Business

Eight of the top richest men are worth as much as half the world’s Population

By Correspondent 

Just 8 of the top 10 richest men are worth as much as half the world’s population. And only 23 of the top self-made billionaires command $1 trillion, or more than the entire net worth of Apple.

Altogether, the world’s 2300 billionaires total $8 trillion; and just four years ago, we only had 1400 billionaires at $5 trillion. These 2300 people make up the smallest fraction of a nanohair when compared against the world’s 7B+ population, and yet their wealth exceeds the total GDP of Germany and France combined.

Anyways… on to the selfish aspects… The way a billionaire donates his wealth, and the way in which he chooses to live his life, is extremely telling of that billionaire’s true nature. The fact that Gates and Buffet (who founded the Giving Pledge about a decade back) have largely remained in the same positions on Forbe’s wealthiest is indicative of how they are tapering their donations wisely.

By timing their donations and the amounts given, both of these billionaires are in effect closely matching their donations against their portfolio performance in the market, thus they are able to remain at or near the same net worth. It is a certainty as well that these charitable donations are being used to deduct the same amount in federal taxes year over year for these guys, and that isn’t the only way they can avoid paying taxes.

And yes, I know that most of their wealth resides in investment vehicles tied to shares in their own as well as other companies. And since we haven’t had a recession since the housing and subprime mortgage crisis, the U.S. stock market has seen an incredible rally in the last 10 years, though I would say nearly all of these positive gains have gone to the 1%, enabling say billionaires like Gates and Buffett to gain $6-7B in just one fiscal year, while worker pay in most industries has largely remained stagnant.

Billionaires don’t get to where they are by chance. All of them have had to ruthlessly overpower industries and competitors, while forcing large segments of the workforce out of their sector. They have to be selfish.

Billionaires covet being billionaires and the power it brings them. Most of them, anyway. With their fortune, fame follows close behind. Who doesn’t want to be loved and admired? It is certainly also more fashionable for the wealthy to donate to great causes than to pay federal taxes, and hey, at the amounts they’re donating, why not just set up their own charitable trust? Why? Because billionaires also covet control. In this way, the wealthy once again have all the cards in their hands, choosing a position of flexibility and power, as charities can benefit the rich in numerous ways. Through them, they can dictate down to the most exacting detail how their money is spent or squandered.

It would also only be logical that these rich guys take some pride in making it into the top 10 club – and all the magazine covers and press interviews that go with them. And for Buffett, who is mind-numbingly frugal, The Giving Pledge serves to better his own image while living, even if he only gives away most of his wealth after he’s already dead. Rationally, it’s an unlosable device.

Buffett and Gates never intended to give their children anywhere close to a billion dollars anyway – so why not join a cool philanthropy club where only 2,000 some odd people can become members and garner public adoration as well? Hell, why not create the club and be the face of it? And that’s exactly what they did.

When you make a decision where there are only upsides for you, I believe that constitutes selfishness.

As for your comments on the difficulty of spending their untold billions – I offer you just two examples: one historical and one modern.

These two men were not spurred by other extremely wealthy peers – no; they exited their businesses early and spent the rest of their time “giving while living” until they had spent it all, motivated only by their own personal desire to help benefit society. 1-Andrew Carnegie is the first. 2-The second is Charles “Chuck” Feeney.