World's Billionaires 2010

World's Billionaires 2010

finance.yahoo.com

Carlos Slim Helu takes No. 1 spot on Forbes World's Billionaires list as a record 164 10-figure titans return to the ranking amid the global economic recovery.

For the third time in three years, the world has a new richest man.

Riding surging prices of his various telecom holdings, including giant mobile outfit America Movil (AMX), Mexican tycoon Carlos Slim Helu has beaten out Americans Bill Gates and Warren Buffett to become the wealthiest person on earth and nab the top spot on the 2010 Forbes list of the World's Billionaires.

(visit the link for the full news article)

In terms of net worth the US has slowed somewhat in the billionaire department.

This had me wondering how accurate this list is. So I started thinking what if instead of wealth being measured by assets and liabilities, what if it was meassured in terms of credit?

I'm speaking of trade credit that is denominated in units of account. Essentially who ever was the greatest creditor, would be the wealthiest as they are owed the greatest amount by debtors.

Credit is often issued in amounts far exceeding any net worth by banks and merchants.

Who ever was the largest issuer, based on the way our financial system works, should technically be the wealthiest.

I would imagine there is an entire class of people, whose issued credit far exceeds any of the billionaires on that list.
Debt is power. He who controls the debt, controls the world.



finance.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
In terms of net worth the US has slowed somewhat in the billionaire department.

This had me wondering how accurate this list is. So I started thinking what if instead of wealth being measured by assets and liabilities, what if it was meassured in terms of credit?

Its a question worth asking and one that cuts to the very heart of economics, in an almost "ontological" sense. What is wealth, in the end? It sounds silly but, almost like some quantum mechanical questions, when you REALLY ask this question seriously and look at the implications, its a lot harder to answer than it seems. Does it include only cash? How about investments? Credit, and even potential to access credit? If a billionare loses all of his money in a bad year or three, he can probably climb back to the top easier than "normal" people do to acces to connections, reputation, etc. Look at the various rises and falls of someone like Donald Trump, for example. Even when he was down, he was "worth" more than many with the same level of assets and income, because of his name. And so on. What about PPP (purchasing power parity)? Person A may have less net worth than person B because he lives in a less developed economy, but he may be able to buy more raw goods and services in PPP terms. The question becomes very murky.

Those so inclined can even take the concept of "wealth" beyond economics, looking at factors like health, happiness, and so on. But doing so removes one from the financial/ecomnomic sphere, strictly speaking.

reply to post by silent thunder


To me a real measure of wealth would be somewhat like personal worth.
It could also be seen as a measure of influence and power through the issue of credit.

I would take their net worth and combine it with any credit issued to debtors. If they have any credit issued to them, making them a debtor, that would be included in liabilities.

The person with the least debt, but most issued credit should technically be one of the most powerful people on the earth. In a sense, a massive portion of the human population would be essentially in bondage to this person.

The really funny thing is all this credit is intangible and its existance is dependent on human faith. Its even more intangible than fiat currency.