On Monday morning, Bloomberg News ran two stories on its "TOP" page regarding its new "Global Daily Ranking of Billionaires." By 3 pm (eastern), they were the second and third most read Bloomberg stories over the last 24 hours... and it is not as if it was a quiet news day overall. All of which led to me wonder about the social drivers -- particularly the balance between outdated attitudes on wealth and progress towards more socially-constructive behaviors.
First, some interesting facts that came to light directly from the two Bloomberg stories.
For those of you who like fresh data, Bloomberg will update "each net worth figure... every business day at 5:30 pm in New York." And for those who favor comprehensive research, the updates shed light on "the world's wealthiest people based on market and economic changes and Bloomberg reporting." Indeed, Bloomberg assures us that "the profiles feature a transparent analysis of how each billionaire's fortune was calculated."
Not surprisingly, the horse race commentaries have started based on the new data. On Monday morning we learned that, despite his dramatic Facebook success, Founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg is "not rich enough for [the] global billionaire ranking."
Outside the US, Brazilian billionaire Eike Batista (who ranked tenth on the Bloomberg list) intends to displace over time Carlos Slim, his Latin American peer who is ranked first. Noting that he is "competitive," Mr. Batista told Bloomberg "It's Brazil's time to be No. 1. Brazilians have always admired the American dream."
The data tell us that this group -- which, according to Bloomberg's definition, covers twenty individuals with $677 billion in wealth -- is not just an American affair. Just over half come from other countries, including Brazil, China, France, India, Mexico, Spain, and Sweden.
It should come as no surprise that all this information was eagerly gobbled up by Bloomberg readers. We live in a society that has long had a fascination with the ultra rich -- who are they, how did they acquire their fortunes, and what are they doing with it. Moreover, many of Bloomberg's users are in the financial sector, a place where too many people still treat wealth as an overwhelming factor in assessing lifetime achievements.
What may come as more of a surprise is that all this is happening now -- a time when, helped by the Occupy movements around the world, income and wealth inequalities have firmly been placed on the policy agenda. And this speaks to the risks and opportunities of Bloomberg new initiative.
The launch of the Billionaires Index could be yet another illustration that certain segments of society remain tone deaf when it comes to social realities. Indeed, some could view it as a sign of how information disseminators and opinion leaders are overly interested in metrics that say little about the underlying health and well-being of society.
This is clearly a risk. Fortunately there are countervailing forces.
Thanks to the efforts of many, a growing number of politically and financially influential people are recognizing that, in today's highly interconnected world that is trying to overcome anemic growth and an unemployment crisis, the well-being of the rich cannot (and should not) be viewed in isolation. To use one of my favorite real estate analogies, it is hard to be a great house in a weakening neighborhood -- which leads to the upside of the new data releases.
Some of the names on Bloomberg's Billionaire Index are already engaged meaningfully and effectively in deploying their wealth for the betterment of society. In addition to their considerable philanthropic donations, individuals like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett (ranked second and third, respectively, by Bloomberg) have been spearheading initiatives to ensure that fellow billionaire devote more of their wealth to socially-constructive ends.
This is where the potential upside comes in. Bloomberg's daily identification of the top billionaires could reinforce a trend where these individuals, and many others, allocate a growing portion of their wealth in a manner that helps society as a whole. In this way, the appeal of the index would prove to be less about what has happened and more about the responsibility that the rich share to help the least and less fortunate members of our global society.
Rev. Jesse Jackson: We Have to Choose What Kind of a People We Are
On a whim , I googled " who is the richest bank owner in the world? " These are the first two returns that were offered. Click on them and see what you come up with.
http://www.therichest.org/business/richest-banks-in-the-world/
http://www.therichest.org/business/richest-banks-in-the-world-2011/
I'm wondering how accurate the Billionaire Index really is. For example, Wikipedia notes that the Rothschild family (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_family):
"During the 1800s, when it was at its height, the family is believed to have possessed by far the largest private fortune in the world as well as by far the largest fortune in modern world history."
But I don't see any of their names (e.g., So-and-so Rothschild) on the list.
Question: Did they manage to lose this mass fortune in e.g. a card game, or is today's financial reporting so circumspect that even the "largest private fortune" goes unseen?
Thanks for any insights, and Enjoy!
I thought it was just me who noticed such seemingly huge gaps and fallacies regarding "the world's richest", glad there's at least two of us.
This type of (dis)information is precisely what makes you wonder if anything you're being told is even remotely true. Like 1984 or something -- jobs are up? Unemployment down? We're winning the war? Against the Viet Cong, no less. Oh, that was the previous war. Sorry, glitch in the punch card.
"Question us? Ahem. Ah yes, let's consult the (cooked) facts and figures -- you see, it's there for all to see! Our boy Jenkins prepared these numbers. I'll call him now. Jenkins? Where's Jenkins? Not here today, eh? Ah well, we'll have him give you a ring when he get back. Toodle do."
Like that movie, "Dumb and Dumber". Maybe Hollywood can make a sequel, "Dumb, Dumber, and Dumberer".
Thanks, and Enjoy.
What do you do when your economy becomes third world - serving the top 1% for the most part and ends up making most of the population into nothing but low-payed serfs with very little to hope for?
I think a lot of our social/cultural angst these days is generated by a Media and pop culture that equates all value to the size of peoples' wallets. We have been engaging in a badly distorted vision of "the American Dream" which equates success with the acquisition of billions of dollars. If this remains the measuring stick of success, then life is nothing but being a "purchasing-drone" in a Borg sort of universe for the sole purpose of making billionaires our masters.
In any case our economic system is clearly broken and calling on the "winners" of our vast monoploly game to do some social good is clearly not going to happen since the current system selects those who are most in love with wealth. Those who are motivated by a social morality and a desire to serve others are left with crumbs while the egomaniacs like the author here offer excuses and empty solutions.
Taxing the upper income classes to balance the budget would be a start as well as getting an admendment passed that made it clear that corporations were not persons.
Michigan woman wins $1-million lottery, still collects welfare ... and "joe the plumber' pays for it all... Joe might actually consider re-paying the tax payer ?
A Michigan woman (a huge Obama fan) who won a $1-million lottery jackpot last fall admits she's continued to collect $200 a month in public assistance. That's not all: The 24-year-old also says she deserves the financial aid because she's now saddled with expenses related to two houses.
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/07/nation/la-nn-na-lottery-winner-collects-welfare-20120307
The Food-Stamp Crime Wave
The number of food-stamp recipients
Millionaires are now legally entitled to collect food stamps as long as they have little or no monthly income. Thirty-five states have abolished asset tests for most food-stamp recipients. These and similar "paperwork reduction" reforms advocated by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) are turning the food-stamp program into a magnet for abuses and absurdities
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304657804576401412033504294.html
Classic....another conservative resorts to deception to try to make a point
lol....you are grossly over fanned
There is no reason for anyone to have more than a billion dollars. There is nothing this amount of money does not provide that is then provided by a second billion dollar sum. This is why in this day of managed economies that use authoritarian control to provide a more robust bottom line, the working classes must begin to demand serious changes to the distribution of rewards, and laissez faire capitalism is NOT the answer. We need socialized medicine, socialized transportation and severe restrictions on the predatory lenders and financial exploitation that is in bed with our government here in the US.
The suffering that is put upon the masses by allowing this type of ravenous and craven greed has got to be stopped.
You mean Sara Blakely did it all on her own? She could have been living on the North Pole and still got rich?