埃隆·马斯克现在是美国历史上最富有的人吗？不是，除非作为消费者。
1 分•作者: dfps•7 天前
本周大家都在问这个问题，新闻机构试图用 3 万亿美元来解释其规模，但并未真正做到，而是 resorted to 诸如将美元首尾相连能到达月球的距离等类比。
100 年前，美国最富有的人是洛克菲勒，他的财富约为 10 亿美元（估计在 7 亿至 12 亿美元之间）。
1900 年的 10 亿美元相当于 2026 年的 250 亿美元，这只是在作为消费者的购买力方面。
在 1900 年和 2026 年普遍存在的几乎所有指标上，马斯克都能购买更多。
马斯克可以用最低工资（7.25 美元）购买 1400 亿小时的工作，而洛克菲勒当时只能购买 45 亿小时。马斯克可以购买 7500 吨黄金，而洛克菲勒只能购买 1500 吨（5 倍）。美国农田 2.3 亿英亩，而洛克菲勒只能购买 5000 万英亩（5 倍）。铜 7000 万公吨，而洛克菲勒只能购买 300 万公吨（25 倍）。木材 1600 亿板英尺，而洛克菲勒只能购买 850 亿板英尺。
然而，洛克菲勒仍然更富有，因为他的财富使他能够做些什么并赋予他力量（法律限制金钱使用、劳动法、反垄断法等较少，因各种原因对法院的问责制较少）。在 20 世纪初，一个人几乎可以完全购买和拥有任何东西。（例如，1901 年卡内基以 4.8 亿美元的价格出售了卡内基钢铁公司，仅此一笔交易，摩根就获得了建造美国几乎所有东西的金属的实际垄断权，而如今 1 万亿美元可能买不到任何垄断。100 年前，几亿美元也足以救助一个国家（美国黄金耗尽时，摩根就曾这样做）。这种能力所涉及的杠杆作用显而易见。
在 2026 年，1 万亿美元只能让你成为一个庞大的参与者，众多参与者中的一员，以至于最大的参与者在经济上并不真正重要（尽管以马斯克为例，显然，我们都看重他除了经济之外的价值）。
金钱的价值在于拥有它能让你成为什么以及花费它能得到什么。可以认为（无论是否认真，我都不确定）在某个限制较少的非洲国家的一些亿万富翁，在他们的金钱所代表的意义上比马斯克更富有。还值得注意的是，尽管这可能显而易见，但在技术财富方面，今天的穷人比洛克菲勒更富有。
查看原文
<i>This week everyone's been asking this, and news agencies tried to put $3t in perspective but didn't really do it, resorting to things like how many dollars it takes laid end to end to the moon, etc.</i><p>The richest American was Rockefeller, who 100 years ago was worth around $1b ($700m-1.2b estimated).<p>$1b in 1900 USD equates to $25b in 2026 USD, which is fraction of Musk's worth, but this is only in purchasing power as a consumer.<p>In basically all metrics common to 1900 and 2026, Musk could buy more.<p>Musk can buy 140b hours of work at minimum wage ($7.25), whereas Rockefeller could buy only 4.5b hours at the time. Musk could buy 7500 tons of gold versus Rockefeller's 1500 (5x). 230m acres of US farmland versus 50m (5x). 70m metric tons of copper versus 3m (25x). 1600 barrel board feet of lumber versus 85b.<p>Rockefeller still was richer, though, because of what the money made him and empowered him to do (less laws that limit use of money, labor laws, antitrust laws, etc, less accountability to courts for various reasons). In the early 1900s, a man could buy and own, completely, almost anything. (For example, in 1901 Carnegie sold Carnegie Steel for $480m, and with that single transaction JP Morgan bought a functional monopoly on the metal that built basically everything in the US, and today $1t perhaps can't buy any monopoly. A few hundred million dollars was also enough to bail out a country 100 years ago (JP Morgan when US ran out of gold). The leverage involved in this type of ability is obvious.<p>In 2026 $1t just makes you a massive player, among many players, so many that the biggest ones don't really matter economically (although in Musk's case, obviously, we all value him for things besides economics).<p>The value of money is what holding it makes you and what spending it can get you. It could be argued (seriously or not I'm not sure) that some billionaire in some less restraining country in Africa is richer than Musk in terms of what his money means. It's also worth noting, although maybe it's obvious, that in terms of technological wealth, poor people today are richer than Rockefeller.