3 ms·

50 $1s for $86 - thats highway robbery

by anonu 2y ago

lupire 2y ago
Wait till you find out what paintings cost and what paint coats.
rybosworld 2y ago
There was a time when the mint would sell coins and bills at face value. The problem is, people started using that for manufactured spending to rack up credit card points. They added a premium to prevent this.
- valarauko 2y ago
  That seems reasonable, but why would the US Mint care about manufactured spend for credit card companies?
  - scintill76 2y ago
    I believe in some cases there was no premium at all, not even shipping, so widespread manufactured spending was losing the Mint much more money than they were prepared for when they started the program.
    - valarauko 2y ago
      I don't follow. Why would Manufactured Spend specifically cost the Mint money? It's not great for the credit card company, sure, but why the Mint? If the Mint was previously eating the interchange fees & shipping, ok, but that's not a manufactured spend specific issue.
      - scintill76 2y ago
        I agree it's not specific to MS. But MS was probably inducing much more demand and thereby making them eat more fees than they planned to. (I don't have any inside information though.) Adding a premium would make it a little less attractive to MSers.
  - rybosworld 2y ago
    It's not free for the Mint. Also, credit card companies aggressively shut down manufactured spending when they notice it.
    - valarauko 2y ago
      > credit card companies aggressively shut down manufactured spending when they notice it. I'm familiar with the concept of manufactured spend, and why credit card companies would try to clamp down on it. What I don't get is why the US Mint would care one way or the other for the concerns of credit card companies. The usual way to eliminate manufactured spend would be to add a credit card specific transaction fee that cancels out the spend points. By the Mint increasing the base price for everybody, this affects even people who might be paying with a debit card, or an ACH transaction (not sure if they're options, just positing).
      - kube-system 2y ago
        > The usual way to eliminate manufactured spend would be to add a credit card specific transaction fee that cancels out the spend points. Before 2013, this likely would have violated their credit card processing agreement. And also, it would be illegal in some states.
        valarauko 2y ago
        That seems ... odd. I can pay my apartment rent with a debit card with a fixed transaction fee (eg, $999.99 and up to $1,999.99 the service fee is $4.95), while covering it with a credit card has a different fee structure of a flat 2.95%. This is with Rent Cafe in NYC, and from what I can tell, it's a very widespread platform across the country. The 2.95% fee specific to credit cards will wipe out the points earned for a credit card under almost all circumstances.
        kube-system 2y ago
        Platforms like RentCafe are highly configurable to support local laws, because the nature of landlord/tenant law is that it is highly variable by state. Going though that same effort is a waste of time and implementation budget for something like selling novelty bills.
  - hakfoo 2y ago
    Two reasons: The specific US version was an attempt to bootstrap acceptance of the $1 coin-- if you could get a box of 500 shipped to your door, you'd spend them and eventually they'd displace $1 notes. When they went straight back to the bank, no circulation occurred, and they were burning merchant fees and shipping costs for nothing. Some other countries used "selling coins at face value" as an explicit financial hack based on seignorage (the value of a coin in excess of its buillion content). Canada used to sell commemorative $20 (and then on to $50, 100, and possibly $200) coins with modest silver content based on this model. If someone pays $20 for $10 worth of silver, the government profits $10-- as long as the coin disappears into a collector's binder and never enters circulation. So it worked fine as long as collectors bought them. When people bought them to generate card points, and immediately took them to the bank to exchange for more conventional currency, the plan fell apart, and Canada abandoned the programme. The UK flavour had a particularly ugly endgame-- the mint basically told banks not to accept them as deposits (https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-3390519/I-buy-Royal-Mint-commemorative-coins-bulk-credit-card-gain-airmiles-cash-bank-s-refusing-accept-them.html https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-3390519/I-b...) which did nothing positive for the programme's long-term survival. It's a shame these programmes were sabotaged and died. The idea of "instead of stuffing a banknote or gift card in an envelope, I can give you a pretty collectible and feel confident that if one day you need the money bad enough, you can still spend it" was a nice idea while it lasted.
aaronharnly 2y ago
I calculated the "cost per dollar" of all of the offerings on the website at the moment. The best "deal" is the most expensive – $100 x 16 for $1,860, at $1.16 per dollar. The worst deal is the cheapest – $1 x 5 for $18.50, at $3.70 per dollar. Sheet here - corrections welcome: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Nb_WLW_WxOYSUS12fslf6-ZTMv3Q6MAN3XSCV8ZHHZk/edit?gid=0#gid=0 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Nb_WLW_WxOYSUS12fslf...
kube-system 2y ago
72% markup is quite reasonable for a novelty product. I worked in a small specialty store as a kid and our standard markup was 100%.

50 $1s for $86 - thats highway robbery

by anonu 2y ago

50 $1s for $86 - thats highway robbery

lupire 2y ago

Wait till you find out what paintings cost and what paint coats.

rybosworld 2y ago

There was a time when the mint would sell coins and bills at face value. The problem is, people started using that for manufactured spending to rack up credit card points. They added a premium to prevent this.

valarauko 2y ago
That seems reasonable, but why would the US Mint care about manufactured spend for credit card companies?
- scintill76 2y ago
  I believe in some cases there was no premium at all, not even shipping, so widespread manufactured spending was losing the Mint much more money than they were prepared for when they started the program.
  - valarauko 2y ago
    I don't follow. Why would Manufactured Spend specifically cost the Mint money? It's not great for the credit card company, sure, but why the Mint? If the Mint was previously eating the interchange fees & shipping, ok, but that's not a manufactured spend specific issue.
    - scintill76 2y ago
      I agree it's not specific to MS. But MS was probably inducing much more demand and thereby making them eat more fees than they planned to. (I don't have any inside information though.) Adding a premium would make it a little less attractive to MSers.
- rybosworld 2y ago
  It's not free for the Mint. Also, credit card companies aggressively shut down manufactured spending when they notice it.
  - valarauko 2y ago
    > credit card companies aggressively shut down manufactured spending when they notice it. I'm familiar with the concept of manufactured spend, and why credit card companies would try to clamp down on it. What I don't get is why the US Mint would care one way or the other for the concerns of credit card companies. The usual way to eliminate manufactured spend would be to add a credit card specific transaction fee that cancels out the spend points. By the Mint increasing the base price for everybody, this affects even people who might be paying with a debit card, or an ACH transaction (not sure if they're options, just positing).
    - kube-system 2y ago
      > The usual way to eliminate manufactured spend would be to add a credit card specific transaction fee that cancels out the spend points. Before 2013, this likely would have violated their credit card processing agreement. And also, it would be illegal in some states.
      - valarauko 2y ago
        That seems ... odd. I can pay my apartment rent with a debit card with a fixed transaction fee (eg, $999.99 and up to $1,999.99 the service fee is $4.95), while covering it with a credit card has a different fee structure of a flat 2.95%. This is with Rent Cafe in NYC, and from what I can tell, it's a very widespread platform across the country. The 2.95% fee specific to credit cards will wipe out the points earned for a credit card under almost all circumstances.
        kube-system 2y ago
        Platforms like RentCafe are highly configurable to support local laws, because the nature of landlord/tenant law is that it is highly variable by state. Going though that same effort is a waste of time and implementation budget for something like selling novelty bills.
- hakfoo 2y ago
  Two reasons: The specific US version was an attempt to bootstrap acceptance of the $1 coin-- if you could get a box of 500 shipped to your door, you'd spend them and eventually they'd displace $1 notes. When they went straight back to the bank, no circulation occurred, and they were burning merchant fees and shipping costs for nothing. Some other countries used "selling coins at face value" as an explicit financial hack based on seignorage (the value of a coin in excess of its buillion content). Canada used to sell commemorative $20 (and then on to $50, 100, and possibly $200) coins with modest silver content based on this model. If someone pays $20 for $10 worth of silver, the government profits $10-- as long as the coin disappears into a collector's binder and never enters circulation. So it worked fine as long as collectors bought them. When people bought them to generate card points, and immediately took them to the bank to exchange for more conventional currency, the plan fell apart, and Canada abandoned the programme. The UK flavour had a particularly ugly endgame-- the mint basically told banks not to accept them as deposits (https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-3390519/I-buy-Royal-Mint-commemorative-coins-bulk-credit-card-gain-airmiles-cash-bank-s-refusing-accept-them.html https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-3390519/I-b...) which did nothing positive for the programme's long-term survival. It's a shame these programmes were sabotaged and died. The idea of "instead of stuffing a banknote or gift card in an envelope, I can give you a pretty collectible and feel confident that if one day you need the money bad enough, you can still spend it" was a nice idea while it lasted.

aaronharnly 2y ago

I calculated the "cost per dollar" of all of the offerings on the website at the moment. The best "deal" is the most expensive – $100 x 16 for $1,860, at $1.16 per dollar. The worst deal is the cheapest – $1 x 5 for $18.50, at $3.70 per dollar. Sheet here - corrections welcome: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Nb_WLW_WxOYSUS12fslf6-ZTMv3Q6MAN3XSCV8ZHHZk/edit?gid=0#gid=0 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Nb_WLW_WxOYSUS12fslf...

kube-system 2y ago

72% markup is quite reasonable for a novelty product. I worked in a small specialty store as a kid and our standard markup was 100%.