MovieChat Forums > Brewster's Millions (1985) Discussion > The "Value" Argument(s)

The "Value" Argument(s)

posted 8 years ago by Tobey
2 replies | jump to latest

Multiple posts debate Monty getting value for his money. If the quotes page is correct (I haven't seen the movie in a while) then there are a lot of confused people.

The rules he was given says he "can hire anybody you want, but you have to get value for their services". He can give 5% to charity and gamble the same amount but he can't just give the money or objects away, "buying the Hope Diamond for some bimbo as a birthday present". He can't destroy "what is inherently valuable". The rest of the rules are about telling people, time limitations, etc..

He hires a lot of people but they all provide him a service of some kind, hence "value" for their services. Yes, he's overpaying them but for some of them, you might reasonably argue that others are compensated similarly. There are some photographers that are highly paid for their work as an example.

The biggest issue is over the stamp. You have to take into consideration the two different uses for the stamp. First, it is a collectible. It was a misprint and is rare so on the collectors market it is very valuable. Second, and more importantly, it is a postage stamp. It's meant to be used to mail something. In this case Monty paid what the stamp was worth then used it to mail the postcard. Once he put it in the mail it no longer belonged to him and since it was cancelled, it no longer had value to do it's intended purpose.

I've always wondered why he couldn't buy something very expensive, like the Hope Diamond, then turn around and sell it on the open market for next to nothing. He wouldn't be giving it away, he would be getting back what HE considered the value to be. As long as this was done as an "arms length" transaction it should be within the rules.

I'll have to watch the movie again to verify the rules but I don't have any reason to doubt the quote on imdb.

[–] cabal24 8 years ago

I've always wondered why he couldn't buy something very expensive, like the Hope Diamond, then turn around and sell it on the open market for next to nothing. He wouldn't be giving it away, he would be getting back what HE considered the value to be. As long as this was done as an "arms length" transaction it should be within the rules.

If I were the executor, Id call a foul here. Selling the Hope Diamond for next to nothing is essentially the same as giving it away.

The next argument is "but isnt he essentially giving the stamp away too?" I would argue that no it isnt. Which gets me to an issue I have mentioned on these boards before. What is the purpose of the stamp? Its definitely to mail a letter and that is allowed in my mind. Yes you could get a stamp cheaper to do the same thing but you can use something for what it was intended for. The purpose of a stamp is to mail something. The purpose of champagne is to drink it. Are you destroying its value by drinking it? No that's its intended purpose. Otherwise, that's a foul too because you could easily buy champagne for much cheaper that serves the same purpose.

The issue I COULD have with the stamp that has been brought to my attention before on here is are you buying a stamp to mail something or are you paying the USPS to ship something by buying the stamp? Because if you view it as paying to ship via a stamp, yes I would have a problem with that. Just like I would have a problem paying fedex $10,000 to ship a letter .

[–] Tobey 8 years ago

For the first comment I would argue that any items value is what someone is willing to sell it for and what someone is willing to pay for it. They go hand in hand.

Look at it the other way. If I owned the Hope diamond and someone offered me $100 million for it but I wouldn't sell does that make it's value more than $100m? If they offered me a billion for it and I would sell does that make it work more than a billion? To me, as the owner, it does, I've placed a value on it above that amount. Until I can get someone to agree to pay what I think it's worth it doesn't have the same value to them.

In Brewster's case he might spend $10 mil on the diamond. He exchanges the cash, value 10 mil, for the diamond who's owner set a value as $10 mil on. Once he owns it he can say it's worth how ever much he wants. If a buyer can be found that will pay what Brewster thinks its worth then for that transaction it would be what the diamond was worth. The key is it has to be at arms length. So I would just walk up to a stranger and ask if they wanted to buy this "think" for a buck. If they bought it then it's worth a buck to me and to them since that's what we agreed upon. Later, the buyer might find out it's worth a lot more but by then it's his property, not mine.

The stamp analogy is interesting but the difference is FedEx and other carriers are paid rates they set that vary for (almost) every package. The post office will mail a postcard anywhere in the U.S. with just a stamp. Think of it this way, if I only have a 47 cent stamp and stick it on a postcard that only requires a 34 cent stamp it will be delivered and the stamp cancelled with no more value for it's intended purpose.