 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> Fine up until the last part, but they engage in some utterly nonsensical
> economics of value and cost when they start "dividing" cost by the number of
> exchanges.
Most fiat economomics is nonsensical. Given that, they're basically
saying that the utility of the penny is greater than its face value. In
other words, the government spends $1.20 to put $1.00 worth of pennies
into circulation. They also spend more than a dollar to put a dollar
bill into circulation. And they also reduce the value of the pennies and
dollars already in circulation when they create more of them. So trying
to figure out what a penny "costs" is kind of pointless to start with,
unless you start counting inflation into it.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 15:11:21 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>> I often wondered... If you were to convert GBP to DNF to USD to CHF to
>>> EUR back to GBP... or something similar... could you end up with
>>> (significantly) more than you started with? I mean, is there some
>>> obscure sequence of currency exchanges where you end up with more than
>>> you stared with?
>>
>> Dunno, write a Haskell program to parse some currency website and find
>> out!
>
> Heh. Don't tempt me with such things! ;-)
xe.com is a pretty good reference. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"St." <dot### [at] dot com> wrote in message news:48736dbd$1@news.povray.org...
> No, they are in fact mild steel, or at least some kind of ferrous alloy.
> Hold a magnet to a newish copper coin. I say copper because they're
> actually copper plated. They started doing this (in the UK), about 8 years
> ago I think.
Actually, I should add to that, that 'copper' coins were never pure copper
anyway. I think they were always alloyed with some other metal like nickel
or bronze.
~Steve~
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Funny enough, when the patent on fiber optics ran out a few decades ago,
> the telcos looked at what they had and realized they could dig up all
> the copper, replace it with fiber, and do it all "for free" by selling
> the copper on the commodities market.
>
> What they failed to appreciate is that the telcos were the single
> largest consumer of copper, so when they stopped buying and started
> selling, the price of copper went way down.
EPIC PHAIL.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Tue, 08 Jul 2008 14:43:43 +0100, scott <sco### [at] scottcom> did
spake, saying:
>>> Although... the coins aren't pure copper, are they?
>>
>> No, they are in fact mild steel, or at least some kind of ferrous
>> alloy. Hold a magnet to a newish copper coin. I say copper because
>> they're actually copper plated. They started doing this (in the UK),
>> about 8 years ago I think.
>
> Aha! So we just need to collect the old ones. I propose using a magnet
> to sort them.
Noting on Wikipedia that currently the old 2p coins contain about 3p worth
of copper, would it be worth the cost of stripping it off the steel? Oh
and the Mint also reminds people that tampering with coinage is illegal
(technically I think it's treason as you're tampering with an image of the
monarch)
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> currently the old 2p coins
What, they might change soon? ;-)
> contain about 3p worth of copper, would it be worth the cost of stripping
> it off the steel?
Hmm Wikipedia says that the old 2p coins were pure Bronze, the new ones are
Bronze plated steel. And apparently Bronze used for coins is about 95%
copper, 5% tin. So I think the old coins you could just melt down and sell
to someone as 95% pure copper, or maybe go about purifying it if it was
economically viable. The new ones I doubt you'd get enough copper off to
cover the cost of the coin.
> Oh and the Mint also reminds people that tampering with coinage is
> illegal (technically I think it's treason as you're tampering with an
> image of the monarch)
Also I suspect it's because the coins aren't yours to tamper with in the
first place.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I wonder... if we melted down enough coins, would they become rarer and
hence more valuable?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Wed, 09 Jul 2008 13:04:21 +0100, scott <sco### [at] scottcom> did
spake, saying:
>> currently the old 2p coins
>
> What, they might change soon? ;-)
Heck if the price increases I'd expect the Mint to recall them all so they
can melt them down.
>> contain about 3p worth of copper, would it be worth the cost of
>> stripping it off the steel?
>
> Hmm Wikipedia says that the old 2p coins were pure Bronze, the new ones
> are Bronze plated steel. And apparently Bronze used for coins is about
> 95% copper, 5% tin. So I think the old coins you could just melt down
> and sell to someone as 95% pure copper, or maybe go about purifying it
> if it was economically viable. The new ones I doubt you'd get enough
> copper off to cover the cost of the coin.
You're right, my mangling.
>> Oh and the Mint also reminds people that tampering with coinage is
>> illegal (technically I think it's treason as you're tampering with an
>> image of the monarch)
>
> Also I suspect it's because the coins aren't yours to tamper with in the
> first place.
No they're the monarch's.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook wrote:
>
> No they're the monarch's.
>
Gawd, sive 'er majesty!
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 14:47:28 +0100, Doctor John <joh### [at] homecom> wrote:
>Phil Cook wrote:
>>
>> No they're the monarch's.
>>
>
>Gawd, sive 'er majesty!
>
Render unto Caesar etc.
Is it getting any easier?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
