Comic Genesis Forums

I guess someone told him that the newest $100 bill was inflammable.

Maybe he hates money.

Maybe a $100 bill killed his mother by burning her to death.

Stories like this make me glad that Australia's monetary bills are polymer based.

He is definately not all right in the brain, but he's not retarded either - two degrees (Engineering and Physics). He's... strange.

I guess we'll see if he's still employed later in the week.

If He's fired I'll take his job!

I'm in the market!

Cope wrote:Stories like this make me glad that Australia's monetary bills are polymer based.

One hundred dollars...that's the green one with Nellie on one side, eh? Don't see them too often...

It's just money.. i'd do something like that if i could afford it, it's probably very liberating.

helixdq wrote:It's just money.. i'd do something like that if i could afford it, it's probably very liberating.

I could probably think of quite a few less wasteful and more productive things to do with a one-hundred dollar bill I felt I had no desperate need for anymore. Why not give it to charity or something?

Same could be said about most money that is spent on entretainment or on "useless" things, wouldn't it ? It could feed 100 starving children in sub-saharian Africa or something
Are you telling me you've never done the same thing to coins, never flattened them on a railtrack, never thrown them away ? What's different except the amount ?

Sorry but this hostility/bitterness towards him really seems strange to me, i don't know if it's the fact that he is so detached from something that is so important to you, that he can see the piece of paper for what it is, or what.
I mean it's his own money, he worked for them. It might be a bit weird that he choses to spend it this way, but maybe the effect it obviously has on others is worth it 8). To me it seems like his own little "fu** you" to a money obsessed consumer society, but maybe i'm projecting a bit..

helixdq wrote:Same could be said about most money that is spent on entretainment or on "useless" things, wouldn't it ? It could feed 100 starving children in sub-saharian Africa or something
Are you telling me you've never done the same thing to coins, never flattened them on a railtrack, never thrown them away ? What's different except the amount ?

First of all, i consider entretainement not so useless, as many think: there're so many things you can learn from playing a game without even realizing it. You may argue that spending 50 bucks for a 30 secs fall of bungee jump is not worth it, but as useless as it may sound that's still an experience that can give you something.
Burning 100 bucks, could have been amusing for him, but it sounds just worthless and stupid to me, as i don't think he gained anything from it.

Then again when it comes to wasting resources (especially if for nothing), be it water (i've no idea how much i hate ppl who leave the tap open) or money, the amount matters, and a lot.
Oh yeah, it was his money and he's free to do whatever he wants with them, but i can't help to be annoyed by that.

helixdq wrote:Same could be said about most money that is spent on entretainment or on "useless" things, wouldn't it?

Quite true, but destroying money outright is inherently more wasteful than spending it on a new videogame or something similar; at least in the latter case the cash remains in circulation.

It could feed 100 starving children in sub-saharian Africa or something

As a rule of thumb, strawman hyperbole should not become a part of debates and discussions. I don't want to be responsible for a flamewar.

Are you telling me you've never done the same thing to coins, never flattened them on a railtrack, never thrown them away?

I haven't done the former (not having lived near any railways), but I might have done if I were a child. I certainly wouldn't has used anything as valuable or more so than fifty-cents, mind you (such cash flow is better spent on lollies).

However, I most likely lose five cent coins all the time. The difference here is that this gentleman's action was quite deliberate. You may quite cogently argue that my annual losses in five cent coins matches or even exceeds the value of one-hundred dollars. In this case, I would be unable to provide a decent counter-point, as I lack the relevant statistical data.

What's different except the amount?

The difference is the amount. I think the difference between a twenty cent coin and a hundred dollar bill is more significant than you give credit for (argh, stealth pun).

Sorry but this hostility/bitterness towards him really seems strange to me,

It may just be me (and I say that without a hint of sarcasm or derision), but I have failed to infer a great deal in the way of hostility/bitterness in the general reaction here. Mostly, it seems to be shock/confusion, with a fair bit of jokery mixed in. Perhaps the mood is best summed up with this emoticon: I know it expresses my feelings towards the whole affair quite well.

i don't know if it's the fact that he is so detached from something that is so important to you, that he can see the piece of paper for what it is, or what.

I disagree with what I assume your point is and say that if he sees the banknote as nothing or little more than a piece paper, he doesn't see it for what it is.

I mean it's his own money, he worked for them.

It's his own money to spend, not destroy. He didn't own the bill he burned, just the monetary value attached to it (EDIT: or at least that's what I assume using my layman's understanding of relevant laws).

By the way, is it actually a federal offence to burn money in America...?

To me it seems like his own little "fu** you" to a money obsessed consumer society, but maybe i'm projecting a bit..

To be perfectly honest, projecting is all we can do with the information we have here.

The point is, when you own a 100$ bill, you do own it's associated value, just not the materials it's made of. The value of those materials is all the government owns, and it's not much.
Burning a 100$ bill or a 1$, or even destroying a coin is probably very close in terms of actual material waste, monetary value and materials value haven't been correlated since they ceased using precious metals coins centuries ago - so don't make this a matter of ecology, because it's not.
The only thing being wasted is that guy's work. I see this no different then someone here having a tortured artist episode and burning his (seemingly good to others and sellable on Ebay for ca$h 8) ) drawings. Is it stupid ? No, if they have no value to him, they're just worth the paper they're drawn on.

Okay. I found it a funny story. A little wasteful, but amusing all the same. Maybe we're just too laid back Down Here to take offense at a cheap, personal stunt for his boss...

helixdq wrote:The point is, when you own a 100$ bill, you do own it's associated value, just not the materials it's made of.

I maintain that one's ownership of said value does not give one the right to destroy it.

I see this no different then someone here having a tortured artist episode and burning his (seemingly good to others and sellable on Ebay for ca$h 8) ) drawings. Is it stupid ? No, if they have no value to him, they're just worth the paper they're drawn on.

I don't feel this analogy entirely fits, as the difference between art and a banknote is the difference between subjective value and legally objective value. Then again, tortured artists aren't particularly famed for being rational in their actions, so perhaps this situation is indeed analogous.

Anyway, I think I can officially say I've already been overthinking this.

Yeah. Overthinking is not a national character trait, eh?

Dutch! wrote:Yeah. Overthinking is not a national character trait, eh?

Now, what do you actually mean by overthinking? Do you mean in excess of quantity, or do you mean extending the grasp of the subject? Or literally over the subject in a proximal sense? And national... as in, the nation-state, or the language/cultural group... and if so, which cultural group? And what implications are you making by ascribing a trait to a cultural group? What evidence do you use to support it? In fact, how did you come to your terms? In fact, let's define the term "terms". Do you mean the outright literal definition according to Webster or some other established lexicon, or do you mean the gathered connotations of the thing? And when you say, "eh", are you implying a simple vocal pause? Or is this indicative of an interrogatory lift in your voice to emphasize the question? Or were you choking on a bit of tea biscuit? And do you actually take "tea", and if so, do you actually have biscuits with your tea? How do you take your tea? Is it black leaf? Green leaf? A blend? Do you take cream? Soy milk? Are you aware of the gastro-intestinal implications of mixing dairy products with tea? Are you aware of the impact of dairy creamer on the body? Do you know about the steroids that go into cow's milk...

*bang*

*dies*

He's here today, but much chastized. I suspect he was warned not about burning a valuable dollar bill, but about lighting a fire in an office building and then walking out half way through his shift.

But, I could be wrong.

as I'm approaching the end of the school year, and thus it has been about a year since I earned any money, I have only about $100 in my bank account. thus I really cannot understand why anyone would do anything like this. a starving college student could use that money for valuable vending machine snacks. especially vending machine coffee. such is the amazing time we live in friends, vending machines dispense hot coffee! even cappacinno! mind you it is often in the wrong sized cup and spills over the side and then you burn your hands and the paper cup is all soggy so it spills everywhere and there's never lids, but still, vending machines dispense hot coffee! but sometimes they don't. sometimes they just dispense the other ingriedients, and a tired student, ignorant of this, takes a sip and is like BLAG WHAT IS THIS?! LUKE WARM MILK AND SUG-zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Burning 100$ is not liberating.

Owning 100$ is liberating.

The way I've always understood it, the American national Treasury tries to keep tabs pn how much money is in circulation so that it can be adjusted for inflation/deflation and hopefully keep things in check. Damaged money is supposed to be taken to banks, where it can be recorded, destroyed, and replaced with new bills.

If people went around destroying money all the time, then the government totals would be seriously off-balance. $100 dollars isn't a big problem, but if ten people burned 100 dollar bills . . . if fifty burned them . . . etc.

Yes, there is a federal law about destroying money. It came up one day in Chemistry class when we were dying pennied colors. But as far as I know, there is no reasonable way to enforce it, and no one's going to hunt you down over it. Mostly it's to hammer the point home.