Free market, bitches! Suck it you socialist faggots!
Free market means exactly that - if the vendors do something despicable the customers stop doing business with them and choose other vendors who won't do similarly despicable things to them.
Of course, it works both ways. Customers can do the same and their recourse is to not deal with them in the future.
So a state-run monopoly is somehow different than a fascist (state+corporate) monopoly? If so, I invite you to try to tell the difference between Spain and Cuba, circa 1970.
No, competition is the only way markets work. Without it, money finds its way into the hands of the most connected, whether it is in the name of shareholder return or "the people".
And your point relative to a coop is? They provide a service by pooling resources where providers won't provide service because the cost outweighs the profits; so the alternative is no service.
Again: a lot of stocks are illiquid. Penny stocks are both illiquid and not as regulated, but not unregulated. And trading coffee beans? If the boat shows up at the docks, you need to come get your coffee; when do the bitcoins show up?
Bitcoins show up in your wallet and , like coffee beans, are stuck with them until you find a buyer. They are highly speculative because they are illiquid and volatile. Stocks, as most people commonly think of them and trade in them are a liquid investment and not as volatile as bit coins and as a result allow you to diversify a portfolio while remaining in the market. Bitcoins are fine if you want to assume the risk of getting stuck with them or trade in small enough amounts that you can readily cash out, but they have along way to go before they become a cryptoPayPal.
An interesting side effect of their lack of liquidity is the different prices across exchanges. If they were easily converted to cash arbitragers would equalize prices across exchanges to eliminate the "free money" by buying at X-1 at exchange A and selling at X on B.
The first suit was in 1978, long before Apple did anything related to music. It was completely about the name. The second suit was in 1986 when added MIDI and audio-recording capabilities, and the third was in 1991 for adding the chime sound to the OS - not exactly getting into the music business.
True. The first was a simple "Hey, your name is real close to ours and we're not sure if you in an area we may be in" suit and resolved by both parties agreeing not to encroach on the other's turf. If you don't protect your trademark you can lose rights to it. If Apple Corp doesn't want hundreds of Apple XYZ in various businesses to the point Apple no longer becomes a recognizable name that means music. When Apple started moving towards delivering content Appel Corp took offense and sued because Appel violated earlier agreements. I should have been clearer on time lines but the post I referred to specifically called into play the breach of contract issue.
It's worth noting that Apple Records has sued Apple Computers several times over their trademark (or alleged breach of contract related to settlements of previous trademark suits).
Correct, once it became clear Apple Computer was moving into music and thus infringing on Apple Records since people could confuse the two and their offerings.
Yes, very specific uses. Windows, Apple, etc. But, this isn't specific - games and clothing. I have a hard time trusting King (or any other business) when they say, "Oh, we trademarked the word in a really generic fashion, but don't worry, we only enforce in specific instances."
Yes, but Apple and Windows are used in specific product categories and thus trademarkable. You probably couldn't trademark the use of Windows for cleaning products since there is a logical connection and thus you can't trademark it for that product category. That said, I would be very perry of "we won't do this..." claims because times and owners change.
The issue isn't that Hasbro should have already trademarked "candy", it's that "candy" shouldn't be able to be trademarked at all. It's a common freakin' word and should be able to be used in game titles and clothing w/o licensing.
Burning copycat apps who are ripping off your game is a different issue, but this shouldn't be the solution.
Actually, a common word can be trademarked for specific uses - Apple, for example. It's arbitrary and fanciful; i.e. has no logical connection to computers. A similar argument could be, and no doubt was, made with respect to Candy. Here is the question for trademark lawyers - if someone used Candy in a game prior to it being trademarked would they have a right to continue using it based on common use? Also, is candy a common enough term in games air clothing that it isn't arbitrary and fanciful? I would guess the trademark owner will avoid challenging well established (read: can afford very good lawyers and long trials and appeals) companies using "Candy" in a name to avoid having their trademark revoked. If they aren't challenged in 5 years doesn't the trademark become incontestable?
If its a co-op, why don't the people complaining about the prices get all the people who are part of the co-op (and are therefore the legal owners of the ISP) to call on the ISP to not charge so much.
They can, but if the coop can't recover its costs then it will have to stop providing service and the owners will likely lose internet access. Given that most would be in the 5GB range anyway it's likely they really aren't too worried about the costs.
if there were competitors, and not just vendors screaming free market when they adjust prices but then hold up monopoly contracts with the city/state when a community tries to come together and go their own way.
Except in this case the ISP is a coop so they are the "community tries to come together and go their own way." They are owned by their members, who are the people they serve.
Clicking the link to the provider shows that they provide Cable TV Service as well. This makes it not difficult to figure out what they are trying to do. I wonder how long until one of the other providers comes in and helps them close their doors forever.
They are a cooperative; which means they are owned by their subscribers. Coops arose as a way to provide service to rural areas were the large investor owned utilities would not provide service since the costs would outweigh the revenue. The government subsidized the costs to run the lines in order to ensure essentially universal serve. They cover costs and pay out execs funds over reserves in the form of dividends. As a cooperative, all the members get to vote on policies.
Over time, some coops have grown quite large and no longer are in rural areas by any stretch of the definition; and have expanded into a lot of ancillary business as well. In some cases the cable companies have fought them and kept them from becoming ISPs since they would be a formidable competitor. In this coops case they appear to still be in a rural area where the chance of a competitor coming in and laying fiber is slim since they could not beat the coop's price; my guess is a satellite ISP may be the only alternative.
Can this stupid Ponzi scheme just crash and burn NOW so we stop seeing all the Slashvertisment for it?
Fuck Bitcoin.
Fuck "cryptocurrency" in general.
It's a damn pipe dream (something for nothing), and we'll all be better off when people wise the fuck up.
While I generally agree with your sentiments porn could solve one of bit coins serious shortcomings, illiquidity. If enough people buy Bitcoins that will introduce enough real currency into the system that it becomes a viable way to conduct payments.
It doesn't address the volatility issue, however; which really causes issues for both sides of the transaction but especially the content provider. Exchanges would need to convert at whatever the daily rate was when the purchases were made. exchanges could time their buy sell to get more per Bitcoin when the purchaser turns currency into Bitcoin and pay the provider when Bitcoin is higher in value; essentially getting extra Bitcoins to conduct the transaction. This is different then simply have a buy / sell price and doing the transaction instantaneously since the exchange could manipulate the timing to their advantage.
The volatility also means the exchange would have to decide do they want to assume the risk that they will wind up with a lot of withdrawals at a higher price then they paid and thus risk running out of funds if enough buy orders don't exist to cover withdrawals? If that happens and they freeze withdrawals they will cease to be a viable transaction mechanism as companies cannot afford to have freezes on cash flows.
The OP said "Switch bitcoin with stocks" and your argument was like "It's not stocks". Well if you tried to dump $28 million of some stocks in some big companies--Build-a-Bear Workshop a prime example--you'd find that this will take over a year to pull off. The volume just isn't there.
It's not like stocks. Sure, there are some low valuation thinly traded companies on the major exchanges that a few million dollars exceed limits; but for the most part and for most trades that is never an issue. Bitcoin, as a commodity, is more likebuying a million dollars of coffee beans than buying options on a million dollars worth.
Same problem: BTC volume may or may not be there. It may be there, but not big enough to prevent a price crash. Some stocks--Berkshire-Halthaway--are so big that dumping a few million bucks at once is just common practice.
And that is why Bitcoin isn't like stock - it's illiquid, thinly traded, volatile and unregulated. As a speculative play it may be of interest but don't confuse it with a stock.
The hard part isn't building a smart thermostat. The hard part is building relationships will all those energy providers.
True. The real growth is not in home owners, most of whom will never replace a thermostat, let alone spend $250 for one or more replacements. The market is the installers and manufacturers to include it with a unit or as an add on sale. My AC guy gives away a $200 (retail) thermostat if you buy a multi-year service plan so it's not a stretch to see them offer a Nest unit.
You seem to be missing the important word - "debts". The phrase is "legal tender for all debts".
If you walk into a convenience store and offer to buy a case of beer for $1 in currency, they can decide not to sell to you.
If you've already consumed a beer at a bar and you owe them $1, paying US currency (legal tender) absolves that debt.
They can't claim you didn't pay your bill if you hand them legal tender. They CAN say "no credit cards for purchases under $10"
because credit cards aren't legal tender.
You might say "but they don't have to accept a $100 bill to pay a $1 tab, do they? What if they don't have change?"
They aren't required to have change on hand. They ARE required to accept US currency to pay an existing tab.
So you can (legally) insist that they take your $100 to pay the $1 tab - you just can't insist on getting any change back.
In addition to debts, 5103 specifies that all taxes and government charges can be paid in US currency.
Finally, it says that foreign currency is NOT legal tender in the US - I can choose to trade you a watermelon for 500 Jamaican dollars,
but if you owe me $500, I don't HAVE to accept Jamaican dollars as payment. As the treasury site notes, I also
don't HAVE to sell you the watermelon in exchange for US cash. The law only forces me to accept cash for a DEBT,
for the case where you've already eaten the watermelon and now you need to pay for it.
Interesting but incorrect. Cash is a legal offer for payment but there is no requirement that anyone accept the offer. the can simply say "No CASH" and if you try to pay in it refuse it. Merely being legal tender does not require acceptance, as the Treasury rightfully points out. Most people do, but there is no law saying they must accept cash.
You're ignoring not only the key word in "legal tender for all debts", but also the key sentence is the very paragraph that you quoted.
As you yourself quoted, legal tender is for "payment for debts when tendered to a creditor". Debts.. creditor. You don't have to sell
me your car, not for credit, not for cash. If you already sold me your car and I still owe you $200 on it, THEN you have to accept cash.
Once I hand you $200 cash, I've paid and you can't add on late charges saying I didn't pay because you don't accept cash. For DEBTS,
you have to - a payment in cash is a payment of the debt.
I think you are failing to understand the part that says "There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services." Sure it is a legal offer but there is no legal requirement that I accept your offer of cash. think - offer - acceptance; they are two different things.
Bitcoin is another speculative market. Don't tell me it's "not a stock" because it's not GOOG; it is similar to trading stocks enough to point out stocks, or commodities, or whathaveyou, that are exactly like trading BTC.
Yes, Bitcoin is a speculative market; I've said that all along. It is also very volatile, thinly traded and not very liquid. Comparing the Bitcoin market to the NASDAQ or NYSE ignores the reality of the differences.
Getting a PE license is dependent on working on a firm that still employees a PE. As a PE is expensive, this is becoming increasingly difficult to find. Companies will fire high salaried individuals. Yet another complication is that you have to stay employed at one firm long enough to get the time required to qualify. Frequent job switches (which always happen in engineering) make the goal of getting a PE still more elusive. At one SW firm, I had eight bosses in five years. I have not done the math, but the requirement of having a PE boss/supervisor may have declined to the point where getting a PE is not sustainable.
My point was not that PE's are rare today but rather if a PE was required to work as an engineer in any capacity then it would be harder to export jobs and tend to limit competition and drive up salaries.
Actual law is a horrible example because there has been a bubble of lawyers now and it's kept starting legal salaries actually fairly low.
yes, law is not a good example know but I was think more of in a historical context with regard to licensure as a way to limit competition; though I suspect the situation would be far worse if anyone could practice law without a license.
False. They're roughly the same (BTC is more of a commodity). Try selling 28 million dollars in BBW.
Hardly. Bitcoin is a thinly traded and not very liquid commodity. Sure, if you try to sell 20% of a company's stock you'll trigger trading brakes. However, most trades never reach that level and are executed quickly. In fact, there are market makers who help ensure liquidity in the stock market. Bitcoins lack that liquidity; and are as you say a commodity and a very speculative and volatile one at that. if you want to compare them to stocks they're probably close to a pink sheet penny stock than anything else. There is no way to ensure you can liquidate your holdings at a time of your choice. In fact, the US government could slowly dispose of their coins and probably have a large impact on others ability to do the same as exchanges try to come up with cash to cover buying Bitcoin. I would not be surpassed if some exchanges would simply stop buying or drop the bid price so low that sales stop.
In the situation mentioned by the OP - you've eaten at a restaurant - the money you owe the restaurant is a debt. By not making you pay in advance they've given you credit. My reading of that statement is that they must accept any legal tender you choose to offer to pay off that debt. So if you want to give them a $20 they can take it or dissolve the debt.
On the other hand, if they didn't want to take the $20 and you offered it in advance, they could refuse to serve you.
Unless a state law requires it it seems pretty clear that there is no Federal law requiring any private business accept US currency for payment. The OP claims they are required to accept cash id offered but that is not the case. Again, I would assume in absence of a specific statement by the business they don't accept it they would be hard pressed to prove you didn't intend to pay if they refused it. As the treasury.gov site notes many companies refuse to accept some types of currency and that is perfectly legal.
The government sells their surplus office chairs.
Office chairs aren't tender.
The government sells radio channels.
Radio channels aren't tender.
The government sells bitcoins.
Bitcoins aren't tender.
Legal tender is whatever type of payment you are REQUIRED to accept.
If you eat at a restaurant and when the bill comes you try to pay with a check, they can say "we don't accept checks." If you refused to pay with anything other than a check, they could call the police or sue you for the $12. They can also say "we don't accept credit cards.". They HAVE to accept cash. If they refused your cash and then tried to sue you, the judge would laugh and tell them to read the $20 bill. It says right on the bill "this note is legal tender for all debts, both public and private.". That means you can't refuse cash and then claim that someone didn't pay. THAT is legal tender.
Actually, they are not required to accept cash in payment either. They could say "We only accept Visa cards." I would guess if they didn't put a restriction on accepting cash so that you knew prior to paying then a judge might say they have to accept it since the presumption would be they accept cash since sit is legal tender and most places do; but that is different than saying the are required to accept it.
Cite from treasury.gov:
Legal Tender Status
I thought that United States currency was legal tender for all debts. Some businesses or governmental agencies say that they will only accept checks, money orders or credit cards as payment, and others will only accept currency notes in denominations of $20 or smaller. Isn't this illegal?
The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."
This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy
I can exchange BTC for my local currency and then go about my business, but that's about it.
Overstock.com, Amazon, CVS, Target, Victoria's Secret, Zappos, the list keeps growing.
Of course most of these stores actually use a payment processor that immediately converts the bitcoins to USD for them, but if more and more stores start accepting it, at some point the currency may become so practical that such conversions will no longer need to be made. If a company does business with another company that accepts bitcoin, they may as well take bitcoin from their clients and then use those bitcoins to pay their suppliers. Transaction fees are much lower than those for credit cards, you don't even need any middle men.
So what you are saying is Bitcoin is like any other speculative investment. After all, Amazon takes penny stocks as well. Of course, I have to sell them through a broker who wires Amazon money.
OK, switch gold with Google stocks. Or savings bonds. They're not pretty and don't serve any pupose other than being tradable with cash, and nobody accepts them for payment in lieu of cash.
Except those are liquid investments. I can sell Google stock without worrying about wether or not there will be a buyer; and pretty much without any limits unless you have a really large amount of stock so your sale exceeds the notification threshold. Want to sell 28 million in stock? No problem. 28 million in BTC? Problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Free market, bitches! Suck it you socialist faggots!
Free market means exactly that - if the vendors do something despicable the customers stop doing business with them and choose other vendors who won't do similarly despicable things to them.
Of course, it works both ways. Customers can do the same and their recourse is to not deal with them in the future.
So a state-run monopoly is somehow different than a fascist (state+corporate) monopoly? If so, I invite you to try to tell the difference between Spain and Cuba, circa 1970. No, competition is the only way markets work. Without it, money finds its way into the hands of the most connected, whether it is in the name of shareholder return or "the people".
And your point relative to a coop is? They provide a service by pooling resources where providers won't provide service because the cost outweighs the profits; so the alternative is no service.
Again: a lot of stocks are illiquid. Penny stocks are both illiquid and not as regulated, but not unregulated. And trading coffee beans? If the boat shows up at the docks, you need to come get your coffee; when do the bitcoins show up?
Bitcoins show up in your wallet and , like coffee beans, are stuck with them until you find a buyer. They are highly speculative because they are illiquid and volatile. Stocks, as most people commonly think of them and trade in them are a liquid investment and not as volatile as bit coins and as a result allow you to diversify a portfolio while remaining in the market. Bitcoins are fine if you want to assume the risk of getting stuck with them or trade in small enough amounts that you can readily cash out, but they have along way to go before they become a cryptoPayPal.
An interesting side effect of their lack of liquidity is the different prices across exchanges. If they were easily converted to cash arbitragers would equalize prices across exchanges to eliminate the "free money" by buying at X-1 at exchange A and selling at X on B.
The first suit was in 1978, long before Apple did anything related to music. It was completely about the name. The second suit was in 1986 when added MIDI and audio-recording capabilities, and the third was in 1991 for adding the chime sound to the OS - not exactly getting into the music business.
True. The first was a simple "Hey, your name is real close to ours and we're not sure if you in an area we may be in" suit and resolved by both parties agreeing not to encroach on the other's turf. If you don't protect your trademark you can lose rights to it. If Apple Corp doesn't want hundreds of Apple XYZ in various businesses to the point Apple no longer becomes a recognizable name that means music. When Apple started moving towards delivering content Appel Corp took offense and sued because Appel violated earlier agreements. I should have been clearer on time lines but the post I referred to specifically called into play the breach of contract issue.
It's worth noting that Apple Records has sued Apple Computers several times over their trademark (or alleged breach of contract related to settlements of previous trademark suits).
Correct, once it became clear Apple Computer was moving into music and thus infringing on Apple Records since people could confuse the two and their offerings.
Yes, very specific uses. Windows, Apple, etc. But, this isn't specific - games and clothing. I have a hard time trusting King (or any other business) when they say, "Oh, we trademarked the word in a really generic fashion, but don't worry, we only enforce in specific instances."
Yes, but Apple and Windows are used in specific product categories and thus trademarkable. You probably couldn't trademark the use of Windows for cleaning products since there is a logical connection and thus you can't trademark it for that product category. That said, I would be very perry of "we won't do this..." claims because times and owners change.
The issue isn't that Hasbro should have already trademarked "candy", it's that "candy" shouldn't be able to be trademarked at all. It's a common freakin' word and should be able to be used in game titles and clothing w/o licensing.
Burning copycat apps who are ripping off your game is a different issue, but this shouldn't be the solution.
Actually, a common word can be trademarked for specific uses - Apple, for example. It's arbitrary and fanciful; i.e. has no logical connection to computers. A similar argument could be, and no doubt was, made with respect to Candy. Here is the question for trademark lawyers - if someone used Candy in a game prior to it being trademarked would they have a right to continue using it based on common use? Also, is candy a common enough term in games air clothing that it isn't arbitrary and fanciful? I would guess the trademark owner will avoid challenging well established (read: can afford very good lawyers and long trials and appeals) companies using "Candy" in a name to avoid having their trademark revoked. If they aren't challenged in 5 years doesn't the trademark become incontestable?
I agree with all points, but wow. Number 3 really got away from you.
yes. Speal cheekers sum times make a mess of a send trance.
and asked questions of that ilk, there were several reasons:
1. You might get asked an oddball question at a client and I'd like to see how you respond.
2. I wanted to see if you pass the airplane test; i.e. would I mind sitting next to you for 8 hours on a plane ride.
3. I've mad dup my mmd on wether or not recommend hiring you and still have 5 or 10 minutes of interview time to kill
There are no right or wrong answers. It is interesting to see how people respond.
If its a co-op, why don't the people complaining about the prices get all the people who are part of the co-op (and are therefore the legal owners of the ISP) to call on the ISP to not charge so much.
They can, but if the coop can't recover its costs then it will have to stop providing service and the owners will likely lose internet access. Given that most would be in the 5GB range anyway it's likely they really aren't too worried about the costs.
if there were competitors, and not just vendors screaming free market when they adjust prices but then hold up monopoly contracts with the city/state when a community tries to come together and go their own way.
Except in this case the ISP is a coop so they are the "community tries to come together and go their own way." They are owned by their members, who are the people they serve.
Clicking the link to the provider shows that they provide Cable TV Service as well. This makes it not difficult to figure out what they are trying to do. I wonder how long until one of the other providers comes in and helps them close their doors forever.
They are a cooperative; which means they are owned by their subscribers. Coops arose as a way to provide service to rural areas were the large investor owned utilities would not provide service since the costs would outweigh the revenue. The government subsidized the costs to run the lines in order to ensure essentially universal serve. They cover costs and pay out execs funds over reserves in the form of dividends. As a cooperative, all the members get to vote on policies.
Over time, some coops have grown quite large and no longer are in rural areas by any stretch of the definition; and have expanded into a lot of ancillary business as well. In some cases the cable companies have fought them and kept them from becoming ISPs since they would be a formidable competitor. In this coops case they appear to still be in a rural area where the chance of a competitor coming in and laying fiber is slim since they could not beat the coop's price; my guess is a satellite ISP may be the only alternative.
Can this stupid Ponzi scheme just crash and burn NOW so we stop seeing all the Slashvertisment for it?
Fuck Bitcoin. Fuck "cryptocurrency" in general.
It's a damn pipe dream (something for nothing), and we'll all be better off when people wise the fuck up.
While I generally agree with your sentiments porn could solve one of bit coins serious shortcomings, illiquidity. If enough people buy Bitcoins that will introduce enough real currency into the system that it becomes a viable way to conduct payments.
It doesn't address the volatility issue, however; which really causes issues for both sides of the transaction but especially the content provider. Exchanges would need to convert at whatever the daily rate was when the purchases were made. exchanges could time their buy sell to get more per Bitcoin when the purchaser turns currency into Bitcoin and pay the provider when Bitcoin is higher in value; essentially getting extra Bitcoins to conduct the transaction. This is different then simply have a buy / sell price and doing the transaction instantaneously since the exchange could manipulate the timing to their advantage.
The volatility also means the exchange would have to decide do they want to assume the risk that they will wind up with a lot of withdrawals at a higher price then they paid and thus risk running out of funds if enough buy orders don't exist to cover withdrawals? If that happens and they freeze withdrawals they will cease to be a viable transaction mechanism as companies cannot afford to have freezes on cash flows.
The OP said "Switch bitcoin with stocks" and your argument was like "It's not stocks". Well if you tried to dump $28 million of some stocks in some big companies--Build-a-Bear Workshop a prime example--you'd find that this will take over a year to pull off. The volume just isn't there.
It's not like stocks. Sure, there are some low valuation thinly traded companies on the major exchanges that a few million dollars exceed limits; but for the most part and for most trades that is never an issue. Bitcoin, as a commodity, is more likebuying a million dollars of coffee beans than buying options on a million dollars worth.
Same problem: BTC volume may or may not be there. It may be there, but not big enough to prevent a price crash. Some stocks--Berkshire-Halthaway--are so big that dumping a few million bucks at once is just common practice.
And that is why Bitcoin isn't like stock - it's illiquid, thinly traded, volatile and unregulated. As a speculative play it may be of interest but don't confuse it with a stock.
The hard part isn't building a smart thermostat. The hard part is building relationships will all those energy providers.
True. The real growth is not in home owners, most of whom will never replace a thermostat, let alone spend $250 for one or more replacements. The market is the installers and manufacturers to include it with a unit or as an add on sale. My AC guy gives away a $200 (retail) thermostat if you buy a multi-year service plan so it's not a stretch to see them offer a Nest unit.
You seem to be missing the important word - "debts". The phrase is "legal tender for all debts". If you walk into a convenience store and offer to buy a case of beer for $1 in currency, they can decide not to sell to you.
If you've already consumed a beer at a bar and you owe them $1, paying US currency (legal tender) absolves that debt. They can't claim you didn't pay your bill if you hand them legal tender. They CAN say "no credit cards for purchases under $10" because credit cards aren't legal tender.
You might say "but they don't have to accept a $100 bill to pay a $1 tab, do they? What if they don't have change?" They aren't required to have change on hand. They ARE required to accept US currency to pay an existing tab. So you can (legally) insist that they take your $100 to pay the $1 tab - you just can't insist on getting any change back.
In addition to debts, 5103 specifies that all taxes and government charges can be paid in US currency. Finally, it says that foreign currency is NOT legal tender in the US - I can choose to trade you a watermelon for 500 Jamaican dollars, but if you owe me $500, I don't HAVE to accept Jamaican dollars as payment. As the treasury site notes, I also don't HAVE to sell you the watermelon in exchange for US cash. The law only forces me to accept cash for a DEBT, for the case where you've already eaten the watermelon and now you need to pay for it.
Interesting but incorrect. Cash is a legal offer for payment but there is no requirement that anyone accept the offer. the can simply say "No CASH" and if you try to pay in it refuse it. Merely being legal tender does not require acceptance, as the Treasury rightfully points out. Most people do, but there is no law saying they must accept cash.
You're ignoring not only the key word in "legal tender for all debts", but also the key sentence is the very paragraph that you quoted. As you yourself quoted, legal tender is for "payment for debts when tendered to a creditor". Debts .. creditor. You don't have to sell
me your car, not for credit, not for cash. If you already sold me your car and I still owe you $200 on it, THEN you have to accept cash.
Once I hand you $200 cash, I've paid and you can't add on late charges saying I didn't pay because you don't accept cash. For DEBTS,
you have to - a payment in cash is a payment of the debt.
I think you are failing to understand the part that says "There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services." Sure it is a legal offer but there is no legal requirement that I accept your offer of cash. think - offer - acceptance; they are two different things.
Bitcoin is another speculative market. Don't tell me it's "not a stock" because it's not GOOG; it is similar to trading stocks enough to point out stocks, or commodities, or whathaveyou, that are exactly like trading BTC.
Yes, Bitcoin is a speculative market; I've said that all along. It is also very volatile, thinly traded and not very liquid. Comparing the Bitcoin market to the NASDAQ or NYSE ignores the reality of the differences.
Getting a PE license is dependent on working on a firm that still employees a PE. As a PE is expensive, this is becoming increasingly difficult to find. Companies will fire high salaried individuals. Yet another complication is that you have to stay employed at one firm long enough to get the time required to qualify. Frequent job switches (which always happen in engineering) make the goal of getting a PE still more elusive. At one SW firm, I had eight bosses in five years. I have not done the math, but the requirement of having a PE boss/supervisor may have declined to the point where getting a PE is not sustainable.
My point was not that PE's are rare today but rather if a PE was required to work as an engineer in any capacity then it would be harder to export jobs and tend to limit competition and drive up salaries.
Actual law is a horrible example because there has been a bubble of lawyers now and it's kept starting legal salaries actually fairly low.
yes, law is not a good example know but I was think more of in a historical context with regard to licensure as a way to limit competition; though I suspect the situation would be far worse if anyone could practice law without a license.
False. They're roughly the same (BTC is more of a commodity). Try selling 28 million dollars in BBW.
Hardly. Bitcoin is a thinly traded and not very liquid commodity. Sure, if you try to sell 20% of a company's stock you'll trigger trading brakes. However, most trades never reach that level and are executed quickly. In fact, there are market makers who help ensure liquidity in the stock market. Bitcoins lack that liquidity; and are as you say a commodity and a very speculative and volatile one at that. if you want to compare them to stocks they're probably close to a pink sheet penny stock than anything else. There is no way to ensure you can liquidate your holdings at a time of your choice. In fact, the US government could slowly dispose of their coins and probably have a large impact on others ability to do the same as exchanges try to come up with cash to cover buying Bitcoin. I would not be surpassed if some exchanges would simply stop buying or drop the bid price so low that sales stop.
In the situation mentioned by the OP - you've eaten at a restaurant - the money you owe the restaurant is a debt. By not making you pay in advance they've given you credit. My reading of that statement is that they must accept any legal tender you choose to offer to pay off that debt. So if you want to give them a $20 they can take it or dissolve the debt.
On the other hand, if they didn't want to take the $20 and you offered it in advance, they could refuse to serve you.
Unless a state law requires it it seems pretty clear that there is no Federal law requiring any private business accept US currency for payment. The OP claims they are required to accept cash id offered but that is not the case. Again, I would assume in absence of a specific statement by the business they don't accept it they would be hard pressed to prove you didn't intend to pay if they refused it. As the treasury.gov site notes many companies refuse to accept some types of currency and that is perfectly legal.
The government sells their surplus office chairs. Office chairs aren't tender.
The government sells radio channels. Radio channels aren't tender.
The government sells bitcoins. Bitcoins aren't tender.
Legal tender is whatever type of payment you are REQUIRED to accept. If you eat at a restaurant and when the bill comes you try to pay with a check, they can say "we don't accept checks." If you refused to pay with anything other than a check, they could call the police or sue you for the $12. They can also say "we don't accept credit cards.". They HAVE to accept cash. If they refused your cash and then tried to sue you, the judge would laugh and tell them to read the $20 bill. It says right on the bill "this note is legal tender for all debts, both public and private.". That means you can't refuse cash and then claim that someone didn't pay. THAT is legal tender.
Actually, they are not required to accept cash in payment either. They could say "We only accept Visa cards." I would guess if they didn't put a restriction on accepting cash so that you knew prior to paying then a judge might say they have to accept it since the presumption would be they accept cash since sit is legal tender and most places do; but that is different than saying the are required to accept it.
Cite from treasury.gov:
Legal Tender Status
I thought that United States currency was legal tender for all debts. Some businesses or governmental agencies say that they will only accept checks, money orders or credit cards as payment, and others will only accept currency notes in denominations of $20 or smaller. Isn't this illegal?
The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."
This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy
Right now, I can't buy groceries with BTC.
Wrong. Whole Foods accepts bitcoin.
I can't take a friend out for lunch and pay with BTC.
Wrong again
I can exchange BTC for my local currency and then go about my business, but that's about it.
Overstock.com, Amazon, CVS, Target, Victoria's Secret, Zappos, the list keeps growing.
Of course most of these stores actually use a payment processor that immediately converts the bitcoins to USD for them, but if more and more stores start accepting it, at some point the currency may become so practical that such conversions will no longer need to be made. If a company does business with another company that accepts bitcoin, they may as well take bitcoin from their clients and then use those bitcoins to pay their suppliers. Transaction fees are much lower than those for credit cards, you don't even need any middle men.
So what you are saying is Bitcoin is like any other speculative investment. After all, Amazon takes penny stocks as well. Of course, I have to sell them through a broker who wires Amazon money.
OK, switch gold with Google stocks. Or savings bonds. They're not pretty and don't serve any pupose other than being tradable with cash, and nobody accepts them for payment in lieu of cash.
Except those are liquid investments. I can sell Google stock without worrying about wether or not there will be a buyer; and pretty much without any limits unless you have a really large amount of stock so your sale exceeds the notification threshold. Want to sell 28 million in stock? No problem. 28 million in BTC? Problem.