DELIBERATELY CIRCULATED: TWO YEARS LATER...

     Two years ago, I posted an entry about modern coins I've been carrying around to deliberately wear down via circulation as these coins either rarely did so or, because of inflation, were unlikely to ever do so. I mentioned that I would follow up on that post in a few years if I were still blogging. Since that's still the case, two years feels like enough time has passed to be able to show a definite difference in the wear on these coins.
      Unfortunately, the photos do not compare well. This batch appears much better than the original. With luck, the next round two years hence will have similar enough lighting to these photos to allow for more useful comparisons.

(click on photos to enlarge)

2007 Silver American Eagle: 4-5 years wear

      During my last post, I mentioned that I had stopped circulating the SAE coin, but in the meantime (though I don't recall exactly when), I reintroduced it to the pile.

1978-D Eisenhower Dollar: about 3 years wear

1978 Kennedy Half Dollar: 1-2 years wear

     I introduced this Kennedy half into my patience project sometime in the intervening years but, like the reintroduction of the 2007 SAE dollar, I don't remember exactly when. This project does suffer from poor record-keeping I will admit. Like the Eisenhower Dollar, I chose 1978 because it is my birth year.

1999-P Susan B. Anthony Dollar: 5-6 years wear

1999-P New Jersey State Quarter: about 5 years wear

2005-P Jefferson Nickel [first issue]: 5-6 years wear

2005-P Jefferson Nickel [second issue]: 5-6 years wear

2001-P Jefferson Nickel: 5-6 years wear

2009-P Jefferson Nickel: about 3 years wear

1974-S Lincoln Cent: 5-6 years wear

2010 Lincoln Cent: 5 years wear

     Wear on the Lincoln Bicentennial cents has become more noticeable. A think I've noticed overall with the copper coins is that they seem to mush more than abrade from circulation. The zinc in the copper-plated cents shows on the rims and the coloration of the wear on the highest points of the designs is grayer suggesting imminent zinc exposure, if not already. My guess is that even when the zinc is definitely exposed, the coins will circulate acceptably because their circulation is constant, preventing the zinc's expected corrosion from destroying the coin.

2009 Lincoln Cent [first issue]: about 3 years wear

2009 Lincoln Cent [second issue]: about 3 years wear

2009 Lincoln Cent [third issue]: about 3 years wear

2009 Lincoln Cent [final issue]: about 3 years wear

Angel Token: 2 years wear

     The longest-circulated of these coins are about one-eighth of the way through their expected circulation lifetime of forty years. Too bad I have not been carrying these coins since I started working full time. The quarter and SBA dollar would be nearly halfway through their circulation lifetimes already and the Westward Journey nickels, a quarterway. Oh well...
     If I'm still here in two years, I'll update, as I believe this entry has set the precedent.

LINE OF THE DAY, part XL

from Fert Bert commenting on this article from Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis blog:

"If $15 an hour is better than $5, why isn't $1500/ hour better?"

I get so tired of that MORONIC ARGUMENT!

One:

There should be no "minimum wage". There should be an "exploitation wage"...a dollar amount where you flip from employing someone to exploiting them...what that amount is up for debate..$1 is definitely exploitation...$1500 is rightwingnut propaganda.

TWO:

"The primary concern of the employer is to make enough profit to stay in business."

YES

BUT

Should they be allowed to "maximize profit" by shifting a large chunk of the true cost of labor onto the backs of taxpayers?

Should businesses be allowed to use the welfare system to supplement wages and provide benefits like healthcare AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE?

Yes, yes, I know, eliminate the welfare system...if you can't see how that would work out, then you're hopeless and please don't bother replying to my post.

Oh, and yeah, welfare system is bloated, can definitely use some trimming, but never a total elimination; again if you can't see why, then don't bother posting.

     I like the idea of changing the relatively benign term "minimum wage" into the politically charged "exploitation wage". It would certainly make talking about it more fun. I'm also aware that the actual amount of wages is not nearly as important as how much those wages can buy. $50/hr. does one no good if a 12 oz. can of corn costs $11.95.

     I also feel there is merit to introducing morality into capitalism. The amoral system used now, profits/shareholder value above all has led us to the soulless economic world about us. If humans are supposed to behave ethically and morally, why not a business concern as well?
     And if it is not the place of business to provide a living wage, then it must be that of the government via a basic income guarantee. Perhaps that's where we are headed though for the life of me, I cannot imagine how such a system would pay for itself but it would take the concept of "minimum wage" off the table seeing as how if the American government provides a basic income guarantee, than a business may pay for labor whatever it is able to command even if it were only a few cents per hour.

     A different commenter also suggested that while he supports free trade, he believes such trade should be limited to countries playing by our labor rules. For those countries that do not, their products may still be imported into the United States, but with some "friction" in the form of tariffs.
      I also agree with that. Without such, dare I say "protectionism" via tariff, in place, one creates a "race to the bottom" mentality with business because a morally sound business will always be undercut by a morally unsound business who in turn will be undercut by a morally bankrupt business.
     There's no incentive to do the right thing if doing the wrong thing is also rewarded.

THE ANTI-GMO PROTESTER PRAYER...

     The satirical Amish prayer joke from Family Guy is what anti-GMO protesters sound like to me so I decided to make a silly prayer of my own patterned after it.

Dear All-Natural Lord, Thou lookest sternly down upon us, Thine flock, even though we avoid unhealthy processed food and have been rallying for GMO-labeling laws like fucking crazy.

Please make us crunchy, and deliver us from accumulated toxins, that we may eat only raw, organic food, much more expensive than other people's.

And grant that we shun what we cannot pronounce, like Vani Hari, whom we have never seen, but are just going by reputation because it is your will.

We solemnly believe that, although humans have been genetically modifying plants, fungi, and animals in various ways for over 12,000 years, you feel strongly we had just enough genetic modification between 1946 and 1972. Not too little, not too much.

Please deliver us from Monsanto, the worst company that was ever incorporated and protect us from those who scoff at our woo or our appeal to nature and deliver us from vaccines.

Amen.

"The Amish Barn-Raising Prayer" from Family Guy
     Okay, enough silly poking fun. I will end my awful parody with the following paraphrases altered to suit the subject matter...

     At least let these developers prove they can do it. Give GMOs a break. To write them off before they've even started well, that's irrational. I don't know if GMOs will work: I'm just saying that these developers deserve a chance to try and make them work. (with apologies to Babylon 5)

     And if the GMO experiment fails, we should admit it frankly and try something else. But above all, try something. The world's presently got a lot of hungry mouths to feed and researchers/developers are saying GMOs might be a part of the solution, so let's try it and find out instead of blocking attempts via fearmongering. (with apologies to Franklin Roosevelt)

     And, if this, by grace of Internet, were to be used seriously by those whom I'm making fun of, that means I win, right?

WEARINESS...

     One thing I've noticed about me is that going to work counts as going out. I guess I'm just that introverted which sucks because I would like to go out more but I just don't want to after a week's work. I want to recharge and recoup and by the time I'm feeling like I might want to go out, it's already the start of my workweek again.

     I don't have this problem on vacations. By Wednesday I'm done spending time inside and away from people and ready to go out and explore or whatever. It's fun and I like getting to do those things, but I don't like having to wait three months until my next week off to do so.

     Another reason I wish I could quit working altogether. That I don't have enough money saved to purchase my freedom is another reason my life sucks. I just don't see a victory scenario. It actually makes me wish I could have a mild, totally survivable heart-attack so I could justify quitting on the grounds that, having been given a taste of my own mortality, I no longer wish to put off the life I have been suppressing all these years just so I could work at a job I don't like for not enough money to enjoy life on.

     I think the source of that unhappiness is in my very nature. I read recently in Scientific American a reference to a book by Donald Stokes called Pasteur's Quadrant. He had this idea that there are three types of research which he separated into quadrants he named using epitomizing examples: Bohr, Edison, and Pasteur.

     The Bohr Quadrant, named after physicist Niels Bohr, exemplified pure basic research, which might be thought of as seeking answers for their own sake with no particular goal in mind. Such research is not concerned with how the knowledge gained might be used by others.
     The Edison Quadrant, named after inventor Thomas Edison, exemplified applied research, which could be thought of as a striving to produce a specific product in response to a problem. Such research is a quest for an invention or a method and might be thought of as profit-driven research; their interest is ultimately in utility.
     The Pasteur Quadrant, named after researcher Louis Pasteur, exemplifies a middle ground between the two: a quest for knowledge and its application to benefit humanity. Pasteur's specific example would include Germ Theory which sought to not only understood what germs/disease were and how they spread, but also how to use this knowledge to keep people healthy.

     I find that I don't like being caged into any one particular thing. I dislike specialization. I would say I fit most comfortably into the Bohr Quadrant. I am curious about the world, reality, existence, etc. but while I am interested in learning how it works, I show almost zero interest in doing anything with this knowledge, content to leave it to others to exploit.
     I guess most of the big stuff has been found out already making me moot. To learn more about reality requires one to delve deeply into the kinds of mathematics I can't even hope to comprehend: I just don't have the discipline for that.
     I find my mind wanders a lot. I am the typical example of "Jack of all trades; master of none." I know a little bit about a lot of things, perhaps in order to cast the widest possible net in a desperate attempt to be loved. I suppose this is why my personality type is flagged for leadership roles: I'd be a natural delegator, able to recognize who's good at what so that they may be in the right positions when they are most needed. If only I liked leading. I despise it and resent whenever I'm forced to take up the reins. Then again, that may be another reason I would make a good leader: I don't want the power. I've heard it said that those who want power are the ones who least deserve it. It's just sometimes...sometimes, I wish I had someone I could focus on. Someone who could give me purpose. Maybe I've been intellectually wandering for too long now and wish to limit my subjects to the benefit of someone whom I care about deeply or to someone whom I believe in. I certainly don't get that from my job and my life is as lonely as ever.

     Still...it would be nice to not have to work anymore. I'm tired of it. The thought of having to do this for thirty more years is practically intolerable. I yearn to be free. I want to be free...

52 CHARITIES...

     I have no idea how good or even effective such an idea would be, but when I read about the extreme poverty of cocoa farmers around the world, I wondered if they (and other worthy groups) might benefit from a tiny payroll tax levied on, ideally the world, but let's leave it at the level of the United States for now as there is no international authority on Earth which can collect and distribute taxes and and because the United States, acting alone, could create moral pressure on other nations to follow suit.

     I'm using the world's estimated 5 million cocoa farming households as an example because chocolate is a favorite confection to many and knowing the poverty that is not much above slavery that goes into its harvest I would think make them a useful example as to the kind of good this proposed payroll tax could do. It is stated that many of these farmers live in extreme poverty, surviving on less than $1.25 a day (or about $450 a year), so imagine if the estimated 145 million workers in the United States, many of whom most certainly enjoy chocolate candies or chocolate-flavored things or use cocoa butter enriched products, might be called upon to help using but a smidgen of their annual earnings?

    This would be by no means a terribly helpful thing, but again, if other nations might be morally coerced into going along with this, it would help even more. Imagine if a dollar a week, regardless of earnings, were set aside as a withholding for a group of 52 charities, causes, and/or other worthy groups/organizations and donated to a respected United Nations organization to distribute this money directly to those whom it was designed to help.

     52 charities each receiving from the United States 145 million dollars on an annual basis (about 7½ billion dollars total).

     I would think these donations ought to be targeted to low-profile causes as they are almost certainly lacking in strong advocacy. In the case of the aforementioned cocoa farmers, that would mean an annual stipend from the United States of about $29 per household, almost a month's income, paid directly the families.
     I honestly don't know how much of a difference that would make in their lives. I can only imagine myself receiving a month's income for no apparent reason and thinking of how it would affect mine. While such an amount given to me would certainly not be life-changing, it would also not go unnoticed and would certainly prove helpful.

     Assuming this isn't a totally stupid idea, I'm sure you can think of other worthy groups that might receive their share of $145 million dollars. I suppose they could be voted on by the American public. This act of charity does not feel like it should be decided by special-interest-group-influenced politicians.

     I don't know...