attachment. We have seen other countries do the very same thing, with great results, yet we are too stubborn and affectionate of these outdated coins to let go. The great thing about America is that we have so many smart people able to convey a situation and find the easiest, most efficient solution. But the less great thing is that politicians are under so much pressure to be popular that they don’t always do the right thing. Along with our sharp consumers and healthy economy, we could do great things with the loss of our unnecessary coins.

For more information visit the Vlogbrothers at Pennies and Nickels, or read this article from the Huffington Post: Can We All Just Agree That Pennies Are Stupid And Need To Be Retired? and this article from mint.com: Should the U.S. Mint Ditch the Penny?
The Canadian penny, now out of circulation

What about you, Nargles and readers? What do you think? Should we get rid of pennies (and possibly nickels) and replace them with dollar bills?

- Quibbles 8/14/14

Sunday, August 3, 2014

018 If you could go back in time and kill baby Hitler, would you do it? (and more)

First of all, it's Day 1 of Quibbles-and-Nargles-without-Nargles, and I miss you :(

Thank you for the views! Look, you guys even made one of my favorite natural monuments!




So thanks.

Today, as I was sucked into the vortex that is watching Vlogbrothers' Brotherhood 2.0 series (starring Hank and John Green and possibly the Yeti and Katherine and Daniel Biss), I found the origin of the Evil Baby Orphanage.

The Evil Baby Orphanage all started when Hank asked John (and the viewers) the question: If you could go back in time and kill baby Hitler, would you do it?

As John put it, there were several groups of people reacting to this question.
  • First were the "No! A baby is a baby, and baby Hitler has done nothing wrong yet!"
  • Then, there were the "Hitler killed seventy million Jews, I think we have the right to kill him."
  • And finally, there was viewer Brooke who said, "Why don't we go back in time, collect baby Hitler, bring him to the present, and put him into an Evil Baby Orphanage with all the other Evil Babies and try to reform him?"

So out of these responses, I got the following follow up questions:
  1. Is it okay to kill a baby? What if you knew this baby was going to kill over seventy million civilians on purpose?
  2. Is it possible to be a good person and do bad things? How about being a bad person and doing good things?
  3. Do we have the right to kill people who kill people? When is it okay to kill?
  4. If we learn from our mistakes, why are we so keen to avoid them?
  5. Is a bad person a bad person if he hasn't done bad things yet? 
  6. Should we blame the leader more than we should blame his/her followers if they do bad deeds? Good deeds?
Overall, I don't think we should go back and kill baby Hitler. A baby is born good, and we shouldn't kill a baby just because it will make the wrong choices. I think we should give all people a chance to change their life course.


1) Is it okay to kill a baby? What if you knew this baby was going to kill over seventy million civilians on purpose?
It is never okay to kill a baby. Everyone deserves a chance to live, and everyone deserves a chance to make choices, as I said earlier. Even if I knew the baby was Hitler, I would not kill it. I wouldn't commit homicide because of what-ifs in the future. Instead, I would go and guide Hitler in his later years so he wouldn't make such choices. Maybe I would even put him in a different family, with different influences and conditions. Possibly, I would tell the admissions office at the art school Hitler was rejected from to accept him, because that would probably change his life. Of course, this is all assuming I'm all-powerful and I can persuade people to do random things very easily.

2) Is it possible to be a good person and do bad things? How about being a bad person and doing good things?
I don't think you can be a good person and do bad things. We are only as 'good' as our actions are, and the fact that we do good things makes us good people. We can be good people and make mistakes, but killing a baby or manipulating someone, for instance, is despicable, inexcusable, and never something a 'good' person might be forced to do 'under circumstances', or by 'accident' (I'm talking to you, Voldemort).

3) Do we have the right to kill people who kill people? When is it okay to kill?
This goes back to my post on the death penalty. It is never okay to kill someone, even if punishing them is worse. What makes us better than criminals if we are also murderers? What makes certain kinds of killing justifiable? Is murder different as it concerns the circumstances? I'm answering my own question with more questions, but this one's not really an easy one to answer with words.

4) If we learn from our mistakes, why are we so keen to avoid them?
This is a part of the reasons why I don't think I would kill baby Hitler. I don't mean to say that watching 70 million people killed is the best way for us to learn from our mistakes, but if this ever happens again, we'll pick up on it quickly enough to prevent it. It's a bit like chicken pox, once you get it, your immune system sort of catalogues it into your health arsenal. The next time it approaches, your body recognizes it and stops it before it begins. I think that even if I killed Hitler, something similar would have happened, and with the weapons of mass destruction invented today, do you think it would be a good idea to let the Holocaust happen... in this age? I guess 70 million people killed then is better than the entire 7 billion of us killed now. Humans learn from their mistakes for a reason, and the Holocaust has given us enough of an example of what might happen if we turn a blind eye to cruelty and injustice again.

5) Is a bad person a bad person if he hasn't done bad things yet?
Some of us are born trusting everyone we meet. Some of us are born with fifth and sixth chances gladly handed out to everybody. And some of us are born naturally suspicious, with an eye out for danger and an intelligence to match. Severus Snape was one of these people. And so was Hitler. I guess what I'm trying to say is that people aren't born bad, because as I said earlier, our actions define who we are, and you can't really do bad things when you're newly born. But people can be born with personalities that match bad actions, or personalities that flourish under the wrong care.
Let's take Severus Snape. Maybe if he was born into a happy family with great wealth and support in his community, he wouldn't have joined Voldemort. He would probably still be put in Slytherin, because you can't really change your personality, but if he was guided to make the right choices, he would definitely have been different... maybe if Lily Evans had been his older sister. But he was born into a constantly fighting family that was sneered upon and struggling with money. His suspicious and cunning nature bloomed into a misunderstanding of 'right' and 'wrong', and he eventually turned dark. If Hitler were influenced differently, and if the circumstances were different, he wouldn't have done what he did, I'm positive. Babies are born innocent, and Adolf Hitler was once a baby.

6) Should we blame the leader more than we should blame his/her followers if they do bad deeds? Good deeds?
And finally, I'm a little too tired to finish this post, so I'll throw this one out to you, Nargles. And viewers. Do you think a leader should be judged differently than his/her followers? Let me pull a SAT and follow with this: "Support your position with reasoning and examples taken from your reading, studies, experience, or observations." Have fun with this, it's a really great question, and I'm really interested in your (<-plural?) thoughts on this.

 - Quibbles 8/4/14