I estimate (roughly) that a dozen 5-gallon buckets means about a $5000 profit (about $.015 per penny). I seems like a lot of money, but what about the amount of time spent buying and sorting all those coins. I'm guessing it isn't a very high-paying job.
Good point! I suppose many people probably feel like they'll be worth more in the future, but if that's the case, why not buy copper directly? I estimate (roughly) that a dozen 5-gallon buckets means about a $5000 profit (about $.015 per penny). I seems like a lot of money, but what about the amount of time spent buying and sorting all those coins. I'm guessing it isn't a very high-paying job.
true.. having to collect all the coins sort em out.. if you decide to melt em you need propane or some type of fuel.. some cement to make a foundry furnace (or buy one  ). A lot of work for what its worth. To sell copper over here you need to show your ID and give a fingerprint but that rarely happens from what I am told.. and I think it only applies to copper wire and pipe not ingots. Then good luck finding a place that will give you a good price per pound. I have met a lot of people talking about doing this but have yet to hear one of them attempting it. Why would you melt them? Just leave them in coin form and sell them that way, same as everyone does with silver and gold coins. |
|
|
|
Someone in my city actually made a "penny sorting machine" somehow. It detects the real copper pennies (1983 or prior I believe) and puts them in one bucket, while throwing the zinc-infused pennies into a different bucket. He goes to banks and buys as many pennies as he can, puts them through the sorter, and saves all the pure-copper ones. He had something like a dozen 5-gallon buckets full of them. Someday, when it is legal to melt them, he's going to have a nice chunk of change (MULTI-PUN!) from this. I'd just like to know how to create such a machine.  Some cardboard and a magnet (salvaged from an old hard drive.) + a little ingenuity should do it. Not sure on the exact composition but I have 2 - 2012 Canadian pennies and 1 is magnetic and the other sent. Hmmm... ^.^ |
|
|
|
|
The last time Roman posted here was 10/4. He used to be a lot more active/enthusiastic about his site and updating users on the site's status. I'm not sure if he's just letting it die a slow death or what, but the lack of progress on any front recently is rather discouraging to see.
|
|
|
|
Someone in my city actually made a "penny sorting machine" somehow. It detects the real copper pennies (1983 or prior I believe) and puts them in one bucket, while throwing the zinc-infused pennies into a different bucket. He goes to banks and buys as many pennies as he can, puts them through the sorter, and saves all the pure-copper ones. He had something like a dozen 5-gallon buckets full of them. Someday, when it is legal to melt them, he's going to have a nice chunk of change (MULTI-PUN!) from this. I'd just like to know how to create such a machine. nobody will know your melting them unless you like to talk.  Well, true, but I'd be more likely to hold them for a while than to attempt melting them myself. I don't have a smelter, or capabilities for performing such a feat. Not to mention, some people might begin to question my source for random hunks of copper. |
|
|
|
Someone in my city actually made a "penny sorting machine" somehow. It detects the real copper pennies (1983 or prior I believe) and puts them in one bucket, while throwing the zinc-infused pennies into a different bucket. He goes to banks and buys as many pennies as he can, puts them through the sorter, and saves all the pure-copper ones. He had something like a dozen 5-gallon buckets full of them. Someday, when it is legal to melt them, he's going to have a nice chunk of change (MULTI-PUN!) from this. I'd just like to know how to create such a machine. |
|
|
|
Two things to consider:
Electronics are already "deflationary" in nature. Prices drop like a rock on new tech as it ages, yet people still buy it at one point or another. If prices dropped on other products, they might slow down their purchases on some items, but it certainly wouldn't stop altogether.
I believe that our inflationary economy encourages over-investment, and therefore bad investments. People are in too much debt, largely because it is easier to pay back a loan with money that is worth less tomorrow. Deflation would cause people to take out fewer loans, which would help build wealth instead of build debt. Yes, the economy would be smaller, but perhaps that would be a good thing?
Ideally (in my opinion), a currency would be perfectly stable, and cause neither price inflation or price deflation. But so far, there is no way to create such a currency without a central authority, and no central authority would agree to it.
So Bitcoin, like electronics, is deflationary at present? Should we just accept this and horde and dump as we please, accepting that Bitcoin will likely not make it? I'm not trying to moralize, I really want to know understand this economy and how one would approach it as an investor... It seems to be too much of an infant to really 'invest' in... Thanks for your response! Every little bit helps.  Why do we have to "accept that Bitcoin will likely not make it"? I just gave you reasons why deflation can work. Anyone can horde and dump USD or any other currency as they please, Bitcoin is no different in that regard. More acceptance/use of Bitcoin will reduce price volatility in the event of hordes and dumps as well. The large price fluctuations are due, in part, because of the smallish size of the Bitcoin economy compared to currencies that entire countries use. Certainly investment in it is risky, unknown, etc. But the same could be said of investing in Google or Apple while they were still young and floundering. Bitcoin could be the next Apple or Google, only bigger, much bigger. To me, that alone is enough to warrant at least a small long-term investment ($100, or some other amount you don't mind if you lose). |
|
|
|
|
Two things to consider:
Electronics are already "deflationary" in nature. Prices drop like a rock on new tech as it ages, yet people still buy it at one point or another. If prices dropped on other products, they might slow down their purchases on some items, but it certainly wouldn't stop altogether.
I believe that our inflationary economy encourages over-investment, and therefore bad investments. People are in too much debt, largely because it is easier to pay back a loan with money that is worth less tomorrow. Deflation would cause people to take out fewer loans, which would help build wealth instead of build debt. Yes, the economy would be smaller, but perhaps that would be a good thing?
Ideally (in my opinion), a currency would be perfectly stable, and cause neither price inflation or price deflation. But so far, there is no way to create such a currency without a central authority, and no central authority would agree to it.
|
|
|
|
Because high taxes on the rich means overall less taxes.
The lower the overall taxes the higher economic growth, it's as simple as that.
taxing the rich more does work, without penalising the poor If the rich work less because it isn't worth the money after tax, Unless the tax is greater than 100%, any increase in pre-tax income should still result in an increase in income after tax. But you still must account for opportunity costs. Would you work for $1/hr instead of $10/hr? Probably not. Why not? Because your time is worth more than that. That is your opportunity cost. Would a rich person put in effort and risk investment to build a company from the ground up if they stand to lose 90% of any profits they manage to make? Probably not nearly as often as they would do the same if they stood to only lose 35% of any profits they managed to make. Now, I can agree that there is some disparity between the two examples, and rich people are going to continue chasing at least some profits no matter the tax rate, but it is only logical that any tax rate hike is going to be met with more conservative investing on the part of the wealthy. |
|
|
|
Does simulated diamond mean fake diamond?
Yes. Likely cubic zirconia. Drastically cheaper than actual diamond. Correct it means man made diamonds. They are lab created. They are only softer than diamonds in hardness. Basically a good simulated diamond, such as the ones we use in our products look like a flawless diamond to the untrained eye. Under a jeweler's lens a trained professional can easily tell the difference. Regardless the price difference is drastically cheaper. Making them a very affordable option, especially since the quality is exceptional. Simulated diamonds, such as Cubic Zirconias are appearing more and more in jewelry, even engagement rings as diamonds and gold become increasingly more expensive. They offer quality at an insanely good price. Keep the good questions coming, I am happy to help! P.S: Thank you to the people who have already placed orders with us! We are incredibly excited to be part of the growing bitcoin community! By "only softer than diamond in hardness", does that mean nothing can scratch them except diamonds? Are these the same as "synthetic diamonds", as used in special cutting blades? |
|
|
|
(link in my sig)
 Also, if you're "not that good at php", please PLEASE have someone who IS good at PHP check over the security of your site thoroughly. It sounds like you'll be storing people's coins, and a newbie coder storing people's coins is a bad idea (as evidenced by the last 500 hacks that have happened). |
|
|
|
Very nice ! I'm kinda broke these days/month, but too much of a good idea ! I want to buy 500 but :
Shipping Method
This is currently the only shipping method available to use on this order.
United Parcel Service (1 x 5lbs)
Worldwide Expedited $102.75
Canada Standard $37.81
37.81$ for shipping ? and watch out for custom fees charged upon reception of the order, often get to 50%+ of the value !
So 500 ChocoCoin for 75$ + 37.81$ + (average custom fees 30% = 22.50) = 135.31 / 500 = 0.27 each !!!
this is ridiculous !
again, I'll skip purchasing in USA, seems like USA officials dont want Canadian to buy their stuff..
I hate those customer flees, eh, sorry, custom fees ! thanks NAFTA !
Heh, isn't "free trade" just great? |
|
|
|
So you're saying the rich would rather lose 100% of their money by paying it to employees instead of losing 40% of it to taxes? What kind of logic is there in that?
No, what I am saying is that taxes should only be charged on consumption. As far as employing goes that would be consumption of a service. Well that makes even less sense. If you only had taxes on consumption, then the rich could keep 100% of a given pool of money by not hiring people, but would have to pay 140% of said pool if they hired people with it. The thing is more like: In any sort of welfare state, (that's the main argument of why to have a state in the first place), why tax the poor at all?
In that case taxes should be negative and there could be other mechanism transposing the slope, like a disability, old age, kids, doing community service (anything falling under state employment for that matter).
When it comes down to it, if you are willing to strip down unnecessary bureaucracy what are now taxes could substitute any governmental mechanism involving money.
At best the thing would be tied to consumption, not income, property, profit or something else. Of course that would require a drastic change in the money system as well, which brings us back to bitcoin...
Negative taxes lessens the need/desire for people to work. Disabled and old people, and kids, should all be taken care of by family members, relatives, friends, or charities. They shouldn't be the responsibility of the taxpayer. Why tax them? Well, if they're using services that cost money, shouldn't they pay for those services just like everyone else? I was talking about the possibility of keeping the welfare state operating, which imo is possible, and desirable. In the end a disabled person isn't paying for consumption one way or the other, except for the social-darvinistic approach where you let em die. I don't believe in the concept of charities and social support inside the family and friends only goes so far, there would still be cases where people end up with nothing. And in those cases where people end up with nothing, those people die off. What's the big deal? Regardless, we obviously have different ideas of how helping those who cannot help themselves should work, so we're not going to agree on that. So you're saying the rich would rather lose 100% of their money by paying it to employees instead of losing 40% of it to taxes? What kind of logic is there in that?
I'm saying the benefit could easily outweigh the costs. If the choice is to expand the company or to cut costs at every turn, cost-cutting becomes less and less viable as a profitable measure the higher the tax is. And the tax would probably have to be higher than 40%, that is about what it is now in the US and most of europe. The US has had taxes in the 90s for a short period, as well as in the 50s and 60s for extended periods. The scary, untenable, uncapitalistic thought is that economies run better the more evenly that wealth is distributed. It makes a pretty logical form of sense when it is the 99% that move the economy. On the contrary, people are already complaining about too many US jobs moving overseas. With the modern globalization of the world's economy at this point, do you really think it is viable and smart for the US to alienate corporations with higher tax rates? The higher the tax rates, the less incentive a company has to conduct business in the US, and it is a lot easier for a company to operate internationally based in a different country today than it was in the 50's and 60's. I still don't quite understand why hiring people would be better than saving money, even at a 90% tax rate. Surely a rich person would rather save 10% than 0%? Or are you saying that hiring people would "expand the company," resulting in greater profitability down the road? Even in that case though, it's essentially the same incentive. Right now, it is invest 100% in new employees for 65% of future profits or take 65% now, but with a 90% tax rate, it would be invest 100% in new employees for 10% of future profits or take 10% now. Where is the extra incentive to hire people if a higher tax rate is in play? |
|
|
|
The thing is more like: In any sort of welfare state, (that's the main argument of why to have a state in the first place), why tax the poor at all?
In that case taxes should be negative and there could be other mechanism transposing the slope, like a disability, old age, kids, doing community service (anything falling under state employment for that matter).
When it comes down to it, if you are willing to strip down unnecessary bureaucracy what are now taxes could substitute any governmental mechanism involving money.
At best the thing would be tied to consumption, not income, property, profit or something else. Of course that would require a drastic change in the money system as well, which brings us back to bitcoin...
Negative taxes lessens the need/desire for people to work. Disabled and old people, and kids, should all be taken care of by family members, relatives, friends, or charities. They shouldn't be the responsibility of the taxpayer. Why tax them? Well, if they're using services that cost money, shouldn't they pay for those services just like everyone else? If the rich work less because it isn't worth the money after tax, then it does penalize the poor. That is less money for the rich to loan to the poor or to pay the poor to work for them. There are consequences.
The contrary argument is: the higher the tax on the rich, the more inclined they are to reduce their tax burden by employing more people. Both are speculation, the argument I propose might seem to be backed up by the data. So you're saying the rich would rather lose 100% of their money by paying it to employees instead of losing 40% of it to taxes? What kind of logic is there in that? |
|
|
|
I don't see to much defending besides saying that it was an honest mistake.
It's obvious incompetence, not an honest mistake. That was the issue. I even disagree on that one. It's an honest mistake the first time, and when it was first pointed out. It's incompetence that they aren't properly responding and rectifying the situation by now. |
|
|
|
I'd agree to a spending freeze + percentage cuts across the board to balance the budget. This would need to be combined with some sort of fair tax... meaning a single rate which is the same for every American. I personally don't care what that rate is but we need to end the class warfare being instigated by the liberal media and start evaluating on the basis of 'an equal share' instead of being selfish and wanting more for ourself and screw everyone else who isn't me.
Personally I think the rich and the poor both suffer from this form of greed. Otherwise there wouldn't be any traction with the 'eat the rich' crowdthink being pushed by the news outlets.
95% percentage cuts across the board, 100% tax on politicians, that is, any money you "make" by being a politician goes into the coffers and is unreachable by you. That would change the face of government. Then the people there would be those who want to be there for the betterment of the nation, instead of the betterment of their wallet. M Wouldn't that be nice! Weren't congressmen originally unpaid? Seems reasonable to me... I wouldn't say it's cultural differences, but rather I suspect it's at least partly about exchange rates. The US dollar still has a lingering good perception, which props up the exchange rate over and above what would be expected from 'rational' market forces. A similar thing happens in parts of Europe where people travel across borders to work. That work may be minimum wage where they're temporarily staying, but they typically save or send money back to their family where, thanks to the exchange rate, those dollars or euros buy a lot more.
Many US people don't seem to understand (or somehow refuse to accept) that this is part of the reason why they have had such an easy life for so many decades. With endless wars and coups propping up the petro-dollar, together with "the American Dream" helping create a virtuous circle of irrational currency strength, if this situation collapses, people will have to completely re-evaluate what they thought was a fair amount of work for putting food on the table.
A fair amount of work for putting food on the table? You mean something other than a 40+ hour workweek? I certainly hope we don't come to the point where we have to work, on average, a longer week than 40 hours just to put food on the table |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
