Millionaire Gives Away Fortune Because It Made Him Miserable

Millionaire Karl Rabeder has decided to give away his £3 million fortune because it's made him miserable. "My idea is to have nothing left. Absolutely nothing," he said, "Money is counterproductive – it prevents happiness to come." Rabeder plans on selling all of his properties as well, and giving the money to his microcredit charity, which offers small loans to Latin America and builds development aid strategies to self-employed people in El Salvador, Honduras, Bolivia, Peru, Argentina and Chile.

Comments

Only $5M?

[NicknamesAreStupid]

Is that all? Then he was not rich, merely disappointed at being an American 'millionaire' ('million' once meant something else in England). Wall Street investment bankers spend more at the bar on New Year's Eve and still do not dent their year-end bonuses.

Re:Only $5M?

[Locke2005]

Sigh... "Billion" once meant a million million in the UK; they have now adopted the American definition of a thousand million to avoid confusion. A "million" has always been 1000000 in every language! Granted, 3000000 pounds doesn't go as far as it used to, but if you absolutely have to give it away, I would have used it to subsidize the college education of attractive young women found at the local strip club.

Re:Only $5M?

[RockDoctor]

"Billion" once meant a million million in the UK; they have now adopted the American definition of a thousand million to avoid confusion

Err, and your opinion represents the opinion of approximately how many citizens of the UK?

When I was growing up (here in the UK), I suffered from confusion because as a million is the square of a thousand, then surely a billion should be the square of a million, and a trillion the square of a billion etc etc.
Since then, I learned about scientific notation at school, and I'm perfectly happy with using the unambiguous SI prefixes where any degree of precision is required. But the ambiguity that has been introduced by the American mis-use of "billion" (and latterly of "trillion", as in "trillion dollar budget deficit") has meant that all use of that term has to be accompanied by the definition that you are using as you write (since a different definition can be the default where the writing is read).
That seems to be the general opinion in the UK, regardless of what foreigners say about our language.

So, if you want to be precisely understood, just use mega-, giga-, tera-, etc ; if you're talking for effect only, use whatever your local language is but expect to be misunderstood.

Re:Only $5M?

[Locke2005]

My opinion is irrelevant. However, all the opinions expressed by UK citizens in The Guardian indicate that the US definition of a billion is now the accepted standard. But relax, the UK still sets the standard for the prime meridian.

Re:Only $5M?

[rugatero]

I suffered from confusion because as a million is the square of a thousand, then surely a billion should be the square of a million, and a trillion the square of a billion etc etc.

A trillion is not the square of a billion in either system. It is either a thousand billion (10^3 × 10^9) or a million billion (10^6 × 10^12).