The calculation is the peak worth of the president, which would include wealth accumulated after becoming president. Particularly for the modern presidents, I'm more interested in seeing the peak estimate up until they become president.

In the introductory section, they say -- in italics -- "One of the most important conclusions of this analysis is that the presidency has little to do with wealth."

And then they list 43 presidents' net worth; their lowest (and quite sparsely populated) category is "less than $1M" and from a quick glance I think the median is somewhere around $10M.

Yup, sure looks to me as if the presidency has little to do with wealth.

(Perhaps what they mean is that there's no single simple strong connection: being president doesn't mean that you instantly become rich, and also doesn't require you to have been rich first. Well, sure, but so what?)

1. Odd statement on JQ Adams: "He devoted most of his adult life to public service, notably after leaving office." True, but clearer if one said "notably as a congressman after his single term as president".

2. The statement that Cleveland's estate was outside Washington, DC, is I think incorrect. It is the neighborhood now called Cleveland Park, well within city limits but then I suppose newly developed.

3. The calculation on Hayes makes me wonder whether they are including real estate valuations at current prices. That's fine if an area is still planted in corn or tobacco, less so if it was crops and is now built up.

Annoying: the link takes you to the middle of the 5 page series.

Here's the link to the first page: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/05/the-net-...

Google spreadsheet:

http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Ak_L_zLqm09sdGQ0bXBC...

What amazes me is how many of them died penniless, despite having once held huge fortunes!

I find it odd that George Washington was worth half a billion dollars. It makes me wonder if his motive for revolution was extravagant wealth (Edit: In the sense that he amassed this fortune through the revolution, not so that he could help create a place where you were free to amass that wealth).

Each snippet is too brief and breazy to have much redeeming value. For instance while Washington was the richest man in the 13 colonies at the time of the Revolution, he was land-rich and controlled some significant means of production, but like everyone else in the colonies he would have difficulty raising cash.

Also it's easy to overlook the significance of the several presidents, Lincoln included, whose peak assets, including the equity in their residences, was less than $1 million in today's money. Can you imagine electing a president like that today? Also note how they are clustered around the Civil War. I don't know what the significance of that is, if any.

This would be so much more awesome in visual form. As a five-page table, it's impossible to extract any conclusions from.

undefined