Forum
- Home
- Forum
Notifications
Clear all
General Discussion
15
Posts
11
Users
0
Reactions
1,211
Views
Topic starter
Who are the wealthiest 400 Americans and how did they get to their wealth? Most importantely how do you think sould a WN state deal with them and their wealth?
“A nine-figure fortune won’t get you much mention these days”
Forbes publishes list of 400 richest Americans
By Tom Mackaman
16 October 2006
For the first time in the history of its compilation, the Forbes magazine list of the 400 richest Americans includes only individuals who hold a net worth estimated at over one billion dollars.
That personal wealth valued at one billion dollars has become rather humdrum in the US stands testament to the staggering accumulation of riches in the hands of the few. As Forbes itself put it, “a nine-figure fortune won’t get you much mention these days, at least not here.”
The total combined wealth of the 400 richest Americans now stands at $1.25 trillion. This figure has expanded by $120 billion in only one year.
The figure $1.25 trillion is practically unfathomable. But to give some indication of its magnitude, consider that if it were divvied up among the entire US population of 300 million, every man, woman and child could be cut checks of well over $4,000. Or contemplate that the net worth of the 400 wealthiest Americans now far surpasses the value of the entire Canadian economy, as measured by GDP, and is nearly twice the GDP of Australia. Perhaps most strikingly, the personal wealth of the Forbes 400 now stands at over 10 percent of the total American GDP.
Where is all this money coming from? For each individual, Forbes specifies a “source” for their enormous wealth. Analysis demonstrates that although the US is generating obscene levels of personal wealth, few of the oligarchs owe their fortune to productive sectors of the economy.
In the entire Forbes 400 list, only 19 members are to be found in the category of “manufacturing.” The richest of these—Eli Broad, who with $5.8 billion is number 42 on the list—in fact earned his fortune in real estate development and life insurance. Eight in the category are inheritors of fortunes that were first built up decades earlier or even in the nineteenth century. One specialized in the manufacture of “leisure craft.” Another, H. Ty Warner—at $4.5 billion number 52 on the list—manufactured the “Beanie Baby” toy. Two, Mitchell and Steven Rales—worth $2.6 billion and $2.5 billion, respectively—are in fact industrial raiders responsible for buying up and closing down factories. Their original fortune, inherited from their father, was in real estate.
Seven billionaires are located in Forbes’ “agricultural” category, but six of these seven are members of the MacMillan family—inheritors of the Cargill agricultural processing empire, which dates to the nineteenth century. Only two billionaires’ fortunes are derived from the “transportation” and “distribution” categories, and only one is to be found under “mining/lumber”—and this individual made his fortune in overseas mineral exploration.
Meanwhile, 52 billionaires fall in the category of “finance,” and 46 more owe their financial empires to “investments.” Among the latter group is America’s second wealthiest man, Warren Buffett, whose net worth is estimated at $46 billion. Thirty-three oligarchs acquired their wealth from real estate, one of the most rapid growing categories according to Forbes. “Entertainment” has also made 33 Americans billionaires.
“Retailing” accounts for 19, 8 of whom have collectively gained more than $80 billion in wealth from Wal-Mart—including five members of one family, the Waltons. The vague “service” group includes 42 billionaire members who have profited from such shady-sounding ventures as “outsourcing” and “lawsuits.” Five are to be found in the “gambling/leisure” category, among them America’s third wealthiest man, Stephen Adelson, whose casino-derived wealth is valued at $20.5 billion.
Only four individuals make the list for “Software”—a group that includes, however, 4 of the richest 15 individuals. They are Bill Gates (who with $53 billion from Microsoft remains the world’s richest man), Larry Ellison ($19.5 billion, Oracle) Paul Allen ($16 billion, Microsoft), Steven Ballmer ($13.6 billion, Microsoft).
Thirty-four individuals owe their billions to “technology” according to Forbes. Sergey Brin and Larry Page each have over $14 billion for the development of Google. Pierre Omidyar is valued at $7.7 billion for his ownership of E-Bay. David Filo of Yahoo! stands further down, at $2.5 billion. These moguls of the computer world either made their fortunes in the Clinton years during the wild overcapitalization of the “dot com” bubble, or through the monopolization of computer technology and services, or both.
Thirty billionaires have acquired their wealth from “oil/gas.” These oligarchs, 16 of whom reside in Texas, play a powerful role behind the Bush administration. In the first years of Bush’s administration, representatives of the major oil companies essentially authored US energy policy through Vice President Dick Cheney’s so-called Energy Task Force. Among the topics oil executives discussed, well prior to the US invasion of Iraq, was their Russian and French rivals’ interests in Iraqi oil production. (See: Did Big Oil participate in planning invasion of Iraq?) “Surging” oil prices, according to Forbes, have paved the way for a number of the barons of Big Oil to enter the Forbes 400 for the first time.
In short, the Forbes 400 list paints a portrait not only of staggering wealth, but of wealth derived from financial wheeling and dealing, rampant speculation, highly overcapitalized computer ventures, and oil. This stands in stark contrast to the promethean period of American capitalism, when despite their brutality, the “robber barons” and industrialists of old—such as Vanderbilt, Carnegie, Rockefeller, Edison, Wagoner, Ford, and so on—were associated with the building up of the real productive capacity of the nation as a whole through the construction of industrial empires.
Yet it is no paradox that the US should create more and more billionaires even as industrial production declines precipitously, the balance of payments deficit and federal government indebtedness set new records, and the symptoms of looming economic crises are everywhere to be seen. The ruling elite’s ravenous appetite for wealth is itself a manifestation of the long-term decline of American capitalism.
The Forbes 400 wealthiest Americans have gained their money precisely through this decline—the chopping up and selling off of industry, rampant stock market, real estate, and monetary speculation, and more broadly through the class-war governmental policies carried out by both the Democrats and Republicans against the working masses.
The stratospheric moneymaking among the billionaires has its flip-side in the gutting of industry, the looting and bankrupting of government programs, and the impoverishment of the middles and lower classes. Just as the assets of the oligarchy mushroom, so the working masses sink further into debt. In 2005, the savings rate for American consumers spent the entire year in the red—that is, the total of all American consumer spending surpassed saving—for the first time since 1932 and 1933, the very trough of the Great Depression.
The Forbes 400 list was published for the first time in 1982 in the second year of the Reagan administration, and at the beginning of what has turned out to be a two-and-one-half decade long orgy of wealth accumulation. The differences between the 1982 and 2006 lists are therefore worth considering.
The wealthiest individual in 1982, shipbuilding tycoon Daniel Ludwig, had personal wealth estimated at $2 billion, which adjusted for inflation would be valued at just over $4 billion today. That would not even place the late Mr. Ludwig in today’s top 60 richest Americans. While in 2006 being a billionaire is prerequisite to appearing on the Forbes 400, in 1982, there were “only” 12 billionaires. And while 10 of those 12 would scarcely have made today’s list—having had wealth valued at $1 billion or just above—the list in 1982 actually included numerous members with $100 million or less.
Some individuals who have appeared on both lists have seen their fortunes skyrocket. Kirk Kekorian was worth $133 million in 1982. Today, he is worth $9 billion—a nearly 70-fold increase in wealth derived from “investments/casinos”. Among his new “investments” is General Motors, which he is threatening to demolish. Warren Buffett has seen his wealth increase by nearly 200-fold since 1982, when he was worth as estimated $250 million.
Disappearing from today’s list, but prominent in 1982, are a number of family names indelibly associated with the period with the earlier period of American capitalism: Ford, Du Pont, Whitney, Duke, and Harriman, to name a few. Also missing are fortunes associated with the production of particular commodities, such as “bakeries,” “oranges,” “liquor,” “grain,” “wines,” “Ford Motor Co.,” and “timber.”
In first publishing its list in 1982, Forbes—a magazine that seeks to articulate the interests of the wealthy elite—lamented that many of its subjects did not cooperate with the rich-list investigation. “During the Age of the Moguls,” the magazine wrote in 1982, “roughly from the Civil War to the Great Depression, the very rich came out of the closet and visibly enjoyed their wealth. But now, by and large, they have gone underground with it.” To Forbes, the wealthy elite feared being exposed from “political paranoia ... by politicians hunting more tax dollars to spend,” a problem peculiar to the previous “40 years of such malign myth-making.” In other words, Forbes hoped to turn the clock back to before the period of social reform associated with the New Deal and the Great Society, to an age when obscene wealth could be flaunted and workers were exploited to the hilt.
Needless to say, no such climate of fear exists today. Today’s super-rich—who have generated wealth far beyond what could have been imagined in 1982—proudly flaunt their riches for all to see. (See “The very rich in America: ‘The kind of money you cannot comprehend’”)
And far from billionaires hiding from tax-hunting politicians, the Democrats vie with Republicans over who can cut taxes the most, “hold the line on spending,” and create the most “business-friendly environment.” They likewise faithfully execute the foreign policy diktats of the wealthy elite, who, as a class, deem the subjugation of the rest of the world to American corporate interests as a matter of life and death.
In the age of Globalization,its not the international Left,but the nationalist Right,which is the true anticapitalist force,which will set restrictions on the international Capital and will secure and improve the nation-state as a social shelter.
Posted : 16/10/2006 3:53 am
An examination of the list will probably indicate that 30% or more are jews.
How is the faithful city become an harlot! It was full of judgment: righteousness lodged in it, but now murderers. Thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixed with water. Thy princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves: every one loveth gifts, and followeth after rewards.
"The
Posted : 16/10/2006 4:01 am
Even the people on this list are not that rich.
The people with the most money, like the Rothchilds, have money that cannot be measured. Such as gold. Stocks, businesses, land, ect. can all be estimated worth. Hidden value like metals and owning offshore banks cannot be as easily estimated. The Rothschilds have huge stores of gold under the Thames river. They also control the platinum market to keep everyone from building fuel cells.
[url=http://video.google.com/url?docid=-515319560256183936&esrc="sr1&ev=v&len=12919&q=money%2Bmasters&srcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D-515319560256183936&vidurl=%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D-515319560256183936%26q%3Dmoney%2Bmasters%26total%3D1892%26start%3D0%26num%3D10%26so%3D0%26type%3Dsearch%26plindex%3D0&usg=AL29H215m40AxxXXEy5mxBMlQmfwiU4N1g"][color="Red"]The Money Masters[/url]
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
R.I.P. Yankee Jim
[color="White"]Todd Vanbiber
Posted : 16/10/2006 7:39 am
Even the people on this list are not that rich.
The people with the most money, like the Rothchilds, have money that cannot be measured. Such as gold. Stocks, businesses, land, ect. can all be estimated worth. Hidden value like metals and owning offshore banks cannot be as easily estimated. The Rothschilds have huge stores of gold under the Thames river. They also control the platinum market to keep everyone from building fuel cells.
Absolutely...the rich arabian oil families with palaces built out of gold look like paupers compared to the likes of the Rothchilds.
Posted : 16/10/2006 10:17 am
There is no doubt in my mind that the biggest of big jews are completely off the radar screen and that they could buy and sell all of those on the 400 list.
To the question that alex poses;
The fundamental principals of capitalism have some merit and I’m of the opinion that all we’ve ever witnessed throughout history is a corrupted version of the capitalistic system. Thanks to the jews of course. The master of the loophole, the jew has used litigious language in contracts to hollow-out the intent of the agreements. The corruption of the capitalist system runs deep, from the lowliest unilateral contract between any retailer it’s customer to the largest arrangements between multinational companies and countries.
As an experiment, I would be for a capitalist system, that forbade jews from participating.
Many folks see unearned income as unjustified income. But what they fail to see is the human nature aspect of the dynamics of what motivates people. Some will say that it’s greed, others will say that it’s the natural inclination for a man to want to provide the most he can for his family. Capitalism provides incentives for extra effort with the possibility of obtaining great riches. The jew has manipulated and promoted the greed aspect of this reality without placing the demand for responsible stewardship of their wealth upon those who would accumulate great fortunes.
In it’s ideal form capitalism could be a wonderful thing, just as communism in it’s idea form as well. Take away the jew and who knows what a beautiful world we might have?
The ink of the learned is as precious as the blood of the martyr. For one drop of ink may make millions think.
Posted : 16/10/2006 2:23 pm
The ultra-rich have most of their wealth sheltered in some fashion. The current tax system is the buying and selling of favors. This is why a flat-tax is not popular with the politicians. It takes a lot of power out of their hands.
It’s time to stop being Americans. It’s time to start being White Men again. - Gregory Hood
Posted : 16/10/2006 2:36 pm
Whites should endeavor to BE them-the richest people on the planet.
That's exactly how they became Them.
Jews and Asians work for generations to develop the wealth they have established today-usually.
Nigger and Spic's could give a shit less what happens to Jamil and Pedro once they are weened and walking.
White people know this method very well and have established fortunes all over the world long before Jews and Asians came to power.
Financial success is exactly the "attraction" that WN need to start to develop a WN trend-success breeds success.
Posted : 16/10/2006 3:33 pm
Couldn't have said it better than Brutus and SunofSparta. Capitalism in and of itself isn't evil but has been twisted and tweaked into our enemies ally. Personally I feel that a syatem which encourages effort, innovation and entrepenuership is inherently a good thing. I also firmly believe that people should be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor. If Whites are able to accumulate great wealth then I think it is good to go as long as that accumulation doesn't harm or interfere with the lives of other Whites. It would be awesome to see some WP multi-millionares out there.
But first, gotta do something about them kikes and muds!
14/88
I'm a good ol' Rebel, yes I am
I won't be reconstructed and I don't give a damn.
Posted : 16/10/2006 3:52 pm
copyrights and patents contribute to so-called "unearned" income.
you want the writer of a novel not to make any "unearned" income from sales of the book by their publisher?
you want the inventor of some new invention to not make any "unearned" income as the result of his invention?
come on!
Posted : 16/10/2006 3:52 pm
I interpreted the term "unearned" to mean aquiring the wealth through parasitic means; making money, yet not producing anything.
Finance, investing, retail. All parasitc professions that produce nothing, yet make profit.
The Barons of the old days at least controlled material items that were worth a damn in the world.
And these people on this list aren't happy with what they've got. They're chopping up everything and dividing it up amongst themselves. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer.
I don't care if these motherfuckers on this list are jews are not. No man has a right to that much power when so many others starve.
And to hell with the "Social Darwinism" theories. I'm a bigger fan of natural Darwinism. Throw anyone of these bastards into a jungle with me, give us both knives, and we'll see who walks out King Shit. 
Posted : 16/10/2006 11:23 pm
Sounds rather collectivist there, Moose. Social Darwinism IS natural Darwinism. The smart survive and thrive, the stupid toil and often die out. If it weren't for investors, some of the world's greatest inventions never would have made it to the market.
Let the damn market do its thing, collectivists! Your commie heaven failed. Your commie heaven is rapidly being replaced by market economies in China and even other collectivist shitholes. COMMUNISM IS A JEWISH INVENTION!!!
I agree that the Jews need to be cut out, and that there need to be some measures in place to make sure the White masses don't get screwed by the ultra rich like we're seeing in places new to the global market like China and India. But do we really want collectivism? I'd even go so far as to say many aspects of European and Canadian socialism are bad.
As WN's, we need to jump on the investment bandwagon. We need to put more and more capital into our own hands, and convert that capital into power. More capital means more signs at protests, more people at protests because you can lure them out of the house with bbq, it means more radio shows (maybe even ON THE RADIO instead of JUST the internet), it means more and better video documentaries (maybe even in theaters???), it means OPTIONS!!!
And why is it that so many Whites are satisfied just toiling away? Not all of us are meant to be factory workers. Some of us would much rather just bump ourselves off, thanks. So many seem to forget that it's the entrepreneurial and academic classes that gave them all the cheap consumer shit they clamor for. It was mostly a bunch of academics and lawyers who came up with the concepts of freedom that we all enjoy and then put them down in writing in such a way as to stand the test of time pretty well. It'll be academics and entrepreneurial types who do the bulk of the brain work digging our people out of this mess that the sheeple helped get us into. Academics like Franklin, Jefferson, and Patrick Henry warned us long ago to be wary of the Jew and of anyone else who would try to steal our Liberty. But the masses clamored for their shackles.
Posted : 17/10/2006 7:22 am
Sounds rather collectivist there, Moose. Social Darwinism IS natural Darwinism. The smart survive and thrive, the stupid toil and often die out. If it weren't for investors, some of the world's greatest inventions never would have made it to the market.
I agree with you. I believe a free market system produces the strongest economies.
And, there is certainly nothing wrong with investing. If there is a new idea out there, and no resources to develop it, the investor is just as important as the inventor.
But I would think that the "investors" on this list are more the kind that buy and sell stock on a dime, playing the markets to suit them. Does buying and selling the concept of ownership warrant billions of dollars?
(And by Social Darwinism, I more refer to the generations of families of the super-rich that continue to eat all the resources they can get their hands on.)
Posted : 17/10/2006 3:00 pm
Sounds rather collectivist there, Moose. Social Darwinism IS natural Darwinism. The smart survive and thrive, the stupid toil and often die out. If it weren't for investors, some of the world's greatest inventions never would have made it to the market.
I agree with you. I believe a free market system produces the strongest economies.
And, there is certainly nothing wrong with investing. If there is a new idea out there, and no resources to develop it, the investor is just as important as the inventor.
But I would think that the "investors" on this list are more the kind that buy and sell stock on a dime, playing the markets to suit them. Does buying and selling the concept of ownership warrant billions of dollars?
(And by Social Darwinism, I more refer to the generations of families of the super-rich that continue to eat all the resources they can get their hands on.)
Posted : 17/10/2006 3:00 pm
Topic starter
I'm sorry i think i didnt clarify my questions well enough. I of course meant the gentiles on the list. Since i assumed that a WN state will be homogeneous and gentile and will have no "jewish problem".
But before proceeding lets look at the economic points of the political programm of the NSDAP:
...
9. All citizens must possess equal rights and duties.
10. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. No individual shall do any work that offends against the interest of the community to the benefit of all.
Therefore we demand:
11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.
Breaking the Bondage of Interest
12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
13. We demand the nationalization of all trusts.
14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries.
15. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.
16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.
17. We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.
18. We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race.
19. We demand that Roman law, which serves a materialist ordering of the world, be replaced by German common law.
20. In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State.
21. The State has the duty to help raise the standard of national health by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor, by increasing physical fitness through the introduction of compulsory games and gymnastics, and by the greatest possible encouragement of associations concerned with the physical education of the young.
...
I personally find it far too moderate to say the truth. Capitalism is much more corrupted than it was back in 1933 so much more drastic measures must be undertaken. Entire sectors of economy must be nationalized and socialized, the wealth of gentiles found in those lists must be disseized and so on.
Anyway lets ask those questions again:
How would you deal with those gentiles on the list in a future WN state? Do you think that they justly possess this wealth and should continue doing so? Or do you think they are parasites harming the health of a nation?
In the age of Globalization,its not the international Left,but the nationalist Right,which is the true anticapitalist force,which will set restrictions on the international Capital and will secure and improve the nation-state as a social shelter.
Posted : 18/10/2006 2:20 am
That type of socialism would never work in America. I'm sorry, but once you get all the non-Whites off the gubbamint dole, you're going to have a large base of people who have a nasty taste for socialism left over from 50+ years of having their money STOLEN from them to support the lazy/stupid/weak.
Look, most of these people have money for a reason. The most you're going to be able to get away with is labor regulations. You're not going to be able to take people's money in this country like you propose unless you're willing to put your regime in danger and possibly take some severe casualties. At BEST, all those billionaires move to Switzerland.
With all the money these people make, just ONE of them is worth more in tax revenue, even under the most equitable system you can devise, than probably 10,000 or more average workers. Think about that.
Combine that with the philanthropy of people like Bill Gates, and it doesn't take an economist to figure out that we're not talking about a gaggle of evil usurers in most cases.
Some tweaking of banking would be fine. Hell, let's put the central bank back into the people's hands and regulate the currency so it has some base if you really want to. Let's end interest slavery in mortgages. But if you think for one second that America is going to accept the form of socialism you're talking about, you need to pull your head out of the sand and take a look around.
Posted : 18/10/2006 10:37 pm