How the .0001% Made Its Money

http://priceonomics.com/how-the-0001-made-its-money/

by ruswick • 13 years ago

176 142 13 years ago

Sagat• 13 years ago

I wonder when we will have the first dollar trillionaire. (Rockefeller doesn't count) It's likely that some people will own entire planets in the future.

Romoku• 13 years ago

I think on paper you can get close with derivatives although you'll never be able to liquidate them.

a3voices• 13 years ago

This reminded me of a Star Wars book where Han Solo won a planet in a game.

Han Solo won the deed to Dathomir from Drackmarian Warlord Omogg in a game of sabacc in 8 ABY.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Dathomir

arca_vorago• 13 years ago

I remember a documentary by a wealthy persons son who interviewed one of the founders of Kinkos who makes a comment something along the lines of wanting to look down on Earth from the Moon someday and being able to say, "I own (part?) of that."

loceng• 13 years ago

That doesn't say where they made their money - it shows where their money went, meaning where the highest profits were possible. Of course you can recycle those profits into those high-profit systems. Important distinction to make if you're wanting to understand these systems.

sgloutnikov2• 13 years ago

Personally, the "Finance" growth part of the graph over the years worries me. Creating wealth from thin air and lobbying :|

gcb1• 13 years ago

like putting a fence on some land?

like having rights to some nation natural resources (energy on the graph if not clear)

all wealth is created out of thin air for the 1%. they just adapt every time the not 1% comes closer to their turf.

NhanH3• 13 years ago

I might well be very wrong here, but the main difference is that the other type of wealth-creation process actually creates more wealth (more products for everyone). While finance seems more like wealth-accumulation without the creation process - I'm aware that redistribution of resource in an efficient way is supposedly the part finance does in the wealth creation process, I'm just unconvinced of how much does that help, in relation with the return the finance sector on average get.

CoachRufus87• 13 years ago

Why doesn't 'VC' fall under 'Finance'?

aspir• 13 years ago

It could be argued that VC involves the building of technology businesses, rather than simply investing in a hands off manner. It's a fine line, but the famous VCs that come to my mind (Doerr, Andreessen) help mentor and grow a company, and similar financiers (Buffett, Soros) are more industry analysts and money managers. It's a gross simplification, but it may be what they were thinking.

yummyfajitas• 13 years ago

You could make the same argument about a lot of private equity - that tends to involve the restructuring/managing of various brick&mortar.

mmagin• 13 years ago

It's kind of alarming how in recent years, "Finance" pulled ahead of "Tech & VC", according to the second graph. But there's one line on the graph that's missing from the legend. Sloppy.

jfoutz• 13 years ago

Blue, retail; orange, real estate; yellow,finance; green, energy; purple, tech. I only count five lines.

Shivetya• 13 years ago

the good take-a-way is that more people created than inherited

werner343• 13 years ago

Exactly my opinion. And even though I normally lean towards free market related views when it comes to regulation and government, I think a high inheritance tax would be justified in western countries. With it universities & infrastructure could be funded and possibly enable more people to get a university degree.

My underlying reasoning: Every new generation is a giant possiblity for mankind. Now who do we want to command the most resources? If we had kings, it would be the kings heir, no matter if he is clever or not. Thats bad obviously. If we have capitalism without a high inheritance tax, we might have people like Paris Hilton commanding massive fortunes even though some poor kids might have done a lot better with it if they had a chance of acquiring wealth in the first place.

By having a high inheritance tax one would avoid unbelievable fortunes being handed down to people that are not qualified at all.

Another aspect is obviously that the state needs to motivate people to work better than their peers. If - like in communism - it doesn't matter anymore if I work harder than my peers, so I don't work hard. Assuming that most people work for personal gain, wealth, and so that they children have it better than themselves, you need to leave them their wealth during their lifetime and enable them to hand down some part of their income to their kids, and not give all back to the public. If they would have to give everything to the public, the really bright people might stop working at 35 when they accumulated enough wealth for themselves, knowing their children won't benefit from it anyways.

Good article.

icebraining• 13 years ago

Though I'm attracted to the idea, inheritance tax was always a concept that I see (probably due to ignorance) as extremely vulnerable to "an extra layer of indirection". You see, I'm not actually transferring the company to my son, I'm transferring it to a trust in Switzerland that is controlled by my daughter-in-law.

hackula1• 13 years ago

I would be a libertarian if we went to 100% inheritance tax and put every cent to education. Let the true competition begin.

elp1stolero• 13 years ago

I certainly feel your sentiment, werner38 (Re: Paris Hilton - right?), but I disagree with your conclusions.

And I agree with you that it is not necessarily a positive outcome that a king's heir would assume the wealth of the king. However, I think the trade-off of using law to essentially plunder property (again, assuming the property was acquired through no act of injustice), undermines the purpose of law - to defend against injustice.

Property (acquired or created justly) is typically an outcome of liberty, and often fate (birth, luck, etc). I don't believe we can alter either of these conditions through tax law (force) without undermining the justice of law itself.

Furthermore, in my view, I don't believe an individual's property is something that anyone else has a claim to dispense with, especially a political organ such as the 'the state' (an entity which bears very little responsibility for the outcome of it's economic and financial actions).

That doesn't mean I necessarily like the idea of people amassing or acquiring resources without work. But the reason I work hard is to benefit the things which I choose to value: my family, my community, the erasing of Star Wars Ep. 1-3 from history, etc. I want to give my kids a better shot at life than myself. Property may be a component, but is far down the list from things like values, and work ethic. But these are my choices for my life. That to me, is the American Dream - to be free live how I choose - not wealth and things. Whether I am very rich at some point, or not - I don't believe force should be employed to negate or alter my choices, nor do I wish to use force to alter your's or someone else's.

Maybe I'm way out of my gourd, but the fact that Paris Hilton has a huge amount of wealth, and no values is a total failure of her parents - not the inheritance itself.

dlsx• 13 years ago

I was thinking this too, but also the population has risen and so has the average life-span so I think the amount of new people joining the wealthy class is about the same as it always has been if not even less due to the old wealth never dying off.

dxbydt• 13 years ago

Needs a lot more granularity - in particular, the "Finance" bar needs its own bar graph ie. what exactly does making money in Finance entail - working for a retail/commercial bank ? IB ? Prime Brokerage ? Wealth Management ? Equities ? Derivatives ? FX ? Algorithmic Trading ? Mutual funds ? StatArb ? LBO ? ...

alexmayyasi• 13 years ago

The original paper breaks down finance between 3-4 categories. (If you google the title you can find free pdfs.)

We combined them to make it more clear for the casual reader.

~priceonomicist

ffrryuu2• 13 years ago

Off the rest of us.

AsymetricCom• 13 years ago

No, no. "Finance"

ffrryuu2• 13 years ago

They print the money, we get the left overs! Trickle down!

Florin_Andrei2• 13 years ago

The popular view of America's upper class is that of an ossified aristocracy. But research from the National Bureau of Economic Research shakes up this view, at least among America's richest individuals.
The individuals of the Forbes 400 List are the wealthiest people in America - the top .0001%

Am I the only one who sees the contradiction? On one hand, they say things are not that bad. But then they turn around and start talking about the 0.0001%.

In other words, it's not too bad - if you're one of those 1 in 1 million.

pg2• 13 years ago

They're talking about these people's origins, not their current wealth.

Florin_Andrei2• 13 years ago

Let me emphasize it again - perhaps by sheer repetition, the main point will become obvious:

It's not something relevant to the general population, the middle class in general, or the concept of social mobility, IF IT ONLY APPLIES TO 1 PERSON IN 1 MILLION.

balsam3• 13 years ago

Alright, pg, I had enough. I looked at the list of Russia's billionaires. At least 5 of them had humble backgrounds. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Gutseriev) 1 has a Muslim father. Some have Jewish sounding last names. Some of them had no early data.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_people_by_net_w...

EDIT: Will check my hypothesis that Communist politburo members had an even more varied background, to support some extreme conclusions.

comrade_ogilvy2• 13 years ago

If it only applies to 1 in a million, it is not even demonstrably useful information about the upper class itself.

From a matter of plain definitions, Bill Gates started in the upper class from the moment of his birth. His circumstance did not require him to work a single day, in order to live comfortably for his entire life; ergo, he is upper class.

It may be true he rose from "upper class" to "very upper class" based on 99.9% his own achievement, but it is a non-argument regarding the ossification of the aristocracy in general. Guessing about the other 99% of the aristocracy based on the particulars of the most extreme 1% of the aristocracy is not logical.

firstOrder• 13 years ago

The first paragraph says: > The popular view of America's upper class is that of an ossified aristocracy. But research from the National Bureau of Economic Research shakes up this view, at least among America's richest individuals.

Not much has shaken up this view. Half of the list inherited $400 million or more upon turning 18. Even the other half of the list are from among a small percentage of America's upper middle class.

#1 Bill Gates. Father a wealthy lawyer. His grandfather was a national bank president. He went to an elite private grammar school, which had teletypes and computer timesharing back in the 1960s. His mother was on the board of United Way with the CEO of IBM - a helpful thing for a son who became a billionaire by riding IBM's coattails. Despite all of this, he is still on the bootstrapped, self-made side of the F400 list. He is not one of the heirs.

Next is Warren Buffett. His father was a congressman. His grandfather owned a string of stores. And so on.

The rest of the top ten are the Waltons, who inherited Wal-Mart on birth, the Koch brothers, who inherited an oil company on birth, plus Larry Ellison and Michael Bloomberg. Ellison and Bloomberg are the only middle class people on the list.

I do think there are new trends happening at this level, but they don't point to what the blog post authors are pointing to.

morley• 13 years ago

The article goes on to address your point.

From the article:

During the period the researchers investigated, the number of individuals on the Forbes 400 who were the first in their family to run a business rose from 40% to 69%. Sixty percent of individuals on the list grew up wealthy in 1982 while only 32% did in 2011.

stormbrew3• 13 years ago

This strikes me as likely to be just a delayed propagation of the increase in upward mobility seen in the post-war years. It seems entirely reasonable for that to take a couple of generations of people building on their parent's wealth accumulation to propagate upwards to the very top.

How many of those people's success could you trace back to the GI bill? Gates' father attended university because of it, for example.

adventured4• 13 years ago

Bill Gates shouldn't be listed as someone who inherited his wealth: he did not inherit it.

The $100 billion he'll give away was of his own creation, spurred from effort of his own mind, from a company born of his own fingers and imagination.

We're having this conversation thanks to the Internet, probably via relatively inexpensive tools/gadgets. Which means we've all inherited an extraordinary privilege - courtesy of the immense efforts of countless others and countless invested wealth - that I would argue is drastically beyond anything Gates had the benefit of despite his family. What have you done with it? (rhetorical)

The privilege we're all enjoying right now - all of this easily accessible, relatively cheap, amazing technology - is beyond anything being born to a successful Seattle lawyer is worth. Why aren't we all millionaires N times over? If you understand that point, then you understand why Gates deserves credit for his wealth.

His mother didn't make the deal with IBM (in fact Ballmer was arguably most instrumental in the nuanced legal structure that gave Microsoft its position), and his mother didn't execute and build software for 30 years against tremendous odds and competition either. Is your theory that Bill Gates should be penalized for being born into a family and situation that was not of his own choosing? Such that you pretend his wealth wasn't of his own creation and is null and void, because his father was a lawyer (remind me again what making $100k a year as a lawyer in 1970 has to do with your son generating a $100 billion fortune in 2000, seems to me there are a lot of extraordinary steps required to get from one to the other no matter how good your first step is, whether you're Steve Jobs or Bill Gates).

There are 9 million millionaires in the US currently, and this country has been rich for a long time now. Why aren't we drowning in Bill Gates clones? The answer is obvious.

Any idea how many successful lawyer sons didn't generate $100 billion in wealth the last 40 years? All of them but one. Gates is one in a million even by that narrow-down.

I'd counter argue that Buffett would have been successful regardless of his father being a Congressman (it's absurd to think that a one term trip to DC is what made Buffett what he is). Indeed, using Buffett as an example is the absolute worst thing you could do: the market doesn't care if your daddy was a Congressman, it was his massive results that spoke volumes, got people to invest with him over time, and made him rich. Some of his shareholders held for decades. It was his understanding of how to make money, and his ability to sell that vision, that scored his first investments. Even doctors don't like to lose $100k to some idiot kid, no matter who their father is (his father wasn't that important, and his grandfather's stores weren't that wildly successful).

Or did you think people were buying Berkshire at $100 because his daddy was a a borderline irrelevant Congressman for one term?

dustinrodrigues• 13 years ago

It's not that he inherited his wealth, it's that he grew up in a privileged environment that gave him opportunities most other people didn't have.

Q6T46nT668w6i3m• 13 years ago

Sure, but Gates frequently admits he won the so-called “ovarian lottery.”

hershel• 13 years ago

> His mother didn't make the deal with IBM (in fact Ballmer was arguably most instrumental in the nuanced legal structure that gave Microsoft its position)

Just for the sake of discussion: if his mother and her relation to the IBM top executive had a critical part in IBM's biggest business mistake ever - doesn't it make sense that they won't want to share those details ?

recuter2• 13 years ago

Buffet made his initial nut by raising a sort of "Friends & Family" round for a mini-hedge-fund type thing. You can read about his wealthy Aunts and extended family in Snowball.

He was doing this on the side while working at his daddys Buffett-Falk & Co as an investment salesman. He did well and after stalking Graham was able to get a gig in NYC for a few years before returning to running "mini-hedge-fund" type partnerships in his hometown.

So being a son of a congressman surely helped in raising many many millions of dollars from the Nebraska elite. I would even argue its almost a necessary but insufficient condition for making his initial fortune - he got dealt a great hand but he also played it very very well.

technosmurf• 13 years ago

Bill Gates shouldn't be listed as someone who inherited his wealth: he did not inherit it.

According to Philip Greenspun, Bill Gates started off with a million-dollar trust fund:

"William Henry Gates III made his best decision on October 28, 1955, the night he was born. He chose J.W. Maxwell as his great-grandfather. Maxwell founded Seattle's National City Bank in 1906. His son, James Willard Maxwell was also a banker and established a million-dollar trust fund for William (Bill) Henry Gates III."

http://philip.greenspun.com/bg/

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6546325

stormbrew3• 13 years ago

This is a gross misunderstanding of the concept of privilege. The idea is not that Gates or Buffet's work had nothing to do with their success but that their work got them farther, per unit (if you could define such a thing), than would someone with less access to privileged parts of society.

Someone who's parents can't send them to college will obviously have to work harder than someone for whom a college education is assured. Someone who lives in a connected family will have to work less hard to be connected themselves.

In particular, this:

The privilege we're all enjoying right now - all of this easily accessible, relatively cheap, amazing technology - is beyond anything being born to a successful Seattle lawyer is worth.

Seems anything but given to me. And you don't really make a compelling argument for it. That said, Bill Gates clearly had access to both technology and connections beyond average means, so I'm not sure what it has to do with anything.

nostromo• 13 years ago

Your comment has sparked a debate that always plays out the same way.

Let's just jump to the punchline and argue if the universe is deterministic or not.

selmnoo• 13 years ago

From a broadly macroscopic point-of-view, it most definitely is. A child in Nigeria born to dirt poverty has near zero chance of, for example, having a stable, respectable salary (of our definition) in his or her future. I think microscopically it might be a little controversial to call it deterministic, but my personal anecdotes certainly point that way. I attended a public school in the inner city when I was young, and later moved out of there to a suburbun school. Looking at where the two sets of folks are now with a little Googling and a little Facebooking, the former are not doing well at all; the latter are doing very well. What's more, the folks I expected to be doing well from the inner city crowd are not doing well, and conversely a lot of the slackers from the suburban school are actually doing remarkably, surprisingly well in some cases.

pc86• 13 years ago

America’s .0001% is becoming more meritocratic, but the means of a middle class background remain a necessary launching board.

Doesn't this directly contradict the preceding statement that those "born into poverty stayed level at 20%?" Maybe I'm being too pedantic with my interpretation of "necessary" but 20% seems a sizable chunk.

programminggeek• 13 years ago

The economic story of the past decades is supposed to be the death of the American Dream. Income inequality has risen, the wealth of the middle class stagnated, and stories of the poor working their way to prosperity became just stories.

I think the article doesn't really do a good job to change that view. The inequality has risen and the wealth of the middle class has stagnated. This is absolutely true.

Things like raises are no longer the norm, bonuses in many jobs have disappeared, prices and debt have risen much faster than the rise in income. At the same time, wealthy people continue to grow their wealth.

The fact the top 0.0001% gained their wealth not by inheriting it doesn't change what is happening to the poor, middle class, etc. as a result.

Samuel_Michon2• 13 years ago

The top 0.0001% gained their wealth not by inheriting it

How did you come to that conclusion? I looked for that in the figures, but I couldn’t find what percentage came into money from an inheritance. Perhaps it’s placed in the 12% ‘Diversified/Other’ category, but the impression I got from the article was that they tallied how the money was earned in the first place, not where the ones holding the purse got it from.

I believe your interpretation of the article in this aspect is incorrect. For instance, 4 of the top 10 spots are taken up by members of the Walton family. Those people inherited their wealth from Bud and Sam Walton, the founders of Wal*Mart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walton_family

alnis• 13 years ago

From the article:

Kaplan and Rauh find that America’s wealthiest are no longer a collection of Rockefellers and Carnegies. During the period the researchers investigated, the number of individuals on the Forbes 400 who were the first in their family to run a business rose from 40% to 69%. Sixty percent of individuals on the list grew up wealthy in 1982 while only 32% did in 2011.
Although being born into wealth is less and less necessary for admission to the club of America’s wealthiest individuals, ...

walid5• 13 years ago

Do some math. According to Wikipedia the population of the USA is 316,856,000. The 0.0001% of the population is 31685 after removing partial human beings caused by mathematical division. If the Forbes 400 list is used as a sample space for the rest of the 0.0001% then the numbers seem plausible. Note that I'm just playing "mathematician" and I haven't analyzed the 400 people in the list or did anything deeply scientific.

walid5• 13 years ago

The last sentence is the most important point of the article and probably should have been a separate article on its own:

America’s .0001% is becoming more meritocratic, but the means of a middle class background remain a necessary launching board.

So in other words the most important aspect is to be from the middle class to be successful otherwise your chances are much less. Makes sense on many levels such as chances of personal development due to financial and psychological stability. Poverty has been in the news lately and I read an article on how being poor impacts IQ simply because it becomes the mind's obsession of finding means to survive.

humanrebar6• 13 years ago

being poor impacts IQ simply because it becomes the mind's obsession of finding means to survive.

While that's poetic, I'm very skeptical that you could even prove that empirically.

It's much more likely (because it is empirically demonstrable) that IQ is more strongly impacted by genetics (IQ of the parents), prenatal care (especially with respect to smoking and binge drinking), and childhood (mal)nutrition. I'm not sure how you would even test "obsession with survival" controlling for those things, all of which are much more common in poverty-stricken households.

I'm not saying that worrying about the next meal isn't terrible, but I am saying that we need to make sure we're not getting our causes and effects mixed up here. We can't just emulate "middle class" advantages for poor kids and expect the playing field to be level.

In other words, it's not as simple as saying being middle class is necessary to be successful, because to some degree, having minimally successful parents is necessary to be middle class in the first place. And why are parents successful? Probably things like good impulse control, general responsibility, mental health, and innate intelligence. Many of those things have certain genetic components.

So how do we make sure every kid has a fair shake at being rich? I'm not sure there's a good answer to that since it seems like so many of your cards are dealt in who your parents are. If you're really worried about it, I suggest you support substance-abuse recovery programs and food banks. Keeping kids healthy, well-fed, and free of birth defects are things we should be doing anyway.

gadders2• 13 years ago

Do you not think that a lower IQ would tend you to have lower earning power?

bedhead2• 13 years ago

The widening wealth inequality as it relates to inheritance can be explained mostly by one simple concept, something Buffett himself call the most powerful force in the universe: compounding. Wise people with money, given enough time, will rocket to become insanely wealthy. Compounding does nothing for the middle class who generally spend most of their income, and it works the opposite way for the poor who are debtors. Over time this force will make the wealth gap worse and worse, which is exactly what's happened.

ljf• 13 years ago

"wise people with money" or did you mean "people who are wise with their money" - America seems to have a default setting of rich people = good, poor = stupid.

sgloutnikov2• 13 years ago

Inequality for All is a movie worth checking out - http://inequalityforall.com

scotty792• 13 years ago

Surest way is real estate. Just buy real estate and rent it. Repeat over 3 or 4 generations. Congratulations. You created a rich family. All other ways involve luck.

cylinder• 13 years ago

What you're saying is "The surest way to get rich is to be rich."

Real estate is just a way to invest money you already have. It doesn't generate wealth unless you have access to capital and can put deals together to develop properties and take a chunk. But that might as well put you in the "Finance" category.

scotty792• 13 years ago

You can build real estate gradually, starting with one, two, three apartments paid for with your job and rent your tenants pay. At some point, pretty early you could stop working but if you don't you can buy additional apartments faster. During first generation, I think, you could buy around 10 if you have a good job. Your children will be able buy faster, their grandchildren even faster.

msellout2• 13 years ago

The stock market has performed better than real estate over the same 4 generations.

yodsanklai• 13 years ago

"America’s .0001% is becoming more meritocratic"

They make it sounds it should be comforting somehow. But I don't think it makes any difference. Does it matter whether they won the lottery, inherited, or "earned" their money? the fact is that very few people own much of the wealth.

sigil• 13 years ago

It's also hard to stay on top, and it gets harder the closer you are: the turnover of individuals in these extreme upper brackets is high [0].

The composition of the very top income groups changed dramatically over time. Less than half (39% or 42% depending on the measure) of those in the top 1% in 1996 were still in the top 1% in 2005. Less than one-fourth of the individuals in the top 1/100th percent in 1996 remained in that group in 2005.

[0] http://ntj.tax.org/wwtax/ntjrec.nsf/F95C00D9840D35F2852575F4...

humanrebar6• 13 years ago

Year-to-year income of the top 1% is probably a poor measure of "staying on top".

I would like to see those numbers controlled for wealth. Some of those people whose incomes move in and out of the top 1% are just in boom-or-bust jobs or own boom-or-bust businesses or investments. Others are big earners who recently retired to extremely comfortable fixed incomes.

Neither category really fits what I would think of as someone losing his or her "on top" status.

On the other hand, moving from a high-income high cost-of-living area (SF or NYC) to a lower-income, low cost-of-living area (Boulder, KC, or Charlotte) will technically move you out of the 1% while improving your standard of living.

Yhippa• 13 years ago

the rising share of the Forbes 400 List accounted for by technology and finance supports theories that explain America’s rising income inequality by how technology has favored the accumulation of wealth and made certain sectors more scaleable. Tech moguls like Mark Zuckerberg and Sergey Brin account for a rising share of new fortunes.

Reading that reminded me of this: http://www.theonion.com/articles/economists-advise-nations-p...

holograham• 13 years ago

I am curious on this articles definition of poverty. The statement that 20% of the forbes 400 was born in poverty is insufficient on it's own. More telling would be that percentage compared to the percentage of poor in America. That number could be very favorable (or very unfavorable) depending on the metric for poverty used.

brianbreslin• 13 years ago

I would love to see this article applied to the .0000001% who control 35% of Russia's wealth got their money. ;-)

anovikov3• 13 years ago

You somehow forget that less than 20% of Americans live, or are born into poverty. With 20% of Forbes list having poverty background, this kind of, means that if you are poor in childhood, you have higher chances to get to Forbes list than if you are middle (well, really middle) class. Hard to explain.

Maybe because poor have nothing to lose so they are more prone to risky things that stand at the root of their business? Or reverse, they have medicaid so can afford more risk being less dependent on employers paying for their health insurance?

anovikov3• 13 years ago

I think i understood why is this. Middle class kids are usually taught by their parents to obey the rules, learn and work hard and be loyal. Which is a way to keep in the middle class but hardly a way get to upper class. Most poor kids are probably not taught by their parents anything because parents are busy drinking and smoking pot, except the very valuable teaching of not trusting anyone at all.

balsam3• 13 years ago

My favorite use of extreme statistics to justify the superiority of one culture over another is Nobel Prizes per capita. #sarcasm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Nobel_laur...

adsr• 13 years ago

Is 0.0001% really that useful for drawing any conclusions at all. I mean it's one in a million.

joeldidit• 13 years ago

The 0.0001% made their money from oil, tech, and the stock market. Simple. If you want to make that kinda money these days, then you have to get into the tech industry.

anovikov3• 13 years ago

I wonder how are things going in U.K. in this respect? Their upper class must be mostly still with roots from 1066AD?

How the .0001% Made Its Money

Related Stories