The Forbes 400, 2007 Rich List

[engine]

One billion dollars is no longer enough. The price of admission to this, the 25th anniversary edition of the Forbes 400, is $1.3 billion, up $300 million from last year. The collective net worth of the nation's mightiest plutocrats rose $290 billion to $1.54 trillion.

The Top Ten
1. William Gates III
2. Warren Buffett
3. Sheldon Adelson
4. Lawrence Ellison
5. Sergey Brin
6. Larry Page
7. Kirk Kerkorian
8. Michael Dell
9. Charles Koch
10. David Koch

The Forbes 400, 2007 [forbes.com]

This is where all the money went.

[Lord Majestic]

At least 50% of the top 10 are from technology companies - any massive stock market bust and the list will change significantly.

[LifeinAsia]

This is where all the money went.

Not exactly, since a lot of that wealth is paper wealth that can evaporate in an instant. And some is probably tied up in company stock or options that can not be sold for a period of time.

Another thing to consider is that a good chunk of that money is not just sitting in people's mattresses doing nothing- most is invested in other companies (helping them to grow), in government securities (allowing them to spend- so okay, maybe not such a good thing :) ), and in other investment vehicles that in turn is used to loan to other people.

[Gibble]

And those 10 people employ how many 1000s of people directly, and many more that number indirectly through the services and companies they deal with.

[ronin]

Do you think if that lot knocked their heads together we could have world peace, eliminate the narcotics industry, make poverty history, end social inequality, provide free education for all and put a stop to climate change tomorrow?

If they all put up 45% of their net worth, I'll put my money where my mouth is and do the same.

[Lord Majestic]

If they all put up 45% of their net worth

They can't - they'd have to sell their shares and if they all did at the same time then share prices will fall: those guys are the richest in many respects on paper, even though they certainly have some billions in cash but in order for the richest person to sell all stuff you need someone else rich to buy it, who would if all the rich would do the same?

[ronin]

So is this real wealth or illusory wealth?

Wealth which depends on someone else buying your stuff, isn't really wealth at all is it?

It's like saying "My house is worth $x hundred thousand dollars."

Not until you sell it, it ain't.

[Lord Majestic]

In a way it is (big part of it) illusory, even though part of it is real - the problem is with valuation: if everyone wanted to sell their houses then the value would drop, and who would buy all that stuff for real money if it gets sold? I reckon of all tech people only Bill Gates and Larry Ellison were long enough in this game to diversify and have a lot of liquid assets that are not tied to stock market.

Credit where its due - Bill Gates puts a lot of money into charitable work, a lot of people hate him but they simply don't realise how much good Bill did to the IT industry and how worse it could have been if there was someone else in his shoes.

[Gibble]

Heh, I recall someone sent this to me...

Weird Fact: Bill Gates donated close to $100 million to fight AIDS in India. As a percent of his total wealth, this would be comparable to him donating ten cents if he only had $60.

They seemed to think this showed him being cheap. First, why would a person compare it to only having $60? It made no sense. Bump it up to a decent wage of $60,000, and you're talking a $100 donation. For one SINGLE charity. And he donates to many more...

[Habtom]

. . . and people don't seem to talk good things about Bill Gates anymore. He has done so much more to the world than most people seem to admit.

that doesn't set him free from all the bugs I have on my windows though

[Jane_Doe]

And those 10 people employ how many 1000s of people directly, and many more that number indirectly through the services and companies they deal with.

The old trickle down theory, eh?