Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="gboulton, post: 1285494, member: 27043"]Several responses. 1) Because you simply aren't saving anyone that much time or effort.  Your description above suggests the bills are bleached then printed.  Fine.  One can not begin to believe those processes are done by hand, clearly the bills are run through some sort of printer.  it simply doesn't take that much longer to do 2, 5, or 10, than it does to do 1. I suppose there might be some time in the chemical treatment...I don't know the first thing about such a process, so I'll just go with common sense there.  Of course, common sense also suggests that whatever sprayer, dip bath, tank, bucket, bowl, etc is used to do that sort of thing could exist in multiples.  In other words, they probably have another bowl of bleach. 2) Ok, fine..let's presume response #1 is complete bunk.  By making, say, a $500 bill, you've cut counterfeiters time to 20% of what it was.  ZOMG!  By that reasoning, the existence of $100 bills does the same thing.  Why don't we get rid of them, and limit everyone to $20's? Of course, $20's cut it in half.  We really shouldn't have anything bigger than a $10! It's an unsustainable argument, which gets silly in both directions.  You simply can't justify...or invalidate...the existence of one denomination or another, because every one of them makes life easier for 2 groups of people...counterfeiters AND legitimate consumers/businessmen. 3) Because none of this changes the fact that methods exist to detect counterfeit currency, and it isn't the government's job to babysit every merchant who chooses to use or not use them. You guys yourselves have suggested that the bill is an obvious counterfeit when held up to the light.  The treasury has educated people at great length on the use of various detection techniques, including holding the bill up to the light and checking the watermark. If a merchant hires people who are unable to make that determination (like me, apparently), or is unwilling to train them to do so, or adopts policies that prevent the opportunity to do so, then no amount of "denomination management" is going to help.  That merchant has not assembled a staff capable of preventing theft...he's going to get robbed blind if you limit the world to Lincoln Cents. 4) There are, as many of you have pointed out, considerably fewer places that would transact business at denominations that large.  (80% fewer, one would initially presume)  That being the case, the amount of stolen money should, logically, remain relatively consistent. That is to say, if we double the amount that can be stolen by printing a $200 bill, we've also halved the number of places that trade at those levels.  Half of 2 being 1, and all, the total amount of counterfeit currency in circulation remains relatively constant. 5) This is probably the most important.  You're making the mistake of presuming static technology.  You're presuming that because current bills can be counterfeited by Method X, all future bills must also be similarly counterfeitable.  Clearly, this is not the case, thus any argument that presumes it is as a basis is fundamentally flawed from the beginning. ============== So let's see... It likely doesn't significantly impact the ease of counterfeiting, even if it did that's a bi-directional unsustainable argument, ignorance or apathy on the part of merchants isn't denomination dependent, circulating counterfeit M2 doesn't change significantly, and your thesis suffers from a baseless presumption. Anything else?[/QUOTE]

Log in or Sign up

Reply to Thread

Useful Searches