5 ms·
Whenever I see these lists I always find it interesting to think about the fact that the only reason a Walton isn't in #1 is because Sam is long gone, and his v
by ok_craig 14y ago
Whenever I see these lists I always find it interesting to think about the fact that the only reason a Walton isn't in #1 is because Sam is long gone, and his value was split between his children, all 4 of whom have $30+ billion. Kinda crazy.
- emp_ 14y agoWikipedia puts him at $230 billion in 1992, crazy indeed. EDIT: Wikipedia meme, move along.
- kylec 14y agoDon't believe everything you read on Wikipedia. A week ago that was edited from $23 billion to $230,000 billion (i.e. $230 trillion), which is obviously preposterously wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_Walton&diff=533271968&oldid=533271814 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_Walton&dif...
- emp_ 14y agoA rather redundant comment, we wouldn't need to mention it as a source if at least the citation link worked, would we? There is though still $120+ billion on his children in that list.
- bostonpete 14y agoYeah, but the Walmart stock price didn't start to really take off until the late 90's.
- rayiner 14y agoOh Wikipedia. Sam Walton was listed as being worth $7.3 billion in 1990: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1990/09/10/73983/ http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1990/...
- mildavw 14y agoPointing out the fact that the most successful store in history by a huge margin is one that neither you nor anyone you know shops at is a great way to illustrate the importance of market validation for startups.
- pmorici 14y agoSorry, are you saying no one on HN shops at Walmart or that there is a more successful store?
- mildavw 14y agoIt's a broad stroke for sure, but, yes, no one on HN shops at Walmart.
- protomyth 14y agoI hope you're joking. Shopped there tonight. It was there or a poorly stocked K-Mart. I find the local grocery store less ethical than the Walmart.
- mildavw 14y agoI'm not joking, but my point is lost in some confusion, so I'll add this caveat: If your audience does shop at Walmart, or knows people who do, then pointing out Walmart's jaw dropping numbers will not be a good device for illuminating the importance of market validation. In fact it could encourage them carry on with the potentially mistaken assumption that the entire planet's needs/problems are the same as their own.
- ghaff 14y agoSilly comment. I don't especially like shopping at Walmart but there is one 5 minutes from me--in a fairly rural locale where there aren't a lot of especially close stores--so, yes, I shop there for a lot of items.
- 14y ago
- bjhoops1 14y agoI noticed this too - his four heirs listed are worth > $120 billion between them. Absolutely nuts.
- lbrandy 14y agoOnce you start to play that game, doesn't the conversation begin and end with John D. Rockefeller?
- ok_craig 14y agoAccording to Wikipedia, Rockefeller is widely considered to be the richest person ever, but I guess this is interesting to me because the Walton heirs themselves are still making billionaire lists. But that's a good point. I wonder what the total Rockefeller net worth is among all heirs today.
- larrys 14y ago"Rockefeller is widely considered to be the richest person ever" But back in a time when life was not as good, for even rich people, as it is today. Not to mention medical care or even pain medication or air conditioning or any creature comforts (I'm remembering when cars didn't have even electric windows when I was really young). Would you rather have 10 times the money you have and be back in the 1930's? Similar also to computers. As anyone who has worked with a teletype, floppy drives, punch tape, or green ascii terminal can attest to vs. being able to ssh into your server from an ipad mini.
- dllthomas 14y ago> Would you rather have 10 times the money you have and be back in the 1930's? If I could keep my current knowledge, yes I think so. "Hey, guys, here's some capital; look into these 'semiconductor' things..." I recognize that this is deliberately missing your point, however.
- dennisgorelik 14y agoYou are extremely too optimistic about your personal ability to move technical progress forward. The amount of technological knowledge our civilization carries is enormous, and even if you are extremely knowledgeable, you are unlikely to know even 1% of it. So yes, you would be able to move civilization forward in the magnitude of a few months. But that's about it.
- arbuge 14y agoThat's the nature of all great fortunes. Generations pass, and over time they're dispersed and taxed away.
- nwzpaperman 14y agothe cargill-macmillan family is probably the wealthiest in America, but they have a privately-held company and maintain their privacy well. ignore the net income numbers. ;) the waltons are definitely number two, if not number one.
- protomyth 14y agoThere are a lot more Cargill-MacMillians then Walton heirs and the Waltons are more recent so that makes a difference. These lists never really do well measuring private companies.