# California home to 10% of World's Billionaires



## bay_area (Dec 31, 2002)

The Golden State is home to 95 Billionaires, out of 946 total worldwide. According to Forbes 2007 Index of World Billionaires.

Far Northern California-1 Billionaire
Archie Aldis Emmerson-Anderson $1.6 Billion

Central Valley-3 Billionaires
Ernest Gallo-Modesto $1.3 Billion
Alexander Spanos-Stockton $1.1 Billion
Joyce Raley Teel-Sacramento $1.1 Billion

Los Angeles Area-42 Billionaires
Kirk Kerkorian-Los Angeles-$15 Billion
Donald Bren-Newport Beach $8.5 Billion
Sumner Redstone-Beverly Hills $8.0 Billion
Eli Broad-Los Angeles $6.0 Billion
Bradley Hughes-Malibu $5.3 Billion
David Geffen-Los Angeles $4.7 Billion
David Murdock-Los Angeles $4.2 Billion
Jeffrey Skoll-Los Angeles $4.2 Billion
Patrick Soon-Shiong-Los Angeles $3.5 Billion
Steven Udvar-Hazy-Beverly Hills $3.2 Billion
A. Jerrold Perenchio-Bel Air $3.0 Billion
Steven Spielberg-Pacific Palisades $3.0 Billion
Haim Saban-Beverly Hills $2.8 Billion
Roland Arnall-Holmby Hills $2.5 Billion
Ronald Burkle-Los Angeles $2.5 Billion
Alfred Mann-Los Angeles $2.5 Billion
Henry Nichols III-Laguna Hills $2.2 Billion
Franklin Booth Jr-Los Angeles $2.1 Billion
Michael Milken-Beverly Hills $2.1 Billion
Henry Samueli-Newport Beach $2.1 Billion
Tom Gores-Beverly Hills $2.0 Billion
David Hearst Jr-Los Angeles $2.0 Billion
George Hearst Jr-Los Angeles $2.0 Billion
Anthony Pritzker-Los Angeles $2.0 Billion
John Anderson-Bel Air $1.9 Billion
Charles Munger-Los Angeles $1.9 Billion
Edward Roski Jr-Los Angeles $1.8 Billion
George Aryros-Newport Beach $1.7 Billion
Louis Gonda-Beverly Hills $1.7 Billion
Alan Casden-Beverly Hills $1.6 Billion
Igor Olenicoff-Newport Beach $1.6 Billion
Leslie Gonda-Beverly Hills $1.4 Billion
Gary Michelson-Los Angeles $1.4 Billion
Robert Day-Los Angeles $1.3 Billion
Roy Disney-Los Angeles $1.3 Billion
William Hilton-Los Angeles $1.3 Billion
Timothy Blixseth-Rancho Mirage $1.2 Billion
Alec Gores-Beverly Hills $1.2 Billion
William Gross-Laguna Beach $1.2 Billion
George Joseph-Los Angeles $1.1 Billion
Jonathan Lovelace-Los Angeles $1.1 Billion
Michael Eisner-Los Angeles $1.0 Billion

Santa Barbara County-1 Billionaire
Thomas Barrack-Santa Barbara $1.0 Billion

San Diego Area-4 Billlionaires
Ernest Rady-San Diego $2.2 Billion
Charles Brandes-San Diego $2.0 Billion
Irwin Jacobs-La Jolla $1.7 Billion
Theodore Waitt-San Diego $1.7 Billion

San Francisco Bay Area-44 Billionaires
Lawrence Ellison-Woodside $21.5 Billion
Sergey Brin-Palo Alto $16.6 Billion
Larry Page-San Francisco $16.6 Billion
Eric Schmidt-Atherton $6.2 Billion
Steve Jobs-Palo Alto $5.7 Billion
Charles Johnson-San Mateo $5.6 Billion
Charles Schwab-Atherton $5.2 Billion
Rupert Johnson Jr-San Mateo $4.6 Billion
George Lucas-Marin $3.6 Billion
Gordon Moore-Woodside $3.6 Billion
Riley Bechtel-San Francisco $2.7 Billion
Steven Bechtel Jr-San Francisco $2.7 Billion
George Roberts-San Francisco $2.6 Billion
Ray Dolby-San Francisco $2.5 Billion
David Filo-Palo Alto $2.5 Billion
John Sobrato-Atherton $2.4 Billion
Gordon Getty-San Francisco $2.3 Billion
Jess Jackson-Healdsburg $2.2 Billion
Jerry Yang-Los Altos $2.2 Billion
William Randolph Hearst III-San Francisco $2.1 Billion
Omid Kordestani-Atherton $2.1 Billion
Phoebe Hearst Cooke-San Francisco $2.0 Billion
Daniel Pritzker-Marin $2.0 Billion
John Pritzer-San Francisco $2.0 Billion
Andreas von Bechtolsheim-Palo Alto $1.9 Billion
John Morgridge-Portola Valley $1.8 Billion
Kavitark Shriram-Mountain View $1.7 Billion
John J Fisher-San Francisco $1.5 Billion
Robert Naify-San Francisco $1.5 Billion
Thomas Siebel-San Mateo $1.5 Billion
David Cheriton-Mountain View $1.4 Billion
Scott Cook-Woodside $1.4 Billion
Robert Fisher-San Francisco $1.4 Billion
William Fisher-San Francisco $1.4 Billion
Carl Berg-Atherton $1.3 Billion
Kenneth Fisher-Woodside $1.3 Billion
Manny Mashouf-Brisbane $1.3 Billion
Margaret Whitman-Atherton $1.3 Billion
Marc Benioff-San Francisco $1.0 Billion
Weili Dai-Los Altos Hills $1.0 Billion
L John Doerr-Woodside $1.0 Billion
Richard Perry-Palo Alto $1.0 Billion
Arthur Rock-San Francisco $1.0 Billion
Sehat Sutardja-Los Altos Hills $1.0 Billion


http://www.forbes.com/2007/03/07/bi..._07billionaires_cz_lk_af_0308billie_land.html


----------



## Obscene (Jul 22, 2007)

**** them all. greedy bastards.


----------



## Jaeger (May 11, 2006)

Being a billionaire depends on your currency, being a £ billionaire is different to be a $ billionaire etc.

If you look at the Sunday Times UK Rich List for 2006, the first 150
individuals are worth or have assets of £500 million, the equivalent of $1 Billion USD's, and this is even higher for the 2007 list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunday_Times_Rich_List_2006


----------



## _00_deathscar (Mar 16, 2005)

27 billionaires with Hong Kong residency by my count...


----------



## bay_area (Dec 31, 2002)

Jaeger said:


> Being a billionaire depends on your currency, being a £ billionaire is different to be a $ billionaire etc.
> 
> If you look at the Sunday Times UK Rich List for 2006, the first 150
> individuals are worth or have assets of £500 million, the equivalent of $1 Billion USD's, and this is even higher for the 2007 list.
> ...


Billionaires are by Forbes in USD-so they include everyone in the UK worth £500M+


----------



## Jaeger (May 11, 2006)

bay_area said:


> Billionaires are by Forbes in USD-so they include everyone in the UK worth £500M+


Well there must be at least 170 from the UK according to the Sunday
Times Rich List

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/specials/rich_list/rich_list_search/

Go to Britain - Full listings


----------



## Jaeger (May 11, 2006)

*UK RICH LIST 2007 (Those whose Wealth is £500 million +)*

1 (1) Lakshmi Mittal and family £19,250m Steel 
2 (2) Roman Abramovich £10,800m Oil and industry 
3 (3) The Duke of Westminster £7,000m Property 
4 (7) Sri and Gopi Hinduja £6,200m Industry and finance 
5 (99) David Khalili £5,800m Art and property 
6 (4) Hans Rausing and family £5,400m Packaging 
7 (5) Sir Philip and Lady Green £4,900m Retailing 
8 (10) John Fredriksen £3,500m Shipping 
9 (8) David and Simon Reuben £3,490m Metals and property 
10 (45=) Jim Ratcliffe £3,300m Chemicals 
11 (9) Sir Richard Branson £3,100m Transport and mobile phones 
12= (11) Charlene and Michel de Carvalho £3,050m Inheritance, brewing and banking 
12= (18=) Sean Quinn and family £3,050m Quarrying, property and insurance 
14 (18=) Simon Halabi £3,000m Property, health clubs 
15 (12) Kirsten and Jorn Rausing £2,825m Inheritance and investments 
16 (16) Joe Lewis £2,800m Foreign exchange, investments 
17 (15) Earl Cadogan and family £2,610m Property 
18 (21) Nadhmi Auchi £2,575m Finance, property and hotels 
19 (34) Vladimir Kim £2,261m Mining 
20 (13) Bernie and Slavica Ecclestone £2,250m Motor racing 
21 (14) Mahdi al-Tajir and family £2,200m Investments and water 
22 (29=) Lord Sainsbury and family £2,130m Supermarkets 
23 (32) Thor Bjorgolfsson £2,040m Pharmaceuticals, banking and telecommunications 
24 (18=) Poju Zabludowicz £2,000m Property and hotels 
25= (22=) Eddie and Malcolm Healey £1,900m Property and kitchens 
25= (54) Mike Ashley £1,900m Sports goods 
25= (22=) Richard Desmond £1,900m Publishing, property 
25= (27) Roddie Fleming and family £1,900m Finance 
29 (117) Ian and Richard Livingstone £1,880m Property 
30 (24) Sir David and Sir Frederick Barclay £1,800m Media, retailing and property 
31= (33) Baroness Howard de Walden and family £1,600m Property 
31= (31) Bruno Schroder and family £1,600m Finance 
31= (29=) John Caudwell £1,600m Mobile phones 
31= (35) Sir Adrian and Sir John Swire and family £1,600m Transport, trading 
35 (55) Sir Ken Morrison and family £1,595m Supermarkets 
36= (126) Eddie and Sol Zakay £1,500m Property 
36= (36=) John Whittaker £1,500m Property 
36= (36=) Laurence Graff £1,500m Diamonds 
36= (145) Lord Paul and family £1,500m Industry and hotels 
36= (43=) Mark Pears and family £1,500m Property 
41 (49=) Bernard Lewis and family £1,480m Fashion and property 
42 (28) Anil Agarwal £1,420m Mining 
43 (40=) Viscount Portman and family £1,315m Property 
44 (53) Chris Lazari £1,311m Property 
45 (52) Benzion Freshwater and family £1,301m Property 
46= (36=) Clive Calder £1,300m Music 
46= (111) Lord and Nat Rothschild £1,300m Finance 
46= (56) Sir Anthony Bamford and family £1,300m Construction equipment 
49 (80) Sir Stelios Haji-Ioannou and family £1,290m Aviation and shipping 
50 (New) Eugene Shvidler £1,286m Oil, gas and investments
51= (47) Alan Parker £1,250m Duty-free shopping 
51= (39) The Aga Khan £1,250m Head of Ismaili people 
53= (103=) Agust and Lydur Gudmundsson £1,200m Food 
53= (42) Lady Grantchester and the Moores family £1,200m Retailing and football pools 
55 (49=) Sir Donald Gordon and family £1,130m Property 
56 (43=) Philippe Foriel-Destezet £1,115m Recruitment services 
57= (45=) Michael Lemos £1,100m Inheritance 
57= (62=) The Jatania brothers £1,100m Toiletries, property 
59 (48) Sir James Dyson and family £1,080m Household appliances 
60= (327=) Mark Coombs £1,050m Finance 
60= (72=) Sir Tom Hunter £1,050m Property, sports goods 
60= (68=) Yong Keu Cha £1,050m Mining 
63 (40=) Sir Terry Matthews £1,010m Computers 
64 (57) George Weston and family £1,005m Fashion and food 
65= (174=) Derrick Smith £1,000m Finance 
65= (New) Harold Goddijn and Corinne Goddijn-Vigreux £1,000m Computers 
65= (61) Peter Cruddas and family £1,000m Finance 
65= (New) Wafic Said £1,000m Finance 
69 (58) Trevor Hemmings £980m Property and leisure 
70 (59) Eduard Shifrin £978m Investments 
71 (394) Kevin and Michael Lagan £928m Construction 
72= (26) Anurag Dikshit £920m Internet gambling 
72= (51) Viscount Rothermere and family £920m Newspapers 
74 (64) Charles Dunstone £910m Mobile phones 
75= (113) David Ross £900m Mobile phones, property 
75= (81=) The Grant and Gordon family £900m Spirits 
77 (17) Russell De Leon and Ruth Parasol £856m Internet gambling 
78= (75=) Lord Vestey and family £850m Meat 
78= (68=) Robert Miller £850m Duty-free shops 
78= (62=) Roger and Peter De Haan £850m Travel and property 
78= (136=) Vincent and Robert Tchenguiz £850m Property 
82= (75=) John Christodoulou £835m Property 
82= (60) Urs Schwarzenbach £835m Finance 
84= (New) Antonio Luiz Seabra £830m Retailing 
84= (71) Sir Alan Sugar £830m Electronics, property 
84= (74) The Earl of Iveagh and the Guinness family £830m Brewing and property 
87 (84=) Keith Miller and family £810m Construction 
88 (98) Michael Spencer £803m Finance 
89= (66=) Lord Ashcroft £800m Business services 
89= (New) Robert Kauffman £800m Finance 
91 (75=) Viscount Cowdray and the Pearson family £781m Media 
92 (163) Brian Souter and Ann Gloag £770m Transport 
93 (94) Simon Keswick and family £760m Finance and trading 
94 (75=) David Bromilow £755m Media and sporting goods 
95= (84=) Felix Dennis £750m Publishing 
95= (168) Leo Noe and family £750m Property 
95= (87=) Lord Lloyd-Webber £750m Entertainment 
95= (90) Sir David Murray £750m Property and football 
95= (87=) The Walker family £750m Steel, aviation and property 
100 (79) Lord Laidlaw £730m Conferences and media
RESULTS: (Last year's results in brackets)
Name Worth Industry 
101 (122=) David Wilson and family £729m Construction 
102 (65) Sir Paul McCartney £725m Music and inheritance 
103 (83) Michael Cornish and family £717m Packaging 
104 (81=) Andreas Panayiotou and family £715m Property 
105 (182) Jon Hunt £706m Estate agency 
106= (87=) Jonathan and David Rowland £700m Investments 
106= (New) Peter Cullum £700m Finance 
108 (155) Tom Singh and family £668m Fashion 
109= (90=) Albert Gubay £650m Property 
109= (90=) Lily Safra £650m Inheritance 
109= (90=) Paul Raymond £650m Property and publishing 
109= (100) Peter Green and family £650m Energy and inheritance 
113 (108) Jacques Gaston Murray and family £642m Plant hire, fire protection and property 
114= (95) Sir Ian Wood and family £634m Oil services and fishing 
114= (187=) The Thomson family £634m Media 
116 (96=) Peter Buckley and the Cayzer family £630m Finance 
117 (146=) Paddy McNally £623m Advertising and sports hospitality 
118= (102) Jack Dellal £620m Property 
118= (107) Jim Mellon £620m Property 
118= (101) Lev Chernoi £620m Metals and trading 
118= (103=) Michael Tabor £620m Leisure, bloodstock 
118= (66=) Phillip Sheppard and family £620m Scrap metal 
118= (154) Robert Edmiston £620m Car sales, property 
124 (118) Peter Jones and family £610m Property 
125 (109=) Peter Simon and family £608m Fashion 
126 (109=) Jorgen Philip-Sorensen £605m Security services 
127 (105) David Sullivan £600m Property and media 
128 (173) Oleg Novachuk £589m Mining 
129= (156=) Patrick McKenna £575m Media and finance 
129= (112) Sir Evelyn and Lady de Rothschild £575m Finance 
131 (New) Alexander Knaster £570m Finance 
132 (125) Michael Moritz £558m Computers 
133= (119=) David, Ralph and Jacqueline Gold £550m Media, lingerie and property 
133= (156=) Fred Koch £550m Inheritance and art 
133= (96=) John Hargreaves and family £550m Fashion 
136= (119=) Jack Petchey £545m Investments 
136= (122=) Joanne Rowling £545m Novels and films 
138 (164=) Sir Anwar Pervez and family £543m Cash and carry 
139 (New) Stefan Olsson £534m Shipping 
140 (138=) Mark Dixon £533m Serviced offices 
141= (330=) Stephen Butt £530m Finance 
141= (185=) The Warburton family £530m Baking 
143= (86) Mark Getty and family £520m Media, inheritance and oil 
143= (122=) Paul Sykes £520m Property 
145 (114) Louis Bacon £518m Finance 
146 (72=) Naresh Goyal and family £512m Airlines 
147= (127=) Sir Donald Gosling £510m Car parks, property 
147= (127=) Sir Peter Rigby £510m Computers 
149 (152) Mohamed al-Fayed and family £507m Retailing 
150 (187=) Lord Alliance and family £503m Mail order and textiles
151= (373) Ardeshir Naghshineh and family £500m Property 
151= (68=) Boris Berezovsky £500m Finance 
151= (174=) Don and Roy Richardson £500m Property 
151= (174=) Lord Ballyedmond £500m Pharmaceuticals 
151= (192=) Remo Dipre and family £500m Construction 
151= (New) Shwan Al-Mulla £500m Industry 
151= (129=) Sir John Templeton £500m Finance 
151= (129=) The Clarke family £500m Property 
151= (129=) The Duke of Devonshire £500m Land and art 
151= (129=) Tim Landon £500m Oil 
151= (174=) Tony Gallagher £500m Property 
151= (156=) Vivian Imerman £500m Whisky and food


----------



## bay_area (Dec 31, 2002)

Jaeger said:


> Well there must be at least 170 from the UK according to the Sunday
> Times Rich List
> 
> http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/specials/rich_list/rich_list_search/
> ...


I'll go by Forbes list but you can choose to believe this one if you like.


----------



## Jaeger (May 11, 2006)

bay_area said:


> I'll go by Forbes list but you can choose to believe this one if you like.


I'll go by The Times, a British paper who know more about the UK Financial Position than Forbes.


----------



## Cambumbo 300 (Jul 4, 2007)

Obscene said:


> **** them all. greedy bastards.


Are you jealous? :lol:


----------



## bay_area (Dec 31, 2002)

Jaeger said:


> I'll go by The Times, a British paper who know more about the UK Financial Position that Forbes.


Forbes says that the UK has 41 Resident Billionaires(2007)

Rank/Name/Country of Citizenship/ Age/ Net Worth in Billions of Dollars/ Country of Residency
5 Lakshmi Mittal India 56 32.0 United Kingdom 
16 Roman Abramovich Russia 40 18.7 United Kingdom 
55 Gerald Cavendish Grosvenor & family United Kingdom 55 11.0 United Kingdom 
73 Hans Rausing Sweden 81 9.0 United Kingdom 
102 Charlene de Carvalho-Heineken Netherlands 52 7.2 United Kingdom 
104 John Fredriksen Cyprus 62 7.0 United Kingdom 
177 David & Simon Reuben United Kingdom NA 4.5 United Kingdom 
194 Simon Halabi United Kingdom 57 4.3 United Kingdom 
230 Anil Agarwal India 53 3.8 United Kingdom 
230 Richard Branson United Kingdom 56 3.8 United Kingdom 
243 Charles Cadogan & family United Kingdom 70 3.6 United Kingdom 
243 Bernard Ecclestone & family United Kingdom 76 3.6 United Kingdom 
249 Bjorgolfur Thor Bjorgolfsson Iceland 40 3.5 United Kingdom 
279 Nadhmi Auchi United Kingdom 69 3.1 United Kingdom 
287 David & Frederick Barclay United Kingdom NA 3.0 United Kingdom 
314 Bruno Schroder & family United Kingdom 74 2.9 United Kingdom 
369 Evgeny (Eugene) Shvidler United States 42 2.5 United Kingdom 
369 John Whittaker United Kingdom 65 2.5 United Kingdom 
432 David Sainsbury United Kingdom 66 2.2 United Kingdom 
432 John Caudwell United Kingdom 54 2.2 United Kingdom 
432 Donald Gordon South Africa 76 2.2 United Kingdom 
432 Philippe Foriel-Destezet France 71 2.2 United Kingdom 
488 Michael Ashley United Kingdom 47 2.0 United Kingdom 
488 Mark Coombs United Kingdom 46 2.0 United Kingdom 
538 Eduard Shifrin United Kingdom 46 1.9 United Kingdom 
557 Robert Kauffman United States 43 1.8 United Kingdom 
618 Antonio Luiz Seabra Brazil 64 1.6 United Kingdom 
618 Jonathan Harmsworth United Kingdom 39 1.6 United Kingdom 
618 Kenneth Morrison United Kingdom 75 1.6 United Kingdom 
618 James Dyson United Kingdom 59 1.6 United Kingdom 
664 James Ratcliffe United Kingdom 54 1.5 United Kingdom 
754 Nasser Khalili United Kingdom 61 1.3 United Kingdom 
754 Richard Desmond United Kingdom 55 1.3 United Kingdom 
754 Naresh Goyal India 57 1.3 United Kingdom 
754 Lloyd Dorfman United Kingdom 54 1.3 United Kingdom 
754 Yong Keu Cha South Korea 50 1.3 United Kingdom 
840 Alexander Knaster United States 48 1.1 United Kingdom 
840 Albert Gubay United Kingdom 78 1.1 United Kingdom 
891 Paul Raymond United Kingdom 82 1.0 United Kingdom 
891 Louis Bacon United States 51 1.0 United Kingdom 
891 Mahdi Al-Tajir United Arab Emirates 74 1.0 United Kingdom


----------



## Jaeger (May 11, 2006)

bay_area said:


> Forbes says that the UK has 41 Resident Billionaires(2007)
> 
> Rank/Name/Country of Citizenship/ Age/ Net Worth in Billions of Dollars/ Country of Residency
> 5 Lakshmi Mittal India 56 32.0 United Kingdom
> ...


The Times whose sister paper is the Financial Times, publishes it's list every year, and there are around 170 individuals with a wealth of at least £500 million. Given that the dollar is low and there are $2 to a £, every one of these individuals is worth the equivalent of $1000 million USD.

Surely any one worth £500 million is a dollar billionaire, at the current exchange rate of $2 to £1.


----------



## Obscene (Jul 22, 2007)

Cambumbo 300 said:


> Are you jealous? :lol:


umm..no..i just think it's unfair that some people are starving and have nothing, while others have *30 billion dollars*. they better do ALOT of charity with those kind of money.. those kind of money could feed a whole lot of people..

im not hating because they are rich but theres gotta be some kind of limit.. these numbers are rediculous and sad..


----------



## Northsider (Jan 16, 2006)

California doesn't surprise me.


----------



## bay_area (Dec 31, 2002)

Jaeger said:


> The Times whose sister paper is the Financial Times, publishes it's list every year, and there are around 170 individuals with a wealth of at least £500 million. Given that the dollar is low and there are $2 to a £, every one of these individuals is worth the equivalent of $1000 million USD.
> 
> Surely any one worth £500 million is a dollar billionaire, at the current exchange rate of $2 to £1.


what this means is that one of the two is incorrect.


----------



## LMCA1990 (Jun 18, 2005)

Obscene said:


> **** them all. greedy bastards.


:hilarious

San Fran has more than LA. Interesting...


----------



## Jaeger (May 11, 2006)

bay_area said:


> what this means is that one of the two is incorrect.


Well I very much doubt The Times is incorrect, it's a leading economic
paper, in fact if you work in the financial industry, the Financial Times
is a highly respected source.

The Times was established in 1785 and has been an important
British Paper ever since, whilst the FT is known as the Stockbrokers
Bible.

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

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

Both papers are two of the most highly regarded publications
in the world.

Times Rich List - http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/specials/rich_list/


----------



## bay_area (Dec 31, 2002)

Jaeger said:


> Well I very much doubt The Times is incorrect, it's a leading economic
> paper, in fact if you work in the financial industry, the Financial Times
> is a very useful paper.
> 
> ...


that may very well be but I have no reason to believe that Forbes is wrong.


----------



## Jaeger (May 11, 2006)

bay_area said:


> that may very well be but I have no reason to believe that Forbes is wrong.


And I have no reason to believe 'The Times' Rich List is wrong.

For instance, everyone in the UK knows Sir Alan Sugar is worth
£800 million ($1.5 Billion), he fronts the UK version of 'The Apprentice', and it says so at the start of the BBC programme every week. 

However he's not on your Forbes list, whilst Harry Potter Author J.K. Rowling is worth £500 million + and is a dollar billionaire, again she's not on the Forbes list.

Just two examples off the top of my head.












hno: 

Seems to me that the Forbes list is somewhat lacking.


----------



## FM 2258 (Jan 24, 2004)

Cambumbo 300 said:


> Are you jealous? :lol:


Yeah, no shit. I would love to be a billionaire. You don't have to worry about having enough money to pay your bills and other necessities. I admire billionaires.


----------



## Jaeger (May 11, 2006)

_00_deathscar said:


> Strangely enough, most of the most famous billionaires in Hong Kong do not reside on the Peak, but rather in Repulse Bay and Deep Water Bay.
> 
> Unless you're Li Ka Shing in which case you reside on top of Cheung Kong Centre.


Hong Kong has some amazingly wealthy people.

I know it has some very rich areas which afford the extremely wealthy
more privacy.


----------



## asif iqbal (Sep 3, 2006)

so what is the total vaule of the wealth for all the billionaires in the world?


----------



## CORLEONE (Jun 15, 2007)

bay_area said:


> that may very well be but I have no reason to believe that Forbes is wrong.


FORBES is wrong dude... Why should we beleive in it?

I also checked many other rankings from them and the had big mistakes, even about history. I´m sorry but I beleive more in "The Times" which has much more reputation than Forbes and is much older newspaper.


----------



## _00_deathscar (Mar 16, 2005)

Jaeger said:


> Hong Kong has some amazingly wealthy people.
> 
> I know it has some very rich areas which afford the extremely wealthy
> more privacy.


Yep, but The Peak is always heralded like the "place to be", yet many of these have their nestlings in the south side of Hong Kong where all the beaches are.

If I may use an analogy, I suppose it would be like finding out that almost no UK billionaires resided in Kensington.


----------



## Jaeger (May 11, 2006)

CORLEONE said:


> FORBES is wrong dude... Why should we beleive in it?
> 
> I also checked many other rankings from them and the had big mistakes, even about history. I´m sorry but I beleive more in "The Times" which has much more reputation than Forbes and is much older newspaper.


I don't think Forbes is that accurate either, they don't seem to take in
to account many foreign billionaires.

There are lots of European Billionaires and Far East Billionaires, and the UK doesn't even have the most billionaires in Europe both Germany and Russia have more. 

Forbes list seems to be very American Centered. 



> Yep, but The Peak is always heralded like the "place to be", yet many of these have their nestlings in the south side of Hong Kong where all the beaches are.
> 
> If I may use an analogy, I suppose it would be like finding out that almost no UK billionaires resided in Kensington.


I am not arguing with you, and the areas such as the beaches were the exactly exclusive and very private areas I was referring to. You can buy a piece of paradise even in one of the most densely populated areas in the world, well that is if you have the money.


----------



## bay_area (Dec 31, 2002)

Jaeger said:


> Not really, I have only made a couple posts, and then went and watched the Arsenal Game on TV.
> 
> I believe Forbes is 100% accuarate when it comes to America but not when it comes to the Global Situation.
> 
> ...


sure whatever.

you know on second thought, I think the Times should do the whole world. If they found 100+ Billionaires in the UK, then theyd probably come up with 300 or so in California.


----------



## _00_deathscar (Mar 16, 2005)

bay_area said:


> sure whatever.
> 
> you know on second thought, I think the Times should do the whole world. If they found 100+ Billionaires in the UK, then theyd probably come up with 300 or so in California.


What the bleeding feck are you on about? Is it so hard to believe that Forbes may be wrong about information outside of America?


----------



## bay_area (Dec 31, 2002)

_00_deathscar said:


> What the bleeding feck are you on about? Is it so hard to believe that Forbes may be wrong about information outside of America?


Why dont you chill out-its not that serious. Or is it?

After doing some research, I happen to think Forbes is wrong about America too. One thing I think may be the reason is that Forbes seems to discount a lot of people who arent necessarily working but still have assets or a net worth in excess of $1 Billion.


----------



## Jaeger (May 11, 2006)

bay_area said:


> sure whatever.
> 
> you know on second thought, I think the Times should do the whole world. If they found 100+ Billionaires in the UK, then theyd probably come up with 300 or so in California.


The Times list provides detailed information on all the people on it's list.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/richlist/fullSearch/0,,2007-1-0,00.html

As for California, it's not for me to say, perhaps Forbes should try to
be more accurate or perhaps a US Broadsheet Newspaper should
compile a similar list to 'The Times'.


----------



## bay_area (Dec 31, 2002)

Jaeger said:


> The Times list provides detailed information on all the people on it's list.
> 
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/richlist/fullSearch/0,,2007-1-0,00.html
> 
> ...


Considering the incomparably greater multi-generational wealth in the UK compared to the relatively newer wealth in CA-Im not surprised that the UK has that many billionaires-it makes sense.

Its just that there are lots of people in San Francisco that we know are Billionaires but are not on Forbes' list for some reason and the only thing I can come up with is that they dont count people who are retired or actively involved in the running of their fortunes. People dont just fall off such a list.


----------



## Jaeger (May 11, 2006)

bay_area said:


> Considering the incomparably greater multi-generational wealth in the UK compared to the relatively newer wealth in CA-Im not surprised that the UK has that many billionaires-it makes sense.
> 
> Its just that there are lots of people in San Francisco that we know are Billionaires but are not on Forbes' list for some reason and the only thing I can come up with is that they dont count people who are retired or actively involved in the running of their fortunes. People dont just fall off such a list.


Not really, 78% of those on The Times list have made their money themselves through business.

As for Forbes not including people in the US, it seems to exclude even more from overseas.


----------



## Jaeger (May 11, 2006)

The editorial decisions governing the compilation of the Times Rich List are published in the newspaper and online as its "Rules of engagement".

* Rules of Engagement - Times Rich List*

* Inclusion*

The Rich List is not limited to British citizens and it includes individuals and families born overseas but who predominantly work and/or live in Britain. This excludes some individuals with prominent financial assets in Britain such as Rupert Murdoch (owner of The Times and The Sunday Times). Rupert Murdoch is an Australian-born U.S. citizen and is not based in Britain, which excludes him. The Sunday Times always acknowledges this every year and details where he would have been in the list if he had qualified.


*Estimation*

The editors estimate subjects' wealth from a range of public information, based on values at January each year. "We measure identifiable wealth, whether land, property, racehorses, art or significant shares in publicly quoted companies. We exclude bank accounts — to which we have no access... We try to give due consideration to liabilities."


----------



## -Corey- (Jul 8, 2005)

I read somewhere that San Diego has about 150,000 millionaires..


----------



## Jaeger (May 11, 2006)

*Forbes - Rules of the Chase*

Our estimates of people's net worth are deliberately conservative and should be considered "at least" figures. We do our best to value everything, from stakes in publicly traded or privately held companies, real estate and investments in natural resources to art, yachts and mansions. We dig through SEC documents and court records; call analysts, employees, competitors and ex-wives; and look at newspaper and magazine articles. We also take a hard look at debt. However, we do not pretend to know everything on a private balance sheet. 

All numbers have been rounded to the nearest $100 million. All publicly traded shares were priced Aug. 31. Privately held companies are valued by coupling estimates (or, in some cases, company-provided numbers) of revenues or profits to prevailing price/revenues or price/earnings ratios for similar public companies. 

We have not included dispersed fortunes (Kennedy, Du Pont, etc.) when individual net worths are below our minimum; however, we add "& family" to someone's entry if the immediate relatives of the individual have a direct influence on or a stake in that particular fortune but the wealth and its source can ultimately be traced to one individual. Example: Jonathan Lovelace Jr. Are there really exactly 400 billionaires in America? No. By our count there are a few more. These are the richest.


----------



## Jaeger (May 11, 2006)

alex537 said:


> I read somewhere that San Diego has about 150,000 millionaires..


Again thats Dollar Millionaires (eqivalent to £500,000 or whatever currency other countries have).

Secondly do these Dollar Millionaires include their property (house) or do they have a million dollars in the bank.

If you look at the UK we have some of the highest property prices in the world and would have several million individuals worth at least a million dollars (including property) and nearly million people now have property and reserves worth £1 million ($2 million).


----------



## -Corey- (Jul 8, 2005)

Since when £500,000 is one million dollars???
£500,000 = US$ 682,500


----------



## -Corey- (Jul 8, 2005)

bay_area said:


> several US states do really well actually.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Interesting.....


----------



## czm3 (Dec 4, 2004)

alex537 said:


> Since when £500,000 is one million dollars???
> £500,000 = US$ 682,500


Where have you been??? Under a rock?

1USD = .73 Euros and .50 pounds....


----------



## ADCS (Oct 30, 2006)

alex537 said:


> Since when £500,000 is one million dollars???
> £500,000 = US$ 682,500


It's been two bucks to the quid for a while now.


----------



## Jaeger (May 11, 2006)

alex537 said:


> Since when £500,000 is one million dollars???
> £500,000 = US$ 682,500


£1 = $2.015 USD and it's been that way for ages.

As for Billionaires the UK has a lot more than 41 (there are at least 150 individuals here worth $1 Billion USD plus according to The Times)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/richlist/fullSearch/0,,2007-1-0,00.html


----------



## Lee (Jun 2, 2003)

When there is that much money involved, property values are alost meaningless.


----------



## Lee (Jun 2, 2003)

The reason why the Times has more billionaires is because it uses a much more liberal methodology, and includes billionaires that in the Forbes list are placed in other countries. In other words, if Forbes used the same methology, not only would the UK have many more billionaires, but so would the US (being home to many foreign billionaires as well).


----------



## Irwell (May 22, 2006)

Lee said:


> The reason why the Times has more billionaires is because it uses a much more liberal methodology, and includes billionaires that in the Forbes list are placed in other countries. In other words, if Forbes used the same methology, not only would the UK have many more billionaires, but so would the US (being home to many foreign billionaires as well).


Yes, because Alan Sugar is so obviously a foreign billionaire who should be excluded from the UK list. :nuts: 

Face it, the Forbes list is just inaccurate!


----------



## Jaeger (May 11, 2006)

Lee said:


> The reason why the Times has more billionaires is because it uses a much more liberal methodology, and includes billionaires that in the Forbes list are placed in other countries. In other words, if Forbes used the same methology, not only would the UK have many more billionaires, but so would the US (being home to many foreign billionaires as well).


The Times Billionaires must be resident/work in the UK, which is why individuals such as Rupert Murdoch, who owns significant assets in the UK but doesn't live here is excluded.

You can even click on each of The Times Rich List individuals and it gives you information about them and their money.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/richlist/fullSearch/0,,2007-1-0,00.html

Even if you exclude immigrants and wealthy people who have made London their home, the Forbes list is still wrong, the majority of the 150 in the UK who own at least £500 million ($1 Billion) were born and bred here.

Your logic also doesn't seem to explain why Hackney Born Sir Alan Sugar, who is worth around £850 million or $1.7 Billion is excluded from The Forbes list. He lives in Chigwell in Essex and is UK born and bred.


----------



## Jaeger (May 11, 2006)

Irwell said:


> Yes, because Alan Sugar is so obviously a foreign billionaire who should be excluded from the UK list. :nuts:
> 
> Face it, the Forbes list is just inaccurate!


J.K Rowling isn't on and she lives in Scotland. :nuts:


----------



## Lee (Jun 2, 2003)

Jaeger said:


> The Times Billionaires must be resident/work in the UK, which is why individuals such as Rupert Murdoch, who owns significant assets in the UK but doesn't live here is excluded.


Of course he is excluded, he's Australian. The Times list does indeed include people who simply are residents or work there. The Forbes list is more specific because it uses citizenship only.



> Fobes criteria is very similar for it's Fortune 400, however there is no way Forbes is going to have easy access to the accounts, property or other wealth of individuals abroad, and Forbes list for people outside America is not accurate.


Why wouldn't it have access to its accounts? Forbes is one of the top business magazines in the world, and well known for its lists.


----------



## Lee (Jun 2, 2003)

Jaeger said:


> J.K Rowling isn't on and she lives in Scotland. :nuts:


JK Rowling is included on the Forbes list.


----------



## Irwell (May 22, 2006)

Lee said:


> The Times list does indeed include people who simply are residents or work there. The Forbes list is more specific because it uses citizenship only.


So exclusive that it excludes a billionaire who was born in Hackney? :lol: Incidentally, the Forbes list also includes residence. Where's Thaksin Shinawatra and his £3.2 billion? Strange that he's not listed under Thailand (citizenship) or United Kingdom (residence). He's not in the list at all in fact.


----------



## Jaeger (May 11, 2006)

Lee said:


> JK Rowling is included on the Forbes list.


Would you like to point out where she is on the Forbes List of UK Billionaires
2007 provided by Bay Area. :nuts: 



Bay Area said:


> Forbes says that the UK has 41 Resident Billionaires(2007)
> 
> Rank/Name/Country of Citizenship/ Age/ Net Worth in Billions of Dollars/ Country of Residency
> 
> ...


----------



## Jaeger (May 11, 2006)

Irwell said:


> So exclusive that it excludes a billionaire who was born in Hackney? :lol: Incidentally, the Forbes list also includes residence. Where's Thaksin Shinawatra and his £3.2 billion? Strange that he's not listed under Thailand (citizenship) or United Kingdom (residence). He's not in the list at all in fact.



:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Jaeger (May 11, 2006)

Lee said:


> Of course he is excluded, he's Australian. The Times list does indeed include people who simply are residents or work there. The Forbes list is more specific because it uses citizenship only.
> 
> 
> 
> Why wouldn't it have access to its accounts? Forbes is one of the top business magazines in the world, and well known for its lists.


So an American Organisation has full access to all documents in China, The Middle East, Russia and throughout the World. 

Also can you imagine how many individuals would be needed to check the details across the globe and what about certain countries who have different laws etc.

Btw a lot of wealthy individuals who make London or the UK their home do go on to apply for British Citzenship.

Whilst others simply don't require UK citzenship because they are EU Nationals and therefore are already European Citzens with the same rights as a British Citizen.


----------



## Lee (Jun 2, 2003)

Jaeger said:


> Would you like to point out where she is on the Forbes List of UK Billionaires
> 2007 provided by Bay Area. :nuts:


http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/10...aires-Europe-Russia_6CountryOfCitizen_11.html

She is on this list if you look at the website.


----------



## Lee (Jun 2, 2003)

Jaeger said:


> So an American Organisation has full access to all documents in China, The Middle East, Russia and throughout the World.
> 
> Also can you imagine how many individuals would be needed to check the details across the globe and what about certain countries who have different laws etc.
> 
> ...


The company would ask for the documents. Wealth of that category is basically public record, anyway. Net worth of all billionaires is known by simply googling it. No need to get documents.


----------



## Lee (Jun 2, 2003)

Irwell said:


> the Forbes list also includes residence. Where's Thaksin Shinawatra and his £3.2 billion? Strange that he's not listed under Thailand (citizenship) or United Kingdom (residence). He's not in the list at all in fact.


Forbes did not classify him as a billionaire because many of his assetts were frozen, due to his criminal activity. I bet you didn't know that, but Forbes did. You see, Forbes isn't stupid and knows what it is talking about. It doesn't classify criminals.


----------



## Jaeger (May 11, 2006)

Lee said:


> http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/10...aires-Europe-Russia_6CountryOfCitizen_11.html
> 
> She is on this list if you look at the website.


She's not on Bay Areas list.

Where's Sir Alan Sugar, he does the British Version of 'The Apprentice'.


----------



## Jaeger (May 11, 2006)

Lee said:


> The company would ask for the documents. Wealth of that category is basically public record, anyway. Net worth of all billionaires is known by simply googling it. No need to get documents.


So are you saying that Forbes just use google. :lol: 

As for Company Documents, they may be available in the US, but like I have already said other countries do things differently.

The Swiss are extemely forth coming over financial matters :lol:


----------



## Irwell (May 22, 2006)

Lee said:


> Forbes did not classify him as a billionaire because many of his assetts were frozen, due to his criminal activity. I bet you didn't know that, but Forbes did. You see, Forbes isn't stupid and knows what it is talking about. It doesn't classify criminals.


I'm perfectly aware, he's the chairman of my football team! He's had US$1.8 billion of his £3.2 billion fortune frozen. How else do you think he bought Manchester City for cash after his Thai-based assets had been frozen?

Seems someone here doesn't know much about current affairs. Do you work for Forbes?

Oh, and you ignored the Alan Sugar one for the third time.


----------



## Cambumbo 300 (Jul 4, 2007)

Obscene said:


> umm..no..i just think it's unfair that some people are starving and have nothing, while others have *30 billion dollars*. they better do ALOT of charity with those kind of money.. those kind of money could feed a whole lot of people..
> 
> im not hating because they are rich but theres gotta be some kind of limit.. these numbers are rediculous and sad..


Charity is like burning your money.

It doesn`t help to much.

Africa needs investments. 

But if you invest in Africa, let`s say: you build a car factory, then, you will not be able to export the cars to another country because african countries don`t have free trade agreements with rich countries. And you can not sell the cars to the africans because they don`t have a lot of money. 

These numbers are not sad, what is sad is your poor understanding of the world.


----------



## Jaeger (May 11, 2006)

Irwell said:


> I'm perfectly aware, he's the chairman of my football team! He's had US$1.8 billion of his £3.2 billion fortune frozen. How else do you think he bought Manchester City for cash after his Thai-based assets had been frozen?
> 
> Seems someone here doesn't know much about current affairs. Do you work for Forbes?
> 
> Oh, and you ignored the Alan Sugar one for the third time.


It's not just Sir Alan Sugar, where are the like of the Moore Family, Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber, Roddie Fleming, the Rothchilds, The Grant and Gordon Families, Viscount Rothmere, Brian Souter/Anne Gloag, The Walker Family, Viscount Cowdray etc etc

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/10...aires-Europe-Russia_6CountryOfCitizen_10.html

Over two thirds of 'The Times' list of 150 individuals who are dollar billionaires (have at least £500 million) who reside in the UK were born here.

It seems to me that Forbes is very inaccurate, and what makes it even more laughable is that Sir Alan Sugar isn't even on the list. 

Forbes don't even have to google that one :lol:

Sugar fronts the UK version of 'The Apprentice' and at the start of every BBC episode his wealth is said to be at least £800 million, which is way over $1.5 Billion (USD). :lol: 

Sugar was born in Hackney in London, and is a self made man, he
made his money in electronics/computers in the UK and lives in Chigwell in Essex near London.

So why isn't he on the list.




hno:


----------



## Lee (Jun 2, 2003)

Jaeger said:


> So are you saying that Forbes just use google. :lol:
> 
> As for Company Documents, they may be available in the US, but like I have already said other countries do things differently.
> 
> The Swiss are extemely forth coming over financial matters :lol:


I didn't say they use Google. You don't know what they do, so it's hard to critisize them. I am sure if we knew about Swiss/Bermuda/Cayman Island bank accounts there would be a few more billionaires, but keep in mind that the overwhelming source of wealth for billionaires is in financial assetts (stocks and bonds) and not in simple bank accounts.


----------



## polako (Apr 7, 2005)

If the UK has 150 billionaires then the US must have like 10,000 of them.


----------



## ChinaboyUSA (May 10, 2005)

the most number of billionaires in the world will be appearing in china for the next 10 years.


----------



## _00_deathscar (Mar 16, 2005)

pittsteelers247 said:


> Ok i dont know if this argument started over the fact that you want to belive that england has more billionaires than the U.S. but given the fact that its just in California and not counting the rest of the U.S., I don't even think that Britain holds a candle to how many billionaires the U.S. has.
> 
> Don't mean to troll


Why does every thread have to be turned into a something vs something?

He's not debating whether England has more billionaires than the US - he's debating the accuracy of the report when it comes to the UK, and for that matter, the rest of the world.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

pittsteelers247 said:


> Ok i dont know if this argument started over the fact that you want to belive that england has more billionaires than the U.S. but given the fact that its just in California and not counting the rest of the U.S., I don't even think that Britain holds a candle to how many billionaires the U.S. has.


Of course the US has more, I don't see anybody saying otherwise. For one thing the US has 5 times the population so you would expect it even with the weak dollar at the moment. The only debate is whether or not the figures are accurate.



pittsteelers247 said:


> Don't mean to troll


Yes you do


----------



## Jaeger (May 11, 2006)

^^ 

Exactly and the city with the most billionaires is Moscow.

As for Forbes, they don't ask if you want to go on the list, they just estimate, so it's not a case of people not wanting to be on the list, they are put on the list anyway, and mant complain bitterly about it.

Btw you go to streets in London such as the Bishop Avenue and you don't just find billionaires living there, you find the Saudi and Jordanian Royal Family, the Aga Khan, The Sultan of Brunei, Rich Russian oligarchs, such as Abramovitch, Greek Shipping Magnets or Indian Steel Magnets and extreme wealth.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,,1764383,00.html

That's on top of the numerous local British billionaires.

London's Mayfair, Belgravia, Knightsbridge are home to the super wealthy, and within these areas places such as Kensington have palatial billionaire palaces, whilst the leafy suburbs of the home counties are also home to the mega-rich (you just need to look at some of the houses in places like Wentworth).

As for Europe, you go the Monaco and you will find more billionaires per head than anywhere else on earth, and the place is home to the vast super yacht.


----------



## Jaeger (May 11, 2006)

polako said:


> If the UK has 150 billionaires then the US must have like 10,000 of them.


Thats exactly the kind of American response you expect. :nuts: 

The rest of the world doesn't matter and can't be anywhere near as good as us. :lol: 

The next generation of Billionaires are already emerging from China, India, and the Far East. Whilst the Middle East has some of the richest people on earth, they do get paid for that black stuff you stick in your car.

Europe also has a lot of billionaires, with many now emerging from Eastern Europe and Russia to add to those from Western Europe.

Wealthy Enclaves and tax havens such as Switzerland and Monaco etc attract the mega-rich Europeans, and there are a lot of them.

As for London it is fast becoming the world financial capital.



> The Financial Times is correct to note that more money is now managed in London than in the four top American financial centers combined, including New York.
> 
> http://www.manhattan-institute.org/email/crd_newsletter11-06.html


----------



## Jaeger (May 11, 2006)

_00_deathscar said:


> Why does every thread have to be turned into a something vs something?
> 
> He's not debating whether England has more billionaires than the US - he's debating the accuracy of the report when it comes to the UK, and for that matter, the rest of the world.


Exactly we were debating the inaccuracy of Forbes, when compared to the far better Times Rich list.


----------



## bma83 (May 21, 2006)

Jaeger said:


> Exactly we were debating the inaccuracy of Forbes, when compared to the far better Times Rich list.


Which is funny because the thread was origianlly about California being home to 10% of World's Billionaires. 

How did this become a Forbes (US) vs. Times (UK) thread?


----------



## bma83 (May 21, 2006)

Jaeger said:


> Thats exactly the kind of American response you expect. :nuts:
> 
> The rest of the world doesn't matter and can't be anywhere near as good as us. :lol:


When you're right, you're right!! :|


----------



## Jaeger (May 11, 2006)

bma83 said:


> Which is funny because the thread was origianlly about California being home to 10% of World's Billionaires.
> 
> How did this become a Forbes (US) vs. Times (UK) thread?


Because the realiability of Forbes was thrown in to question.

For a start it doesn't seem to include a lot of Billionaires from other countries.



bma83 said:


> When you're right, you're right!!


I don't think you are right.


----------



## Jaeger (May 11, 2006)

Btw here's 'The Sunday Times List'

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/richlist/fullSearch/0,,2007-1-0,00.html

The £ is worth $2.1 at the moment, so £500 million = $1 Billion.

Btw the Times criteria is that these individuals must be resident/work
in the UK.

You can click on 'The Times' names and it will give you more details,
the first 150 entries are worth at least £500 million or $1 Billion, whilst the first 65 are £ Billionaires or worth at least $2 Billion.

The Forbes list is good at counting Americans, but it excludes well known British billionaires, including such well known billionaires as Sir Alan Sugar. 

Quite a few of the forumers here have questioned 'The Forbes' list and I am sure it's not just 'The Times' and the UK that 'The Forbes' list doesn't tally with.

Missing out Sir Alan Sugar (who hosts the UK Version of 'The Apprentice) is a bit like missing Donald Trump off 'The Forbes' list. 

Sugar a British Citizen is estimated to be worth at least £830 million or $1.7 Billion, and was born, raised and lives in Chigwell in Essex. 

If people like Sugar aren't included on 'The Forbes' list then something
is very wrong, and there are other even wealthier examples.


----------



## Jaeger (May 11, 2006)

As Sir Alan points out 'He don't like Liars he don't like Cheats, he don't like Bullshitters, he don't like schmoozers, he don't like Brocoli and he
don't like Forbes' - and as he says 'Never Under estimate me' - so
take heed Forbes. :lol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzTDWZfFPB8


----------



## gladisimo (Dec 11, 2006)

Well, for one thing, Times makes a much better college ranking list than US News does.


----------



## Lee (Jun 2, 2003)

But you say the Forbes list is wrong, so what makes you think they correctly counted the rest of the world, including the US? By their own admission they did undercount billionaires in the US. Also, what makes you think that the Times list is correct? How do you know they didn't overcount? 

Answer: you don't know. Nobody knows.

Everybody knows that the real richest man in the world is probably someone from an oil rich state, or in the House of Saud, which by the way was put in place by the British gov't after WW1.


----------



## _00_deathscar (Mar 16, 2005)

Lee said:


> But you say the Forbes list is wrong, so what makes you think they correcly counted the rest of the world, including the US? By their own admission they did undercount billionaires in the US. Also, what makes you think that the Times list is correct? How do you know they didn't overcount?
> 
> Answer: you don't know. Nobody knows.


So all lists are bollocks, because "no one really knows"?


----------



## Jaeger (May 11, 2006)

Lee said:


> But you say the Forbes list is wrong, so what makes you think they correcly counted the rest of the world, including the US? By their own admission they did undercount billionaires in the US. Also, what makes you think that the Times list is correct? How do you know they didn't overcount?
> 
> Answer: you don't know. Nobody knows.


Well is they haven't counted corrrectly, they are not right.

I think The Times list is correct in respect of the UK, as it's part of
the Financial Times group who specialise in reporting UK Business
and have in-depth knowledge.

I would not expect The Times to be as correct when it comes to US
Billionaires.


----------



## bma83 (May 21, 2006)

Jaeger said:


> I don't think you are right.


The feeling is very much mutual.


----------



## Lusitania (Jul 14, 2007)

Personally, I think you're all nuts, arguing over billionaires!!! Can't we just get it out of the way and put our cards on the table, this is not a Forbes VS Times thread or any other of those absurdities, this is another US vs UK thread and it needs to stop.


----------



## Gaeus (Mar 21, 2007)

I'm getting sick of this thread. Too much country vs. country. Somebody needs to close this.


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

> California home to 10% of World's Billionaires


Wow! and that author hails from _that_ BA?!? This forum's 'bout cities, not poncy states.


----------

