Wow. $7,500,000 in 1912 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $237,174,742.27 today, an increase of $229,674,742.27 over 112 years. https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1912?amount=7500000
Oh, my! I'd never realised there were websites designed directly to track inflation. Thanks, Louanne! It's too bad this don't go before 1750. I would love to know what an ancient Greek obol or a few Roman sestertii are equal to nowadays. Something I learned (not necessarily today): before companies put warning signs, there actually were people who tried to iron clothes while wearing them, take a suppository internally, and fly because they were wearing a Superman cape. (And one person tried operating a chainsaw near his own eyes and genitals, because there was no warning label that told him not to). How none of these people won a Darwin Award, I don't know.
Today i learned that the Pechanga tribe is one of the most wealthy tribes in North America. And that they own and operate Great Oak Press.
I gotta admit, I read that skeptically, and googled. It should read 45 billion attempts https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/jpmorgan-sees-hacking-attempts-on-systems-double-to-45-billion-per-day-1.2023031
TIL.... that you can look up whether or not a trademark had expired/has been cancelled (USPTO.report). (I want to "date" my story without actually stating the decade it takes place in. so i found an appliance manufacturer of that decade that is no longer around and wanted to know if the brand name is still owned.... *spoiler alert* its not!)
Yes, but it's easier to court risk when you have the capital to begin with. If you're wealthy, and you risk and lose, you lose a lesser percentage of your initial capital than if you were poor. Speaking of which, it reminds me of an anecdote I read the other day: F. Scott Fitzgerald remarked to Hemingway that the rich "are different, they are not as we are." "No," replied Hemingway, unimpressed. "They have more money."
Yes, true. But then, it's easy to be daring when you're rich, and not risking all you have on the stock exchange. If you're poor, and you take all you have and go to the stock exchange, that's real daring.
The average ticket price for Sunday's NFL game between Detroit and Tampa Bay is $1186.00, the highest-ever ticket price for an NFL divisional game. Price-gouging scum.
Legit. I haven't seen scalper prices yet. I know it's only a football game, but Lions fans have been loyal for over 30 years while the team wallowed in mediocrity, buying the tickets and the $6 hot dogs and $12 beers and wearing the jerseys of players traded away in return for little or nothing, and now when their loyalty should be rewarded, the team decides to gouge them instead. Take your spouse and kid to the game you've been waiting for all this time? Hand over $3500. It's bullshit.
Devil's advocate: it's just free market capitalism. They're charging that much because they know they'll sell them all at that price and maximize profits. It's as American as gridiron football.
im surprised it’s that high , I’d expect a bigger proportion to be owned by hedge funds and other corporate entities… unless of course those bodies are being counted into the 10% not just individuals
Agreed, but there's nothing in capitalism that requires business entities to gouge their loyal customers to maximize profits, especially since the Lions (and most other sports teams) don't have shareholders to answer to.
I suppose we can differentiate between what is required and what is allowed. Capitalism requires private property, private control of the means of production, and competition. This allows accumulation of capital, wealth inequality, crony capitalism - and price gouging.
All true, but capitalism doesn't demand those things (I won't belabor the point by listing the positive aspects of capitalism, like making modern civilization possible or by pointing out that if you want to see real income inequity, take a look at the Communist Soviet Union). My point in all this is that the Detroit Lions ownership could have forgone the extra profits as a gift to their long-suffering fans.
The alternative for something finite but in high demand is some form of lottery. Otherwise first-come means you'll basically never get in the venue, or you'll have to resort to paying scalpers who do invest in being the first customer. I guess that's what people would prefer? I think Swift concerts do that.
My daughter went to a Taylor Swift concert with a friend last year. They had a blast, said she puts on a fine show, but I wouldn't pay that kind of money for a concert if it included Gordon Lightfoot back from the dead and in his thirty-year-old singing mode. Well, okay. Maybe I'd pay that much for him back from the dead to sing, but no one else.
