Jump to content

Recommended Posts

With inflation going the way it is, the only use for it will be the same as the 3d bit - in an xmas pudding. For this reason I already like it.


What is beyond belief is why the govt thought it necessary to change the design. They are printing billions in 'quantitative easing' yet suddenly got worried by a few million fake coins. Against the cost of changing all the slot machines?


But perhaps it will persuade those still demanding you use one for supermarket trolleys to stop.

Love the sauciness of the thrupenny bit slang reference but also I like the introduction of a small knobbly coin again.

For far too long we've had to put up with them round, milled edged ol' suckers.

Fair got on me thrups so they did.


I reckon shove ha'penny boards (played with the modern pound bits) will make a comeback, I'll encourage it enthusiastically, even vigorously.


What shall we call 'em? How about pound bits? Mmmm, not sure.

16 ouncers? Mmmm even less sure.

The 12-sided bastard? I like it, but not sure it'll catch on.


Requires a little more thought. Any suggestions?

A Dodo sounds good there Max. If in fact the 12 sided 'bit' is named a dodecagon as you claim. I'll take your word for it of course.

When making a small wager, would it work? I'll have a Dodo to win on Shapely Goddess in the 3:15? Not completely sure about that.

And what of the subsequent, inevitable dialogue in the pub?

Down to me last Dodo? Ain't got a Dodo to me name? Sub us a few Dodo 'til payday?


I'm not sure it quite 'sings' all that well.

But never mind it's early days yet.

So, twelve sides, I'm thinking about slanging it up as an 'Apostles'. Yes I am and that'll be the last time I 'quotes' it an' all.

I think the idea of a single coin with a plural nomenclature*, for want of a better phrase, would be ginchy and marvy beyond all reason, really.

It'd trip off the tongue(s)of the billionaire, the barrister, the barrow boy and the b@stard in the pub, whose blathering warrants a slap, with equal alacrity.

Yes, it's a word of the people so it is. Demotic, and don't let any bleeder tell you any different. Really. Don't.


Initial thoughts about extensions of the newly-minted and soon to sweep the nation term: A Gospeller-?4:00 A Betrayal-?11:00: A Thomas - a coin whose authenticity is perhaps untrustworthy: A Ressurection a complete fake.


*If nomenclature is the 'mot juste' I'm seeking here, d'accorde, of course.

DulwichFox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What exactly is the problem with fake coins ?


Off the top of my head.. the businesses that take them may be unable to pay them into the bank. Reduces the government's power to money supply and therefore inflation. And also, what dodgy activities the proceeds might be funding...

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> DulwichFox Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > What exactly is the problem with fake coins ?

>

> Off the top of my head.. the businesses that take

> them may be unable to pay them into the bank.

> Reduces the government's power to money supply and

> therefore inflation. And also, what dodgy

> activities the proceeds might be funding...


Just a little bit of privatized QE & an expanded money supply that directly reduces the cost of borrowing..

What exactly is the problem with fake coins?


Leaving aside the macro-economic impact on the value of currency, I think the practical issue for shops and businesses is that those coins can't/shouldn't be paid into their bank accounts as mentioned above.


So the business has sold an asset for (say) ?10, its books and records show a transaction for ?10 and it pays tax on the ?10 transaction, but when it comes to pay the money for that transaction into the bank, the business has only received ?9 which it can pay into its bank account and is left holding a token that doesn't have a remaining "value" of ?1. The business has no ability to change the value of the transaction or reduce the amount of tax it pays because the "value" of the transaction is the same. The bank has no obligation to accept a fake coin and won't give the business a real ?1 in exchange. Fake coins are basically fraud on the business that receives them.


Of course it's a lot more complicated than that, because the vast majority of people who use a fake ?1 to pay for something don't intend to defraud the business and in reality, businesses keep the fake ?1 in their float if they won't be accepted by the bank and may then pay it back out to another customer (which is I think your point - does it really matter?) - I would say yes - as ultimately you're holding something which purports to be ?1 which isn't.

Siduhe Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What exactly is the problem with fake coins?

>

> Leaving aside the macro-economic impact on the

> value of currency, I think the practical issue for

> shops and businesses is that those coins

> can't/shouldn't be paid into their bank accounts

> as mentioned above.

>

> So the business has sold an asset for (say) ?10,

> its books and records show a transaction for ?10

> and it pays tax on the ?10 transaction, but when

> it comes to pay the money for that transaction

> into the bank, the business has only received ?9

> which it can pay into its bank account and is left

> holding a token that doesn't have a remaining

> "value" of ?1. The business has no ability to

> change the value of the transaction or reduce the

> amount of tax it pays because the "value" of the

> transaction is the same. The bank has no

> obligation to accept a fake coin and won't give

> the business a real ?1 in exchange. Fake coins

> are basically fraud on the business that receives

> them.

>

> Of course it's a lot more complicated than that,

> because the vast majority of people who use a fake

> ?1 to pay for something don't intend to defraud

> the business and in reality, businesses keep the

> fake ?1 in their float if they won't be accepted

> by the bank and may then pay it back out to

> another customer (which is I think your point -

> does it really matter?) - I would say yes - as

> ultimately you're holding something which purports

> to be ?1 which isn't.


Do banks really refuse them - I'd have though shops would be more careful in that case.


I had many Scottish notes refused a few years back. The girl in Sainsburys

not long ago said to me "do you want a Scottish note" answer "NO"

It's been a long time since I paid a float into a bank but as a teenage shop girl (during the period that ?1s existed I hasten to add) we used to scrutinise the payable in carefully for that reason and banks definitely did reject coins. In these days of depositing cash via machines/envelopes etc, it may well be different in terms of what happens in practice.


The bank is definitely under no legal obligation to accept a fake coin if they spot it.

HonaloochieB Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So, twelve sides, I'm thinking about slanging it up as an 'Apostles'...

...Initial thoughts about extensions of the

> newly-minted and soon to sweep the nation term: A

> Gospeller-?4:00 A Betrayal-?11:00: A Thomas - a

> coin whose authenticity is perhaps untrustworthy:

> A Ressurection a complete fake.


Ok, and with 12 sides suggesting (as well as divine inspiration) a Brexitish nod towards a return to the marmiteovaltine days of the imperial system perhaps with 4 apostles (or apostlesles) in a Gospell (the new imperial fiver) we'd have 3 Gospells in a Messiah (it's new tenner cousin with dodgy ones known as a Brian); your Betrayal would - like the old guinea - mainly be used for auctions or payments of commissioned acts and would always include VAT.


I can already hear punters boasting of winning a Gospel Quire at Kempton.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The current wave of xenophobia is due to powerful/influential people stirring up hatred.  It;'s what happened in the past, think 1930s Germany.  It seems to be even easier now as so many get their information from social media, whether it is right or wrong.  The media seeking so called balance will bring some nutter on, they don't then bring a nutter on to counteract that. They now seem to turn to Reform at the first opportunity. So your life is 'shite', let;s blame someone else.  Whilst sounding a bit like a Tory, taking some ownership/personal responsibility would be a start.  There are some situations where that may be more challenging, in deindustrialised 'left behind' wasteland we can't all get on our bikes and find work.  But I loathe how it is now popular to blame those of us from relatively modest backgrounds, like me, who did see education and knowledge as a way to self improve. Now we are seen by some as smug liberals......  
    • Kwik Fit buggered up an A/C leak diagnosis for me (saying there wasn't one, when there was) and sold a regas. The vehicle had to be taken to an A/C specialist for condensor replacement and a further regas. Not impressed.
    • Yes, these are all good points. I agree with you, that division has led us down dangerous paths in the past. And I deplore any kind of racism (as I think you probably know).  But I feel that a lot of the current wave of xenophobia we're witnessing is actually more about a general malaise and discontent. I know non-white people around here who are surprisingly vocal about immigrants - legal or otherwise. I think this feeling transcends skin colour for a lot of people and isn't as simple as, say, the Jew hatred of the 1930s or the Irish and Black racism that we saw laterally. I think people feel ignored and looked down upon.  What you don't realise, Sephiroth, is that I actually agree with a lot of what you're saying. I just think that looking down on people because of their voting history and opinions is self-defeating. And that's where Labour's getting it wrong and Reform is reaping the rewards.   
    • @Sephiroth you made some interesting points on the economy, on the Lammy thread. Thought it worth broadening the discussion. Reeves (irrespective of her financial competence) clearly was too downbeat on things when Labour came into power. But could there have been more honesty on the liklihood of taxes going up (which they have done, and will do in any case due to the freezing of personal allowances).  It may have been a silly commitment not to do this, but were you damned if you do and damned if you don't?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...