ucim wrote:I'm not "breaking the window". I'm allowing that particular window to be less worn. I'm allowing the ones to last longer.
The windows are well worn down less on average because they're being used less on average. You're still measuring windows existing and not windows being used.
Look: let's say it cost 5.7 cents to print each of the bills and each one has exactly a hundred uses or ten years before the Treasury believes the bill needs to be replaced.
The average one last 22 months, so they basically all get about a hundred uses before being destroyed. The Treasury facilitates $100 of transactions for $.0057.
The average two gets used, let's say, four times a year (this argument started when Quay said twos were less used). That gives it a lifetime of 40 uses and the Treasury facilitates $80 of transactions for $.0057.
Alice likes two and always request them from the bank. The bank orders more twos from the treasury to accommodate Alice. Alice's actions do cause few two transactions per bill she withdraws but for the most part banks already have more twos than are demanded so nonALice use stays the same. Alice's twos get used, on average, 42 times. But! there are a lot more twos in Alice's town than in general and only slightly more twos transactions, so it turns out the average two in Alice's town only gets used 39 times. If we look at the Treasury's expenditures between ALice's pro-two policy an if she just took ones, we find out the treasury ended up spending an extra $.05472 (= $.057 * .96 (cost of thwe two minus the 4 uses of ones avoided) per two Alice withdrew.
Crap I forgot a "not". I'm not trying to criticize people who use twos, just the bills themselves.ucim wrote:No, I'd say that's the responsibility of the payment system.Quizatzhaderac wrote:...the individual consumer should not be held responsible for ensuring the various payment systems are equitable.