3 ms·
> I don't want 12 eggs, can you sell me one? Easy when I've 240d to divide into, not so easy with 100 pence) So old money would have been briefly useful in the
by phaemon 6y ago
> I don't want 12 eggs, can you sell me one? Easy when I've 240d to divide into, not so easy with 100 pence)
So old money would have been briefly useful in the early 1990s, over 20 years after it was phased out? Because that's when a dozen eggs cost 1 pound.
In 1970, a dozen eggs cost 3s.4d. Quick, how much is one egg? (for comparison, I see Tesco have 10 eggs for £2.20. How much is one egg?
- brigandish 6y agoIt doesn't matter which prices you choose, old money will always outperform decimal because it has more factors. There are advantages and disadvantages to both but quibbling about the price of eggs isn't going to change them.
- phaemon 6y agoNo, 240 new pence has exactly the same number of factors as 240 old pence. You're aware that you're not required to always use a whole number of pounds, right? Because you seem a tad confused. You liked the egg example until I pointed out how daft it was. Ah, the fickleness of youth!
- brigandish 6y agoThe currency is the pound, not the penny. It would be daft to think the basis of comparison was the penny and it would also be daft to lose money on each transaction because you couldn't receive all the change owed you, something more likely to happen when you have less factors available due to less subdivisions and/or a different choice of base. It's also not going to matter only at the point a dozen eggs is a pound, but this is well off the original point and I'm not interested in a position that, strangely enough, means decimalisation has no impact. 240 pennies is 240 pennies, after all.
- phaemon 6y agoThe penny comparison was yours. Why are you making comparisons that you yourself think are daft? Try to think things out before hitting "reply". It would improve your posts immeasurably.