I know you are thinking it’s Bill Gates dumbass! Why even bother asking the question. But suppose…is it possible that there is a person or persons that are unknown that have wealth and power far beyond any thing that has been published. I know it sounds like another crack-pot consiracy theory but you never know…or do you ?
Gosh! With the high regard in which you hold your fellow posters, I’m sure you’re going to get lots of responses here.
I forgor my punctuation marks…
I know you are thinking “it’s Bill Gates dumbass! Why even bother asking the question”. The dumbass was meant as an adjective describing the asker of the question ( me 
) not describing the other Dopers. My appologies if I offended
That’s what I thought at first, but I think maybe Patricinus just didn’t include proper punctuation. It ought to read:
I know you are thinking, “It’s Bill Gates, dumbass!” – meaning that people reading the question would think the OP was a dumbass.
[Emily Latella voice]Oh! That’s very different! Never mind[/Emily Latella voice]
The “wealthiest man in the world” varies considerably due to fluctuations in the value of stocks and other holdings. Gates was worth nearly $100 billion* at one point, now I believe he’s down to “only” $60 billion. Of course virtually all of this is tied up in equity- it’s not like he has an Uncle Scrooge Money Bin filled with cash.
What I would be more interested to know is, who has the greatest yearly disposible income? I once heard that the king of Saudi Arabia spends around $400 million a year, although that figure has probably changed.
[sub]*American billion, 10[/sub]9[sub] that is. A pain it is having to qualify this for our Brit readers all the time.[/sub]
“Dumbass” could also be taken as referring to Bill Gates.
The Sultan of Brunei always seems to be high on the list somewhere, btw.
The Forbes Magazine site maintains a number of lists, including the 400 richest Americans, and the world’s richest people:
http://www.forbes.com/people/2001/06/21/billionairesindex.html
It is, indeed, Gates. The top 10 on the world list is almost the American list except that Theo and Karl Albrecht come in at 5, and Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Alsaud at 6. The other members of the list are Warren Buffett, Paul Allen, Larry Ellison, and the Walton heirs.
The Sultan of Brunei’s fortune went in the dumper a few years back, partially due to the extravagances of his brother, as well as rotten investment decisions:
What do the British call a billion? Is it different? Or do they not use the term - “thousand million” sounds awful cumbersome.
Gates might be the richest; but thats just on paper. Once some of that paper is sold, the value of the stocks drop & so does his real value. Someone with a lot of real assets & property might be richer than he is.
I calculate his paper worth based on him owning 1B shares, so if it’s selling at $122/share his paper net worth is $122B approx
What Americans call a “billion” is called a “milliard” in Britain, IIRC. The British “billion” is a million million, or 10[sup]12[/sup].
Traditionally, a thousand million or a “milliard”.
handy, we’ve been over the percentage of Gates’ net worth represented by Microsoft stock (most of it), and how many shares he has. Bill Gates currently has about 660 million shares of MSFT in declared holdings. He’s been steadily unloading for a while, presumably to diversify his fortune:
You can find insider holdings and trades by insiders for a company through the yahoo financial pages like that one.
Most of the people who are on the richest list are “paper worth”.
King Solomon was the richest person ever if you consider available wealth and inflation.
The Queen of England has never disclosed how much she has, but it is in the double-digit billions as well. She is certainly the wealthies woman in the world, but is also probably in the top five of people in the world.
She could be number one, but not likely.
With monarchs, isn’t it rather difficult to compare their wealth with private individuals, as less of it is likely to be personal wealth that is at their sole disposal?
I also have to wonder how someone arrived at King Solomon as the wealthiest person ever. I would think that there have been several absolute monarchs that have had great wealth at their disposal, but in various forms. And I don’t even know how you could adjust for inflation between then and now. Even the poor now can have conveniences never imagined by King Solomon.
Is Queen Elizabeth II wealthy in her own right or does she have title to the assets for the beneficial interest of her subjects? If the monarchy dissolved and she became a commoner, would she get to keep all the palaces and crown jewels, etc.?
Oh, and I thought the King of Saudi Arabia was pretty ill as a result of a stroke in the early 90s and therefore isn’t personally spending money like a Saudi Prince. I know that the Saudis are buying a lot of ad space in major news magazines lately to prop up their image after their slow response to 9/11 featuring the King, but I think that it is the Crown Prince who has been doing most of the heavy lifting.
I would say no. That’s not her personal fortune - it attaches to the crown, which is probably why she is not on the Forbes list. Gates or Ellison could announce to the world that they were relinquishing all responsibilities for running their companies, and walk away with their stock (Gates is no longer CEO, you might note - he’s Chairman and “Chief Architect”). They won’t do it, because they’re type A control freaks, and because they know that any sudden “desertion” by them would tank the stock, at least for a while.
For all time, you might also want to consider Cornelius Vanderbilt whose fortune at one time represented a larger slice of the US GDP than anybody else’s ever has. If you get too far back in history, or too far away from our current economic system, it’s hard to make comparisons for reasons already given. Vanderbilt was worth about $100 million at his death, but that was in the 19th century, and it’s deceptive even to translate that to modern terms by simply adjusting for inflation - the total economy was far, far smaller in his day. He also lost a bundle in the panic of 1873.
Well, my take on it is those of use who have a well body are more rich than the weathiest that don’t. In the 70’s I worked in a lab to get answers about myasthenia gravis (sp). The same disease that Onassis had. Yep, no amount of money could save him.
C K Dexter Haven, you missed another chance to plug the archives, which is even less excusable since you wrote the original article.