O/T - Forbes 400 Just In.

[Kaiser]

This is just crazy money:

Bill Gates, who with an estimated worth of $53 billion took the magazine's top spot for the 13th year in a row, is one of many technologists on the 2006 Forbes list.

For the first time, Forbes magazine's list of the 400 richest Americans consists exclusively of people worth $1 billion or more. As a group, the people who made the rankings released Thursday are worth a record $1.25 trillion, compared to $1.13 trillion last year.

In the billionaire-athon, casino magnate Sheldon Adelson pole-vaulted to No. 3 from 15 in last year's ranking, finishing behind the mainstays at Nos. 1 and 2: Microsoft Corp. founder Bill Gates and Warren Buffett of Berkshire Hathaway Inc.

Adelson is now estimated to have $20.5 billion, Buffett $46 billion and Gates $53 billion. Gates has held the No. 1 spot for the last 13 years while Buffett has been No. 2 every year since 1994 except 2000, when Larry Ellison of Oracle Corp. held that spot.

 

[littlemack]

And did you see where Buffet is going to donate almost all of his money to the Gate's foundation when he dies? Unbelievable.

I wonder how the Asians are doing with their wealth? Sultan of Brunei?
I had some asian friends on that list at one time. Cloves cigarette company out of Indonesia. Man, did those guys know how to party. hahahaha

 

[bigbadasian]

Reply

|--[\\\\]>--------- One day you will see BBA's name on that list....ohhhhh....how nice it is to dream....

what does this Buffet guy do?

 

[Kaiser]

|--[\\\\]>--------- One day you will see BBA's name on that list....ohhhhh....how nice it is to dream....

what does this Buffet guy do?

Looks like he owns a holding company:

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

 

[Kaiser]

What amazes me about this is that ALL 400 for the first time are worth over a billion each. Thats some crazy money.

 

[Kahn]

I'm going to have to write a grant.

 

[BigBoyJ]

Just think if every one of those billionaires divided their money up. What if they took their billions, divided into millions and gave it to some poor family. For example, if Bill Gates took his 53 billion dollars, and gave 53,000 families a million dollars each. If all 400 of those guys did that, can you imagine how much of an improvement life in this country would have. We'd end poverty here.

 

[marbalizer99]

Just think if every one of those billionaires divided their money up. What if they took their billions, divided into millions and gave it to some poor family. For example, if Bill Gates took his 53 billion dollars, and gave 53,000 families a million dollars each. If all 400 of those guys did that, can you imagine how much of an improvement life in this country would have. We'd end poverty here.

It sounds good on paper but it wouldn't happen like that. There is a reason poor people that win the lottery end up poor again.

 

[Kahn]

It sounds good on paper but it wouldn't happen like that. There is a reason poor people that win the lottery end up poor again.

Yeah I'd be one of them but my kids college would be paid for, I go back to college, I'd invest half of of it for later and I'd be broke with a ton of shit to play with.

 

[Kaiser]

Just think if every one of those billionaires divided their money up. What if they took their billions, divided into millions and gave it to some poor family. For example, if Bill Gates took his 53 billion dollars, and gave 53,000 families a million dollars each. If all 400 of those guys did that, can you imagine how much of an improvement life in this country would have. We'd end poverty here.

I think the biggest improvement is behind the scenes with this theory. Bill wont spend 53 billion which does nothing for jobs and the economy of the country. Now take 53000 families spreading the money around. I would think it would have an impact on society as Jay said.

 

[BigBoyJ]

I think the biggest improvement is behind the scenes with this theory. Bill wont spend 53 billion which does nothing for jobs and the economy of the country. Now take 53000 families spreading the money around. I would think it would have an impact on society as Jay said.

Exactly. Most likely the majority of the people who got the milliion dollars would stop working. Using ONLY Bill Gates money as an example, here's what could happen. If 53,000 families got a million dollars, say that 1 person per family quit working. That opens up 53,000 jobs for other people. There's an economic boost right there. Plus, all the extra spending that 53,000 new millionaires would generate...another economic boost. And imagine if all 400 billionaires did this. It could create hundreds of thousands, maybe a million or more, new jobs and new millionaires. There's no way that would not be an economic boost. And yeah, a lot of the new millionaires would eventually be broke again, but I think most would be intelligent enough not to let that happen.

 

[Kaiser]

And yeah, a lot of the new millionaires would eventually be broke again.

Which would possibly paradox into making other people millionaires.

 

[jawbreakerkid]

Those people have no idea how to manage $1M. They would blow it on houses, cars, jewelry, clothing, and wind up with nothing. $1M does not go as far as most think. You could earn 6% on that money on live on it, but most likely your lifestyle would have to remain as it were if you were broke. No big house, fast cars, just live a very simple life. But it rarely happens, people see the money and spend, or some dipshit relative has a "great investment opportunity" that will take care of that nest egg very quickly.

The poor are poor for a reason.

 

[Kaiser]

Those people have no idea how to manage $1M. They would blow it on houses, cars, jewelry, clothing, and wind up with nothing. $1M does not go as far as most think. You could earn 6% on that money on live on it, but most likely your lifestyle would have to remain as it were if you were broke. No big house, fast cars, just live a very simple life. But it rarely happens, people see the money and spend, or some dipshit relative has a "great investment opportunity" that will take care of that nest egg very quickly.

The poor are poor for a reason.

Thats part of the point we are making also. All of that money spent will help out everyone in the US as far as economy is concerned. Those people spending their money is what we're betting on. Otherwise if they hung on to it, it would be just the same as Gates hanging on to it.

 

[Kaiser]

BTW, this is the original post:

**broken link removed**

 

[Kaiser]

A classic from this article:

"Martha Stewart, founder of the eponymous Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc., fell off the list completely, as she lost $395 million over the past year."

LMAO... bitch...

 

[thebrick]

Thats part of the point we are making also. All of that money spent will help out everyone in the US as far as economy is concerned. Those people spending their money is what we're betting on. Otherwise if they hung on to it, it would be just the same as Gates hanging on to it.

That's true but we are not mentioning the investment factor. All this money is not just sitting there. It is invested. Investment funds development, innovation and creates ecomonic growth in the long term. Sure spending money now would create a economic boost, but soon the money is gone. What was a nice new car is now old and needs repair. I think that's a big problem in the US. People should think about creating wealth vs. spending it. So much of the so-called wealth in this country is really on credit. And a LOT of that credit is funded from outside the US. Not good.

 

[jawbreakerkid]

we had a situation like this already Kaiser, it was called the refi boom. When real estate appreciated at record levels, nearly every dipshit sitting on a piece of dirt worth a damn did a cash out refi to pay off credit cards, go on vacation, buy a car, money was cheap and easily attainable. Drive through the poor neighborhoods in Chicago and you'll find young black kids driving Bentley's. Yes, it spurns the economy, but when the money runs out, and these people can't afford the larger mortgage payments, the car payments, etc; they either wind up right where they began, saddled with debt, or the lenders lose their ass because the homes they lent on, alot at 100% LTV, were foreclosed upon. This scenario also leads to inflation, which the Fed has been scrambling to cure ever since the refi boom. Keep the poor poor, social Darwinism.

 

[Kaiser]

That's true but we are not mentioning the investment factor. All this money is not just sitting there. It is invested. Investment funds development, innovation and creates ecomonic growth in the long term. Sure spending money now would create a economic boost, but soon the money is gone. What was a nice new car is now old and needs repair. I think that's a big problem in the US. People should think about creating wealth vs. spending it. So much of the so-called wealth in this country is really on credit. Not good.

The point is to create a surge. In the end the smart ones will end up with the money again in a few years and they of course will invest it in time. I think that since the mortgage boom, there is so much money invested, that there needs to be more money on the street for small businesses to grow. Right now it seems like the ratio of David versus Goliath has too much of a spread. People are either "rich" or they are "struggling" (not even mentioning the poor). We need less of both of them and more of the society to be just "comfortable". But thats just my opinion.

 

[Kaiser]

we had a situation like this already Kaiser, it was called the refi boom. When real estate appreciated at record levels, nearly every dipshit sitting on a piece of dirt worth a damn did a cash out refi to pay off credit cards, go on vacation, buy a car, money was cheap and easily attainable. Drive through the poor neighborhoods in Chicago and you'll find young black kids driving Bentley's. Yes, it spurns the economy, but when the money runs out, and these people can't afford the larger mortgage payments, the car payments, etc; they either wind up right where they began, saddled with debt, or the lenders lose their ass because the homes they lent on, alot at 100% LTV, were foreclosed upon. This scenario also leads to inflation, which the Fed has been scrambling to cure ever since the refi boom. Keep the poor poor, social Darwinism.

Funny you mention this, I just posted something mentioning it also.