NationStates Jolt Archive

Instead, that distinction goes to this guy (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6267714.stm). Thoughts, comments?

Meh. Both these guys (Gates and Slim)have the vast majority of their assets tied up in various investments and properties. I'd say they could probably stand to have a little less and the poor of their countries could stand to have a little more, but these guys aren't as bad as oil company executives or pharmaceutical CEOs.

Also, Carlos Slim is a badass name.

Also, Carlos Slim is a badass name.

It is. :p

The richest family in the world is the Walmart people...
But I bet their father would hate what they did to the company.


Just like Ford would be strangling whoever currently runs his company.

Just like Ford would be strangling whoever currently runs his company.

Mr. Henry Ford would kill people who made Fords in other color than black.

OMG a real Fatboy Slim! :p

Mr. Henry Ford would kill people who made Fords in other color than black.

That is a myth.

That is a myth.

A very popular one at that ;)

A very popular one at that ;)

True - weren't the original model T's actually blue?

Aw, poor Bill. :(

Still, I don't expect to be seeing him at the 99-cent store any time soon. :p

I thought Bill Gates 'gave' half his fortune away to his own charity foundation...

Meh. Both these guys (Gates and Slim)have the vast majority of their assets tied up in various investments and properties. I'd say they could probably stand to have a little less and the poor of their countries could stand to have a little more, but these guys aren't as bad as oil company executives or pharmaceutical CEOs.

Also, Carlos Slim is a badass name.

A typical first reply. Dont be afraid of success, or perhaps your fear of it exposes your inferiority complex.

True - weren't the original model T's actually blue?

Well my highschool history teacher probably outdated them and he held they were black.
Of course he was completely out of his gourd.

These people need their property expropriated.

These people need their property expropriated.
Would you care to comment to the fact that they both are "expropriating" their own property, massively giving to charity? Or can I assume that your answer is "it's plain wrong when someone gives his money to the people and not to the state"?

Would you care to comment to the fact that they both are "expropriating" their own property, massively giving to charity? Or can I assume that your answer is "it's plain wrong when someone gives his money to the people and not to the state"?

No, that's good, but you can avoid duplication of effort and waste in giving it to the state, plus if taxes were higher they never would have accumulated such excess capital while others suffered.

These people need their property expropriated.
No, they don't.

No, that's good, but you can avoid duplication of effort and waste in giving it to the state, plus if taxes were higher they never would have accumulated such excess capital while others suffered.
I have an even better idea - let's tax them until they're forced to shut down, so that all their workers are forced into unemployment lines! Then the state can directly subsidize them. Less suffering!

These people need their property expropriated.

Why?

Why?

You know, Robbin Hood and all.

Why?

Because it makes pinko-commies sick when a person isn't taxed into poverty for the ultimate forced charity: corrupt politicians.

Commies have their heads either in the clouds or in their asses. Bigger government means bigger corruption and if you get rid of the government, you get rid of the perks that come with having a government: a well-paid and relatively uncorrupt police force. If you think police are corrupt, wait until you see nongovernment police in an anarchy situation. There's also a fully-functioning military. Militaries are really useful when your country is being invaded, as demonstrated in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam kinda, Persian Gulf I, Afghanistan, possibly Iraq, etc. If you think you can trust well-armed third parties that don't have to worry about prison or elections, you are an idiot.

Titles come and go. It's not like you get a prize for being the richest. You have more money than you can spend on yourself. Whoopty dooda. Soon, Bill Gates will be richest again, then someone else, then Gates, then yet another person I neither heard of nor care about, then someone else, etc.

Why?

Because obviously it's better to have all that money in the hands of corrupt inefficient governments then responsible individuals. Don't you know nothing?

You know, Robbin Hood and all.

So the sum total of your argument for stealing money from rich people who donate several billion dollars to charity is 'Robbin Hood'?

How sad.

I miss the Sultan of Brunei being high up in the rich stakes. Whatever happened to him? :p

If Carlos Slim was a brand of cigarette, I would consider taking up smoking.

Because obviously it's better to have all that money in the hands of corrupt inefficient governments then responsible individuals. Don't you know nothing?yes, the US and Mexican govs are indeed corrupt.. but most "tycoons" are not necessarily responsible individuals.

Well, he's made most of this money by colluding with the government to keep phone competition down and phone rates up. Mexicans pay some of the highest phone rates in the world. It's cheaper for me to call my family in Mexico using a phone card in Canada than from a street phone in the same town. Cell phone rates are even more expensive.

And since he also has a monopoly on broadband internet (again colluding with the government to keep cable operators out of the business because they could also provide cheap VoIP and that's "unfair competition") you have to pay through the nose to get decent DSL. Service, of course, is appalling.

So, he donates a lot of money to his own foundation, well, I don't know how much good that makes and how much his business tactics cost the country.

Why?

Because $67,000,000,000 is a ridiculous amount of money and investments for one person to have. There is no way he can spend it all, but such magnates tend to try by blowing vast amounts of cash on superfluous mansions and yachts. It's a waste of money, especially when there are so many poor and hungry in the world.

These people need their property expropriated.

At least in Bill Gates' case (because he's in the US), that would be unconstitutional. I don't know if the Mexican government has a similar law, though (I would assume there's SOME sort of law pertaining to the illegal seizure of property without due process).

And why should these people have their property expropriated? Because they're rich? Bill Gates contributes massive amounts of money to charity (that he doesn't have to).

I miss the Sultan of Brunei being high up in the rich stakes. Whatever happened to him? :p

He's still around. Still fabulously wealthy.

1. I don't believe a Mexican website. I'll wait for Forbes.
2. This just proves that Mexicans have no reason to keep illegally coming here. Things can't be that bad if they have the 2nd richest person in the world.

This just proves that Mexicans have no reason to keep illegally coming here. Things can't be that bad if they have the 2nd richest person in the world.The only people that suffer from this are poor people, but the rich gets richer. Since you're arguing that they have no reason to come to the US as rich people live in Mexico, you shouldn't have a problem with illegal immigrants helping the rich get richer, right? You should be delighted that wealthy people are getting wealthier, since the number of rich people in a country directly correlates to how nice it is to live in said country.:rolleyes:

Needs more respected financial institutions to confirm this, then I shall believe it.

At least in Bill Gates' case (because he's in the US), that would be unconstitutional. I don't know if the Mexican government has a similar law, though (I would assume there's SOME sort of law pertaining to the illegal seizure of property without due process).

Yes, there is. For an expropriation it has to be shown that the public good will be served and proper compensation has to be given.

2. This just proves that Mexicans have no reason to keep illegally coming here. Things can't be that bad if they have the 2nd richest person in the world.

Yes, because income distribution doesn't count at all, like you can't drown in a pool with an average depth of 20cm.

Yes, because income distribution doesn't count at all, like you can't drown in a pool with an average depth of 20cm.

Not to mention Mr. Slim doesn't give a dime to charity...

Not to mention Mr. Slim doesn't give a dime to charity...

Charity does not replace economic policy.

So, he donates a lot of money to his own foundation, well, I don't know how much good that makes and how much his business tactics cost the country.
I'm assuming you're referring to that "deadweight loss" nonsense. At any rate, it is true that Gates's fortune in large part comes from IP rights, which do in fact inhibit competition.

So the sum total of your argument for stealing money from rich people who donate several billion dollars to charity is 'Robbin Hood'?
He got the "robbin" part correct.

Because $67,000,000,000 is a ridiculous amount of money and investments for one person to have.
Non sequitur.

I'm assuming you're referring to that "deadweight loss" nonsense. At any rate, it is true that Gates's fortune in large part comes from IP rights, which do in fact inhibit competition.


What "deadweight loss"? I was talking about Slim and how he got the phone monopoly cheap from the Mexican government, worked out a deal with them to keep it a monopoly and when the industry finally "opened" he has been working with the regulatory body to keep connection rates high and making it impossible for competition to get any significant foothold, as well as other dubious tactics to maintain phone rates extremely high.

What "deadweight loss"?
It's a term in economics for loss caused by monopoly vis-a-vis perfect competition (read: unrealistic, non-existent markets). Anyway, I don't disagree with you on the rest.

I'm glad so many of you feel people don't deserve the money they've earned.. :rolleyes:

I'm glad so many of you feel people don't deserve the money they've earned.. :rolleyes:

Depends how they've earned it

Instead, that distinction goes to this guy (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6267714.stm). Thoughts, comments?

Telephones who would have thought you could make money off them.....

UHM INTERNET COMMUNICATION

FREE MICROSOFT MEXICON TELEPHONO.. now mexicans just need to be able to afford computers and the internet. and bill can get it back


EDIT: hold o the internet is telphone lines.. (err and cable lines)

-----

HE MIGHT DIE BEFORE MR. Gates. I think he's older.


AMERICA DOESN'T have the richest person (by way of stocks..anymore) I wonder who is the richest person by way of cash on hand? We must remember american currancy is a free floating currency and only holds the value it trades at.. so what is the value of anything.

its a banking thing.. we all own everything equally some people just see it easier to work within (or have only ever seen) the system of baebus corpus and self denile. It's all god's we with god are all infinitely rich.

Depends how they've earned it

You have no say in what happens to their money.

This isn's a commune, you're not equal.

You have no say in what happens to their money.

This isn's a commune, you're not equal.

If someone earns their money illegally then the government can seize their assets. Some people just feel that some of the ways in which people legally earn their money should be illegal

I was wondering if Slim would get this rich, though I have no idea how one can make so much money off Latin American telecoms. Anyhow, he's a success story, and an inspiration to entrepreneurs everywhere.

Because $67,000,000,000 is a ridiculous amount of money and investments for one person to have. There is no way he can spend it all, but such magnates tend to try by blowing vast amounts of cash on superfluous mansions and yachts. It's a waste of money, especially when there are so many poor and hungry in the world.
It's not a waste of money. If it was $67 bn. stuffed under a mattress, then maybe it would be. But it's invested or put into bank accounts, meaning someone is using it. Often, very little of the super riches' fortunes are in liquid assets.

Those damned dirty Mexicans took'er jebs!