The Wealthiest Americans ever at Eric Stoller's Blog

The Wealthiest Americans ever

rich white men
The 30 Wealthiest Americans list was calculated by each person’s total wealth as a percentage of the economy of the time.

Do you see any commonalities among the people in this list?

Related posts:

Written by Eric Stoller

July 15th, 2007 at 1:05 pm

Posted in Class,Gender,Race,This and that

Tagged with Class, gender, Race

43 Responses to 'The Wealthiest Americans ever'

Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'The Wealthiest Americans ever'.

I suspect I know where you are going with this and what you hope it shows: they are all white males. However, all except for three made their money in an era when white males did, indeed, enjoy significant institutional advantages due to inequities in our society. (I still do not think that necessarily negates any successes they had, but there is a reality to that.) However, the three who made the list from the “modern business day” – Sam Walton, Warren Buffett, and Bill Gates – may be white, they earned their fortunes. Even if you did argue that they had some “privilege,” that cannot account for the out sized success each of these men had.

Sam Walton grew up in a poor family. He started with one store and built it into possibly the greatest example of a corporation in many ways that America has ever known. Buffett and Gates did come from more privileged backgrounds but that privilege cannot account for the genius that Gates has had with personal computer software – the reason reason for the success of Microsoft – and with Buffett’s investing insight. Buffett especially has to be lauded for his peculiar business insight (though I did have a finance professor that argued that, based on the theory of efficient markets, that Buffett’s success could be that of a personal on the fair end of the tail of the distribution of investing results – in other words a product of extreme luck that is extremely rare but statistically valid. That is a finance disucssion, however, and not a privilege discussion).

Thus, 27 of these men may prove your point (if that is the point you were driving toward) but that aspect of our country’s history is not in dispute so there is nothing really to prove. The other three fall short of demonstrating privilege, and even if it did, these are three men out of millions of Americans. It is hardly as if this type of success is systematic.

FinanceBuzz

15 Jul 07 at 2:20 pm
In your opinion, why are there no people of color on this list of 30?

Eric Stoller

15 Jul 07 at 3:05 pm
and…why are there no women?

Eric Stoller

15 Jul 07 at 3:42 pm
Eric,

90% of the list are businessmen from an era when businessmen were male and white. That probably has a large bearing on it. Why are there such a small proportion of the list that are currently in business, especially given the ability of people to use the stock market to monetize and cash out on their business ideas and through the democratization of business with the Internet? Three people from the modern era hardly allows us to draw any broad societal conclusions.

FinanceBuzz

15 Jul 07 at 9:14 pm
FB,

Doesn’t this sort of history have any lasting material effect? Forget fault, privilege, etc: does this history have any lasting material effect?

Dennis

15 Jul 07 at 10:05 pm
In some ways, I am sure it does – if you are an heir to one of those fortunes. Does it impact me? Nope. Does it impact you? Nope (unless you are actually Dennis Astor or Dennis Rockefeller! ). In fact, I have heard that Bill and Melinda Gates do not want to leave much of any of their fortune to their child. Up to them.

A question for you: Assuming that Gates, Buffett and Walton earned their money through specific traits and abilities their brought to their businesses, will their children garner any lasting material effect? And if they, where is the problem with this if that is how the parents choose to distribute their fortune?

FinanceBuzz

15 Jul 07 at 10:32 pm
Yes, they’re white and yes, they’re male – and probably heterosexual and probably able-bodied, as well – but perhaps their next-most-striking characteristic in common is that their fortunes are built on either the destruction of the environment or the exploitation of others (or both).

Michelle Marie

16 Jul 07 at 9:28 am
FinanceBuzz – I’m guessing the there are not more present-day people on the list because it was a lot easier to control a greater percentage of the total wealth of the US during the times when there were less restrictions on how wealth was accumulated. Just a guess. I agree. 3 people from the “modern era” is probably not enough for “us to draw any broad societal conclusions.” Although I wonder why 3 is not enough? This list is hyper-exclusive. I would say that it is very telling that there are no women or people of color among the 3 representatives from modern business day.

In a previous post, we talked about meritocracy and bootstraps. If all it takes to succeed in the United States is hard work, how do you explain this:

“97% of senior managers at Fortune 1000 industrial and Fortune 500 service firms are white, and between 95% and 97% of senior managers of Fortune 1500 firms are male.“?

Those are modern era numbers that represent a lot more than just 3 white men…

By the way, I love that you brought up privilege and institutional advantages. I’m glad you’ve been reading my blog.

Michelle – Very true. This is why books that present a more objective view of history are so important. Who was crushed so that these men could pull themselves up by their boots…?

Thanks for commenting.

Eric Stoller

16 Jul 07 at 10:18 am
Well I cannot deny, on the surface those stats, do merit further examination. What if anything that implies, I could not say without digging into it further.

FinanceBuzz

16 Jul 07 at 10:31 am
The ways these fortunes were amassed do have lasting cumulative effects on many people; while those fortunes very obviously affects direct heirs, the business practices that made them possible affected, well, pretty much everyone else! Wal-Mart is a current example.

Also, I think we need to keep in mind that it’s not just about the huge amounts of money. These men have huge amounts of POWER. Just reading through the brief little bios of each of them, it’s really obvious that they have/had access to special treatment in the political and justice systems.

The funny thing is that, when a powerful man uses his influence to avoid incarceration (or pardon a friend), there’s generally not a hue and cry about his special treatment – but when a white man feels like he’s lost a job because he’s white and male, he can assert that the nonwhite, nonmale person who got the job he wanted was the recipient of “special treatment” (just like government subsidation of corporate interests isn’t decried as welfare while government subsidation of children’s interests is).

Michelle Marie

16 Jul 07 at 11:20 am
Michelle,

I look at Wal-Mart and see a company that has had an enormous positive effect on many Americans and even people of other countries. They have brought low prices to people in locales where, prior to Wal-Mart, they had limited choice at higher prices. I also think Wal-Mart deserves some praise for helping to wring efficiencies out of their supply chain to realize these lower prices. This is not to say there are not some concerns with Wal-Mart, but overall I think they have helped as many if not more people than they have hurt.

As for the trappings of power, this is reality regardless of who has the power. In their time, granted, white males help the bulk of this power, but today power is more widely distributed. A powerful minority will be able to garner special treatment in the “system” just as well as a powerful white person. I still consider O.J. Simpson’s acquittal to be an example of this. Had he been a average Joe black man as opposed to former NFL star, movie star, and Heisman Trophy winner, the only place he would be looking for the real killer would be in the mirror of his cell in the California state penn.

FinanceBuzz

16 Jul 07 at 1:16 pm
Hmmm…

Having copious amounts of money guarantees that you will have bad hair.

Seriously though, very interesting…The diversity (or lack thereof) in this group.

James

16 Jul 07 at 3:40 pm
One more example that’s been rattling around in my head…

If all it takes to succeed in the United States is hard work, how do we explain this: All of the presidents of the United States have been white men.

…and I’ve been mulling over this sentence:

However, the three who made the list from the “modern business day” – Sam Walton, Warren Buffett, and Bill Gates – may be white, they earned their fortunes.

I agree, they earned their fortunes. However, they earned their fortunes while never having to deal with racism and sexism. It’s that whole privilege thing that I’ve been talking about. These guys never had to face institutionalized oppression while creating their empires.

Eric Stoller

18 Jul 07 at 9:22 am
I would agree that they did not have the burden of having to deal with racism and sexism. However, that is not a “privilege”, that is just one disadvantage they did not have to face. I feel the emphasis should be on removing that disadvantage from all people, not attempting to minimize the successes of people who did not have to face it. The absence of a disadvantage is not the same as a privilege.

FinanceBuzz

18 Jul 07 at 9:44 am
FinanceBuzz – We must have the same schedule! We’re always on at the same time

So is the absence of a disadvantage an advantage?

I don’t feel that I’m minimizing the successes of white men. I’m trying to shed light on the fact that it’s a whole lot easier to pull one’s self up by the bootstraps if you don’t have to deal with the tremendous weight of institutionalized oppression.

Eric Stoller

18 Jul 07 at 10:04 am
I would not disagree that “it’s a whole lot easier to pull one’s self up by the bootstraps if you don’t have to deal with the tremendous weight of institutionalized oppression.” However, the fact that you have to face such challenges should just cause someone to give up. Ideally, I would hope it would make them more determined. That is not to say we as a society should not attempt to rectify these barriers where they do exist, but reality is that tearing all these barriers down is not an overnight process and some people will likely have to face obstacles for some time to come. And even if things are not centered on race or gender, I think there are still plenty of other obstacles that people will continue to face.

The more we have these discussions, the more I see the commonalities on the desire to not see people oppressed and be the subject of discrimination. I think the real gap is what we define as discrimination, racism, sexism, etc.

FinanceBuzz

18 Jul 07 at 11:01 am
I find it interesting that the list focuses on individuals, rather than households. Most of these men likely had wives that influenced them and took part in their reaching such success. Somehow, only the singular “man” makes the list.

If very wealthy and powerful woman (Martha Stuart,Oprah, etc.) married a very wealthy and powerful man and together boosted the household net worth to the Top 30 list, who’s name would go on the list?

Kiwi

18 Jul 07 at 2:36 pm
Kiwi,
Good point! Not only did their wives influence them, but they made their success POSSIBLE by providing a “flow of family work” (this is the term Joan Williams uses to describe reproductive labor: childcare and household labor).

Michelle Marie

18 Jul 07 at 2:56 pm
Well, Michelle and Kiwi, why don’t we list every single person who ever influenced them? I suspect the reason the men are listed is because they were the CEO or Chairman or whatever title of their companies. And if Oprah or Martha Stewart had this much wealth, they would be listed as well, especially given their fame, regardless of who the husband was.

FinanceBuzz

18 Jul 07 at 3:08 pm
Kiwi – Thanks for commenting on the fact that the wealth of most of these guys would never have been possible without the contributions of their spouses. The work of women is all too often dismissed or undervalued.

Eric Stoller

18 Jul 07 at 4:19 pm
So for those dudes who never married, who else would you defer their success to (since apparently no white man can be independently successful in America if not for the trampling of people of color). Or is this the point where you dismiss their hard work and start talking about their unearned privileges?

And I hope you’re not trying to knock those people just because they’re white and nerdy (not saying you are, by the way). If you made a second list of “The Most Philanthropic Americans Ever” and compared it with that Wealthiest Americans list, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a pretty big subset. Or would that be intersection? I suck at Venn diagrams, so I might have my terms messed up. You know what I mean though! And really, do you think those people only donated money to their fellow aryan brethren and none to people of color? C’mon now.

Look at Bill Gates and all the money he’s pumping into Africa. And here’s a little blurb about Rockefeller from Wikipedia: “In 1884, he provided major funding for a college in Atlanta for black women that became Spelman College (named for Rockefeller’s in-laws who were ardent abolitionists before the Civil War). Rockefeller also gave considerable donations to Denison University and other Baptist colleges.” Sam Walton’s philanthropy foundation has given millions to organizations like the Black Alliance for Education. And that’s just three of the thirty that my lazy ass decided to look up, out of the thirty heterosexual, white males on that list.

To put blinders on and just look directly at the color of their skin as the only talking point in this blog post is kind of… I don’t know, you can insert your own term there. I’m going to get back to work now. Can’t be letting the white man keep me down and all!

Vic

19 Jul 07 at 7:37 am
If I posted photos of the 19 hijackers from September 11, 2001 and asked if you saw any commonalities, would it be a fair question? What would your answer be?

G-Dub

19 Jul 07 at 10:24 am
G-Dub,

It would prove that they were all from the Middle East. Specifically, 15 of the 19 were from Saudi Arabia. This is not news.

The real question, I think, is this:

What is the significance of that? Is there any?

Dennis

19 Jul 07 at 11:01 am
Dennis,

So why are we to automatically ascribe some meaning to all the people on the wealthiest list being white males?

FinanceBuzz

19 Jul 07 at 11:06 am
@Vic – I think it’s easy to get off track when we start to talk about the long lists of folks who contributed in some way to the success of the men on this list. What Kiwi, Michelle, and I were saying was that if these men were married (most likely the majority of them were/are) that their wives probably did not get very much recognition for their efforts.

I’m saying that these white men benefited from at least two types of unearned privileges: white privilege and gender privilege.

I’m not sure where I’ve ever dismissed anyone’s hard work. I’ve been saying (quite a few times and in multiple posts) that it’s a myth that this country is a meritocracy. White guys do not have to live with being discriminated against because of their skin color or gender. Because of this lack of individual and institutional oppression, white guys have an unearned set of privileges/advantages that I believe explains why the list at the top is made up of white men.

I love white, nerdy people. I’d say I’ve been a lifetime member ever since I started using a Commodore 64

My answer to the philanthropist question is: no. However, I do think that none of these guys really donated that much money in terms of percentages of their overall wealth. Also, their philanthropic efforts do not give them a get-out-of-white-privilege card. Thanks for looking up the examples of their philanthropy. I didn’t know that Rockefeller helped to fund Spelman College. (I’m a big fan of Spelman’s president, Beverly Tatum and her book: “Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?” ).

And I never said that race was the only talking point in this post. I believe FinanceBuzz started the comments thread by mentioning the race and gender of the people on the list.

@G-Dub – So are you saying that it was unfair for me to post the photo/list and ask about commonalities?

I’d say that the discussion probably would not delve into white privilege. I think the race and gender of the people involved in September 11, 2001 was analyzed a lot more than the race and gender of the men on this list.

@FinanceBuzz – Because of who is not on this list and why it is only white men. Especially when some have said that all it takes is hard work and determination to “make it” in this country.

Eric Stoller

19 Jul 07 at 11:11 am
Also, this morning, Wendy sent me a link about Wal-mart and sweatshops…

Eric Stoller

19 Jul 07 at 11:48 am
Eric,

The list you use to prove your point consists of only two people who’ve been around since the advent of color photography. Yes, I am saying it is unfair. It’s clear what commonalities you are talking about. To be fair about it, I propose the following list:

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_The-400-Richest-Americans_Rank.html

With regards to the “meritocracy myth”, I think you are wrong there too, Eric. The US is a meritocracy. Not a perfect one, but better than the much of the world. In some countries, if you are not born into the right family, tribe, caste or are born a woman, then it’s over. There will be no upward mobility for you, none. While many currently face unfair challenges in America, to say they have no chance to improve their condition would be untrue. History shows that, today, the challenges aren’t as bad as they were. It’s my belief that making tomorrow better is the resposibility of everyone. If I had a magic wand, it would be done by now.

If you want your arguments to sway people who may not see your way, you need to point out positives, as well as negatives. Harping only on white privilidge, patriarchy, etc just preaches to your choir. It does nothing for many, and for those that need it pointed out the most, it just hardens their hearts.

Racism, sexism and other forms of predjudice don’t define our system, they hamper it.

G-Dub

19 Jul 07 at 1:18 pm
First, the article on Wal-Mart is put out by a union. That immediate calls their objectivity into questions. Second, my general response to most of the points they make is: SO? That is business and the nature of the American economy. When companies can source products from locales that have much lower cost structures they will do that, especially if they are a company like Wal-Mart that competes on the basis of offering the lowest prices. That is not to condone sweatshop conditions but comments like the following are incomplete and have no meaning taken out of context:

U.S. manufactures have been forced to cut good jobs and eliminate entire operations when Wal-Mart shifts to contractors with poverty-level wages.

In which countries is the work being moved? What is the prevailing average wage in that country for similar work? Simply saying “poverty wages” in insufficient. Failure to pay American wage rates (especially those expected by unions) is not necessary poverty-level in developing countries. In fact, such wage rates may not even be abusive by local standards. You cannot apply American work standards to countries with entirely social and economic conditions.

FinanceBuzz

19 Jul 07 at 1:24 pm
“If you want your arguments to sway people who may not see your way, you need to point out positives, as well as negatives. Harping only on white privilidge, patriarchy, etc just preaches to your choir. It does nothing for many, and for those that need it pointed out the most, it just hardens their hearts.”

Quoted for truth and emphasis.

Vic

19 Jul 07 at 2:11 pm
FinanceBuzz,

Do you not see any difference between (a) a group of people who all are incredibly wealthy and share the same color of skin and (b) a group of people who flew planes into towers? I do, and I can only guess that the reason you asked me the question you did was because you don’t like ascribing things to groups….or you might have been feeling too lazy to answer the question.

I think what’s important in regards to the group of white guys is that we’re asking why the list lacks diversity, and how it happened that the richest 30 are all the same. Plus, we can place it in the context of all the discussion we’ve been having, and it’s one part of a much larger puzzle of economic inequality in the United States.

If I’m talking about the 9/11 hijackers, I’m asking what led them to do what they did, because I think knowing why something happens is a damn important piece of information if one is interested in ensuring that the something in question never happens again. In the course of asking, I might have reason to ask about the similarities between the hijackers – in this case, they were mostly Saudi Arabian, mostly Wahabi in terms of religious affiliation, and pretty well-educated.

In the same way I don’t ascribe being on the list of wealthy as innate to white people, I don’t ascribe the hijackings (or terrorism in general) to people from the Middle East. Such a generalization would be ill-advised.

The fact that I ascribe meaning to the list of white folks is not automatic by a long shot. That comment only makes sense if you are not actually listening to anything I write. It is possible that my reasons for ascribing meaning are wrong, but it should be plenty obvious by now that I have them.

Dennis

19 Jul 07 at 7:23 pm
G-Dub,

Your comments on the nature of the US meritocracy are….illustrative. I liked this part:

Racism, sexism and other forms of predjudice don’t define our system, they hamper it.

I think that’s pretty accurate, personally – or at least I agree that the “isms” hamper whatever system the US has in place. I’ve found that the idea that the US is a meritocracy is one that only works in the abstract.

One reason to point out things like the ethnicity and sex of the richest people in America – whether it be from Eric’s list or the Forbes list – is that they are examples of how the meritocracy is not working. In that sense, I agree with Eric that meritocracy is a myth. While we want to think the U.S. is a meritocracy, it does not have meritocratic outcomes, and we can track those unequal outcomes across race, class and gender.

Personally, I think the lack of meritocracy is affected by additional factors. One example is the idea of legacy admissions. A second is how people go about getting jobs. While lots and lots of folks go to website and slog through classifieds, a healthy chunk of folks get jobs based on who they know (I am one of them, at least thus far). I’d say getting a job based on anything but one’s merit is not emblematic of a meritocracy.

Dennis

19 Jul 07 at 7:41 pm
I think what’s important in regards to the group of white guys is that we’re asking why the list lacks diversity, and how it happened that the richest 30 are all the same.

I am not sure why this is being made into some big mystery. As I pointed out, 27 of the 30 did business in an era where white males had much more business opportunity than other races or females. I did not realize that this was that obscure of a point. Yes, these 27 prove your point on privilege quite well. However, they all did business decades ago, in a very different era. The other three from “modern” times have peculiar business traits that cannot be tied to their race and also do do not prove anything. What is so objectionable about this? Are you upset that the three men in the era when racism has largely been beaten back do not prove your point?

And I have to take exception with a point you made to G-Dub:

While we want to think the U.S. is a meritocracy, it does not have meritocratic outcomes, and we can track those unequal outcomes across race, class and gender.

There is economic inequity between Gates, Buffett and Walton with just about every other person, white, black, pink or purple. To try to extrapolate this inequity from three people to a nation of 250 million cannot be done. So I ask, what privilege do these three white men have that I do not have? Because if being white was enough, then I would not be slogging off to the job I have everyday!

Furthermore, who said there should be equality of outcomes? There should be equality of opportunity but you cannot guarantee equality of outcome. In fact, the inequality of outcomes argues more for a meritocracy than if all outcomes were equal. Not all people, regardless of race or gender, will have equivalent traits that transform the input of opportunity to the same outcome. (This returns to the concept of the individual versus the group.) Not all members of the group are equivalent. The most meritorious will wind up having more success. Granted, things like racism and sexism can distort these results, but it is not realistic – nor even desirable =- to expect equality of outcome.

FinanceBuzz

19 Jul 07 at 10:02 pm
Good catch on the equality of outcome – I mean to talk about opportunity. I think my two examples fit it better anyway.

The sentence should have read something like this:

While we want to think the U.S. is a meritocracy, it does not have equality of opportunity, and we can track the resulting unequal outcomes across race, class and gender.

And I wasn’t implying that the original 30 were my evidence; from what I’ve seen of the Forbes list it would work just as well.

Dennis

19 Jul 07 at 10:58 pm
Dennis,

I agree with you that legacy admissions are a bad idea. I’m pretty sure the current president wouldn’t have made it to Yale without one. Just think how different things would be now…

Do legacy admission policies stand up in cour? I imagine that there are laws that govern admissions policies if a college or university accepts government money. This sounds like a job for Eric. I hear he works in enrollment something or other… now if I could just figure out how to let him know…

G-Dub

20 Jul 07 at 6:45 am
I do not have a problem with legacy admissions so long as they are in addition to the normal annual enrollment plans rather than preventing other, perhaps more qualified, students from getting in. The reality is that universities, public and private, depend on donations to survive. Even though my alma mater is a state school, it is fortunate enough to have one of the larger endowments among public universities. If you accept an alum’s kid who happens to be a large donor – so long as he/she meets some minimum requirements level and does not take a slot of a student you may be more qualified, then I think that is just catering to the funding reality.

FinanceBuzz

20 Jul 07 at 6:58 am
I would add to G-Dub as well that I think Dubya gets a bad rap on his intellect. Perhaps he is not Albert Einstein, but regardless of how he got in, he graduated from Yale and got into and graduated from Harvard Business School. Harvard and Yale have not built their reputations by just handing out degrees.

FinanceBuzz

20 Jul 07 at 7:02 am
@ FinanceBuzz

Any president that can’t see the importance of securing our borders in this day and age is an idiot.

G-Dub

20 Jul 07 at 9:17 am
Any president that can’t see the importance of securing our borders in this day and age is an idiot.

Would not phrase quite like that, but I do see and agree with the general sentiment.

FinanceBuzz

20 Jul 07 at 10:31 am
I do not have a problem with legacy admissions so long as they are in addition to the normal annual enrollment plans rather than preventing other, perhaps more qualified, students from getting in.

Except, of course, that this is exactly how legacy admissions work, and why places like Oxford and Cambridge no longer have them.

Many legacy students have parents – or grandparents and parents – who attended college at a time when racism was more prevalent; granting preferential treatment to their kids seems like it is a direct holdover, an easily identifiable benefit, from the time when highly qualified people of color had a much harder time getting into four-year colleges.

Given the above, I would call many legacy admissions a privilege one gets from being white, or male.

Again, if legacy admissions meant accepting offspring of graduates who are qualified to attend, there would be no need for legacy admissions, since the students would be able to make it into college on merit in the first place.

So…does “catering to the funding reality” justify a program that’s not merit-based, one that lets in LESS qualified applicants? For that matter, what is the effect of legacy admissions on the overall quality of the student population?

For an interesting story on legacy admissions, see this Stanford Daily story from 2003.

Dennis

20 Jul 07 at 3:31 pm
Dennis,

I can see a lot of validity in that argument and I think it is a fair way to look at it. One thing did strike a discordant tone with me:

Many legacy students have parents – or grandparents and parents – who attended college at a time when racism was more prevalent; granting preferential treatment to their kids seems like it is a direct holdover, an easily identifiable benefit, from the time when highly qualified people of color had a much harder time getting into four-year colleges.

You are making a very large assumption here. Just because their parents or grandparents attended University X when inequitable treatment for people of color was more prevalent, they must have only succeeded in becoming an alum of University X because of some sort of “privilege” as opposed to their own merit. Vic summed up my thoughts on the implication here when he said in an earlier commentL

since apparently no white man can be independently successful in America if not for the trampling of people of color

FinanceBuzz

20 Jul 07 at 3:45 pm
No no – it’s not that I think the folks who went to college, say, in the 1950s weren’t qualified or didn’t work hard – of course they did.

However, there were undoubtedly qualified people of color who, but for institutional racism, would have gone to college. Who filled their spots? White people. In that sense, hard-working white people were and are benefiting from privileges they did nothing to earn, but were instead handed to them.

Note: Every time I bring up systems of oppression, or privilege, or racism/classism/sexism/etc, that doesn’t mean that people aren’t putting forth their maximum individual efforts. I almost take that as a given, that people are working hard, since most people do.

Instead, I am trying to draw attention to the fact that individual effort does not explain the entire picture. There are plenty of stories out there about the heroic individual efforts of people that allow them to succeed, but comparatively very little about larger social forces.

Dennis

20 Jul 07 at 11:36 pm
[...] For the record, I believe that writing about white privilege and patriarchy is a positive thing to do. I feel very positive when I write about these particular barriers to social justice. [...]

Why I blog… » Eric Stoller’s blog

22 Jul 07 at 7:20 pm
WHAT DO THE FOLKS ON THIS LIST HAVE IN COMMON?

WELL, LET’S SEE – 4 ONE, THEY ARE ALL VERY UNATTRACTIVE CAUCASIAN MALES – ALL Thirty – ONE of them ( AT LEAST I THINK THEY ARE ALL CAUCASIAN )

– HOPE NOBODY IS/WAS PASSING ) LOL!

ANYWAY, ERIC STOLLER – MY LOVES NAME IS ERIC – HE IS A YOUNG, AFRICAN- AMERICAN WHO JUST HAPPENS TO BE A MULTIMILLIONAIRE.

YES, HE HAS CHOSEN ME AS HIS HELPMATE AND YES WE WILL TURN OUR MILLIONS INTO BILLIONS.

LOOK OUT 4 US SO YOU CAN UPDATE YOUR LIST.

THE DYNAMIC DUO

A and E

BEAUTIFUL ONE

27 Jul 07 at 10:50 am

Eric Stoller's Blog

The Wealthiest Americans ever

43 Responses to 'The Wealthiest Americans ever'

Leave a Reply

About Eric Stoller

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Tags

Student Affairs and Technology – my Inside Higher Ed blog

Archives