Slashdot Mirror


Bill Gates Is No Longer The World's Richest Person After Amazon Stock Surge (cnn.com)

"Jeff Bezos has leapfrogged Bill Gates again for the title of world's richest billionaire..." announced CNN Money. An anonymous reader quotes their report. Amazon stock jumped 13.5% on Friday after the company turned in another incredible earnings report -- more than a quarter-billion dollars in profit in three months. Bezos owned nearly 80 million shares in Amazon as of August, according to the most recent available data from FactSet. He made more than $10 billion from the one-day stock surge and is now worth well over $90 billion. At the end of trading on Thursday, Gates occupied the top spot in the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, with a net worth of $88 billion. Bezos had $83.5 billion, and his big day on Friday was more than enough to close the gap.
In July sales for Amazon's self-created holiday "Prime Day" were actually higher than they were on Black Friday. Amazon's sales for the quarter were $11 billion higher than they were a year ago -- increasing 29% even before an additional $1.3 billion from Whole Foods sales, for total sales over three months of $43.7 billion.

Amazon now also projects that their yearly revenue from AWS will be $2 billion higher.

134 comments

  1. Bill Gates is only #2 because he is generous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As of four years ago, Bill Gates had already given away $28 billion, and has given away more since then. Jeff Bezos gives away very little of his fortune, favoring the same "I can use my money to make more money and do more good later" path his company follows. If Bill hadn't given away a large portion of his money, he would still easily be #1.

    1. Re:Bill Gates is only #2 because he is generous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Modern day Robin Hood. He robbed the rich (you, me, everyone else who could afford computers and operating systems) and is now giving it to the poor. I'm guessing that Robin Hood was also hated amongst the landed classes he took money from.

    2. Re:Bill Gates is only #2 because he is generous. by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm pretty sure Robin Hood never caused any bluescreen which made people lose hours of work.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    3. Re:Bill Gates is only #2 because he is generous. by gweihir · · Score: 0, Troll

      That is a massive romaticization. Bill Gates is a crook, and the bit about giving some money to the poor and in a questionable (and pretty much non-effective) manner on top of it does not make him a hero in any sane view of reality.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    4. Re:Bill Gates is only #2 because he is generous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is a massive romaticization. Bill Gates is a crook, and the bit about giving some money to the poor and in a questionable (and pretty much non-effective) manner on top of it does not make him a hero in any sane view of reality.

      Here's what I don't understand about guys like this. After you make your first few billion or so and the financial future of your great-great-great-grandchildren is more than assured .... why would you continue to work? That'd be the time to realize how short life is and spend the rest of your time on this planet doing whatever the hell you want.

    5. Re: Bill Gates is only #2 because he is generous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I came here to laugh at you and to tell you about it.

    6. Re:Bill Gates is only #2 because he is generous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      why would you continue to work?

      Believe it or not, some people like to work.

    7. Re: Bill Gates is only #2 because he is generous. by 31415926535897 · · Score: 1

      That's why he's a billionaire and we're not. He's got a drive that few others have. What made him rich was literally his life's passion, and you don't stop that because you've got a lot of presidential flash cards.

    8. Re:Bill Gates is only #2 because he is generous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why would you continue to work?

      Believe it or not, some people like to work.

      I guess it's different when you are in control and not beholden to a bunch of moronic PHB types who keep making short-sighted decisions because they insist on managing what they do not understand.

      The only one I personally know who truly likes their work with a real passion is a research scientist funded by grants who is trying to improve the quality of life for people afflicted with various diseases. I don't know anyone with a more regular American corporate role who has that sort of passion.

    9. Re:Bill Gates is only #2 because he is generous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bill Gates and various other rich people "give" their money to their own foundations, which do what they want them to do. Granted, these foundations do charitable work, but they do the charitable work that their founders want them to do. It's not legally their money, but they still control how it's spent.

    10. Re:Bill Gates is only #2 because he is generous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They do what they want.

    11. Re:Bill Gates is only #2 because he is generous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Robin Hood was a massive crook too.

      Claiming the Gates Foundation's work in ineffective is laughable - the lack of polio around anymore is just one example.

      So yes, he took money from rich people and rid us of polio with the proceeds. Modern day Robin Hood.

      http://www.adweek.com/brand-ma...

    12. Re:Bill Gates is only #2 because he is generous. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1, Troll

      I'm pretty sure Robin Hood never caused any bluescreen which made people lose hours of work.

      Indeed. Bill is not "evil" because he took everyone's money. He is evil because he used unethical business practices to push shoddy products that held back progress.

    13. Re:Bill Gates is only #2 because he is generous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Generous"?! Please! He, like the Clintons, "donates" to his own foundation to avoid paying taxes. He could donate to rebuild all of Puerto Rico's infrastructure. Why doesn't he, and Bezoz for that matter? These people are psychopaths.

    14. Re:Bill Gates is only #2 because he is generous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone who donates their own money donates it to the recipients of their choice. Doing so through one layer of obfuscation is irrelevant. I don't see your point.

    15. Re: Bill Gates is only #2 because he is generous. by dougdonovan · · Score: 1

      when i hear or see the name gates, i pay attention, if its not bill, msft, i dont care. who the hell is bezos ?...just kidding...jeff...good job.

    16. Re:Bill Gates is only #2 because he is generous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bill Gates "giving" money to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is literally moving money from the left pocket to the right pocket. "Giving" really isn't the right word for it.

    17. Re: Bill Gates is only #2 because he is generous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His organization is a charity yes, and some of what it does is good, but other aspects (like undermining the US public school system with charter school support) is not. In that way what he does is not different from say the Catholic church. I'm not going to slobber on his dick anytime soon especially considering how his money was made.

    18. Re:Bill Gates is only #2 because he is generous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not just a tax dodge. When rich people die, someone inherits their wealth, and the dead rich person has no control over the decisions of the heir. By giving their money to their foundations, they get to extend their influence beyond the grave.

    19. Re:Bill Gates is only #2 because he is generous. by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      it does not make him a hero in any sane view of reality.

      That view depends entirely on if you were robbed or if you were donated to.

    20. Re:Bill Gates is only #2 because he is generous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some people do that. Steve Wozniak taught high school. Not my idea of fun, but then I'm no Steve Wozniak.

    21. Re:Bill Gates is only #2 because he is generous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess the point is that if some gives money to an independent charity, such as the Red Cross or the American Cancer Society they pretty much lose control of it. The ARC or ACS will use it however they please, in most cases.
      If you donate to a foundation that you control you get to decide how the money is spent. You can support your own pet causes, whether most people agree with the worth of the cause or not.
      Most specifically if someone like the American cancer Society decides that Dr. A deserves to have his research funded but Dr. B does not your money will go to Doctor A. In the same case you can send your money to Dr. B, even if most people in the field think his research is likely to be unuseful.

    22. Re: Bill Gates is only #2 because he is generous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because American public schools have been such a successful model of providing education to troubled students in general and poor and minority students in particular.

    23. Re:Bill Gates is only #2 because he is generous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >After you make your first few billion or so and the financial future of your great-great-great-grandchildren is more than assured .... why would you continue to work?

      Bill Gates hasn't worked in close to 20 years.

    24. Re:Bill Gates is only #2 because he is generous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure Robin Hood never caused any bluescreen which made people lose hours of work.

      Indeed. Bill is not "evil" because he took everyone's money. He is evil because he used unethical business practices to push shoddy products that held back progress.

      The market voted with their wallets. They choose Microsoft over the competitors.

    25. Re:Bill Gates is only #2 because he is generous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The market did not "choose" Microsoft. They choose the most popular platform, which happened to be Microsoft.

    26. Re:Bill Gates is only #2 because he is generous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "it is reasonable to assume that there were approximately 10,000 Microsoft millionaires created by the year 2000" Other sources put the number at more than 12,000 millionaires and 4 billionaires by 2005. How's Robin Hood doing on that front?

    27. Re:Bill Gates is only #2 because he is generous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm guessing he works pretty hard on the things he wants to work on. I retired 20 years ago and usually work harder than I did at my job because I can. Many if not most of those things are tasks which people do for a living. Every job I do, I try to do better than anyone else, whether it's creating a website or repainting a house.

    28. Re:Bill Gates is only #2 because he is generous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The market did not "choose" Microsoft. They choose the most popular platform, which happened to be Microsoft.

      So you are saying that the market voted with their wallets. Which made Microsoft the most popular.

    29. Re:Bill Gates is only #2 because he is generous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only one I personally know who truly likes their work with a real passion is a research scientist funded by grants who is trying to improve the quality of life for people afflicted with various diseases. I don't know anyone with a more regular American corporate role who has that sort of passion.

      I can almost guarantee you that the researcher is making less than any other employed person that you know. Our society has signaled very clearly that curing diseases and improving the quality of life is not appreciated.

    30. Re: Bill Gates is only #2 because he is generous. by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2

      Yes. Just as Al Capone had a life passion, so too did little Billy Gates. You seem to be under the impression that Gates got rich by legitI-mate means. Those of us who have been in High Tech as long as he has watched his criminal history unfold, realize how much damage he has cost society, and aren't blinded to the fact that all his current "phalanthropic efforts" don't turn out to be so selfless when the light of greater scrutiny is shined upon them.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    31. Re: Bill Gates is only #2 because he is generous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What made him rich was literally being born to rich parents. What made him the richest person alive was his passion to keep getting richer.

    32. Re:Bill Gates is only #2 because he is generous. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Informative

      So you are saying that the market voted with their wallets. Which made Microsoft the most popular.

      No. People were not given a choice. If you walked into a computer store in the 1990s, you had a choice of Windows, Windows, or Windows.

      Windows had the apps because it had the users. It had the users because it had the apps. That gave Microsoft monopoly power, which they badly abused in ways that were later deemed illegal, to crush competitors and sabotage open standards.

      It didn't have to be that way. The Internet was developed on open standards. Anyone can access the Web, anyone can connect a server, anyone can create a browser. The standards for transmitting content, and displaying pages is standardized. There is no good reason that it couldn't have been the same for OSes. We could've had a standard framework for GUIs and desktop apps, that would work on all platforms. Apps would not be "Windows only", and developers would not have to write in Javascript and run in a browser just to get cross platform capability.

    33. Re:Bill Gates is only #2 because he is generous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone can access the Web, anyone can connect a server,

      I'm Chinese you insensitive clod.

    34. Re:Bill Gates is only #2 because he is generous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you have that much money, it doesn't even matter any more. The greed competition is long over.

      I seriously doubt Billy G is going to be losing any sleep over being billionaire #2.

    35. Re:Bill Gates is only #2 because he is generous. by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      So you are saying that the market voted with their wallets. Which made Microsoft the most popular.

      No. People were not given a choice. If you walked into a computer store in the 1990s, you had a choice of Windows, Windows, or Windows.

      Windows had the apps because it had the users. It had the users because it had the apps. That gave Microsoft monopoly power, which they badly abused in ways that were later deemed illegal, to crush competitors and sabotage open standards.

      It didn't have to be that way. The Internet was developed on open standards. Anyone can access the Web, anyone can connect a server, anyone can create a browser. The standards for transmitting content, and displaying pages is standardized. There is no good reason that it couldn't have been the same for OSes. We could've had a standard framework for GUIs and desktop apps, that would work on all platforms. Apps would not be "Windows only", and developers would not have to write in Javascript and run in a browser just to get cross platform capability.

      I am of the unpopular opinion here of stating IE 6 won because it was a better browser while Netscape was crap. Ask any oldtime web developer? If you think IE 6 was so horrible Netscape 4.7 was far far worse and less forgiving. IE only sin in terms of interoperability was activeX controls which were the answer over Netscape's plugins. But in terms of CSS and HTML IE 6 was the most compliant and best performing browser there was.

      Yes times change but the vast majority of shitty websites that relied on IE were because of bug work arounds. Not sabotaging standards. Quirks mode was bug emulation for compatibility that Netscape started that IE also supported in addition to it's own quirks. YEs IE was around for MacOSX and Unix too :-)

      FYI my handle here is because I was an anti MS zealot in those days and hated MS with a passion and agreed with you earlier.

      Looking back I have to say my hatred was because I didn't realize how backwards corporate customers requiring compatibility is and how resistant and afraid of change MBA bosses are when it comes to the bottom line.

      MS Windows sucked because Dos was old. No other answer. In comparison XP also was very very crusty in 2014 yet hundreds of millions die hards LOVED IT and even got +5 informative ratings here 3 years ago SERIOUSLY. What does this have to do with a Microsoft monopoly and shitty software? Easy, DOS was standard so MS had to run Windows on top of DOS complete with the extended vs expanded memory, config.sys hell, .dll conflits, and even the 1981 bios which until 5 years ago came with all PCs (some on Slashdot claim is still superior over EFI firmware) which made the foundation based on mashed potatoes architecturally.

      So due to WordPerfect and Lotus Notes WIndows had to suck due to all the hacks to get DOs underneath it working on modern hardware. Same is true for IE 6 sucking after a few years from 2001. Compatibility and newer cutting edge things like CSS cascade styling sheets were so cutting edge the code was not baked in IE yet as it was ancient and experimental.

      I do not think Bill is evil anymore. I just think he made a smart move to sell DOS to IBM for $25 a copy while CPM (also available) was $250 a copy. Also you mention in the 1990s Window is all you had? The was after the 1980s when you could also choose the Amiga, Commodore, Mac, Apple II, Atari, etc. The market choose Microsoft as DOS was not too bad yet in the 1980s.

    36. Re:Bill Gates is only #2 because he is generous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This foundation thing has been used by billionaires for a long time now. They get to control their money beyond their death and they get to keep the greedy government's hands off of it.

    37. Re: Bill Gates is only #2 because he is generous. by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, those that pray to the great God Mammon are incapable of understanding that there is no honest way to amass such riches and that it will always have massive negative consequences for the rest of the world. Bill Gates is the evil mastermind that prevented the world form having an universal OS with several reference implementations by now. Instead the mainstream OS is a closed mess made by utter fuckups that does not even have a stable UI or API.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    38. Re:Bill Gates is only #2 because he is generous. by gweihir · · Score: 0

      Everybody was robbed by him. Some got a fraction of what they were robbed of back...

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    39. Re:Bill Gates is only #2 because he is generous. by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      No, every white middle class westerner was robbed by him. Claiming "everyone" was robbed by him is stupid on the face of it.

    40. Re:Bill Gates is only #2 because he is generous. by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 1

      I'll call bulshit here. This is a very immature nonsensical reasoning. You are suggesting that Microsoft dominated because they were the only thing on the store shelves in the 90s as if that was the beginning of it. It wasn't.

      Borland and later QuickBasic and Visual Basic were probably the reason why Microsoft came to dominate the market.

      See, here's the thing... people chose the platform because of the software available on it. The software available on it became available because of the quality of the development tools on the platform. It's as simple as that.

      I recall clearly in the 80s and 90s that there were A LOT of options (often in those same stores) :
      1) DR-DOS
      2) CPM-86
      3) Geoworks Ensemble
      4) Mac
      5) Amiga
      6) Commodore-64
      7) Atari-ST
      8) Commodore-128D
      9) BeOS (towards the end)
      10) Novell Netware
      11) Desqview
      12) Desqview X

      We had tons of options... probably more than we have now. Many things defined the success of Microsoft. Among them :
      - The availability of quality development tools
      - The ease of making a simple program
      - The cost of the system

      Most of the solutions above cost too much. UNIX was too expensive for just about anyone and if you bought a System-V or a BSD, the cost of the compilers alone was enough to make it so that no one could afford to use them. Netware was a file and print server and when that became commodity, that was no longer interesting... and don't ignore the absolute lack of support for TCP/IP until it was too late.

      But Borland made Microsoft

      Borland released Turbo C and Turbo Pascal for around $99 each which was reachable even for a kid like me back then. I was able to buy a compiler that had a full IDE and integrated debugger. I could go to a local book store and buy a copy of "Turbo C" and "Advance Turbo C" by Herbert Schildt for $30 a copy which took me months to save for, but before the Internet was probably two of the absolute best sources of information on programming ever written. There were some very inexpensive libraries such as a full blown ISAM like the "C/Database Toolchest" which cost like $20 and actually shipped with a REALLY GOOD manual in the form of a learn to program book. In fact, they actually still sell it at Mix Software all these years later.

      Let's also add that using Borland's Graphic Interface allowed anyone with the slightest interest to learn to make basic graphical games before moving onto books and articles from Michael Abrash and learning about mode-X.

      Then came QuickBasic which was a language anyone could use without any real knowledge of programming... again with an IDE and a debugger.

      Windows was struggling in the early days because the Windows API (which hasn't change much) was extremely difficult to learn. The only book worth mentioning was "Programming Windows 3.1 by Charles Petzold and while that covered the basics, it really didn't do much more than get you started with some really simple forms and GDI stuff. So, we didn't code much for it. But then came Visual Basic. A Programming language for a Windowed environment which reinvented programming for GUIs and made it so that even grandmothers running knitting businesses could make their own applications by dragging and dropping and writing 10 lines of code.

      And Visual Basic was the official death knell for all other platforms. Anyone could write shitty programs with shitty code and the whole Windows world nearly exploded overnight.

      Apple did ok with things like Hyper-Card but no other company other than Microsoft ever understood how important :
      1) A Stable ABI and API would be
      2) Drag and drop programming
      3) Long term binary support (I'm not sure, but Windows 10 may actually run Windows 3.1 applications still)

      We can bash Microsoft all we want, but it began with and always was about attracting developers and Micro

    41. Re:Bill Gates is only #2 because he is generous. by gweihir · · Score: 1

      So, you think that holding technological progress back massively has not hurt basically everybody? You lack understanding.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    42. Re: Bill Gates is only #2 because he is generous. by TimMD909 · · Score: 1

      Herbert Schildt is my favorite author. I told him as much in an email. He even responded. Aaaah... the memories of curling up with his books some 20 years ago as child...

    43. Re:Bill Gates is only #2 because he is generous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and what do you think the foundation does with *that* money?

    44. Re:Bill Gates is only #2 because he is generous. by Gussington · · Score: 1

      So you are saying that the market voted with their wallets. Which made Microsoft the most popular.

      No. People were not given a choice. If you walked into a computer store in the 1990s, you had a choice of Windows, Windows, or Windows.

      Because it was best suited to what people wanted. You can bitch and moan all you like that it was unfair, but Windows was the best fit for the burgeoning home internet market that just got invented.

  2. Desired title? by thereitis · · Score: 1

    Should that even be a desired title - richest person of the world? Gates (and dozens of other billionaires) is giving away much of his fortune to charity. I hope Bezos does the same.

    1. Re: Desired title? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's "We the People" not "every man for himself".

    2. Re: Desired title? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd rather he keeps Blue Origin well funded.

      Not like governments are going to do that properly, they are trying to build walls...

    3. Re: Desired title? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do spend my own money giving to charity. If Bezos gave a proportionate amount to charity, he'd donate well over $500,000,000 per year.
      I never said I'd *force* my will on others - you are projecting that on me. I said I *hope* he does the same. Learn to read. Also, I don't identify with a specific political party - I use my own head to think.

    4. Re:Desired title? by No+Longer+an+AC · · Score: 1

      Andrew Carnegie reportedly said

      The man who dies thus rich dies disgraced.

      I can't confirm it, but I remember hearing that he did not actually want libraries to be named after him despite the fact that he donated a lot of money to help establish a lot of libraries and many of them do bear his name.

    5. Re: Desired title? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How? Bezos doesn't have 500 billion or probably even 500 million in cash. What he has is something worth a great deal - Amazon stock. If he gives it away it's gone.

    6. Re:Desired title? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Giving money away is usually senseless, bleeding heart idiocy. Using the money to start profitable businesses and generate wealth has a much greater impact on society. Warren Buffet's wise investment and use of money, for instance, has made it possible for a lot of regular people to work for those companies and afford nice houses and other things in life that everyone on this planet strives for while--fueling the economy and making the same possible for others with their spending.

  3. He wouldn't be anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's selling off stock, giving money to charity, investing in humanitarian foundations, only leaving his kids with a fraction of his earnings, etc

    1. Re:He wouldn't be anyway by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Even if he "only" leaves one billion to each of his kid, that's still more than enough money for a lifetime of worry-free luxury.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    2. Re:He wouldn't be anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he's said it will be in the range of $20M, so that his kids will be free from worry or want, but still have room to make something meaningful of themselves, on their own terms.

  4. Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fake news, I am too the richest

  5. "incredible" quarter-billion profit? by klingens · · Score: 2

    Somebody please help me, but a quarter-billion of dollars in profit is 250 million dollars, right? How is that incredible? I guess for Amazon who posted losses for decades (cause they reinvested every penny into the company) any kind of profit is a good thing, but I wouldn't call 250 million a lot of profit for a company of this size.

    This mainly tells me, Bezos can't think of anything more to grow the company, not that Amazon had a good quarter.
    Or is this one of those slashdot editor gaffes?

    1. Re:"incredible" quarter-billion profit? by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      Somebody please help me, but a quarter-billion of dollars in profit is 250 million dollars, right? How is that incredible? I guess for Amazon who posted losses for decades (cause they reinvested every penny into the company) any kind of profit is a good thing, but I wouldn't call 250 million a lot of profit for a company of this size.

      This mainly tells me, Bezos can't think of anything more to grow the company, not that Amazon had a good quarter. Or is this one of those slashdot editor gaffes?

      Probably less about the actual amount and more about how much they beat analysts estimates by.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    2. Re:"incredible" quarter-billion profit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is odd how Wall Street considers money re-invested in the business as a loss. It is really the point of business to re-invest in itself.

  6. Bill Gates, Penniless and Destitute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    64.0 billion dollars ought to be enough for anyone

    1. Re:Bill Gates, Penniless and Destitute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $64.0 billion if use B$, but if you use Bi$, it's $68,719,476,736.

  7. TIred of this "richest man" crap. by AlanObject · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Neither Bill or Jeff are the richest person in the world and never were. Valdimir Putin is richer than both put together (love that revolution) and there are individuals and families throughout south Asia that could buy out both of them with pocket change.

    There is a lot to wealth besides stocks traded publicly on U.S exchanges.

    If you want to wallow in superficial American media fantasies that's fine but it doesn't make anyone smarter.

    If you think it doesn't matter consider the fact that Trump is widely regarded as a rich guy but if his and his whole family's balance sheet were accurately reported he would probably have negative net worth. Do you think the glassy-eyed crowds would have voted for him in such big numbers if that was how he was generally known? I sure don't.

    1. Re:TIred of this "richest man" crap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buttery males?

    2. Re:TIred of this "richest man" crap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there are individuals and families throughout south Asia that could buy out both of them with pocket change.

      Care to mention any names?

    3. Re:TIred of this "richest man" crap. by AnthonywC · · Score: 1

      Instead of writing about the 0.001%, maybe WSJ/Bloomberg/CNN can actually devote sometime to look at how the rest of the 99% are doing. I guess the unwashed mass is not worthy to them.

    4. Re:TIred of this "richest man" crap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't they do both? Because that's exactly what they do. Nice fallacy you've got there..

    5. Re:TIred of this "richest man" crap. by JustNiz · · Score: 0

      The Queen has them all beat.
      Queen Elizabeth II, head of state of the United Kingdom and of 31 other states and territories, is the legal owner of about 6,600 million acres of land, one sixth of the earth's non ocean surface. She is the only person on earth who owns whole countries, and who owns countries that are not her own domestic territory.

    6. Re:TIred of this "richest man" crap. by hey! · · Score: 2

      Well, estimating the wealth of someone who deals in contraband is by its very nature impossible. It's not like the file 10-Qs for their business. Their money is laundered and stashed in assets that can't be traced to them.

      Still, buying out Jeff Bezos at 90+ billion net worth isn't chump change for anyone, even Vladmir Putin is who by some estimated to have a net worth of over 200 billion.

      Also, it's probably worth questioning whether people who have to manage their assets this way are richer in any meaningful way, because in a sense those assets are not really available to them to use. Jeff Bezos could sell of most of his stock and retire to an orbiting space station if he wanted to. If Putin wanted to do that it would reveal where he's got his money stashed.

      For criminal billionaires a lot of their assets are in effect a kind of insurance. If the cops discover their Swiss bank accounts there's still that London real estate they own through various proxies. If they get their London assets there's still that box of gold ingots you stashed in your grandma's grave.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    7. Re:TIred of this "richest man" crap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Doesn't matter one single lick if you're "rich" in some shithole. The richest Americans could stomp that shithole with a few Predators at their whim. Then what are those Asian warlords worth? They're dead... and at America's whim.

      Military power is the only power that matters

    8. Re: TIred of this "richest man" crap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except they donâ(TM)t. They glorify âoethe richâ that are in line with their ideology and demonize the ones that arenâ(TM)t.

      CNN is 100% propaganda.

    9. Re:TIred of this "richest man" crap. by blindseer · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      If you think it doesn't matter consider the fact that Trump is widely regarded as a rich guy but if his and his whole family's balance sheet were accurately reported he would probably have negative net worth. Do you think the glassy-eyed crowds would have voted for him in such big numbers if that was how he was generally known? I sure don't.

      I do believe that Trump still would be POTUS today if it was widely reported he had negative net worth. Partly because a lot of people would believe this to be just another smear on his character, business sense, or whatnot, and be ignored. Mostly what got Trump elected was that Clinton and the Democrats were just that bad at creating a successful campaign. They ignored whole states because they were arrogant enough to think they "owned" them and didn't need to campaign further. They also ignored large sections of the demographic because they thought they "owned" them too. Clinton is not just bad at campaigning but she's got some serious charges of corruption against her. Only now, a year later, have many of the charges started to prove true because her protection from the media and deep state is starting to fall away. What did Clinton bring to the table that proved her suited to be POTUS? Her campaign was largely on how she'd be the first female POTUS, that she's a Democrat, and did I mention she's a woman?

      In short Trump won because Clinton had to lose to someone, and that someone happened to be Trump.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    10. Re: TIred of this "richest man" crap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Poor snowflake. Do you need a safe space like Mike Pence? Did those liberals say something bad to you?

    11. Re:TIred of this "richest man" crap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She also has them beat for the title of "most useless waste of life"

    12. Re:TIred of this "richest man" crap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, please tell us about these unnamed people who have trillions of dollars.

    13. Re:TIred of this "richest man" crap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >there are individuals and families throughout south Asia that could buy out both of them with pocket change.

      this is what street shitting hindu chimps actually believe

    14. Re:TIred of this "richest man" crap. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Some of that money goes towards remaining unnamed.

      At some point in wealth, not being known becomes an asset...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    15. Re:TIred of this "richest man" crap. by retiarius · · Score: 1

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... shows that John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie were ~4X these new pikers in today's dollars.

    16. Re:TIred of this "richest man" crap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4x is an understatement. Incalculable is more like it.

      John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie both had direct control over a significant percentage of the global economy. If either of them called or received a call from a head of state (which both did), they could re/direct the course of history then and there.

      By comparison, if Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos called a head of state, it'd basically boil down to "thank you for your money, but no thanks".

    17. Re: TIred of this "richest man" crap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better than glorify the poor. I hate poor people. I hated being poor. I wish there were no more poor people. But alas, many love the poor people. Think of how many people would be out of a job if there were no more poor people. It's a big industry.

    18. Re:TIred of this "richest man" crap. by AlanObject · · Score: 0

      Clinton is not just bad at campaigning but she's got some serious charges of corruption against her. Only now, a year later, have many of the charges started to prove true because her protection from the media and deep state is starting to fall away. What did Clinton bring to the table that proved her suited to be POTUS?

      Just a few facts that stand in the way of this narrative:

      1. Clinton got 3M+ more votes and would have won the electoral college had it not been for Comey's last minute intervention in the election.

      2. In spite of being the most investigated person in history no charges have ever been brought against her because there are no plausible charges to bring.

      3. There has never been a candidate that had more experience for the office than Clinton in 2016. First Lady, Senator, Secretary of State, human rights activist and respected the world over. When Trump secured his nomination through the outstanding blundering and total incompetence of all Republican contenders there were more than a few conservative media institutions that endorsed Clinton in spite of decades and in one case a century (Arizona Republic I believe) of never endorsing a Democrat. The reason: the issue of character and competence was so extreme that they were willing to set aside their agenda.

    19. Re:TIred of this "richest man" crap. by blindseer · · Score: 2

      1. Clinton got 3M+ more votes and would have won the electoral college had it not been for Comey's last minute intervention in the election.

      You don't know that. Also, a political party that knows that their nominee is under investigation by the FBI should, for the sake of keeping good relations with the voters, remove that nominee from the running. This was not a new investigation at that point, it had been building for some time. This investigation, and Comey's announcement, should not have been a surprise for the campaign as the people involved were being interviewed. Even if it was too late to switch candidates then we should have seen the Clinton campaign make their own announcement BEFORE Comey said anything so that this could not have happened so soon before the election.

      2. In spite of being the most investigated person in history no charges have ever been brought against her because there are no plausible charges to bring.

      This is still ongoing and recent events show that Clinton is not innocent at all. Perhaps she did not break any laws but we are seeing some very improper business dealings from the Clinton family, Clinton election campaign, and Clinton Foundation.

      3. There has never been a candidate that had more experience for the office than Clinton in 2016.

      Bullshit. At the time there was something like 20 governors, 50 US senators, and 200 US representatives, as well as a number of experienced Democrats as ambassadors, cabinet members, judges, academics, and prominent politicians at the state/city/local level, that the Democrats could have picked from. All of them, dozens or perhaps hundreds, had just as much of a resume to run with as Clinton. There were Democrats with decades of experience being not just elected officials but also with real and actual executive experience as mayors, as governors, as commissioned officers, or in the private sector. Clinton served 8 years as a US senator, and 4 years as Secretary of State, and nothing she did in either position was all that memorable.

      The Democrats deserved to lose with how they handled that election.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    20. Re:TIred of this "richest man" crap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically that may be true but in practice, it will never be counted on any balance sheet under the current national structures. There is no member of the Commonwealth of Nations that would recognize the head's right to sell the country land to some private buyer. Even in her native country of England, nobody in England would seriously count the country of England as an asset within the Queen's balance sheet.

    21. Re:TIred of this "richest man" crap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're so funny, Putin hasn't got any charges against him either...
      So if you redo the constitution and change how votes are voted, she would have won? Well people playing by the rules would have changed their strategies and still beaten her.
      Trum was so xxx and yyy and zzz, but he still beat Hillary !!
      Get over it loser.

    22. Re:TIred of this "richest man" crap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None of which is "hers" to sell even if she wanted to.

    23. Re:TIred of this "richest man" crap. by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      That's not really hers. She didn't do anything to get it. That's really the people of Great Britain's money.

    24. Re:TIred of this "richest man" crap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doing things to get it is irrelevant.

    25. Re:TIred of this "richest man" crap. by Gussington · · Score: 1

      That's not really hers. She didn't do anything to get it. That's really the people of Great Britain's money.

      Still hers. Regardless of how unjust you think that is, she still owns it.

    26. Re:TIred of this "richest man" crap. by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      Still hers. Regardless of how unjust you think that is, she still owns it.

      Don't fool yourself. That could be taken care of in a matter of days. Especially with socialists around.

    27. Re:TIred of this "richest man" crap. by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      Even at 91, I bet she does more in a week than you do.

    28. Re:TIred of this "richest man" crap. by Gussington · · Score: 1

      Still hers. Regardless of how unjust you think that is, she still owns it.

      Don't fool yourself. That could be taken care of in a matter of days. Especially with socialists around.

      But she still owns it. Regardless of what you think, that fact still remains.

    29. Re:TIred of this "richest man" crap. by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      She's still not the richest. Did a quick check. All of her holdings only comes to about 16.5 billion. That's buildings, sea, etc. I know, I was surprised too. In the grand scheme of things, she's at the lower end. Regardless of what you think, that fact remains. Kind of makes this all moot.

      Looking at English law in the past when this has come up, it seems if they (parliament) wanted to they could take it all from her tomorrow. She's Queen at the behest of the union. It's really Great Britain's money. Maybe you know if that's true or not?

      So how come if a guy gets to be King, his wife is automatically Queen, however the Queen's husband is not King? Not just England. Very sexist. Just sayin'. Englishmen should be protesting this un-equal treatment. Not that I care, I'm not a subject.

  8. Gamification to charity by raymorris · · Score: 1

    > Should that even be a desired title - richest person of the world? Gates (and dozens of other billionaires) is giving away much of his fortune to charity

    I'll leave the "should" to others and just point out a couple factual things. As you said, people who get mega rich typically give away most of it to charitable causes. Also, they tend to get that rich partially because they do want the high score a drive to be "the richest" motivates them to build things like Amazon and US Steel. Carnegie didn't amass billions (which were used to build libraries) because he needed to the money to pay bills, he was winning the game. They go so big because they're trying to get the high score in a very interesting game, American business. Once you have a billion, another billion is just for fun and "win" compared to the other guy (Musk etc).

    Thinking about that, btw, is one way to understand Trump's personality - he very much enjoys being the biggest, richest, flashiest. Winning the game. And he knows that APPEARING big, and looking rich, helps get press, which helps get actual wealth.

  9. Taxes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that before or after taxes? You know, like when you make, earn, or are given money, you pay a percentage of it to the government? You know, to pay for things like education, healthcare, law enforcement, defense, and all the other infrastructure that they're using?

    1. Re: Taxes? by tysonedwards · · Score: 1

      It doesn't become taxable until it's sold / changes hands.

      --
      Thirty four characters live here.
    2. Re:Taxes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Net worth appears on the balance sheet, not the income statement.

    3. Re: Taxes? by mikael · · Score: 1

      And if you are clever. you can put it in a holding company and just have people become directors or retire. Some US Banks were doing this with land titles. Rather than paying cities to register changing deeds of ownership (requiring a $60 fee per property), they would simply register their property management agency as the owner of every property, continue to collect the mortgage payments, repossessing where necessary, and make the profits. They ended up being sued for hundreds of millions of dollars for cheating taxpayers.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  10. Stockmarket Insanity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The stockmarket was always a gambler’s den until they made IRAs and 401ks in the 1970s. Now somehow it’s safe enough for retirement funds.

    This need to invest in stocks has predictably made the surge in stocks inevitable, and insane metrics (300:1 P/E) the norm in any popular thing people heard of and will look into with enthusiasm.

    Baby boomers will be retiring in great amounts the next decade (medicare will go from covering 20 million people to 80m by 2030) and they’re gonna want to cash their chips in, so to speak. Like any other commodity, there’s gonna have to be people next in line with the money to buy it to prop up prices. I’m pretty sure its not possible, and that the decades long bull surge that accompanied the baby boomers their whole life, will turn into a hell of a bear market for us - nothing like the dot com bomb or 2009 or other blips on the map. I say in about a decade, give or take 3 years.

  11. Mutual funds (1780) by raymorris · · Score: 4, Informative

    You're right that investing a lot in a single stock is certainly risky, especially over the short term (it's reasonable to think General Mills or Walmart will make money in the LONG term).

    The risk is greatly reduced by mutual funds, which allow small investors to easily diversify - they are investing in a hundred different companies, along with many other investors. Because they hold so many different companies, mutual funds, especially index funds, are pretty predictable. Some of their holdings will do very well, some won't, so the fund as a whole will return about 7% over inflation over a period of years.

    Where you're slightly off is the timing. Mutual funds, or investment funds as they were called, were created around 1780 by Abraham van Ketwich. So you're absolutely right on the concepts, just 200 years off on the timing.

      401(k) is a TAX rule. It says investment profits will be taxed when you take the money out to spend it, if you don't spend it before retirement age. It has nothing whatever to do with the risks of the investments people can make. You can apply the 401(k) tax rule to be extremely safe investments like US Treasury bonds, or to risky investments like startup companies or oil futures.

    1. Re:Mutual funds (1780) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Barring especially specific insight into a specific market, index funds are where it's at for the casual investor. I made a boatload of money off of the RedHat saga, because I knew what was going on with it, but the only thing I've consistently made decent money from was index funds.

    2. Re:Mutual funds (1780) by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      Mutual funds are a blessing and a curse.

      The biggest problem with mutual funds? Most of them suck. And by "suck" I mean they fail to beat the part of the market they claim to represent, and you pay high fees for the dubious privilege of having someone mishandle your money. Not to mention that you can get unwanted capital-gains events when your fellow fund-holders redeem their shares.

      On average, you're better off investing in various index funds that represents a balanced view of the market, because they are in the high percentile performance-wise, they have far less churn, and their management fees are lower.

      Or better still, invest in Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs) because their management fees are even lower than index funds, and their share-redemption structure avoids or even eliminates capital-gains events until you sell the shares. You can buy and sell them when the market is open (just like stocks) using limit/stop-loss and other order-types, short them, trade options on them, even hold them on margin. Mutual funds are more restricted: they can only be bought or sold once per day after the market closes, you can't short them or trade options, and the ability to margin them has some additional restrictions (e.g., minimum 30-day holding period is common.)

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    3. Re:Mutual funds (1780) by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      Exchange Traded Funds are much more flexible and less costly.

    4. Re: Mutual funds (1780) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That ETFs somehow are cheaper than mutual funds isn't universally true. You will pay a fee to manage the fund (just like in a mutual fund) as well as a spread when you buy or sell (usually doesn't exist in a mutual fund), and brokerage (usually doesn't exist in a mutual fund). You will also need to pay brokerage fees, etc to reinvest the dividends from an ETF. The only thing you gain is the ability to buy/sell instantly instead of waiting a day or two, and having a different set of funds to choose from.

      Over here (Sweden) there are free index funds (no brokerage, no spread, no management fee) as automating that is really cheap (usually these index funds are limited to the bank's own customers since mutual funds usually pay a commission when costumers in another bank holds their funds). There are also managed funds with really low costs (0.2% management fees). Of course there are also expensive funds that charge 2%/year, and you should naturally stay away from those...

  12. Bill Gates was never the richest person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unless you limit the eligibility to North America. As soon as you scan the world, there are plenty of richer people.

  13. He never was the world's richest person by Iamthecheese · · Score: 1

    The world's richest people are rich enough to keep themselves out of the public eye and off lists of the richest people. They own things like countries.

    --
    If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
  14. He who dies with the most toys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or money

    Is still dead.

  15. Bill Gates often contributes in ways to make more. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    "Bill Gates Is No Longer The World's Richest Person..."

    Think how painful that must be. Okay, everyone, let's send him a dollar to help him get back on top.

  16. Someone's worth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Can someone enlighted us, why people say that SOMEBODY is WORTH something, instead that they have wealth that is worth something...?
    I wouldn't buy "Jeff Bezos" for any amount of money, but I would happily receive some of his wealth, which IS worth something.

    1. Re:Someone's worth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your post is not worth answering. Oh sorry, I mean your post contains a question that is not worth answering.

    2. Re:Someone's worth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your post is not worth answering. Oh sorry, I mean your post contains a question that is not worth answering.

      Fail. The OP has a valid point. In english language, someone HAS "net worth", but somehow it has turned into "someone is worth". Wonder when did that happen..?

    3. Re:Someone's worth? by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1
      All the tv shows and comics who used the line: I'm worth more dead than alive.

      Maybe somewhere around the 60's. It's an easier and lazier way of talking, so it stuck.

    4. Re:Someone's worth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because English.

  17. End the Fed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The actual richest people in the world are rich enough to stay off lists like âoeTop 100 Billionaires.â

    End central banking. Abolish the Federal Reserve.

  18. Fair to call this obscene wealth? by newbie_fantod · · Score: 3, Informative

    His single-day profit (which, if spread out over a year, would amount to > $27 million per day) exceeded the GNP of 123 separate nations, and his estimated total wealth exceeds the GNP of 174 nations.
    http://www.studentsoftheworld.info/infopays/rank/PNB2.html/

    1. Re:Fair to call this obscene wealth? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Just imagine how many problems we could solve by breaking him up.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re: Fair to call this obscene wealth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? He doesn't have it in cash. He owns a thing that's worth that much. How would you break that up?

    3. Re: Fair to call this obscene wealth? by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      I imagine the parent is saying to steal his shares and give them to incompetent boobs who will destroy the company.

    4. Re:Fair to call this obscene wealth? by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      Not many. The US government spend't Bezos' net worth every eight days. All levels of government and all governments in the world would spend it all in a tiny fraction of that. Squandering Bezos' wealth would make very little difference to the world.

    5. Re: Fair to call this obscene wealth? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      We're talking about MS, after all, and you say this like it would be a bad thing.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:Fair to call this obscene wealth? by Gussington · · Score: 1

      Just imagine how many problems we could solve by breaking him up.

      It's a solution that doesn't get nearly enough air-time.
      If you confiscated most of the wealth the top 8 richest people and redistributed it to the bottom, you could double the wealth of 3.5 billion people. You'd only have to do it two or three times and poverty would be done.
      In a world where millions die each year due to poverty it seems criminal that we let these people keep their money. This is worse than anything Martin Shkreli ever did.

    7. Re:Fair to call this obscene wealth? by Gussington · · Score: 1

      Squandering Bezos' wealth would make very little difference to the world.

      Oxfam predicts it would take $60B/year to eliminate poverty. So we could let Bezos keep $30B AND solve poverty too. That would be a considerable difference to about 3 Billion people.

  19. Re: Bill Gates often contributes in ways to make m by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That might literally not be enough. It's he less than 7 billions $ behind?

  20. LINUX. Y'all know Amazon is 100% Linux Shop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ohhh burrrrn Billy. And Amazon isn't evening spyi.. oh wait.

    Linux though. sup.

  21. He was never the richest person. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rothschild family is one of the true richest. Question why they have been excluded from these supposed "Worlds Richest" list.

  22. Open source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The guy who didnâ(TM)t do open source got overtaken by the guy who close sources open source!

  23. Re:Not being know by John.Banister · · Score: 1

    I have read one of those "Top 50 Billionaires" lists once, and it's funny how not a single person on the list got rich selling things to the defense department. The absence made it pretty obvious that some people were able to choose not to be listed.

  24. Agreed on low-fees, index (mutual or etf) by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Certainly you should pay attention to the expenses. As you said, those with higher expenses don't consistently best the indexes, so generally you're better off buying an index fund with very low expenses.

    I own both index mutual funds and index ETFs. You can, of course, get higher risk ETFs. A leveraged gold ETF is more risky than just buying gold, which is more risky than almost any mutual fund.

    Now I'm considering investing a part of my investment opposite my job prospects, so if my industry goes to shit my investments will do well, counter-balancing the weaker job prospects. In particular, I'll have an opportunity to buy my employer's stock pre-ipo. That SHOULD make a nice gain after the lock-out period. However, if things don't go well for the company I could end up losing both my investment and my job. It therefore seems prudent to consider counter-balancing that risk with investment which will likely do well if my company doesn't.

  25. Behind every great fortune lies a great crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come on guys, you're in business, does money like this happen in the real world? Of course not! Fake monopoly money and stockjobbery is awash and elites will reward elites. What are these companies actually creating that is worth bajillions and bajillions of dollars? Please.