Printable View
I was just looking at the Louisiana state quarter, and boy oh boy is that one big ass piece of land! If things stayed the same I would be living in some French supporting slum like New Olreans. Man I would hate that. I wonder why more countrys just don't buy land this big, I bet america could buy Canada. Who am I kiding, Canada is America. Except for Quebec, thats part of the country know as Crap.
Best was Manhattan. What was that? Like 26 Bucks?
Make that 23.70
1626 The Dutch buy Manhattan from the Indians - Peter Minuit, sent by the Dutch West India Company, purchased Manhattan Island for sixty guilders (the equivalent of $23.70) from the Canarsie Indians. The land, however, was actually owned by the Wappingers who never contested the deal between Minuit and the Canarsies. Therefore, Manhattan, an area now worth over $60 billion, belonged to the Dutch. The original town, named New Amsterdam, had a population of 270, and was complete with forts, homes, farms and government buildings on the tip of Lower Manhattan.
Louisianna was a better deal, I think, considering the amount of land we got. Napoleon must have kicked himself in the balls for that one. :p
Actually, it's not that great of an investment...it's impressive, but it's not anything earth shaking.Quote:
Originally posted by mattvanstone
Best was Manhattan. What was that? Like 26 Bucks?
Make that 23.70
1626 The Dutch buy Manhattan from the Indians - Peter Minuit, sent by the Dutch West India Company, purchased Manhattan Island for sixty guilders (the equivalent of $23.70) from the Canarsie Indians... Therefore, Manhattan, an area now worth over $60 billion, belonged to the Dutch.
If you could invest $24 in an account that produced about 6% compound interest a year, you'd have over $60 billion in your account - as long as you were willing to wait 366 years. So, really, the initial Manhattan investment ($24) has just been making 6% every year for a long, long, long time...6% isn't a bad interest rate, but, like, it's not going to turn you into Warren Buffet anytime soon.
The future value of a dollar is a scary thing...if we can somehow increase lifespans considerably (200, 300 years), then it'll be really easy for anyone to become unbelievably rich pretty quickly.
I love this sort of stuff...learning about future values, annuities, things like that. $10,000,000 I think would be enough to give you about $500k a year pre-tax for the rest of your life (sans taxes) - not that unapproachable, right, and, say, $1 million in cash would probably be enough to produce $50k a year (4% annuity), and $50k is easily livable.
Does that consider the value of a dollar back in the 1700s, compared to the value of a dollar now after much inflation?Quote:
Originally posted by Stone
If you could invest $24 in an account that produced about 6% compound interest a year, you'd have over $60 billion in your account - as long as you were willing to wait 366 years.
Nah, we would have just taken it eventually. He's lucky he got anything for it.Quote:
Originally posted by Melf
Louisianna was a better deal, I think, considering the amount of land we got. Napoleon must have kicked himself in the balls for that one. :p
When you're accruing interest, the bank doesn't give you extra money if the value of a dollar increases or decreases...Quote:
Originally posted by Rich
Does that consider the value of a dollar back in the 1700s, compared to the value of a dollar now after much inflation?
ha.. fucking history books..
American Imperlist action.. always covered by some bullshit purchashe.. to hid the truth.. of will fucking kill the rest of you savages if you dont give in...
Heheh, wah, wah, wah Maruchan.
With inflation factored in, it cost them about $400 (of 2002 money) to pay whomever that $25. Even with an initial investment, $60 billion is a hell of a lot of money when you're only looking at a 6% return.
Yeah...but then the world's population would skyrocket, and resources would become much more scarce, and thus costly.Quote:
Originally posted by Stone
The future value of a dollar is a scary thing...if we can somehow increase lifespans considerably (200, 300 years), then it'll be really easy for anyone to become unbelievably rich pretty quickly.
---
Anyway, isn't the land we acquired from the Purchase now the Midwest?
Can we still get our money back?
Are you sure? Id imagine itd be a bit more than that. If you go to the Bureau of Labor Statistics page (here) and use the inflation calculator... $25 in 1913 (the first year the calcular is shown) comes to about $454 today. Id imagine that $25 back in 16-whatever is more like $2000 today.Quote:
Originally posted by Stone
Heheh, wah, wah, wah Maruchan.
With inflation factored in, it cost them about $400 (of 2002 money) to pay whomever that $25. Even with an initial investment, $60 billion is a hell of a lot of money when you're only looking at a 6% return.
Napoleon sold Louisiana because he needed the money. We've all been there eh? The money was far more important to him because France/Europe were a lot more imporant than some empty land. To be quite honest, at that time no-one really considered it that big of a deal and it was not for a really long time after that that North America actually became "important" on the world stage.Quote:
Originally posted by Clash_Master
I was just looking at the Louisiana state quarter, and boy oh boy is that one big ass piece of land! If things stayed the same I would be living in some French supporting slum like New Olreans. Man I would hate that. I wonder why more countrys just don't buy land this big, I bet america could buy Canada. Who am I kiding, Canada is America. Except for Quebec, thats part of the country know as Crap.
As for why more countries don't buy big pieces of land.. well, the answer is obvious. People live there now and would not let it happen. Canadians would not let themselves be bought by the US, most already hate they US... and plus they have health care, proportional representation, freedom to travel abroad without being laughed at, and other benefits which would be lost. Also, the US would not want to add a massive amount of socialists to it's voting pool either. What would the benefit be? Cheaper softwood lumber and maple syrup? A chance to win the Gold Medal in Olympic Hockey? :p Who exactly would they buy Canada from anyway? The Queen? :p
But... actually... if the US wants Toronto the rest of Canada will be glad to get rid of it... maybe in excange for putting the Colorado Avalanche and Phoenix Coyotes back where they belong. Deal? :p
Anyway, seriously... even if countries like the US, Russia, Canada, or whoever wanted to buy and sell big pieces of land like that they could not do it because of the citizens. The only thing you might see happen is if parts of countries sold inside the country to form new "countries", such as native/ethic group claims in Canada and Russia. That's not the same thing though...
You can't get rid of us that easily!Quote:
Originally posted by sggg
But... actually... if the US wants Toronto the rest of Canada will be glad to get rid of it... maybe in excange for putting the Colorado Avalanche and Phoenix Coyotes back where they belong. Deal? :p
I was using This Inflation Table. I don't know if it's a good one or not, just picked it up off of the web (inflation factor is listed as 0.049 for 1665). Using that comes up with a number around $480 (dunno why I wrote $400). Still, strange, dunno how to reconcile that figure and the Bureau of Labor Statistics' figure - doesn't make sense.Quote:
Originally posted by diffusionx
Are you sure? Id imagine itd be a bit more than that. If you go to the Bureau of Labor Statistics page (here) and use the inflation calculator... $25 in 1913 (the first year the calcular is shown) comes to about $454 today. Id imagine that $25 back in 16-whatever is more like $2000 today.
Well maybe if you Canucks would go to your Pro hockey teams other then Vancaouver Montreal and Toronto. Hell Edmonton is struggling, so is Calgary. And Ottawa filed for bankruptcy! In a few years all you have left is Canucks, Canadians, and the Maple Leafs. But then again maybe all of the players should not request American Dollers for their salary in Canada thus making them even more expensive for the Canadian team owners. Its your national sport after all.Quote:
Originally posted by sggg
maybe in excange for putting the Colorado Avalanche and Phoenix Coyotes back where they belong.
Who are you going to invest back in the 1600's?? ;)
The Québec Nordiques played to over 95% capacity for their entire 15 year NHL history. The old Colorado Rockies never even averaged 10k a game. The reason that the NHL is half-dead in Canada is the same reason it's half-dead in Atlanta, Anaheim, Nashville, Carolina, Boston, Chicago, New Jersey, and almost everwhere else. Even the Canucks were dead in the water 3 years ago. The Habs have no attendance problems but they can't make money and afford the top players. The mid/small market teams can't make money. The tickets cost too much money. The league is being run by a giant short-sighted arseface named Gary Bettman. Simply point. The problem is not that Canadians (or Americans in 75% of American markets) don't like hockey. The problem is the NHL is fucked up and being run by a greedy halfwit.Quote:
Originally posted by Clash_Master
Well maybe if you Canucks would go to your Pro hockey teams other then Vancaouver Montreal and Toronto. Hell Edmonton is struggling, so is Calgary. And Ottawa filed for bankruptcy! In a few years all you have left is Canucks, Canadians, and the Maple Leafs. But then again maybe all of the players should not request American Dollers for their salary in Canada thus making them even more expensive for the Canadian team owners. Its your national sport after all.
^ Majorly OT. :p