PDA

View Full Version : Who got sscrewed when Manhattan sold for $24.00?



LWW
11-26-2010, 06:00 PM
Or ... don't believe everything the capitalist hating moonbat crazy left has told you over the years.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">More than a century ago, the price of Manhattan was estimated to be about $24, but based on the recent price of silver, it would be more like $100 in today’s money.

Still, it’s not surprising that we expect that somebody must have gotten ripped off—probably the Indians, considering the price. That expectation is no doubt heightened by the fact that New York City has the long-held reputation for being a place full of grifters and con artists.

Let’s look at it from the points of view of the participants. First of all, did the Dutch deliberately underpay when they paid sixty guilders worth of cloth, beads, hatchets, and other goods for the land?

Seeing what Manhattan’s become now, it’s easy to say they snookered the Indians, but at the time, Manhattan was swampy and not that promising. Furthermore, it was a place where land was plentiful, at a time when most settlers didn’t even bother to pay anything for the land they settled, so maybe it was a fair deal for the Indians.

In fact, maybe it was more than fair. Upon further inspection of the situation, the Dutch were probably sold the equivalent of the Brooklyn Bridge.

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>Some historians believe that the tribe Peter Minuit paid—the Canarsies—actually lived on Long Island and just happened to be passing through Manhattan on a trading expedition.</span> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>In which case, they sold land that they didn’t even own.</span>

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>As a result, the white guys later had to buy part of the island all over again from the tribes who actually lived there. Still, they were better off than some—the Raritan tribe sold Staten Island to various groups of settlers no less than six times.</span>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>So did the Dutch make a good investment? Taking the price they paid in 1626 and comparing it with the total value of land now, economists estimate that the original investment has earned about 5.30% annual appreciation.</span>

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>Not bad, but no great shakes. Maybe they should have put their money into Atlantic City.</span></div></div>

OH DEAR! (http://www.bigsiteofamazingfacts.com/who-got-ripped-off-when-the-dutch-bought-manhattan-from-the-indians-for-24-worth-of-trinkets)

LWW

cushioncrawler
11-26-2010, 06:55 PM
Dubb -- I aint a finance expert, but i dont like the math.
If the injuns got one bag of trinkets in 1626, then at 5% it would be 137 million bags in 2010. This sounds like a lot but it iznt.

Koz, had the injuns kept manhattan (and Peter kept the trinkets), the injuns in 2010 would hav whatever manhattan (land) woz worth -- plus rents for each of 384 years (if banked) -- plus interest on rents (if banked).

So, lets see. If the land made 5% each year in rent, and if the value of the land went up 5% each year, and if interest on rents woz 5%, then by keeping manhattan the injuns would in 2010 be worth over 6,500,000 manhattans.
Thats a lot of trinkets.
Who got skrewed.
mac.

sack316
11-26-2010, 10:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Dubb -- I aint a finance expert, but i dont like the math.
If the injuns got one bag of trinkets in 1626, then at 5% it would be 137 million bags in 2010. This sounds like a lot but it iznt.

Koz, had the injuns kept manhattan (and Peter kept the trinkets), the injuns in 2010 would hav whatever manhattan (land) woz worth -- plus rents for each of 384 years (if banked) -- plus interest on rents (if banked).

So, lets see. If the land made 5% each year in rent, and if the value of the land went up 5% each year, and if interest on rents woz 5%, then by keeping manhattan the injuns would in 2010 be worth over 6,500,000 manhattans.
Thats a lot of trinkets.
Who got skrewed.
mac. </div></div>

Or the land never gets developed, and remains valued as lowly as it once was

Sack

cushioncrawler
11-27-2010, 12:38 AM
Sack -- But even if manhattan woznt developed at all, the answer would be the same -- ie what i kalkulated -- ie 6,500,000 manhattans.
It might be 6,500,000 lowly manhattans (land only) -- or it might be 6,500,000 very valuable manhattans (land only).
The 5% and 5% and 5% figures would still apply for lowly and for valuable.
mac.

LWW
11-27-2010, 03:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Dubb -- I aint a finance expert, but i dont like the math.
If the injuns got one bag of trinkets in 1626, then at 5% it would be 137 million bags in 2010. This sounds like a lot but it iznt.

Koz, had the injuns kept manhattan (and Peter kept the trinkets), the injuns in 2010 would hav whatever manhattan (land) woz worth -- plus rents for each of 384 years (if banked) -- plus interest on rents (if banked).

So, lets see. If the land made 5% each year in rent, and if the value of the land went up 5% each year, and if interest on rents woz 5%, then by keeping manhattan the injuns would in 2010 be worth over 6,500,000 manhattans.
Thats a lot of trinkets.
Who got skrewed.
mac. </div></div>

Or the land never gets developed, and remains valued as lowly as it once was

Sack </div></div>

Or they never even owned the land they sold and it was the white devils who were robbed by the noble savages?

LWW

Qtec
11-27-2010, 04:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Or they never even owned the land they sold and it was the white devils who were robbed by the noble savages?

LWW </div></div>

If nobody owned the land, how can you buy it?

Q...the lowest post I've seen in ages.

LWW
11-27-2010, 04:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Or they never even owned the land they sold and it was the white devils who were robbed by the noble savages?

LWW </div></div>

If nobody owned the land, how can you buy it?

Q...the lowest post I've seen in ages. </div></div>

Who said nobody owned it?

As an example, I can't legally sell your car because I don't own it ... that's my argument.

Your argument amounts to the ludicrous idea that since I don't own your car then nobody owns it.

Please, at least attempt to keep up.

LWW

Qtec
11-27-2010, 04:42 AM
YOU did!

Try and keep up.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Or they <u>never even owned the land they sold </u></div></div>

Q

LWW
11-27-2010, 04:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">YOU did!

Try and keep up.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Or they <u>never even owned the land they sold </u></div></div>

Q </div></div>

So, which is it? You never read the initial post? You simply cannot comprehend what is being said to you? You are a brainwashed troll unwilling to entertain anything but the story the party approves for you?

"THEY" refers to the Canarsie indians ... "THEY" seem to have sold land that "THEY" did not in fact own.

I can lead you to knowledge Snoopy, I can't make you think.

LWW

Qtec
11-27-2010, 05:13 AM
Pack your bags Dorothy. According to you you live on land you bought but do not own!

Hit the road jack.

Q

LWW
11-27-2010, 05:38 AM
You don't even know what Manhattan is do you.

LWW

cushioncrawler
11-27-2010, 06:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You don't even know what Manhattan is do you.</div></div>A clue -- it inkloods alcohol.
mac.