Bill Gates Drops To Number 2

A number of readers made sure we know that Bill Gates is apparently no longer the world's richest person. His wealth, estimated currently at $59.2 billion, has been surpassed by that of Mexican tycoon Carlos Slim. Slim, the son of a Lebanese immigrant, runs businesses in a number of industries from Mexico City. Stock in his wireless company, American Movil, recently surged in price by 27%, boosting his net worth to $67.8 billion. Last April Slim passed Warren Buffet, who had long held down the number 2 spot. In this audio Bill Gates says he won't care when he is no longer number 1.

But For How Long?

[eldavojohn]

I thought I had heard that Ingvar Kamprad [wikipedia.org], the Swedish owner of Ikea, had surpassed Gates due to the slide in world markets of the American dollar versus the Swedish crown.

Of course, Forbes never registered that because, I believe, the slide was temporary and the dollar rebounded somewhat and some reports put Kamprad in front of Gates and some didn't.

It's kind of funny when your ranking in the world's richest raises and falls with small market fluctuations. Regardless, I'll throw out the idea that it is extremely likely that Slim's net worth will be 'adjusted' by the stock market in the coming days when his stock is re-evaluated. I could be wrong but Kamprad saw his worth rise on something that is (usually) much more stable than the stock market--his country's currency.

Placing an unprecedented 27% increase in his stocks makes his position as the world's richest man all that much more volatile to me. Then again, I'm not an economist or finance specialist so I could be wrong. How the stock market index seems to consistently return 11% on investments baffles my simple computer scientist mind.

I would also like to point out a few things relating to this #1 position of world's richest man. It's obvious in (at least America) you often need money to make money. More money you have, the easier it seems to be to make money.

I've half a mind to go on a rant about the questionable business model that Gates employed to gain his position as world's richest and keep it ... but I'm too tired and it's obvious [wikipedia.org] by now [wikipedia.org] that some people agree. Though I'm sure there won't be a lack of posts on that topic for this particular news story.

Reason Gates won't care that he's not #1 is probably because he's giving a lot of it away anyway in the end. That and he's made his mark on history ... will we remember Kamprad or Slim? Highly unlikely. But Gates has touched entire generations with software we been forced to and have chosen to use for better or for worse.

Don't worry. Slim is not very different from Bill

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

Telmex and Microsoft use the same monopolistic practices, Gates and Slim are not very different. They both apply the same practices in different markets. The interesting part is that we will get to see both of them competing in a few years, since POTS is disappearing and the fight will be on VoIP, that's a market both of them will be into.

I Hope we see them fighting each other for control, because if they reach an agreement, for example, m$ makes voip software, and Telmex provides the service, we are really screwed up.

Telmex got here [Argentina] only a few years ago, they acquired CTI (Biggest mobile telco), Techtel (at the time one of the 5 top players in the carrier and corporate market), Ertach (Biggest Wifi ISP), and lots of kilometers of fiber that interconnects the main cities in Argentina from other companies (metrored, etc.). They also are betting money into Telecom. So, in just a few years they become the third biggest player in Argentina (In this order: 1 - Telefonica, 2 - Telecom, 3 - Telmex), But they have a pretty tight relationship with Telecom Argentina (Read: They are buying stock, big time), And Telefonica has a policy of being friendly with the 5 biggest players, and screwing the rest, So they are now the second bigger in Argentina, and the first one keeps them safe.

Be afraid, be very afraid.

Re:We still hate him

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, either reason is missing the point.

Technology rules and shapes the human race. He seeks to control all technology. *That's* the real reason to hate him. For 25 years the world has concerned itself with pittiances like who's president and which country has a despot in charge, while right under our noses the biggest monopoly in human history has effectively brought the globe under the dictatorship of Bill Gates - through the computers.

Wait til we rely on biotech to live past 150 years and we're colonizing space. There Gates will be, deciding who lives and who dies and charging everybody 50 cents to breathe. Think the people will wake up then? If so, do we want to wait until it's that bad before we start to resist?

The real point

[edwardpickman]

Either one of them could take every breathing person to MacDonalds. The only difference is one could super size it and still have money left over. Both would actually still be billionaires.

Re:We still hate him

[GodOfCode]

There seems to be a misunderstanding by some people - including Gates himself - that Bill Gates is hated because he is rich. This is not true. We envy him because he is rich. I couldn't agree with you more on this part. We hate him because he produces crappy software and uses unethical techniques to promote it. Being surpassed in the richest person list does not change this. On this one, I am not so sure. Do we all hate all other "producers" of "crappy software" just as much? I am sure a lot of these folks would also be using unethical practices somewhere or the other.

Logic fallacy

[Derling Whirvish]

The difference is that Telmex *IS* a competitive and efficient company. If it wasn't for Slim's investment in telecom infrastructure, we mexicans would still be calling the state-driven phone company to complain that our 24K modems disconnect too often. I do remember those times...

There's a logic fallacy in your argument. I could just as easily say: "The difference is that Microsoft *IS* a competitive and efficient company. If it wasn't for Gate's investment in GUI-based operating systems for personal computers, we Americans would still be using a command-line interface to telenet into mainframes when we needed to use a computer. I do remember those times... " And if I did, I would probably be as wrong about how the future of PCs played out over the last 20 years as you are about how the future of the Mexican telecom industry played out over the same period. If not Gates then someone else. If not Slim, then someone else.

He might be on top now...

[Glowing Fish]

But, he could be destroyed. The 31st richest person has done it before, and he will do it again.

Re:Be honest with yourself

[westlake]

It's just that Gates happens to be responsible for a poorly-made piece of software that everyone uses.

Apple took the word "Computer" out of its name.

The Mac is built using generic Windows PC parts. "Boot Camp" becomes a core marketing tool. In damn near thirty years of competition Apple remains a - very - distant second to Microsoft, in Microsoft's core markets.

The Geek trots out the "poorly-made" argument at every opportunity.

It is guaranteed a +4, +5 mod-up, Insightful, on Slashdot. But the fact remains that something like 500 million desktop-laptop users world-wide have found that Windows does what they want it to do.

Not really rich

[flyingfsck]

People who can count their money are not really rich. There are several people in Europe who cannot realistically count their wealth. The British Queen for example owns enormous tracts of land, the value of which can only be guessed.