What price the pelt?

Sigh. I have a lot of respect for Neil Reynolds, the Globe financial columnist and legendary newspaper editor. He's smart, independent-minded, and knowledgable, particularly on economic matters. So how could he fall for the old "natural parity" fallacy ("Ideally, we should have a 100-cent dollar")?

At 90 cents (U.S.), the Canadian dollar is getting back where it belongs, which is at par with the American dollar or within a few cents of it, either up or down... Ideally, these kindred dollars should exchange at par, or close to par, as they have so often in the past...

There is in fact no reason at all why the two currencies should tend to trade at par, or any other parity for that matter. This hoary myth persists for one reason, and one reason only: because they have the same name. No one suggests the yen, or the pound, or the euro should "naturally" trade at par with the US dollar: why would they? Nor would anyone propose anything so preposterous of the Canadian dollar, if it had a different name. So perhaps it's time to dust off a proposal I made some years back: let's call the currency by another name -- something so obviously and distinctly Canadian, it would have no need of the "Canadian" tag in front of it. In honour of our fur-trading heritage, I suggest the "pelt." As in, "that'll be six pelts." The pelt: It may seem a little strange now, but trust me, it'll grow on you.