Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : Littlefield Corporation (LTFD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Market Tracker who wrote (6904)	1/28/1998 2:39:00 PM
From: T.K. Allen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10368

I haven't seen this ancient law nor do I know anything about how the case was argued but I wonder if the $50 figure refers to today's dollars or 1712 dollars. Come to think of it, who's law is this anyway. The United States nor the State of South Carolina was even in existence at that time. There certainly weren't any US dollars around yet. But I digress... If the $50 is in 1712 money then by todays standards you have a very different amount. Consider 50 1712 dollars and the following average inflation rates over 286 years (calculated as a simple annual interest rate): At 5% inflation: 50 1712 dollars would now be worth $54,691,550.94. At 4% inflation: 50 1712 dollars would now be worth $ 3,576,610.97. At 3% inflation: 50 1712 dollars would now be worth $ 227,813.28. At 2% inflation: 50 1712 dollars would now be worth $ 14,125.99. Do you suppose any of the plaintiffs lost anywhere near any of these amounts in a single sitting? I wonder what the numbers would be working backward using 50 1997 dollars and calculating the amount of gambling loss in 1712 which would be covered under this law. That number has GOT to be vanishingly small. TKA