Forbes Wealthiest Black Americans

[Cut-Throat]

wtf are you talking about? i know it was fought in zaire.

wtf im talkin about is you bein dumb...next time you try and drop some knowledge mix in a wikipedia search or somethin clown....

the thrilla in"manilla" was fought in manilla, quezon city, metro manilla, philppinnes.....the "rumble in the jungle" was fough in kinshasa, zaire, AFRICA.

who did Ali fight in the manilla?? buster douglas??

 

[Cut-Throat]

where you at Gas None???

 

[Fucky McFuckerson]

Lol @ idiots in here talking about the people on the list aren't wealthy. Dude even said that wealth is supposed to be passed down from generation to generation. That part is true. But if you can't pass down millions of dollars down to several generations, then your kids and grandkids have a spending problem and don't know how to invest. You can take about 10 million dollars and make it last for 3 generations. By the time it gets to the third generation, it should be 100 million dollars. Everybody on that list is wealthy. No one on here has any room to say otherwise.

True, but has that HAPPENED yet? No? That it is NOT considered WEALTH at this point. Do you see the logic here?

:ermm:

Unless everybody on this list spends like MC Hammer, every single one of them are wealthy. Like bruh above me said, if 100s of millions of dollars can't last through multiple generations than it's the kids fault.

Is Oprah dead? No? Then how do you know how she will be financially in a year? 10 years? She could go bankrupt in a week, stranger things have happened.

The fact is, right now, these folks are RICH...not WEALTHY. Their riches have NOT been passed down to ANYONE yet, so how can they be wealthy??? You people are ASSUMING they will, nothing more.

Again, none of those people should be on a "wealthy" list.

SMH @ people having reading comprehension problems

 

[Fucky McFuckerson]

props to don king...

don king had NO MONEY when he brokered the deal for the thrilla in manila (the famous ali fight in africa). did yall know that?

hmmmm....thats intresting...the "thrill in manilla" was fought in africa not metro manilla,phillippines...we learn somethin new everyday...

Wait...what? All you did was back up what he said. Im confused here. Thats what promoted him to say this:

wtf are you talking about? i know it was fought in zaire.

But then you contradicted yourself by sayin this:

wtf im talkin about is you bein dumb...next time you try and drop some knowledge mix in a wikipedia search or somethin clown....

the thrilla in"manilla" was fought in manilla, quezon city, metro manilla, philppinnes.....the "rumble in the jungle" was fough in kinshasa, zaire, AFRICA.

who did Ali fight in the manilla?? buster douglas??

I know what you were trying to say, but i think you crossed yourself up here...

 

[Gas One]

^ lol

yeah i dont even know what the fuck that dudes talking about....whatever...i hope that works out for him

 

[Cut-Throat]

Jesse, my first response was intended to be very sarcastic...i know that manilla is not in zaire...but Gas None is always tryin kick some sort of knowledge that tends to be false...

 

[Gas One]

youre a douchebag. wow i was smoking a blunt and mixed up fights. get off my nuts dickbreath. the fact you even had to correct me just made me want to beat you with sundays newspaper. its like do you get your jollys off sitting back and correcting other peoples posts? youre like the dudes that clean nut off the floor in the backrooms of porn shops. thanks bro, thanks for riding on my back and making my posts more accurate. youre the best. matter fact prop me, so we can remember this moment, 'the time cut throat corrected one of gas ones 14,000 posts'

 

[Fucky McFuckerson]

Jesse, my first response was intended to be very sarcastic...i know that manilla is not in zaire...but Gas None is always tryin kick some sort of knowledge that tends to be false...

Gotcha.

 

[Townbizz23]

True, but has that HAPPENED yet? No? That it is NOT considered WEALTH at this point. Do you see the logic here?

:ermm:



Is Oprah dead? No? Then how do you know how she will be financially in a year? 10 years? She could go bankrupt in a week, stranger things have happened.

The fact is, right now, these folks are RICH...not WEALTHY. Their riches have NOT been passed down to ANYONE yet, so how can they be wealthy??? You people are ASSUMING they will, nothing more.

Again, none of those people should be on a "wealthy" list.

SMH @ people having reading comprehension problems

So just because their money hasn't been passed down YET they aren't wealthy? That's ridiculous. Oprah's production company will live on LONG after she is dead. Her family will be making money off that company LONG after she's gone. I don't even know if she has kids, but if she does, and they have half a brain, they will be collecting millions if not billions for the rest of their lives. The majority of the people on this list have money making institutions that will last past their lives. That=Wealth. Just because they haven't passed anything down YET doesn't mean they aren't wealthy. They have the ABILITY to pass it down....that is what matters.

Of course anything could happen, but the likelihood of Oprah, or anybody else on this list going bankrupt is extremely low.

 

[Fucky McFuckerson]

So just because their money hasn't been passed down YET they aren't wealthy? That's ridiculous. Oprah's production company will live on LONG after she is dead. Her family will be making money off that company LONG after she's gone. I don't even know if she has kids, but if she does, and they have half a brain, they will be collecting millions if not billions for the rest of their lives. The majority of the people on this list have money making institutions that will last past their lives. That=Wealth. Just because they haven't passed anything down YET doesn't mean they aren't wealthy. They have the ABILITY to pass it down....that is what matters.

Again, you are predicintg the future as if it were truth, which is asinine. You, nor I, have ANY clue what will happen even TOMORROW...let alone GENERATIONS from now. As it stands, Opprah, and the rest of those folks, are RICH...nothing MORE, nothing LESS. You can not measure wealth in a span of 20 years...even Bill Gates is considered rich and not wealthy.

Of course anything could happen, but the likelihood of Oprah, or anybody else on this list going bankrupt is extremely low.

LOL....tell that to the MANY sports stars who have filed bankruptcy in the last decade. I think many people would be shocked to find what some of these former athletes are doing for money these days.

 

[Townbizz23]

Again, you are predicintg the future as if it were truth, which is asinine. You, nor I, have ANY clue what will happen even TOMORROW...let alone GENERATIONS from now. As it stands, Opprah, and the rest of those folks, are RICH...nothing MORE, nothing LESS. You can not measure wealth in a span of 20 years...even Bill Gates is considered rich and not wealthy.



LOL....tell that to the MANY sports stars who have filed bankruptcy in the last decade. I think many people would be shocked to find what some of these former athletes are doing for money these days.

WOW I don't think you understand what it means to be wealthy. You do not have to pass your money to be wealthy. You have to have the ABILITY to pass your money on. I don't have to look into the future to see 2.7 Billion dollars can be passed on. For you to say Bill Gates isn't wealthy is completely absurd. Don't say "Bill Gates isn't considered wealthy," because that isn't a factually correct statement. Maybe in your eyes he's not, but in the eyes of everybody else in the world he is.

I'm not talking about sports figures and entertainers. I'm talking about people that have money making machines in their corner. An NBA salary is hardly a perpetual money making machine. Harpo Productions (Oprah's Company) is.

In actuality, there is no real definition to the word wealth. The meaning differs from person to person. The economic community considers wealth as money/assets that are perpetual, and that last longer than lifetimes. No, I cannot see the future, but for you to argue that Bill Gates or Oprah aren't wealthy because "I don't know what can happen to their money tomorrow" is ridiculous. What is more likely, Oprah's Harpo Productions will declare bankruptcy out of the clear blue sky and she will lose her $2.7 Billion worth of assets, or her company will continue doing what it has been doing since it's conception?

 

[marty50]

at what amount of money is soemone considered nigga rich? i was thinkin like $100,000.

i know for most central americans it's like $20,000 and yer guatamateco rich. and if you can count to ten like in this phrase, you guatamateco rich

1,2,3,4,5....6,7,8,9,10...guatamateco....
doooo, dooodooodoooo, es nigh, nigh...doooo, doodoodooodoo, es nigh, yeaaaa.

 

[Gordon Gekko]

I agree with a few posts made earlier in this thread. It is that every one on that list made their money from sports/entertainment. How many of them are CEO's of companies that has nothing to do with sports/entertainment?

 

[Fucky McFuckerson]

WOW I don't think you understand what it means to be wealthy. You do not have to pass your money to be wealthy. You have to have the ABILITY to pass your money on. I don't have to look into the future to see 2.7 Billion dollars can be passed on. For you to say Bill Gates isn't wealthy is completely absurd. Don't say "Bill Gates isn't considered wealthy," because that isn't a factually correct statement. Maybe in your eyes he's not, but in the eyes of everybody else in the world he is.

Wrong. Wealth is ACCUMULATED money and property.

I'm not talking about sports figures and entertainers. I'm talking about people that have money making machines in their corner. An NBA salary is hardly a perpetual money making machine. Harpo Productions (Oprah's Company) is.

It doesnt matter the circumstances, as getting millions a year is putting you in the upper crust of society, period. What YOU do with it determines your future.

In actuality, there is no real definition to the word wealth. The meaning differs from person to person. The economic community considers wealth as money/assets that are perpetual, and that last longer than lifetimes.

Which is EXACTLY what i have edluing to this ENTIRE thread, but people seem to not understand this.

No, I cannot see the future, but for you to argue that Bill Gates or Oprah aren't wealthy because "I don't know what can happen to their money tomorrow" is ridiculous.

No, its NOT. What if Oprah DOES spend her money within the next year? Is she then rich? No, she is BROKE. How about Bill Gates? What if he buys a a few companies out that completely tank and he is left with only a fraction of what he has now, is he wealthy? Absolutely NOT. Do you see the pattern

What is more likely, Oprah's Harpo Productions will declare bankruptcy out of the clear blue sky and she will lose her $2.7 Billion worth of assets, or her company will continue doing what it has been doing since it's conception?

You tell me since you seem to be able to look into the future. All Im saying is, NOTHING is definite and those folks are NOT wealthy, regardless of what YOU think. We can go back and fourth until the cows come home but i stand where i do...as of RIGHT THIS VERY MOMENT IN TIME, everyone on that list is RICH, not WEALTHY.

 

[Gordon Gekko]

To the guy who's saying that no one on this list is wealthy (even though these people are worth hundreds of millions of dollars), what is your financial status looking like?

 

[Fucky McFuckerson]

To the guy who's saying that no one on this list is wealthy (even though these people are worth hundreds of millions of dollars), what is your financial status looking like?

Sorry, your red herring tactics will not get any play in this thread, sport. This thread is not about me or my financial status, it is about the word wealth. Nothing more. You get an F for effort.

Wealth is NOT synonymous with rich.

 

[Gordon Gekko]

Sorry, your red herring tactics will not get any play in this thread, sport. This thread is not about me or my financial status, it is about the word wealth. Nothing more. You get an F for effort.

Wealth is NOT synonymous with rich.

Even with all the fancy and deflective wording, your reply basically means that you're broke.

 

[Dhadnot]

and what does that have to do with the people on the Forbes list being wealthy or rich?

 

[Gordon Gekko]

and what does that have to do with the people on the Forbes list being wealthy or rich?

It has a lot to do with it. Does it make sense to listen to someone talk about money that doesn't have any?

If he were rich himself, then he would be in a position to say that the people on the list aren't wealthy. But since he isn't, then it sounds idiotic to say that...especially when these people are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. If that isn't wealthy then I don't know what is. Who cares if they could lose it next week? They haven't lost it, so what's his point?

 

[Townbizz23]

Wrong. Wealth is ACCUMULATED money and property.



It doesnt matter the circumstances, as getting millions a year is putting you in the upper crust of society, period. What YOU do with it determines your future.



Which is EXACTLY what i have edluing to this ENTIRE thread, but people seem to not understand this.



No, its NOT. What if Oprah DOES spend her money within the next year? Is she then rich? No, she is BROKE. How about Bill Gates? What if he buys a a few companies out that completely tank and he is left with only a fraction of what he has now, is he wealthy? Absolutely NOT. Do you see the pattern



You tell me since you seem to be able to look into the future. All Im saying is, NOTHING is definite and those folks are NOT wealthy, regardless of what YOU think. We can go back and fourth until the cows come home but i stand where i do...as of RIGHT THIS VERY MOMENT IN TIME, everyone on that list is RICH, not WEALTHY.

That's clean how you quote each one of my things I don't know how to do that lol......As far as your definition of wealth being "accumulated money and property," that means squat if it doesn't have the ability to last. MC Hammer accumulated millions of dollars worth of shit, but he wasn't considered wealthy because his didn't have the ability to last. Spending habits and amount play into wealthy.

You keep alluding to this "what if" shit. "What if Oprah goes bankrupt" "What if she spends all her money tomorrow." Why can't you understand the unlikelihood of that happening? Her spending habits and financial stability is a reason why she is wealthy. People that are loose with money can't be wealthy. So that "what if she spends it all" doesn't work.

Do you understand what a perpetual money making machine is? It is where you have a company that will make money for you long after you are gone. If I have that I am wealthy. I can never be broke and never go bankrupt to the point of losing my wealth. Walt Disney is an example of that. He been dead for decades, look at his company. He was considered wealthy when he was living because a perpetual money making machine is what he molded his company to be. This is not coming from me this is coming from economists.

You obviously do not know about Bill Gates assets. There is nothing on this earth that could make him lose his money. 56 BILLION dollars net. He gives away billions a year to charity. His money works for him. He could not lose it if he tried. That is wealth.

I'm not mad at you for standing where you do, I'm actually surprised that we have been able to talk about this without getting personal. But the fact of the matter is, you have an extremely unorthodox view on this matter. If you were to say that "Bill Gates isn't wealthy" to any economist or anybody that runs in that circle they would look at you like you are crazy. That's just a fact. By your logic damn near nobody on this earth is wealthy. Maybe we should just eradicate the word wealth from the English language.