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。
本周，大家都在问这个问题，新闻机构试图将3万亿美元放在一个合理的背景下，但并没有真正做到，只是提到像把美元排成一排到月球需要多少等内容。
100年前，最富有的美国人是洛克菲勒，他的财富大约在10亿美元（估计在7亿到12亿美元之间）。1900年的10亿美元相当于2026年的250亿美元，这只是马斯克财富的一小部分，但这仅仅是作为消费者的购买力。
在1900年和2026年几乎所有常见的指标中，马斯克能够购买的东西更多。马斯克可以以最低工资（7.25美元）购买1400亿小时的劳动，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（是其5倍）。马斯克可以购买2.3亿英亩的美国农田，而洛克菲勒只能购买5000万英亩（也是5倍）。马斯克可以购买7000万吨铜，而洛克菲勒只能购买300万吨（是其25倍）。马斯克可以购买1600桶木材，而洛克菲勒只能购买850桶。
不过，洛克菲勒仍然更富有，因为他的钱让他能够做更多的事情（例如，限制资金使用的法律较少、劳动法、反垄断法等，法院对各种原因的责任较少）。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4.8亿美元出售卡内基钢铁公司，通过这笔交易，摩根获得了几乎垄断美国一切建设所需金属的能力，而今天的10亿美元或许无法购买任何垄断权。几亿美元在100年前也足以拯救一个国家（摩根在美国黄金耗尽时的情况）。这种能力所涉及的杠杆效应显而易见。
在2026年，10亿美元仅仅使你成为众多参与者中的一个大玩家，参与者众多，以至于最大的那些在经济上并不真正重要（尽管在马斯克的情况下，显然我们对他的价值不仅仅是经济方面）。
金钱的价值在于持有它所赋予你的身份，以及花费它所能获得的东西。可以说（无论是否认真，我不太确定）在某些限制较少的非洲国家，某些亿万富翁在金钱的意义上比马斯克更富有。值得注意的是，虽然这可能显而易见，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.