MovieChat Forums > Brewster's Millions (1985) Discussion > There is a split on this board - & it po...

There is a split on this board - & it points up a very basic &fatal flaw

posted 9 years ago by jgroub
13 replies | jump to latest

People keep asking, "Why couldn't he just hire 30 security guards at $1 million a month each?" And the answer is "Because he wouldn't be getting value for what he spent."

And then people ask, "How could he spend $1.25 million on a rare stamp and then use it?" And the answer is, "Well, that is the purpose that the stamp is intended for."

It can't be both ways. He is not getting value at spending $1.25 million on a stamp and then using it. If that's value, then so is paying the 30 security guards $1 million a month.

I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

[–] jscott1000 9 years ago

It's a subtle point with the stamp, but the getting value part is intended to mean you have to buy or rent items at the fair market value. You can't buy a newspaper for a million dollars because that's not what they cost. That would be considered giving the money away. Same with security guards. If the most expensive ones in the world are $50,000 a month you can't pay them $1Million.

But the stamp is different because he paid fair market value for the stamp and he received the full value of the stamp in it's intended purpose. He could have done the same with any depreciating asset. He could have bought $30 million in engagement diamonds rings and they would have instantly been worth about $3 million the instant he tried to sell them on Craig's list because no one wants a used engagement ring.

If they remake this they will have to add a clause that whatever he buys or rents has to be legal. Otherwise he could spend it in about a day on hookers and blow.

By the way $30 Million in 1985 dollars is $66 Million in 2016 dollars. If they remake this they will probably round up the spend money to $100 Million and the payoff as $1 Billion.

[–] jgroub 9 years ago

Since, according to you, there is nothing that says that in order to use a stamp at face value, that he has to buy a stamp at face value, then in that case, he can hire Ronda Rousey, Dwayne Johnson, and Vin Diesel as bodyguards for 10 million a month - because that's what they're worth.

You cannot have it both ways.

I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

[–] hifijohn 9 years ago

a minor flaw in the movie--things are worth what people want to pay for it, if some artist spills paint on a canvas and some art collector loves it and wants to pay $1M for it then its worth $1M. if I think you did a great job shining my shoes and i want to pay $1M for it then I should and that shoe shine is worth $1M.

[–] jgroub 9 years ago

Well, that would make it ridiculously easy to spend the 30 million, then. On the other hand, you could pay Bill Gates 1 million to shine your shoes, and that might be getting good value.

I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

[–] cabal24 9 years ago

If I were the executor of the will, I would disqualify that as not getting value. You can't possibly justify a $30 million shoe shine to me.

[–] nazcarfanatic24 9 years ago

When you mail a letter it becomes property of the USPS meaning the stamp was no longer an asset

[–] cabal24 9 years ago

It can't be both ways. He is not getting value at spending $1.25 million on a stamp and then using it. If that's value, then so is paying the 30 security guards $1 million a month.

To me, if I were executor of the will, Id allow the stamp because stamps were made to mail letters. Champagne was made to drink. Services are not the same IMO. You are getting essentially the same service but paying an overly excessive amount for it. JMO.

[–] jgroub 9 years ago

That's all the Post Office does - it provides the service of delivering your mail for a fee. Therefore, by your own definition, he has vastly overpaid for the service of having his postcard delivered.

No different than hiring The Rock, Vin Diesel, and Ronda Rousey as your bodyguards for $10 million each. It's just a service.

They're either both in, or they're both out.

I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

[–] cabal24 9 years ago

That's all the Post Office does - it provides the service of delivering your mail for a fee. Therefore, by your own definition, he has vastly overpaid for the service of having his postcard delivered.

If I were shipping something I would agree. You are paying directly for the service there.

But you are buying a stamp. And stamps were made to mail letters. Is a stamp the same as paying the post office for a service? You may have a point there but I'm not sold on that yet.

For me, the stamp is the same as the champagne. You are supposed to drink champagne. Are you destroying the value of champagne buy drinking the good stuff?

[–] jgroub 9 years ago

I think you have a better point with the champagne - or whatever expensive consumable you care to name. You can buy Cristal - or whatever it's called - for $1000 a bottle and drink it. You can go to a restaurant and run up a $10,000 tab - or more.

You can't do that to get to $1 million a day, for 30 days. You can't party that hard. But you can throw parties for people and get that far. That would certainly be one way to do it.

I think the easiest way, as has been suggested on these boards, is just to buy TV air time. That's just the fastest way to blow through the money.

I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

[–] avortac4 (3751) a year ago

"Champagne was made to drink. "

Are you saying Champagne is some kind of robot?

No, it was not made TO DRINK, it was made 'TO BE DRANK'.

There's a difference between drinking and being drank. 'To Drink' means they're drinking. Humans and animals are able to drink, champagne isn't able to drink.

[–] Tobey 9 years ago

If the quotes section is correct the value requirement only applied to people he hired, not physical items. He wasn't allowed to destroy anything valuable, burn a dozen Picasso's, or just give the money or expensive items away.

He paid what the stamp was worth then used it for its original intended purpose. Once he dropped the postcard in the mail it was no longer his.

While the amounts he paid people was high you could probably find examples of real people making that kind of money.

[–] cvsandstuff 9 years ago

try factoring in intrinsic value and replacement cost.

value for money must mean that the cost has to approximate the replacement cost of the same thing or service. to some degree.