Contest: Guess how many billionaires in the World in 2006??

[BillyTheMountain]

forbes magazine lists them every year, maybe in March.

Before the list is released, guess how many there are. The collective net worth of the world's 691 billionaires (2005) was $2.2 trillion, up $300 billion from the combined net worths of the 587 people (2004) listed last year.

Prize of being named the prestigious Grand Poobah of Thread 41079 to the winner.

Are you in? Off we go!

Hint: There are MORE this year than there were last year. Big surprise.

Billy

[James_Potter]

why thread 41079 (http://unicyclist.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41079)?

[harper]

Twelve. It may not be bigger than last year's number but I like the way it sounds right now.

[habbywall]

15

[James_Potter]

17!

[yoopers]

There's at least one more than me.

[dorkybarb]

im going to go with 19

[James_Potter]

768

[dudewithasock]

768

Or 530.

[monkeyman]

768

[monkeyman]

damn it....James, go away

[James_Potter]

damn it....James, go away
muahaha, I win!
(:

[monkeyman]

muahaha, I win!
(:
oh yeah? well
I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win I win

[dudewithasock]

oh yeah? well
I win*too many

http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/2038/spam1bt.jpg

[habbywall]

i just thought about 768 too, darn

[monkeyman]

Heres what I think of your spam

[dudewithasock]

Heres what I think of your spam

:eek:

That guy is a man on a mission.

[monkeyman]

:eek:

That guy is a man on a mission.
HYe looks like Mr Belmir...
this thread has been jacked

[dudewithasock]

HYe looks like Mr Belmir...
this thread has been jacked

Lol, Mr. Belmir has a shaggy terrorist beard though.

[monkeyman]

Lol, Mr. Belmir has a shaggy terrorist beard though.
true, true...

[Mikefule]

I've thought of a more scientific way to approach this: by elimination.

Assuming 6 000 000 000 people in the world:
I can exclude: me, my brothers (2), sister, mum, dad, my girlfried, her two girls and their boyfriends. So that's at least 11 who aren't.

That leaves a potential 5 999 999 989 billionaires

Can anyone else eliminate a few known examples of non-billionaires from this total? We should be able to get the total down quite a long way, as I'm pretty sure most of my work colleagues and mates aren't billionaires either, so non-billionairedom seems (anecdotally) to be quite a popular lifestyle choice.

[Brian MacKenzie]

Can anyone else eliminate a few known examples of non-billionaires from this total?

Population of Africa - 4

[BillyTheMountain]

... the world's 691 billionaires (2005) ....

Hint: There are MORE this year than there were last year.

Billy

You guys need a little MORE help??? :D

[James_Potter]

You guys need a little MORE help??? :D
I stick with my guess of 768.

[BillyTheMountain]

768

768

Is that your final answer?

[habbywall]

I've thought of a more scientific way to approach this: by elimination.

Assuming 6 000 000 000 people in the world:
I can exclude: me, my brothers (2), sister, mum, dad, my girlfried, her two girls and their boyfriends. So that's at least 11 who aren't.

That leaves a potential 5 999 999 989 billionaires

Can anyone else eliminate a few known examples of non-billionaires from this total? We should be able to get the total down quite a long way, as I'm pretty sure most of my work colleagues and mates aren't billionaires either, so non-billionairedom seems (anecdotally) to be quite a popular lifestyle choice.

anyone with a xanga, or livejournal or any other third party blogging site, cause no billionar will really have one, but you must factor in how many people have more then one site, and you could also take bill gates off that list cause we know he is a billionare, and then we know we have one, unless he doesnt count cause all his money is in stocks

[JJuggle]

I'm going to go with 864.

[GizmoDuck]

In what currency?

I'm a $$$Billionaire in Laos Kips :cool:

[Matt.Weston]

My estimate is 752. This is completely unscientific and based upon the sole fact that there are more than last year. :p

[BillyTheMountain]

My estimate is 752. This is completely unscientific and based upon the sole fact that there are more than last year. :p

We also have 768 and 864....

I think we're in the ball park now

[JJuggle]

We also have 768 and 864....

I think we're in the ball park now
And what's your guess, Billy? The Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/worldsrichest/) site still has last year's numbers as reported March 10, 2005. So unless you have some inside track or prescience the rest of us lack, seems only fair that you should take a stab at this too.

[mscalisi]

You beat me to it!

In what currency?

I'm a $$$Billionaire in Laos Kips :cool:

[Gilby]

In what currency?

I'm a $$$Billionaire in Laos Kips :cool:
Me too... but would you keep your money in that currency?

[BillyTheMountain]

I'm going to go with 864.

For those of you who don't get it, this $ sign stands for USA dollars.

OK, Raphael. It WAS 691. It didn't increase THAT much from 2004 to 2005, did it? You don't share your thinking on factors might create more billionaires this past year. I wish you would.

But the Iraq invasion was really a jackpot for many investors, along with oil profits, etc, so maybe 864 is possible. I'm just thinking out loud like they do on that TV show. Still, I'm thinking 864 is too high a jump. It's way higher than the other guesses. I wanted to make the highest guess, based on my thinking, but 864 is hard to believe.

I'll say 800!

Billy

[JJuggle]

For those of you who don't get it, this $ sign stands for USA dollars.

OK, Raphael. It WAS 691. It didn't increase THAT much from 2004 to 2005, did it? You don't share your thinking on factors might create more billionaires this past year. I wish you would.

But the Iraq invasion was really a jackpot for many investors, along with oil profits, etc, so maybe 864 is possible. I'm just thinking out loud like they do on that TV show. Still, I'm thinking 864 is too high a jump. It's way higher than the other guesses. I wanted to make the highest guess, based on my thinking, but 864 is hard to believe.

I'll say 800!

Billy
I'm glad to see you've stepped up.

My logic was this: The increase from 2004 to 2005 was 17%. I'm guessing that the rate of increase has itself increased and so I went with 25%. 173 is 25% of 691 for a total of 864.

My initial thought, perhaps colored by my excessive reading of left wing material and listening to left wing radio was that income disparity is widening worldwide and at an alarming rate. I first went with a 30% increase in billionaires, but then scaled it back. Perhaps a 25% increase is still too high. We shall see in a few days.

Your number of 800, by the way, assumes a decrease in the rate of increase in the number of billionaires.

[monkeyman]

All the bilionares gave their money to me, and now I am the only billionare...

[BillyTheMountain]

I'm glad to see you've stepped up.

My logic was this: The increase from 2004 to 2005 was 17%. I'm guessing that the rate of increase has itself increased and so I went with 25%. 173 is 25% of 691 for a total of 864.

My initial thought, perhaps colored by my excessive reading of left wing material and listening to left wing radio was that income disparity is widening worldwide and at an alarming rate. I first went with a 30% increase in billionaires, but then scaled it back. Perhaps a 25% increase is still too high. We shall see in a few days.

Your number of 800, by the way, assumes a decrease in the rate of increase in the number of billionaires.

You've got a LOT more on the ball than I do! Good thoughts. I Think both 30% and 25% are too high, but you've got your ear to the ground. 'm thinking more of a 21.5% increase, but without my calculator, my guess is to add about 158, making 749?

Right wing radio CELEBRATES the fact that income disparity is widening worldwide and at an alarming rate! More for them! It's in the plan. It's the very measure of their success.

Bush put more people into poverty, that's a natural consequence of the rich getting richer, the way they play it.

[JJuggle]

my guess is to add about 158, making 749?
That would be 849. We're pretty much in the same ballpark though.

[Gilby]

Bush put more people into poverty, that's a natural consequence of the rich getting richer, the way they play it.
Good thing you limited your statement to Bush et al. and "the way they play it."

In most of your previous posts, you mention how shareholders profit, as if it's bad for a company to try to make a profit. So what, it's not a problem. Most of what you have said seems to be based on there being a limited amount of money... the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. The rich getting richer really is not a problem... as the amount of money really is not limited to a certain amount. It's increasing, hopefully. If I take some raw goods and turn it into something useful to us, I just increased the amount of "money" available. So the rich getting richer is not a problem... it's just how the rich get richer that could be a problem, as may be the case with those manipulating the US government or other governments. Income disparity, in itself, is not a problem either. The problem isn't companies, like your favorite, Walmart. They are just playing within the laws of where they do business and they are going to do whatever they can to have a competitve advantage. The problems are with government and the laws that allow companies to do what they do.

In a civilized and modern community, hopefully everyone is provided with the bare essentials to live on. Is given the "help" needed to succeed. The US could do that for it's people, but it doesn't right now, at least not enough. This would include guidance to make sure one is productive and self-sufficient in society. If they would want something more than just the essentials (which really is quite small), then they need to work for it and afford themself that. The opportunity is there for everyone in a free country (which the US is, even though that is at a huge threat right now).

[BillyTheMountain]

In a civilized and modern community, hopefully everyone is provided with the bare essentials to live on. Is given the "help" needed to succeed. The US could do that for it's people, but it doesn't right now, at least not enough.

Wow! I'm surprised to hear you say that! You sound LIBERAL!

The opportunity is there for everyone in a free country (which the US is, even though that is at a huge threat right now).

From your perspective, who/what are the potential threats?

Maybe it would be more fair if WalMart didn't have a hand in making the rules/laws.....

And c'mon, Gilby, while you're here, join the game and make a guess!

[cathwood]

Most of what you have said seems to be based on there being a limited amount of money... the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. The rich getting richer really is not a problem... as the amount of money really is not limited to a certain amount. It's increasing, hopefully. If I take some raw goods and turn it into something useful to us, I just increased the amount of "money" available. So the rich getting richer is not a problem...


Unfortunately I think this is only true in some respects.

For instance there is a limited amount of the world's resources, so therefore a limited amount of money. The rich have greater access to these resouces and so more ability to use them.

There is also a sense that if the rich get richer the poor get poorer, even if it's only in relation to the rich. They may not be poor in terms of getting enough junk food to eat, but they are in terms of contributing in a country where 'richer' people have computers, can shop on the internet and so on. Amongst other things this will probably lead to increasing difficulties with mental health, debt and so on as the poor strive to be like the rich, but without the resources they fail miserably.

So I would say the rich getting richer is a problem.

In a civilized and modern community, hopefully everyone is provided with the bare essentials to live on. Is given the "help" needed to succeed. The US could do that for it's people, but it doesn't right now, at least not enough. This would include guidance to make sure one is productive and self-sufficient in society. If they would want something more than just the essentials (which really is quite small), then they need to work for it and afford themself that. The opportunity is there for everyone in a free country (which the US is, even though that is at a huge threat right now).

I don't think that help to suceed is enough. I think the poorer/more vulnerable people need help not to fail.

(By the way, why is the US's free countryness under huge threat and who from?)

Cathy

[Gilby]

I don't think that help to suceed is enough. I think the poorer/more vulnerable people need help not to fail.
Can you explain the difference verses "help to succeed" and "help to not fail"?

(By the way, why is the US's free countryness under huge threat and who from?)It's at threat from it's own government and the corruption therein. Things like the unconstitutional Patriot Act, the wire-tapping without warrents, etc.

And for billy: 768.

[Gilby]

For instance there is a limited amount of the world's resources, so therefore a limited amount of money. The rich have greater access to these resouces and so more ability to use them.

Is there? Information is a resource and that is definitely not limited.

[JJuggle]

For instance there is a limited amount of the world's resources, so therefore a limited amount of money. The rich have greater access to these resouces and so more ability to use them.
Is there? Information is a resource and that is definitely not limited.
Gilby, I don't see how your comment contradicts or challenges Cathy's. Information may be, as you say, an unlimited resource - though even that may be debatable - but certainly access to it is not. The Internet has certainly expanded access to information but even that can be restricted. Look at China, look at the recent proposals to charge more for "premium" content via the provider. And, of course, look at the manipulation of information itself.

[Gilby]

There is limited access, but the amount of information is always expanding and there is no limit to how much information there can be. The information has a value if the access to it is limited, such as trade secrets (ie. the special formula to make Coke, the PageRank algorithm).

[cathwood]

Can you explain the difference verses "help to succeed" and "help to not fail"?



Yes, I thought somebody might ask this and should have included it in the original post.

I think that 'help to succeed' is like giving someone information or money or whatever the particular help is and saying "there you go, that's what you need to succeed" then if they don't succeed saying "well, we gave you the means to succeed but you didn't so that's you're own fault, there's nothing we can do for you now".
Whereas helping people not to fail involves looking at the reasons that they don't succeed, the environment, hopelessness, the way that people use instant gratification (drugs etc) because they can't see a positive future, and so on, rather than blaming the person for not succeeding and then leaving them to their fate.

As for the information thingy, I think JJuggle has answered it better than I could (thanks), but just to add that information is a particularly tricky example. As you say, it can be abundant but knowledge is power and so is the access to it. Also, giving information to people is often seen as helping them but actually can be abusive, for instance giving people information about (say) the dangers of alcoholism to try to 'help' them to stop, when most drinkers will already know and drink anyway for a variety of complex and varied reasons, including failing in society.

Cathy

PS Billy - 850

[BillyTheMountain]

It's at threat from it's own government and the corruption therein. Things like the unconstitutional Patriot Act, the wire-tapping without warrents, etc..

Well, Gilby, I'm glad I never underestimated you.

Now I'm reporting you to the Bush administration. And they have a special prison for guys like you..:D

Is there any other resource besides information? Like food, land, oil, quality education (diplomas), water, protection from genocide.

It's easier to learn if you're not dehydrating and hungry and being killed.....

And for billy: 768.

That would be 849. We're pretty much in the same ballpark though. That's my guess.

PS Billy - 850

Thanks Gilby and Cathy for taking a guess.

Somehow I'm getting MORE confident about 849. Results should be in any day now. So hurry up and make your guess!

[BillyTheMountain]

The time for getting your guesses in is expiring!!!

Act fast!

How may billionaires?

[kington99]

I'd love to know how many British billionaires there are. By that i mean not people who are of british nationality, but who have 1,000,000,000,000 GBP (rather than 1,000,000,000 USD). Any ideas anyone?

[monkeyman]

So the rich getting richer is not a problem... it's just how the rich get richer that could be a problem
The way I interpreted Billy's statement, and the reasoning I'm also agreeing with, is to mean that the rich CEO's here in America outsource all the jobs to foreign countries, thereby making the poor people here who lost their jobs poorer (more poor?)
It's easier to learn if you're not being killed.....
This made me laugh

[Gilby]

The way I interpreted Billy's statement, and the reasoning I'm also agreeing with, is to mean that the rich CEO's here in America outsource all the jobs to foreign countries, thereby making the poor people here who lost their jobs poorer (more poor?)

There is nothing wrong with outsourcing... if something can be done on the global market more efficiently with the same results, then by all means they should do that. If they don't, some other company probably will.

The people here who lost their jobs to outsourcing aren't exactly poorer, and based on unemployment stats, they weren't unemployable (average unemployment in 1990s was 5.8%, 2005 was 5.1%). With outsourcing they may actually get richer, since they can now buy goods and services for less (ie. I can buy an outsourced tiawan-built KH24 and KH20 and still have paid less compined than if I bought the non-outsourced pro version. More good quailty stuff and more money left in my pocket, as the result of outsourcing).

Those that lost their jobs hopefully were smart and knew how the world worked -- that being that the world is always changing, skills needed today might not be needed tomorrow and that you need to educate youself in many fields and stay up to date on being educated. That's why in elementary school you get a wide range of subjects taught -- in a 4 year university you get a wide variety as well in addition to a specific focus.

[JJuggle]

And the winner (http://www.forbes.com/billionaires) is...

[Gilby]

And the winner (http://www.forbes.com/billionaires) is...The SEC will be investigating the winner of this contest due to insider information that may have been known by Mr. Billy (hmmm... is that the respectful way to address him:p).

I'll say 800!

[JJuggle]

The SEC will be investigating the winner of this contest due to insider information that may have been known by Mr. Billy (hmmm... is that the respectful way to address him:p).
Actually, Billy, following my logic, went with 849 as his last estimate. Too bad for him.

I belive 768 is the winning guess.

[Gilby]

Actually, Billy, following my logic, went with 849 as his last estimate. Too bad for him.

I belive 768 is the winning guess.
Yeah, I was thinking he was disqualified for making more than one guess.

Ah, 768... thanks jjjugle for distracting billy.

[monkeyman]

768
James gets it!

[GizmoDuck]

Oil, computers, retail, investments, publishing...dang no Unicycling on that list :p

[Gilby]

Oil, computers, retail, investments, publishing...dang no Unicycling on that list :pBTW, there are at least two on that list that can ride a unicycle, I bet there are more given the geek factor.

[GizmoDuck]

BTW, there are at least two on that list that can ride a unicycle.

Who?

[Gilby]

Who?The backrub guys.

[GizmoDuck]

The backrub guys.

Who?

[BillyTheMountain]

Quote:
Originally Posted by JJuggle
And the winner is...


The SEC will be investigating the winner of this contest due to insider information that may have been known by Mr. Billy (hmmm... is that the respectful way to address him).

This is a reference to a PM wherein I instructed Gilby on the respectful way to address the US President....


Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyTheMountain
I'll say 800!

This is Gilby altering my quote. I'm shocked at you Gilby!!

Gilby: Do you have any thoughts on the fact that $$ can whirl arounbd the globe and be invested in nearly any nations factory in seconds, but LABOR is often locked within a nation, cannot get into the USA easily, etc.

To lock up labor kind of interferes with your free-wheeling global economy, no?

[BillyTheMountain]

James gets it!

Congratulations!!!

"Making a billion just isn't what it used to be. In our inaugural ranking of the world’s richest people 20 years ago, we uncovered some 140 billionaires. Just three years ago we found 476. This year the list is a record 793. They’re worth a combined $2.6 trillion, up 18% since last March. Their average net worth: $3.3 billion. More... "

[Gilby]

Gilby: Do you have any thoughts on the fact that $$ can whirl arounbd the globe and be invested in nearly any nations factory in seconds, but LABOR is often locked within a nation, cannot get into the USA easily, etc.

To lock up labor kind of interferes with your free-wheeling global economy, no?
Yup, open up the borders. That's freedom. To be able to roam freely to anywhere and choose where you want to live. Why should we discriminate based on where someone was born or who they were born from? Equal opportunity extends past any national borders.

[unijesse]

763

[BillyTheMountain]

Yup, open up the borders. That's freedom. To be able to roam freely to anywhere and choose where you want to live. Why should we discriminate based on where someone was born or who they were born from? Equal opportunity extends past any national borders.

Gilby,

You are wild. I like this idea! It's not one shared by the conservatives in the USA, though.

Do you really think we could handle all those Brits on-the-dole over here, taking our unemployment checks? :D

Billy

[Gilby]

Why does anyone need unemployment checks? Get a job or use the government's resources to get yourself on track and be a productive member of society.

[JJuggle]

Why does anyone need unemployment checks? Get a job or use the government's resources to get yourself on track and be a productive member of society.
Gilby, ignoring the economic realities that make your comment somewhat surreal, do you really believe that being unemployed and being a productive member of society are mutually exclusive?

[Gilby]

Gilby, ignoring the economic realities that make your comment somewhat surreal, do you really believe that being unemployed and being a productive member of society are mutually exclusive?

Please explain those economic realities you speak of.

Unemployment can happen because of being delinquent (just not doing anything -- sometimes the result of mental issues), being laid off, or not having the skills for the available jobs.

For the delinguent, the government should aid them in improving their mental condition, if possible, and help them get the skills to take on a job.

For those laid off, the government needs to provides the means to get these people the skills that are needed today. Somewhere there is a need.

For those that don't have the skills, teach them the skills to fill the needed jobs.

Now, if the borders were suddenly opened, there will be a whole lot of needed labor to build more homes and all the other infrastructure for all these new immigrants. It'd probably create a labor shortage, which means more jobs and a small unemployment rate. Why Billy limited immigration to the Brits, I have no idea, but he will be Billy -- the nontypical Walmart employee or CIA agent. Oops. ;)

[JJuggle]

For the delinguent, the government should aid them in improving their mental condition, if possible, and help them get the skills to take on a job.

For those laid off, the government needs to provides the means to get these people the skills that are needed today. Somewhere there is a need.

For those that don't have the skills, teach them the skills to fill the needed jobs.
All of these things happen so immediately that, in your opinion, there is no need to provide unemployment checks?

[monkeyman]

All of these things happen so immediately that, in your opinion, there is no need to provide unemployment checks?
I'm in the middle ground here...I think unemployment checks should be provided for a short time limit (less than three months at the most), but the government should focus more on getting jobs for jobless, as opposed to just giving them a temporary solution

[Gilby]

Shouldn't just hand out money, but insetad give specific assistence...

[monkeyman]

Shouldn't just hand out money, but insetad give specific assistence...
That's what I'm saying...give out money for a short amount of time, but make it a short amount of time so people don't come to rely on it, and also help them find a reliable job

[BillyTheMountain]

Why does anyone need unemployment checks? Get a job or use the government's resources to get yourself on track and be a productive member of society.

That was JOKE!!! Did I forget the smilie?

By the way, the USA has a much lower crime rate due to it's relatively open borders. Imigrant communities have the lowest crime rate in the USA, and the more immigrants, the safer the USA has become.

[Gilby]

By the way, the USA has a much lower crime rate due to it's relatively open borders. Imigrant communities have the lowest crime rate in the USA, and the more immigrants, the safer the USA has become.

I did not know that... though it does make sense. Immigrants come here and they have motivation to succeed. They work harder than the natural born Americans because they know how hard it could have been for them if they didn't take action to improve their lives.

[cathwood]

For the delinguent, the government should aid them in improving their mental condition, if possible, and help them get the skills to take on a job.



Social control through therapy from the government. Coooool.

Cathy

[monkeyman]

Is this sarcasm?
If so, then why is that a bad thing?

[cathwood]

Is this sarcasm?
If so, then why is that a bad thing?

Yes it's sarcasm (although irony sounds more acceptable).

It's a bad thing because (oh where to begin?) that means that it gives the politicians too much power to manipulate people into what it wants them to do. It means that anything 'different' or doing what the government didn't want would be seen as unacceptable and 'mad'. (Unicyclists perhaps).

At the moment the politicians have more than enough control over what is mad already. They have the law, they can back off therapy!

Cathy

[monkeyman]

I see your point, and I'll conced on that...however, I do think the government should still give the unemployed the means to obtain jobs, not jsut money

[JJuggle]

Shouldn't just hand out money, but insetad give specific assistence...
And how do those people pay their bills in the short run?

[cathwood]

I see your point, and I'll conced on that...however, I do think the government should still give the unemployed the means to obtain jobs, not jsut money

Yes I will agree with you there. Presuming you mean training, transport and so on. And always presuming that there are jobs for everyone. If there isn't 100% employmentability (if you know what I mean) then surely let those who don't want to work stay at home and give them some pittance to what they call 'live' on. Then the people who do want jobs can work.

Cathy

[monkeyman]

Yes I will agree with you there. Presuming you mean training, transport and so on. And always presuming that there are jobs for everyone. If there isn't 100% employmentability (if you know what I mean) then surely let those who don't want to work stay at home and give them some pittance to what they call 'live' on. Then the people who do want jobs can work.

Cathy
Alright, I'm sorry, but if a person doesn't want a job, then I don't want any of the tax dollars to go to them.....they'd be better used in education then feeding lazy people
you jsut got sig'd Cathy

[Gilby]

And how do those people pay their bills in the short run?

Unfourtunatley, our school system did fail them. There was never a course on finance or personal finance management that taught people how to save for the short term likelyhood of not having an income.

The problem with unemployment now is that it is a lottery. It's not actaully about helping people get on the right track.

Oh yeah, where do I sign up for this unemployment check... afterall, I've never been employed.

[JJuggle]

Oh yeah, where do I sign up for this unemployment check... afterall, I've never been employed.
Nice bit of sematic sleight of hand there.

[Gilby]

Social control through therapy from the government. Coooool.

"Social control" sounds bad. It should more or less be an open market.

[cathwood]

"Social control" sounds bad. It should more or less be an open market.

Ofcourse. In an ideal world.

Cathy

[BillyTheMountain]

Congratulations!!!

"Making a billion just isn't what it used to be. In our inaugural ranking of the world’s richest people 20 years ago, we uncovered some 140 billionaires. Just three years ago we found 476. This year the list is a record 793. They’re worth a combined $2.6 trillion, up 18% since last March. Their average net worth: $3.3 billion. More... "

So there's 18% more billionaires in the past year.

Does anyone know the percentage increase of people who moved into poverty in the USA in the past year?

It's a Republican President's job to take care of those who contribute $$ to his political campaign, right?

[JJuggle]

Does anyone know the percentage increase of people who moved into poverty in the USA in the past year?
The latest numbers from the U.S. Census Bureau are for 2004.

2004 - 12.7%
2003 - 12.5%
2002 - 12.15

from Historical Poverty Tables - Table 19. Percent of Persons in Poverty, by State: 2002, 2003, 2004 (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov19.html)

Then there's this:

Politics Leave US With Poverty Rate Few Think Accurate

Feb 21, 2006

WASHINGTON (AP)--Every year, the Census Bureau uses a 40-year-old formula to
determine how many poor people there are in the U.S., a method that many
experts think was outdated years ago.

The Census Bureau acknowledges the issue by also announcing alternative
poverty rates based on different measurements of income and poverty. This
approach has fueled an academic and political debate, but has yet to
produce policy changes.

In August, the bureau announced that 12.7% of Americans lived in poverty in
2004, making it the official poverty rate. Last week, the bureau said the
rate might be as high as 19.4%, or as low as 8.3%, depending on how income
and basic living costs were defined.

One outside analyst said he could cut the poverty rate in half using census
data and a pocket calculator. But his exercise would change only the
definition of poverty. It wouldn't make anyone richer.

"I know virtually no one who thinks the current poverty line is an accurate
measure of poverty," said Rebecca Blank, co-director of the National
Poverty Center at the University of Michigan.

Blank served on a National Academy of Sciences panel that recommended changes
to the poverty measure 10 years ago. But the issue was too politically
sensitive to resolve, she and others said.

Some proponents of change want a higher poverty rate to encourage spending on
the poor; others want a lower rate to make it easier to cut spending.

"Everybody's got their favorite way of measuring it because the outcome fits
their needs," said Martha Farnsworth Riche, who headed the Census Bureau
under President Clinton.

The Office of Management and Budget dictates how poverty is measured. But
Congress has a keen interest in the issue because it affects so many
programs, dollars and lives, Riche said.

"The Census Bureau can't go around changing the poverty rate," Riche said.

The official poverty level is used to decide eligibility for federal health,
housing, nutrition and child care benefits. The official poverty rate
helps shape national debate on the health of the country's economy.

"There are hundreds of programs moving hundreds of billions of dollars in
benefits that are tied to the poverty line," said Douglas Besharov of the
American Enterprise Institute.

Part of the problem is that the experts don't agree on how to define income
and basic living expenses.

The official poverty level is $19,307 for a family of four, $12,334 for a
family of two. But the calculation includes only cash income before
deductions for taxes. It excludes capital gains and it doesn't take into
account accumulated wealth or assets, such as a home.

It was based on a calculation of basic living expenses in the 1960s, and has
been updated only to reflect inflation.

The result is that a single parent making $13,000 a year is living above the
poverty line, while someone with a $1 million house who takes a year off
work to travel the world could be below it.

The current system has defenders, but even many of those would like to see
changes.

John Cogan, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University,
said the current system does a good job of gauging whether poverty
increases or decreases from year to year.

"Can the way we measure poverty be improved? Absolutely," Cogan said. "Does
that mean we should just ignore the country's poverty statistics?
Definitely not."

Among the proposals to change the way the government measures poverty:

- Add food stamps, health and housing benefits to incomes. The benefits were
intended to decrease poverty, and they would if they were counted as
income.

- Subtract taxes, child care and medical costs from incomes, increasing the
poverty rate for working Americans.

- Count assets such as homes and securities when determining poverty levels,
lowering the poverty rate for seniors on fixed incomes.

- Create regional poverty lines to account for the fact that some places are
more expensive to live than others.

Chuck Nelson, an economist at the Census Bureau said, "We see ourselves as the
research arm telling people what the effect would be if poverty were based
on different measurements. If and when the time comes to change it, people
will have information." [ 21-02-06 0934GMT ] (c) 2006 Dow Jones &
Company, Inc.

[BillyTheMountain]

The result is that a single parent making $13,000 a year is living above the poverty line.

In the USA, could such a parent afford a unicycle for their child??

So all those people with a $1 million house who take a year off work to travel --and could thus be below the poverty line -- those are the people who are screwing up our ability to know how many people are truly living in poverty??!

Raphael: As always, thanks for the info!

Billy

[Gilby]

So all those people with a $1 million house who take a year off work to travel --and could thus be below the poverty line -- those are the people who are screwing up our ability to know how many people are truly living in poverty??!No, it's the people that define the poverty calculation formula. Poverty is more than just how much one makes in a specific time period.

[BillyTheMountain]

No, it's the people that define the poverty calculation formula. Poverty is more than just how much one makes in a specific time period.

So it's easier to define a billionaire than it is to define a person in poverty.....

What is poverty? It's not good, I think. Not good for the individual in poverty, and not good for the nation.

Billy

[Gilby]

So it's easier to define a billionaire than it is to define a person in poverty.....Your terminology is not consistent. A billionaire is a word that is self defined. You should use the term weathly instead. It is just as hard to define wealthy as it is to define poverty.

[BillyTheMountain]

Your terminology is not consistent. A billionaire is a word that is self defined. You should use the term weathly instead. It is just as hard to define wealthy as it is to define poverty.

are you saying that if I bought my home 20 years ago for such a price, and it was recently assessed for $1 million, then I'm a millionaire? Even if I'm dining on dog food, like many Americans?

[Gilby]

Having a net worth of a million or more would make you a millionaire. I don't know what you feed your dog, but it must be good stuff.

[BillyTheMountain]

Joaquin Guzman, a top Mexican drug lord known as El Chapo, escaped from a maximum security prison in 2001 by hiding in a laundry cart.

He was named to the Forbes list of billionaires this year!

Would Bernie Madoff have made the list soon, too?

[harper]

Dang. I just checked and I'm still not on the list. Neither is Raphael, though, so in our anguished competition for the affections of Miss Ayelery he at least does not have this additional advantage. And that, by the way, Billy, is the real contest here.

[BillyTheMountain]

Dang. I just checked and I'm still not on the list. Neither is Raphael, though, so in our anguished competition for the affections of Miss Ayelery he at least does not have this additional advantage. And that, by the way, Billy, is the real contest here.

Like other female librarians and grammarians worldwide, Miss Ayelery prefers her men well-endowed in another way.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/11/worlds-richest-people-billionaires-2009-billionaires_land.html

[BillyTheMountain]

Joaquin Guzman, a top Mexican drug lord known as El Chapo, escaped from a maximum security prison in 2001 by hiding in a laundry cart.

He was named to the Forbes list of billionaires this year!

Would Bernie Madoff have made the list soon, too?

http://thepublics.wordpress.com/2008/04/25/two-criminal-billionaires-under-40/

[JJuggle]

http://thepublics.wordpress.com/2008/04/25/two-criminal-billionaires-under-40/
Billy, what exactly is your point? How many of all the billionaires do you think have not engaged in criminal activities in the pursuit of their wealth?

Did you see this, Bloomberg: Jail Bar Mitvah 'Should Not Have Taken Place' (http://www.nypost.com/seven/06112009/news/regionalnews/bloomberg__jail_bar_mitzvah_should_not_h_173754.htm)?

By the way, your t-shirts are in the mail. Priority was only a nickel more than regular post, so you might have them Monday, Tuesday at the latest. And sorry, there were only x-larges left.

[BillyTheMountain]

http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml

This 2011 year's list broke records in size (1,210 billionaires) and total net worth ($4.5 trillion). China doubled its number of 10-figure fortunes, and Moscow now has more billionaires than any other city. Mexico's Carlos Slim widened his lead at No. 1.

My boss and her family are # 10 in the world!!!! w00t!! and #4 in the USA!! with $26.5 billion.