Bill Gates No Longer World's Richest Man 413
alphadogg writes "Riding surging prices of his various telecom holdings, including giant mobile outfit America Movil, Mexican tycoon Carlos Slim Helu has beaten out Americans Bill Gates and Warren Buffett to become the wealthiest person on earth and nab the top spot on the 2010 Forbes list of the World's Billionaires." I'd still let the guy buy me dinner if he's ever in my town. He's probably still good for it even though he's fallen on hard times.
Wonderful news (Score:5, Insightful)
When I'm laid off and searching garbage cans for food, it will bring me great comfort to know that at least someone is doing well.
Re:Wonderful news (Score:4, Insightful)
It should, because if everyone were poor the world would be an even nastier place.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No way, that's not fair, if I'm going to poor then everyone will be!
Re: (Score:2)
The U.S. billionaires have a combined wealth of about $1.4 trillion.
Medicare and social security spending last year was about $1.15 trillion (those aren't actually particularly good proxies for 'not wealthy', but they do illustrate where a good chunk of the U.S. GDP goes). It is somewhat safe to assume that poor and middle class people spent $4 or $5 trillion.
So the super wealthy certainly benefit more than everyone else, but it is absurd to assert that they are keeping other people poor when their combined
Re:Wonderful news (Score:4, Interesting)
Billionaire is a much poorer proxy for "really wealthy" than medicare and social security are for "not wealthy." The fact of the matter is that the top quartile controls ~90% of the wealth in the US, the remaining 10% is contained almost entirely in the upper reaches of the second quartile. (the bottom quartile has negative wealth)
So the real effect of the fortunes of the 403 billionaires in this country is less keeping people poor and more keeping rich people from becoming super-rich. It's the top 10% as a whole that is keeping other people poor. More troubling is the direction of the trend. Real median income has decreased since the '70s, whereas the income of the 95th percentile has risen exponentially.
Re:Wonderful news (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wonderful news (Score:5, Insightful)
It should, because if everyone were poor the world would be an even nastier place.
news flash 90% are poor. and the world IS a nasty place. because you live in a very rich country and dont see reality means you really have no idea.
Go spend 1 week with the poor of India, or in Afganastan, China, Korea, Russia, Mongolia, or anyplace in South america or Africa. THAT is poor, and that is what most of the people on this planet live like.
Re:Wonderful news (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wonderful news (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Wonderful news (Score:5, Funny)
Thats not a fair comparison, in many of the poor areas that were mentioned above (afganastan, mongolia, etc) you are much less likely to get shot.
Re:Wonderful news (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Wonderful news (Score:5, Insightful)
Just think what good could come if he was not sucking all of that money out of all of those poor economies. They might even be able to save and invest and grow their economies. Instead, Carlos uses the money to expand into banking and other areas to make even more money for himself.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I just have to ask. . . generally speaking, the wealth of people on the Forbes' list is comprised *mostly* of equity holdings in companies (that is, Bill Gates is worth 53 Billion, but he doesn't have that in cash - most of it is stock in Microsoft and other companies).
Is that not true of Carlos Slim, too? If that is true, is it really so aweful that the man has built up his companies? Is he NOT helping the economies of those nations by providing them with critical telecoms?
"Instead, Carlos uses the money t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You must be an American. These days, only Americans think that monopolies are a good thing. They're much like the old-style Soviets that way, except they're completely blind to the similarities.
Re:Wonderful news (Score:5, Informative)
Look here is the plain truth:
Slim was rich before he bought telmex. Around 100 times poorer than he is now, but Im sure you or I could be 100 times poorer than him and still live happy and full lives for us and our descendants (we would own round 500 million bucks!). Slim bought telmex though from President Carlos Salinas (from his government, it was a state owned telephone company which sucked even more than it does now and BOY, does it SUCK NOW), for if I remember correctly round 2000 million dollars, on credit. Which is in its face ridiculous if its the local telephone monopoly of a country of a 100 million people.... and you can see it in the numbers. Telmex sold that ammount every year or two I think, even in its early stages. Right now, Slims empire is MUCH larger than that since they own the cellphone market in many, many latam countries.
Here in Mexico EVERYONE know that its MOST probable that Salinas, the expresident, had his cut from that deal. But we also know that Slim generally has a simple profit minded stance on just about anything. At least he is not crying because gay marriage was aproved for mexico city like other conservative rich men here, at least he gives to the politicall parties and politicians only with profit in mind and not because of an ideological agenda. Belive me, entrepreneurs in Mexico are every bit as crooked when it comes to giving or taking from the government AND they tend to have a moralist agenda. Slim doesnt do that and, for that, at least I am gratefull at least until we finish fixing this fucking country for good.
Re:Wonderful news (Score:5, Informative)
I know you're a self-righeous capitalist, but please read what you responded too. The problem isn't that he's getting rich, the problem is that he's doing it by extracting monopoly rents. A few people getting rich is a good thing, because it spurs investment. One person getting rich by cornering the market is a bad thing, whether your a Marxist or an Austrian, it doesn't result in re-investment, it results in impoverishment of everyone - except that one guy.
Re:Wonderful news (Score:5, Interesting)
This family grew their own vegetables in an allotment. What they didn't eat, they pickled. When the pickled food was eaten, they drank the vinegar. They couldn't afford to waste it.
As a parting gift, the lady of the house made a pair of socks from the hair of the household dog and gave them to my friend. This was an extremely kind gift, as it meant that the lady was left with last year's dog hair socks.
We have it so good.
Re:Wonderful news (Score:5, Informative)
Wow, you did manage to get things so wrong...
This family grew their own vegetables in an allotment. What they didn't eat, they pickled. When the pickled food was eaten, they drank the vinegar. They couldn't afford to waste it.
I very much doubt it was actually vinegar that they drank, since it's not exactly something you can drink in the first place. In any case, pickling (in vinegar) at home is actually extremely rare in Russia - most pickled vegetables are bought in stores. Home-made ones are brined instead, with no vinegar involved - just water, salt, and spices.
The liquid that is produced as a result is essentially salted water flavored with the vegetables put into it, and is called "rassol" in Russian. It's generally considered tasty in its own right, and is also a traditional, ages-old treatment for hangover. So drinking it does not, in any way, indicate that the family is poor.
Pickling/brining itself, too, is not an indicator of that, by the way - it's often done for the fun of it. My family isn't poor at all, and yet my grandmother both grows her own vegetables, and pickles them for the winter.
As a parting gift, the lady of the house made a pair of socks from the hair of the household dog and gave them to my friend. This was an extremely kind gift, as it meant that the lady was left with last year's dog hair socks.
Dog hair socks are ascribed various medicinal qualities in Russian folklore, so they are made and worn for the sake of that, not to replace common everyday socks. Furthermore, because those socks have to be hand-made, they aren't replaced all that often. I've had a pair back home which was several years old.
Note that this all doesn't mean that the family your friend stayed with wasn't poor. They may well be, and there are definitely a lot of poor people in Russia. It's just that nothing that you mentioned so far is an indicator of that.
Oh, and Russia today is still way better than Mexico in terms of quality of life. In fact, depending on one's location, it's better than many Eastern European EU member countries.
Re:Wonderful news (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Don't worry, Saint Reagan gives you his word that it will all trickle down eventually, if only your faith is pure and your marginal tax rate low...
IMHO, Reaganomics works only in a country where manufacturing is a strong industry (where the workers of the nation are actually needed); sadly, the USA no longer significantly 'makes' anything.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because Jersey Shore is the epitome of the US film industry... I guess we should pack our shit and stop producing Movies and TV shows, some /.'r just showed our whole industry is a sham with his snarky 2 liner.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that's patently false, US manufacturing output is much higher then it ever was before although fewer and fewer workers are employed in manufacturing. You also realize that 50%+ of Americans used to be farmers in the 1700s and now it's less than 5% right? As facilities become more automated, there will be a smaller and smaller need for manufacturing workers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_exports [wikipedia.org]
We are #3 behind China and Germany, who both produce 20% more than we do for exports.
As far as raw manufacturing goes, USA is far ahead in the #1 position.
http://investing.curiouscatblog.net/2008/09/23/top-manufacturing-countries-in-2007/ [curiouscatblog.net]
They never worked, ever. (Score:4, Insightful)
Reagan is the primary person to blame for the current economy. Basically he sold the world a pyramid scheme. Trickle down economy is EXACTLY what a pyramid scheme is. The idea that anyone who joins the scheme just pours some money into the top of the pyramid and then reaps his rewards as it trickles down to him. And it works, for the first few layers until to many people are needed to join to keep the system flowing and it all collapses.
And just like pyramid schemes continue to be popular, reaganomics continue to be popular, by the same kind of people. The scammers and the ignorant.
A pyramid scheme MUST fail, because the longer it continues, the larger it becomes. It can only work in fictional universes were infinite growth is possible (and for a long time, that is exactly what Reagan fans claimed). For a manufacturing nation as you claim it would in, this would mean that their must be an infinite number of resource to use in manufacturing and an infinite market to take the products. Or to put it in simpler terms, it would mean for Microsoft, that it could half the release cylce of their flagship product Windows each time, and still find a growing market for it. So by now you would be getting a new windows every day, pay 300 bucks for it, and have 6 billion people buying it.
Silly? That is what reaganomics boil down to. Infinite sustained growth.
Like all pyramids scams, we want to believe that it could work, but it doesn't. And it shows the fatal flaw in democracy. People that fall for scams, get to vote.
Re:Wonderful news (Score:5, Interesting)
IMHO, Reaganomics works only in a country where manufacturing is a strong industry (where the workers of the nation are actually needed); sadly, the USA no longer significantly 'makes' anything.
Except that there's no evidence it works there either. There's a lot of reason to think that the whole trickle-down theory was created to accomplish two things:
1. Tax cuts and other benefits for rich political supporters.
2. Reduction of federal tax revenues to the point where the federal government can no longer function (Grover Norquist's "drown it in a bathtub").
I've attended talks by Arthur Laffer (one of the guys who came up with trickle-down theory), and determined after a little while that it was a really superbly designed pile of BS.
This ain't Reagan... (Score:2)
this is old school politically connected rich. You want to see who has the best pensions, health care, and similar, look to those in government or connected to it.
The surest way to stay poor or just plain upset with life is to compare what you have to others, the first symptom is directing blame to those who are better off.
I am quite sure a garbage can surfer is not a /. surfer, if they are it probably explains the previous. Let alone, Obama and Co. decided trickle down was too inefficient of means to get
Mr Monopoly (Score:3, Informative)
TelMex controls 92% of the landline phones in the country and his affiliate cell phone business, Telcel, accounts for 73% of the mobile business. The wealth and power derived from these companies has allowed Slim to expand his business empire across a wide swathe of industries."
Monopolies are obviously highly profitable for a few. Besides the economic cost [maths.tcd.ie] to the those funding el imperio de Carlo Slim Helu, have the Mexicans actually weighed up the social costs of supporting it? [google.com]. ...Or is it that the Mexicans do not have a government that represents their best interests...? [google.com]
Re:Wonderful news (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Autre motif d'orgueuil, que d'être citoyen! Cela consiste pour les
pauvres à soutenir et à conserver les riches dans leur puissance et
leur oisivité. Ils y doivent travailler devant la majestueuse égalité
des lois, qui interdit au riche comme au pauvre de coucher sous les
ponts, de mendier dans les rues et de voler du pain."
"Another reason for pride, that of being a citizen! For the poor
citizenship consists of supporting and sustaining the power and
idleness of the rich. They m
Re:Wonderful news (Score:5, Interesting)
It doesn't bring a lot of comfort to the Mexicans in that situation. When I lived in Guadalajara, I was a short walk from a row of luxury car dealerships: Porsche, Lexus, Audi, BMW, etc. And I was a short bus ride from people living in dirt floor houses and not eating enough (I was involved in a Christian ministry to some of them).
I'm pretty conservative in general, but that doesn't seem like a healthy economy. It's not encouraging to think that the world's wealthiest person got that way through monopoly deals with a corrupt government whose citizenry is mostly poor.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wonderful news (Score:4, Funny)
Buffet often laments that his company has so much money that it's difficult to maintain good returns through investments.
If you see him, please let him know that I can fix that problem for him.
Re:Wonderful news (Score:4, Informative)
I.e. An apartment building which is priced based on the rent collected may be sold for 50% of it's value even thogh it's still full of paying tenants. If the guy who bought it just put 10% down, he makes a 1000% return on his investment. Let me break it down.
Purchase price $1000
Loan $900
Cash invested $100
Value $2000
Equity $1100
Profit 1000%
All the people with both money and brains have been on a buying frenzy since 2008 because deals like this are available if you have the $100 down-payment. (It's more like $100,000,000 most of the time. I just dropped 0s to simplify)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This assumes he can sell it for that much right away. If he holds the property until it goes back up to $2000, then profits is a misleading metric. IRR would be better, but that decreases as the length of the investment increases, like if he needs to wait to sell the place, so things don't look as good as you might think.
Of course while he's waiting he gets to collect rent, so that will help a bit. But he also has to pay to maintain the building, pay interest on the loan (which will carry a high rate bec
Richest man in the graveyard? (Score:2)
Having billions of dollars in chequing strikes me as incredibly insane.
Re: (Score:2)
Bill, look for the 500 million! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Assets make money. Liabilities cost money.
Unless he's reselling the cocaine for profit, it's a liability.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
At least it'd be a familiar business model for him.
Re: (Score:2)
I heard a rumor that he's been carefully studying John DeLorean's autobiography.
Re: (Score:2)
Man.. (Score:4, Insightful)
...when people's losses equal more money than I will EVER have in my entire life...I become a sad panda :(
More like... (Score:2)
Carlos 'not so' Slim.
Hard times? (Score:4, Interesting)
And now, the $0.5 million question: How much money does Gates give to charity?
Re: (Score:2)
$0.5 million
*billion
Changed my mind mid-way from $500 million to $0.5 billion and it ended up wrong...
Re: (Score:2)
I’ve just had an epiphany.
I think you mean an apostrophe.
Do I win?
Re:Hard times? (Score:5, Informative)
And now, the $0.5 million question: How much money does Gates give to charity?
According to the Wikipedia page on the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation [wikipedia.org], the foundation donates $1.5 billion per year. And a BusinessWeek estimate [businessweek.com] lists Gates as having donated $28.1 billion over his whole life.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes – it was a rhetorical question; thanks for giving everyone else some links, though. ;)
$28.144 billion (Score:4, Informative)
http://bwnt.businessweek.com/interactive_reports/philanthropy_individual/ [businessweek.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hard times? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Giving away money can only put you over the top when it puts your total taxable income into a lower tax bracket. Gates is going to be taxed in the highest bracket no matter how much he gives away.
Re:Hard times? (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me guess, you've never in your life made a tax deductible charitable donation have you? Here is why I think that:
Let's say you have an income of $10. And your tax rate is 30%. So if you just pay your taxes and make no charitable donations, you'll pay $3 in taxes leaving you with $7.
Now let's say that you have that same $10 income. The same 30% tax rate. Now say you donate $5 to charity, deduct that amount from your income and pay your taxes on the remaining amount. So $10 minus $5 leaves you with $5. In the US there is a cap on deductible donations, say $2 is the max you can deduct. So when it comes time to pay taxes, even though you donated $5, you only get to deduct $2 of that amount. You must take your remaining $5 and pay taxes on an income of $8, which leaves you with $2.6 in your pocket ($10 - $5 - $8 x .3 = $2.6).
The reality is that you always have less money in your pocket after making a deductible donation than if you'd just paid your full tax liability. You don't make charitable donations in order to keep more of your money for yourself, it just doesn't work that way.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with this is that many very wealthy people create their own charities. Since it's your charity, you can control who controls it. And it's likely that the tax money saved by donating to the charity will be at least partially made up by the charity spending money on things you would have spent money on anyway. The result is that your effective tax rate is lower.
Using your example, why not donate $2 to a charity you control, have it spend 10c on something charitable, and have $1.90 go to pay f
Who? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Who?
He doesn't care that you don't know him.
Donation Form (Score:5, Funny)
Hearing this news saddened me at first, then it angered me into action. I've setup an online donation fund here [sprucesaccount.com]. With a small $50 weekly donation from 30 or 40 million of you, Bill can continue to live the kind of life he's used to. Won't somebody think of Bill Gate's children!
Yes, Tragic Story (Score:2)
So... (Score:5, Interesting)
California's bankrupt and the richest man in the world is Mexican?
Lovin' them apples.
Re: (Score:2)
the initiative process has set it up in a way that only works when the economy is growing
The people and companies in California, most of them, are doing very nearly as well as ever
Those statements cannot be simultaneously true.
Re: (Score:2)
If unemployment is 20%, most people are still doing just fine.
Unemployment only reports on people collecting unemployment, or eligible to do so. More people than that are unemployed, and yet, it is an unusually high statistic as well.
California is fucked, and people are leaving it as fast as they can. Which of course might improve unemployment...
So is that... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry.... (Score:3, Informative)
On a more serious note, we now have more millionaires and billionaires than at any other time in the history of the world! The wealth is trickling down baby!
Re: (Score:2)
On a more serious note, we now have more millionaires and billionaires than at any other time in the history of the world! The wealth is trickling down baby!
Is that adjusted for inflation? :P
Re:Don't worry.... (Score:5, Informative)
While I'm sure that there is more economic activity than ever before, since a dollar today is worth less than 4 cents in 1913 -- being a millionaire is not exactly the same accomplishment as back then. It's more equivalent to being having $25 million today.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting quote (Score:3)
"last year's wealth wasteland has become a billionaire bonanza. Most of the richest people on the planet have seen their fortunes soar in the past year. "
I'm no communist, but something sticks in my craw when I realise how many of the very richest (both corporations, banks and individuals) have done so well out of the recent financial woes that have destroyed the lives of so many people.
I can't help thinking that we are lining up for a political "readjustment" in many countries if the current situation continues. The gap between the very richest and everyone else is growing wider, and the theory of "trickle-down" just isn't holding up, those at the bottom are still being shafted.
So, the Rich got richer this year... (Score:5, Insightful)
And the poor got poorer. Nothing new to see here, move along.
It's criminal, though isn't it? Millions of people are out of work, thousands are losing their homes, a majority of Americans have so little in savings that a single illness can put them over the edge into poverty, and yet, all these guys, despite a huge recession, saw their fortunes go UP.
Go figure.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Making money isn’t “criminal” and I, for one, hope it never will be.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Making money may not be criminal, but making lots of money usually is.
Please show me a billionaire that didn't pull illegal and criminal acts to get where they are.
From Carlos Slim and Bill Gates, to Russia's modern day oligarchs, to the robber barons and old money families ruling America today - there just aren't that many people who become that rich without being immoral, oppressive criminals. Some hide it better than others; some attempt to buy their reputations back with acts of charity; but don't think
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So, the Rich got richer this year... (Score:5, Insightful)
-Employing people at wage-slave levels
-Influencing markets to better suit yourself
-Taking money from others
Then I'm all for you. Good luck. Most rich people don't do it on their own, so they employ people to do stuff for them. Rich people didn't get rich by paying their employees. Most rich people control their market to some extent. Power is worth more then money because it can make you money. As for the last part, realize that simply receiving money from others is bringing them down. Presumably, whatever they paid you for is worth more to them then they buck they paid for it, but this whole capitalism thing is a vicious cycle of clawing your way up at the expense of others. If you're at the top, it's more then likely you're standing on someone's neck.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to point out that also this year the rich got poorer and the poor got richer.
And then there's the rich and the poor that stayed about the same.
Anyone care to make a quip that involves statistical significance?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
But [visualizingeconomics.com] not [visualizingeconomics.com] here [wikipedia.org].
Gates getting poorer is a good thing... (Score:2)
Is the fact that Gates isn't worth as much may be a function of him giving away his wealth as part of the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation? If so, I see him slipping as a sign that he is really putting his money where his mouth is, and actually doing something to improve the world with the results of his hard work like he said he would.
Sheldon
Did he earn it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Question: Did they earn it?
Answer: No. They played a game well and have received a cash prize.
No man does 53 billion dollar of work. He games the system so the incremental profits of the workers at the bottom of the pyramid trickle up into his pockets.
If you disagree, you are wrong. The truth in the paragraph above is undeniable by clear-minded, rational people. However, fear of socialism fueled the Cold War, was the justification of the US war in Viet Nam, the US funding and training of death squad in Nicaragua, and is the rational for the current Cuba embargo. Oh, and fear of socialism is the primary undercurrent to keep healthcare in America as a luxury only the wealthy can afford.
America is a fucked up mess. Capitalism is a fallacy.
America is socialist (Score:5, Insightful)
America does tax the the rich to support its poor, therefor it is a socialist state. Trust me, you don't want to see real capitalism. Places like Hong-Kong used to be it and it ain't pretty. Think American ghetto's are though, imagine people with actual paying jobs living in "housing" that is a shell, with inside a mesh of cages that house entire families. Yes, not dissimilar to how chickens are housed in battery farms.
In a true capitalistic country, there is no restriction on what can be for sale. You would have legal organ harvesting, since money buys anything.
America right now might be bad, but it could be a lot worse.
And you can't really blame the Bill Gates of the world for it either. He got 1 vote. It is the millions of people who are just a paycheck away from complete financial ruin who vote against a system that could give them a proper safety net because they think that next paycheck will have a billion dollar amount on it, and then they would have to pay 50% taxes on it and that 500 million would mean utter ruination of their dream to one day make it rich.
It ain't the rich who worry about taxes, if Bill Gates suddenly had to pay 80% in taxes, what would he loose? Nothing. It is the idiots who live on minimum wage who somehow capping capital gains tax is a good thing for them.
It is the American dream vs gritty reality and reality doesn't stand a chance.
Sweden is the almost complete opposite, there the working and middle class (the majority voter) believe that the best system for themselves is a system where you can take a year off from work, or not work at all and be supported by the state. An alien thought to most Americans, but ultimately the Swedish system can only exist because the majority votes for it.
And the majority of American seem to want the current system.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
America is a fucked up mess. Capitalism is a fallacy.
Yeah because the communism of N. Korean and USSR are beacons of progress.
Maybe your angst is misdirected.
People can use their skills (whatever they may be) to make money and that should be their right. Even if it means they make more money than you can with your skills. Tough cookies. Life is not fair.
The *real* problem here is with Carlos and how he made his money. His business has a monopoly on the Mexican (and many other latin american countries) Telecom industry. That is bad because it hinders others fr
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You just gotta love internet debate - no facts need apply when you can just declare your opponents wrong a priori.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No man does 53 billion dollar of work. He games the system so the incremental profits of the workers at the bottom of the pyramid trickle up into his pockets.
You do realize that the the labor theory of value is very widely discredited. Investing is not some giant conspiracy against workers. Investment enables the economy to allocate resources in ways that allow for workers to ... well work. A farmer does much better if a speculator can buy their crops at a fixed rate than selling them on the open market. He no longer must bare the entire risk of markets when he farms. Onions cannot be speculated on, and as a result onion farmers are frequently put out of busines
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Clam down there, Marx. This game you refer to is called "life," and no, it isn't fair. It won't ever be. Better to accept that fact now and press on than to sit around crying about it.
No matter how much of a "fucked up mess" you think America is, the fact remains that the standard of living for the poorest of our poor is still vastly better than almost anywhere on the planet. Even if you have nothing but the clothes on your back, you can at least walk into a homeless shelter and get free food and a place to
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody "earns" tens of billions of dollars.
charity (Score:4, Informative)
Gates spent 30-40 billions on charity, if he didn't, still would've been #1.
No Longer Richest (Score:2)
Cry me a fucking river.
Outsourcing (Score:3, Funny)
No wonder our economy sucks.
He's no better than the drug lords (Score:4, Insightful)
The richest guy in the world being from one of the most corrupt countries? Big surprise. When you own much of the industry in an entire country, you know some nasty deals have gone on somewhere.
I'm pro-capitalist, but if a single business/person owns controls that much, it ceases to be capitalism. There is no competition, no new investment, no invention. Nothing but collecting payment since there is no other option. The sad thing is the Mexican government probably couldn't break up Carlos' monopolies at this point even if they wanted to.
Congrats Carlos. You won. Everyone else in Mexico loses.
Re: (Score:2)
NO ONE CARES
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contradictions [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You never know.. Apple, Linux, Firefox, OpenOffice, Google Docs etc are all growing in the public awareness. People are recognising that they have choices, and that in fact while Microsoft products may be the best known, that does not make them the best for everyone :)
I don't really give a crap if Bill comes out on top again or not, I'm jus sayin.