Hello
I have two local McDonald's near my home that
have signs posted, both inside and at the
drive-through, that will not accept anything larger
than a $20.00 dollar bills. They received a large
number of counterfeit bills.
I have seen this at other burger places as well.
I would like to know what countries still sentence
anyone to death for counterfeiting coins and/or
notes?
I used to see signs in Michigan not accepting $50 or $100 bills but
not in the past 5 years at least. Most clerks
these days do a quick counterfeit check with a pen.
And the $100-printed-on-the-paper-of-a-$5 'bleached' counterfeit passes that.
Usually, the 'no big bills' thing is about keeping minimal amounts of change
in the drawer to deter robberies.
--
___________________________________________ ____ _______________
Regards, | |\ ____
| | | | |\
Michael G. Koerner May they | | | | | | rise again!
Appleton, Wisconsin USA | | | | | |
___________________________________________ | | | | | | _______________
The McDonalds branches that refused Mr Andersons Scottish money were
doing him a favour really, by preventing him from consuming this
horrible foodstuff.
And how many Scottish branches of McDonalds accept Welsh money, I ask?
--
Roger Hunt
LOL
I don't know such countries (;-)) but before the euro era in some European
countries it was illegal to not accept the currency of the country
regardless of how high was the denomination.
A Happy New (numismatic and not only!) Year to everybody!
--
E' mai possibile, oh porco di un cane, che le avventure
in codesto reame debban risolversi tutte con grandi
puttane! F.d.A
Coins, travels and more:
http://s208.photobucket.com/albums/bb120/golanule/
http://gogu.enosi.org/index.html
Well, when gas hit $4 a gallon, fillups were costing $50 to $100 and
stations were claiming that they lost money if people paid with credit
cards...so I guess the really had no choice but to accept the larger
bills.
--
Please reply to: | "One of the hardest parts of my job is to
pciszek at panix dot com | connect Iraq to the War on Terror."
Autoreply is disabled | -- G. W. Bush, 9/7/2006
What Welsh money would that be?
Peter
heh heh.....this is good. McDonalds and its ilk need to go out of business,
if not for price gouging, then for producing unhealthy "heartattack food".
Food prices continue to rise while fuel has fallen to an 8 year low. So
restaurants are simply in the business of price gouging customers for as
much as they can possible fleece them, regardless of how low fuel prices
are.
"Mark B." <belli...@aol.spam.com> wrote in message
news:gjga8b$hst$1...@news.motzarella.org...
and the best of holidays to you and yours, g!
happy new year to all the fine folks in rcc.
What I understand is that fuel prices are at the lowest level in a decade,
while food prices are still climbing. This is called price gouging, and the
restaurants will be reaping their own bankruptcy sooner than later when all
the tables and seats are empty. We are already seeing about one restaurant
per week closing permanently here over the past 2 quarters. So much for the
profits, eh?
My goodness, that sounds perilously close to an economic
interventionist view, almost Keynesian in its underlying assumptions.
> Food prices continue to rise while fuel has fallen to an 8 year low.
Other than the fuel costs of transporting foodstuffs, which represent
only a small fraction of the cost of serving you a meal, how are the
two supposed to be related?
> So restaurants are simply in the business of price gouging customers
> for as
> much as they can possible fleece them,
Under any laissez-faire view, isn't that the goal of all business
activity?
> regardless of how low fuel prices are.
Again - how are the two supposed to be coupled?
I had no idea that the regions of the Sceptered Isle were so insular
from each other. They do accept the Queen's pounds and pence, right?
Many businesses along either side of the U.S. - Canada border accept
the other country's currency as a convenience to their customers. I
assume it's the same along the Mexico border, too.
Translation: my name is mazorj and I have no basic concept of the direct
relation between fuel and food costs.
>Again - how are the two supposed to be coupled?
Translation: I am mazorj and sorely need to attend Economics 101, Finance
101 and Business Management 101
Fuel is consumed during every step in getting food from the source to your
table. From harvest, to production, to transportation. Just ask the CEO of
every major food producing company in the world whether the increase of food
prices was due to the increase in fuel costs. Now there is simply price
gouging and greed driving the price of food. I would suspect that the
speculators who were short selling and hedge funding to drive the price of
oil up are now doing the same with food prices. They are now outlawed from
oil speculation, but not from speculation in the food industry.
"Mark B." <belli...@aol.spam.com> wrote in message
news:gjgd9q$m7e$1...@news.motzarella.org...
http://www.foodandfuelamerica.com/2008/09/feds-probe-food-price-collusion.html
There are also several links below the article detailing how food and fuel
costs are heavily intertwined.
"mazorj" <maz...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:eAQ6l.2283$BC4....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
So enlighten us. Quantify the relationship between fuel costs and
restaurant food prices to prove your assertion that lowered fuel
prices should have driven restaurant prices down enough for us to
notice, let alone to any significant degree.
You can't, because you're making it up as you go by pulling it out of
your bunghole. And if you think that anyone here is fooled by your
jinking, you're even dumber than you've let on so far.
(Yeah, I know, it's about time to stop feeding this troll. But they
make such fun chew toys.)
But you accused the restaurants of gouging, not the providers of their
raw material - foodstuffs - or the other upstream parts of the chain
of supply and services for those restaurants. In doing so, you assume
that the current lower fuel costs were exactly matched by reduced
upstream costs from those providers. Unless you can prove that that's
the case, your accusation that restaurants are "gouging" is unfounded.
Especially since the restaurant's portion of production costs that are
affected by fuel prices is only a fraction of the total cost of
putting a burger on your plate. If you had actually taken Econ 101
(okay, maybe Microeconomics) you would know that.
> Just ask the CEO of
> every major food producing company in the world whether the increase
> of food
> prices was due to the increase in fuel costs.
Also attributable to the rising costs of fertilizers, production plant
energy such as natural gas, diversion of corn (used in one form or
another in a great many foods) to ethanol, the diversion of arable
land to other uses, on and on. The price of gas and diesel is only
one contributing cost factor in the overall production chain.
> Now there is simply price
> gouging and greed driving the price of food.
You've enlarged or shifted the focus from restaurants to their food
suppliers, but no matter. The same comments apply regardless of which
sector you want to accuse of gouging.
> I would suspect that the
> speculators who were short selling and hedge funding to drive the
> price of
> oil up are now doing the same with food prices. They are now
> outlawed from
> oil speculation, but not from speculation in the food industry.
Commodities futures speculators play in every type of commodity.
We'll know you are right if and when we hear stories that, like oil, a
bushel of wheat is being traded 20 times before it's actually
delivered for use. Otherwise, you can't assume that wheat is the new
oil.
As I am writing this, NPR is running a story on the fact that with oil
way down, airlines still are cutting the freebies and imposing baggage
fees. Part of it is that they're still locked into hedge contracts
bought when locking into $120 oil was a bargain, part is because the
recession has reduced travel revenues, and part is because the
cut-throat competition under deregulation has made it impossible for
most carriers to be profitable even with the service cuts and
additional fees. They need every buck they can generate.
Some businesses in England will not accept Scottish notes, my response is,
"you took our ****ing oil fast enough". Billy
Somewhere, the Big 3 US automakers probably fit in here. Of course the
government wants to call the shots if two of the Big 3 expect to receive
taxpayers' money to stay alive. It says that they must concentrate more on
producing cars that buyers want. Although fuel-efficient small cars
immediately come to mind, most recently the two top selling vehicles in the
US have been full size pickup trucks. So I guess the government will soon
be correcting the public and telling us what we REALLY want.
Was it as simple as those selling the oil knew how to spell MacDonald,
whereas those trying to exchange Scottish notes are a little hazy on
that point?
Ladies and Gentlemen, may I present Britain's next UN ambassador...
:-)
take care,
Scott
I appreciate the offer but diplomacy is not a strong point of mine. :-)
Billy
To the extent that this is relevant to your claim that restaurants are
price gougers, you have just undercut your hypothesis. To the extent
that there is price gouging in food, in this case it's coming from
upstream of the restaurants, so they have no role or responsibility in
it.
And this is the age-old story of food producers fixing prices and
production, not speculators running up the price of commodities.
> There are also several links below the article detailing how food
> and fuel
> costs are heavily intertwined.
I never said they weren't. In fact, my rebuttal of your claim that
restaurants are gouging is premised on fuel costs being a factor. You
just haven't provided a shred of data to prove that it is the
restaurants that are doing whatever gouging may be taking place. Egg
and tomato producers are the only ones you've specifically convicted
so far of gouging.
Stop jinking and throwing chaff like these irrelevant or
counter-productive cites. Either prove your claim that restaurants
are price gouging after the drop in fuel prices, or STFU.
I don't have to prove my claim. It's not my fault you have no insight or
common sense to realize the obvious. Only the enlightened can see through
the smokescreen, in the same way that only the truly enlightened realize
that there is no such thing as magic or deities.
Sure you do.
More jinking and chaff - this time it's x-ray vision? Pfffft. Even
as a
troll, you're pretty pathetic. And you're getting pretty tiresome.
You won't prove you claim because you can't - QED, case closed.
Prove that I'm getting tiresome and provide physical evidence to back up
your supposition. Electronically posted messages claiming that I am
tiresome or personal claims of being sick or ill from my posts are not
physical evidence.
That's a personal opinion. As opposed to your assertions of fact,
which you should be able to confirm if questioned -and have not done
here.
There is quite a difference:
(1) Canadian and US money are backed by a government
(2) Scottish money is *not* backed by a government
(3) There are *three* different kinds of scottish money issued by three
different banks
(4) If the issuer of one of the kinds of Scottish money topples over what
happens with that money?
On the British Isles there are in total 10 parties that issue money. Of
those, four are governments:
Bank of England
States of Jersey
States of Guernsey
Isle of Man Government
six are private banks
Bank of Scotland
Royal Bank of Scotland
Clydesdale Bank
Ulster Bank
Northern Bank
Bank of Ireland
Of these six banks the first three are from Scotland the other three from
Northern Ireland. And you can easily end up with some five different current
banknotes of the same denomination (as I found the last time I was in Northern
Ireland).
But issue (4) is in my opinion the most interesting as the Royal Bank of
Scotland nearly toppled over last year...
--
dik t. winter, cwi, science park 123, 1098 xg amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
Wow. And I thought we had a confusing system of FR notes, silver
certificates, etc.
The Royal Bank is now 58% owned by the UK Goverment. Billy
Except that only one of those is currently being issued. The rest,
while still legal tender at face value, are rare enough to be
curiousities.
--
Please reply to: | "One of the hardest parts of my job is to
pciszek at panix dot com | connect Iraq to the War on Terror."
Autoreply is disabled | -- G. W. Bush, 9/7/2006
I know, to prevent it to topple over. (Like the Dutch government is now
100 % owner of ABN-AMRO and Fortis in the Netherlands.) The question still
remains what would have happened with the RBS banknotes when the bank had
toppled over. Would they suddenly have become without value? Or is there
some kind of Bank of England backing for the outstanding notes in such a
case? Is RBS still allowed to issue money?
BTW, also the financial system of governments can topple over (like the
Iceland government), but that is quite a bit less likely than a private
bank.
Right. Which makes the monetary diversity over there all the more
confusing. Can you imagine what it would be like if U.S. states and
banks could issue their own notes? Would issues from virtually
bankrupt California and actually bankrupt banks be discounted or
refused in the marketplace? Would federal "shinplasters" become a
highly preferred specie?
All of the above. When banks used to be able to issue their own
banknotes, some were discounted and some were refused outright.
If the issuing bank went out of business, oops.
There is a reason that the US doesn't allow privately issued money
anymore.
--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |
For each £ value of note issued the Scottish banks have to deposit the same
with the Bank Of England.
The 3 Scottish banks are still issuing new notes. Billy