2007-11-08 04:34:30 · 5 answers · asked by GuRu 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
In actually dollars, yes. When Rockefeller died in 1937 he was worth about 1.4 billion dollars, which is chump change compared with Gates' 46 billion.
However, an actual-dollar comparison really doesn't give you an idea of relative wealth in this case. Gates can by a cheap computer for a few hundred bucks, but Rockefeller couldn't have bought one for all the money in the world.
On the other hand, if you look at Rockefeller's wealth in comparison with, say, the Gross Domestic Product of the US in 1937, then he was far richer than Gates. By that standard, projected onto 2007, Rockefeller was worth the equivalent of about 200 billion dollars, more than four times Gates' worth.
I know you're probably looking for a simple yes-or-no answer, but there really isn't one. It all depends on how you look at the issue.
Check out the website linked below for a calculator of relative worth, and a discussion of what the various factors mean.
2007-11-12 10:44:32 · answer #1 · answered by Jeffrey S 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Naturally, because of the effects of inflation over the past 100 years, it's safe to assume Gates is richer than Rockefeller was.
Also, WITHOUT inflation, due to the world population and world-wide outreach of the computer industry, Gates is by far wealthier.
2007-11-08 05:15:22 · answer #2 · answered by Kemp the Mad African 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Dr. Kemp got it. If you do all that stuff Rockefeller is richer, Bill Gates is like, 4th. Just google "all time richest people" and you should find an answer.
2007-11-08 05:38:02 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
good grief--yes!
2007-11-08 05:07:18 · answer #4 · answered by s and d e 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
AND THEN SOME
2007-11-08 05:10:46 · answer #5 · answered by Loren S 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋