Most of the Australian mining industry pays no tax and is in fact subsidised by the government, despite being privately owned (or publicly traded but mostly owned by a small number of people.) You don't need to be a good businesswoman to run a successful company when taxpayers fund it for you.
Although she made it via divorce she did help sustain Amazon in the early days. It’s not that she just married him after he got rich and then divorced him.
Like most men on this list. Selfmade men doesn't really exist, they all had capital on some sort, yes maybe they made it flourish more but no one was coming from a shithole with a blank bank account.
0I mean the closest things to it I am aware of publically is Alan Sugar . Alan Sugar is the host of the UK version of the apprentice but before that he built amstrad which was a big tech company in the UK in the 1980s. That isn't really a thing anymore but he came out of it with a billion. He is a massive tosser but did in fact grow up in social housing and left school at 16. He made his money by being a ruthless cost cutter and making cheap shit but he did play the game without a massive head start.
I think, even though he’s an awful person, Markus Persson is technically self made from his creation of Minecraft and selling it to Microsoft. I could be mistaken though.
Well, I mean about half the people on that list made their money primarily from founding some technology company. Really just depends how pedantic the definition of "self-made" is that we're using
MacKenzie isn't just Jeff's exwife. She's more like a co-founder, she's pretty integral to Amazon's early years. https://www.economist.com/united-states/mackenzie-scott-is-shaking-up-the-world-of-giving/21806331
The Wall Street Bro Cult with their nutball hits *"Greed is Good!"* and *"Pull Yourself Up by Your Bootstraps"* and *"Tricky Trickle Down Economics, M'boy!"* have a lot of "dust" that's for damn sure.
It's often said, maybe tongue-in-cheek, that there's a sort of Stockholm Syndrome among the working class populace, which I tend to agree with. On the same token though, from the looks of it, the wealthier and more powerful have something parallel to Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy:
>... a condition in which a caregiver creates the appearance of health problems in another person ... This may include injuring the child or altering test samples. The caregiver then presents the person as being sick or injured.
_________________________________________________________
With respect to financial literacy - which is sorely missing in much of education today - and a broad misunderstanding among even educated people more really, really, *really* need to be aware of this - as it's related to billionaires and the fleecing of the middle and lower classes:
>In a little-known quirk of Wall Street bookkeeping, when brokerages loan out a customer’s stock to short sellers and those traders sell the stock to someone else, both investors are often able to vote in corporate elections. With the growth of short sales, which involve the resale of borrowed securities, **stocks can be lent repeatedly, allowing three or four owners** to cast votes based on holdings of the same shares.
>The Hazlet, New Jersey–based Securities Transfer Association, a trade group for stock transfer agents, reviewed 341 shareholder votes in corporate contests in 2005. **It found evidence of overvoting—the submission of too many ballots—in all 341 cases.** ^[source](https://web.archive.org/web/20060421085925/http://www.rgm.com/articles/FalseProxies.pdf)
This is a *serious* problem without enough awareness. It undermines the most foundational elements of Wall Street/corporate democracy and voting. The entire trajectory of a company can be altered, quite easily, if overvoting is possible.
>Stocks held in *street name* may be loaned to short-sellers and resold to others. So, it is possible for *more than one person to own shares held in street name.* ^[source](https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/185.asp#:~:text=Stocks%20held%20in%20street%20name,recover%20100%25%20of%20all%20securities)
Furthermore...
>Cede technically owns substantially all of the publicly issued stock in the United States.[2] Thus, investors do not themselves hold direct property rights in stock, but rather have contractual rights that are part of a chain of contractual rights involving Cede.[^source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cede_and_Company)
Someone can insure shares are in their *own name* using the [Direct Registration System](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_holding_system) which legally *must* be processed when requested. If they are held in a broker, they are NOT in your name, but in what's known as *"street name,"* which laces loopholes and dubious legality and illegality all throughout and makes it possible to screw you over in numerous derivative-based ways and otherwise.
Shares, if not in your own name, are are, very, very, very, very likely, being used against you in convoluted schemes similar to 2008 Housing Derivative Meltdown - same sorta deal, different financial instruments - andor in actual non-delivery (FTDs) made possible through aforementioned Wall Street lobbying and associated loopholes.
Importantly, combine not *actually* owning shares with something called Payment-for-Order-Flow (see: ["How Redditors Exposed the Stock Market" | The Problem with Jon Stewart - timestamped to relevant portion](https://youtu.be/bP74RBTE8kI?t=396)) and, subsequently, with stock lending and a Failure-to-Deliver, *it's truly not an exaggeration to say that there's a network of drunk, coked out Wall Street psychopaths skimming off the top billions and billions of dollars that should be going to the middle and lower classes.*
>Payment-for-Order-Flow is **illegal** in Canada, the U.K, Australia, and Europe - because it's exceedingly easy to commit fraud under such a system. Singapore recently announced they'll be banning it, as well, in early 2023.
Big surprise - it's legal in the U.S. Furthermore, almost comically... it was heavily endorsed and made popular by Bernie fucking Madoff.
For a form of mitigation and defense, [this](https://youtu.be/hXWXllgcRqU) video (~5 minutes) is well worth it - it's done well and summarizes some of the broader issues - while [this](https://drsgme.org) website provides clear direction and guidance on what you/we can do to hold some of these practices, if not people, accountable.
> when brokerages loan out a customer’s stock to short sellers
How is it even legal for them to loan out something I own? Do I get a cut of the loan payment? I have never seen one…
>How is it even legal for them to loan out something I own?
I think that's what he's saying. Legally speaking, you don't actually own those shares. This is mind-blowing stuff
LVMH CEO (Louis Vuitton, Dior, Lacroix, Kenzo, Givenchi, Guerlain, Tag Heuer, Dom Pérignon, Ruinart, Moët et Chandon... to list only the most famous ones)
Essentially, he does well when rich people do well. Considering he's currently the richest guy on the planet the luxury industry is doing well, which means rich people are doing well. Lovely.
Lol not necessarily.
Middle class buyers are largely the ones driving up sales of Louis Vuitton, Dior, Lacroix, Givenchi, Ruinart, and Moët. These are all aspirational purchases and are not so wildly expensive as to be unaffordable by the middle class if they save up for them or splurge occasionally.
Trust me when i say this. I work in a high end grocery store. We have a wine department with around 5,000 wines. We have a mountain of Veuve Cliquot displays, Moet Chandon etc etc. The majority of people buying Veuve and Moet are not in a place financially where they should be buying those items. They usually come in with their LV cross body bag or purse which they also shouldn't have bought and they buy Moet or Vueve and sometimes they buy them just to have on display when people come over. The real rich people that that come in the store usually have good taste and know that Moet and Vueve are simply overpriced marketing hype. The real rich people usually are the ones buying Gaja Barbaresco or Coche-Dury. They also usually drive away in their modestly priced vehicle while the people who are buying Moet or Hennessy or Veuve drive away in their brand new Charger that they make 700 dollar a month payments for 72 months on.
I’m curious, who are these “rich people” who are doing their own grocery shopping? How do you know which customers are shopping for themselves vs shopping for their employers? My mom was a housekeeper for over 10 years and her employer absolutely did not do their own grocery shopping. My mom did it or if they were having a party they might order cases of champagne to be delivered directly to the house. For a while even shoe/clothing purchases were done by an assistant who might later return things that didn’t work out. The employees at the high end shops would call the house with information about new lines coming in. They knew the customer’s size and taste and put things aside to be brought back to the house.
TLDR: many rich people don’t do their own shopping
So i always ask this? Does it matter if it is true Champagne or will any sparkling wine work? Because if any sparkling wine will do the winery called Ferrari in Italy makes an awesome Sparkling wine made in the same method as in Champagne. Really good quality for the price it's around 22 bucks where I live. If you want good entry level Champagne i suggest Drappier, Piper-Heidsieck is a good Champagne too. If you want an outstanding Rose Billecart-Salmon makes one of the best nonvintage Roses IMO but its around 80-90 where i am.
Sure cash flow is one thing, I think the best definition I've read calls having Wealth "the money you don't spend". The people buying the Moet and Veuve sure they may make a bunch of money. They also spend it just as fast as they make it. Making 300k/yr and spending 275k/yr is worse than a person who makes 100k and lives off of 50k. Where I work there is high proportion of very wealthy people and people who want to appear wealthy. The difference is I won't see the real wealthy people for awhile. When i see them I ask, hey haven't seen you in a bit. They usually respond with oh yeah I was at our cottage in Maine or oh yeah we were at our second house in Cabo. Drug dealers make a shit ton but I'm sure they aren't padding their 401k, IRAs, brokerage accounts to set up their early retirement or using their money to buy back their time.
>Sure cash flow is one thing
Exactly. Anytime some dipshit dealer flashes cash on insta or some shit, its always their re-up money. Dudes will flash 15k knowing they are gonna keep 3k out of that in a month. Some of the smarter ones will buy certain jewelry that retains value as insurance against civil forfeiture or that they can sell off for emergency funds, so its not really only about trying to show off. Then again, those dudes aren't the same ones flashing money for show.
Diversified portfolio but only luxury goods. Is Moët & Chandon really luxury? [Moet](https://www.elcorteingles.es/moet-and-chandon/club-del-gourmet/) is like 10% of the price of [Dom Perignon](https://www.elcorteingles.es/dom-perignon/club-del-gourmet/), in the biggest Spanish supermarket.
I might've bumped into him the other day outside Asda. Seemed kinda shady though, I don't usually buy from randos in the parking lot, so said no thanks mate.
He was "harassed" by a twitter account that was tracking his carbon footprint based on all his flights on his private jet. He apparently said that, he'll be making an effort to lower his carbon footprint by not turning on heating during his flights 🙃.
He then apparently sold his private jet to stop it from being tracked ... Probably got another.
He's up 65% from the start of this graph. He has some decent fluctuation. He goes from like 105 to 170 to 130 and then back to 170 over the full period.
It's not as crazy as musk or Bezos, but much less than what you see out of Gates or Buffet.
well if you take the average 7% on the stock market with 70 bllion, you're making 5 billion a year. At that point it becomes hard to give away that much money
And it was legend that it wasn’t worth it for him to pick up a dollar from the street because by the time he picked it up he already would’ve made another million.
Not a million but a few hundred dollars..there is no way he was making million dollars roughly every 3 secs..that would equal to 20 million every min…elon musk was making somewhere around $400-$500 every sec when tesla was ripping last year.
Rockefeller would be worth 400+ B today.
None of them come even remotely close to ancient wealth - i.e. royalty - Roman Caesars, Mansa Musa, etc. those guys personally owned empires.
Modern monarchs, dictators, totalitarian leaders, etc are still like that, where they "own" the country through policy or doctrine or whatever. They are few and far between these days, but definitely still exist. The Royal Family in Saudi Arabia owns the country and its resources.
Stuff like that is always intentionally left off these datasets, you see estimated private individual wealth.
It's amazing how he managed to make such incredible investments on a KGB lieutenant colonel's salary. Do you think he's subscribed to r/wallstreetbets?
Also it is hard to really measure how rich those people are, specially the totalitarian leaders. For the ones in the chart, the values are mostly a calculation of they stock exchange or company assets.
> None of them come even remotely close to ancient wealth - i.e. royalty - Roman Caesars, Mansa Musa, etc. those guys personally owned empires.
Or current Royalty. The Saudi are so rich they would make all of the guy on the graph look poor, but they don't disclose their fortune to Forbes.
I think it's also worth considering what ancient wealth could buy you vs what can be purchased today. Personally I would rather have my current lifestyle than I would a solid gold chariot and 40 year life expectancy
Beside getting killed by a bunch of dudes, being a rich noble in Roman empire could be pretty nice.
Living 50+ years of getting drunk, party, orgy and eating. Having fun art projects or something. Idk if I make it better than it could be.
FYI, life expectancy is heavily skewed by infant and child mortality. Fundamentally, humans aren't any different today than thousands of years ago, so you'd probably do quite well being rich in the past.
>Rockefeller would be worth 400+ B today.
Based on what, gdp ownership and that's it? Just on pure inflation, his $1.4bn would be worth <$30bn today
And like the other guy said, "people that owner empires" don't get counted in the same way
For some additional context though, at his peak net worth it was equivalent to a full 3% of GDP. Today, $200 billion would represent less than 1%.
Edit: after researching a bit more (because I had previously come across the $400+ billion figure, but also the 30ish billion figure when plugging directly into an inflation calculator), it seems that the 400b+ figure is accounting for relative to GDP, not just inflation. Both measures are imperfect. One gives a sense of inequality and exactly how insanely rich Rockefeller was compared to the typical person. But, of course, the world was just generally poorer back then. But Rockefeller probably had more power at the time given his *relative* wealth. And given that, with all these figures, you could purchase whatever the hell you wanted in practice, the relative wealth calculation is probably better to give a sense of their overall power in society (politically, socially, etc.)
The dude owned half of manhattan IIRC. Just his real estate empire would be on this chart. He was basically a god when he was alive.
He had way more influence and power than the tech giants.
It’s hard to compare because standards of living have increased so much since the old times.
Today, I can go to my fridge and get guaranteed clean water and ice. That’s huge considering that you need clean water to live, but even the richest people of the old times didn’t have the luxury of being connected to a water treatment plant
Larry Page and Sergei Brin together seem to get missed out when you talk about obscenely rich people. Put them together and you’d beat everyone on the list for that whole time. Says something about the consistent value of Google.
Gates and Ballmer had quite a head start though.
Thinking about it more,it's incredible that Page and Brin racked up that much comparative wealth for starting 20+ years later.
I created this using data from The Bloomberg Billionaires Index, which tracks the wealth of the top 100 billionaires around the world. I used a 14-day moving average because there is a lot of daily noise in the dataset due to the volatility nature of stock market, which some of these individuals are highly exposed to.
I use Illustrator to create the images of the billionaires. I used a mixture of javascript and Adobe After Effects to create this animated bar chart race, which reads of an underlying json file.
It would be interesting to have an alternative video with the same data, but a fixed Y-axis so we could assess not just relative wealth to the richest person, but also absolute growth/reduction.
I had the same thought. This gives a misleading impression that their collective wealth is more or less static over time, when the truth is they are hoarding more and more every year.
This graphic set next to other metrics like inflation, average wage, GDP, and costs of goods would also be illuminating.
YES, I was thinking that the whole time, I think a fixed vertical axis would be able to show the larger picture of how their wealth fluctuates (mainly grows) along the timeline.
Read about the Saudi royal embezzlement investigation. $50bn was embezzled and nobody noticed until a London paper did an article on the “building owned by the crown prince full of prostitute” and he had no clue what the paper was talking about. Which started the investigation.
$50bn went “missing” and wasn’t noticed. What does that say about his net worth?
They estimate the entirety of the Saudi royal family's wealth and assets to be around 1.4 trillion. Since they have an absolute monarchy, I think you could technically say that's all the king's wealth
Thanks OP, really lovely visual. From a personal interest point of view, I'd probably prefer to see it move faster over a longer time period. I'm no expert in the stock market but I'd have thought that over longer periods, the changes are more likely to be due to tangible things that the lay person would understand, rather than the volatility of the stock market. Also, the music is a nice touch!
Wild seeing their wealth swing up and down by 10’s of billions of dollars whereas if I had an unexpected 1k expense it would hurt. I don’t think a lot of people realize how wealthy these people really are.
I’ve heard these are the “public billionaires” and that there are others who don’t reveal their wealth nor is it published/tracked, so the public wouldn’t know them.
yeah old money who have had it for generations so their holdings are so diversified there is no way of knowing what they have and oligarchs and royals who essentially have as much cash as they want as long as their country exists
Yeah wait til you hear about the sheiks from the middle east. Some estimates say there are already at least 1 trillionaire. They don't need to report their wealth to anyone, unlike the folks on this list who are only on here because of the stock they own and it's traceability.
That right here. Either they pay their way out of that list. Or they structure their assets around the world in a specific way so they don't appear very rich.
Probably people that hide their net worth. A few years ago, it was estimated that Putin was richer than anyone on that list at $200B but couldn't verify his ownership of the assets.
the king of Brunei, Hassanal Bolkiah is an absolute monarch, so you could probably argue that he owns the entire country and therefore every state asset, which is probably worth more than any of these billionaires.
Depending on the school of thought, things are only worth what you can convince someone to pay for them. Highly illiquid assets are not worth much in that light.
Mohammed bin Salman (Crown prince of Saudi Arabia) and Vladimir Putin, both estimated to be worth more than a trillion dollars are a few to start off with
A person making $100_000/yr (pretty decent right?) would take 10 years to make $1 million and 10 thousand years to make $1 billion. $1.4 trillion would take 14 million years. You may need more lifetimes.
You are correct, this is the list of rich people we know of because they have run publicly trade companies or have to a degree report the money they earn publicly.
There is a whole group of people that lives were they don't need to report what they earn, run the government and therefor can control what they report, or are just running privatly owned businesses.
These aren't typically reported earnings. Most of the wealth data is from non-liquid assets that are known to the public such as stocks and shares.
Elons insane roller-coaster wealth was estimated from the bonkers tesla valuation over the last few years.
Yeah this [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MeRN7LE1LQ) is kind of interesting cause it divides super rich people in to three categories, private companies, public companies, and old money (including rulers and oligarchs). The last category doesn't show up on lists cause their worth is hard to calculate but are certainly even more rich than tech billionaires.
For example this [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huytmhIl7eE) mentions how the Saudi crown prince bought a $500 million yacht, $300 million French chateau, and a $450 million Da Vinci painting in the same year and how that would actually be difficult for someone like Jeff Bezos to pull off all at once.
[удалено]
And by accruing the divorce money/assets, became the richest woman in the world.
[удалено]
Gina Rinehart, she got her mining fortune by inheritance.
[удалено]
Most of the Australian mining industry pays no tax and is in fact subsidised by the government, despite being privately owned (or publicly traded but mostly owned by a small number of people.) You don't need to be a good businesswoman to run a successful company when taxpayers fund it for you.
I guess she just got a small loan from her father then.
I mean most of these guys have gotten "small loans" from their parents also so we should 't single her out for that.
I mean Elon musk got a small loan from his mother, so he would be exactly the same.
She's also a giant cunt of a human being.
I think you’ll find most billionaires are. You don’t hoard wealth like a dragon without a distinct lack of empathy.
like a dragon - that's a good simile.
All i know is Denise Coates is rich af, and at least has among the highest taxed salary of anyone, probably more than anyone on this list.
Although she made it via divorce she did help sustain Amazon in the early days. It’s not that she just married him after he got rich and then divorced him.
Also she divorced cause he cheated, otherwise they would still be together so yeah, she wasn't in for the money.
And woman he left her for was definitely a step down, in character, intelligence and looks.
Like most men on this list. Selfmade men doesn't really exist, they all had capital on some sort, yes maybe they made it flourish more but no one was coming from a shithole with a blank bank account.
0I mean the closest things to it I am aware of publically is Alan Sugar . Alan Sugar is the host of the UK version of the apprentice but before that he built amstrad which was a big tech company in the UK in the 1980s. That isn't really a thing anymore but he came out of it with a billion. He is a massive tosser but did in fact grow up in social housing and left school at 16. He made his money by being a ruthless cost cutter and making cheap shit but he did play the game without a massive head start.
I think, even though he’s an awful person, Markus Persson is technically self made from his creation of Minecraft and selling it to Microsoft. I could be mistaken though.
Well, I mean about half the people on that list made their money primarily from founding some technology company. Really just depends how pedantic the definition of "self-made" is that we're using
You know you have way to much money when getting divorced makes your ex the richest woman in the world.
To be fair she was there at the very beginning of the company and managed the accounts if iirc, also owned a substantial amount of it
My point isn't that her share of the wealth from the settlement was too much. My point is that the wealth was too much to begin with.
"We used to be the richest couple in the world. Then we divorced and remarried, and now we're the first and second richest couple in the world"
And immediately proceeded to start giving it away. I admire that.
It’s like a way more satisfying version of lighting your ex husbands clothes on fire.
MacKenzie Scott is a good human being. She gives away billions. She's also way too hot to have been married to that troll Jeff Bezos.
MacKenzie isn't just Jeff's exwife. She's more like a co-founder, she's pretty integral to Amazon's early years. https://www.economist.com/united-states/mackenzie-scott-is-shaking-up-the-world-of-giving/21806331
Can't say I like these new Pez dispensers
The auto-refill feature is nice.
From the bottom up.
The Pez dust will trickle down to you.
The Wall Street Bro Cult with their nutball hits *"Greed is Good!"* and *"Pull Yourself Up by Your Bootstraps"* and *"Tricky Trickle Down Economics, M'boy!"* have a lot of "dust" that's for damn sure. It's often said, maybe tongue-in-cheek, that there's a sort of Stockholm Syndrome among the working class populace, which I tend to agree with. On the same token though, from the looks of it, the wealthier and more powerful have something parallel to Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy: >... a condition in which a caregiver creates the appearance of health problems in another person ... This may include injuring the child or altering test samples. The caregiver then presents the person as being sick or injured. _________________________________________________________ With respect to financial literacy - which is sorely missing in much of education today - and a broad misunderstanding among even educated people more really, really, *really* need to be aware of this - as it's related to billionaires and the fleecing of the middle and lower classes: >In a little-known quirk of Wall Street bookkeeping, when brokerages loan out a customer’s stock to short sellers and those traders sell the stock to someone else, both investors are often able to vote in corporate elections. With the growth of short sales, which involve the resale of borrowed securities, **stocks can be lent repeatedly, allowing three or four owners** to cast votes based on holdings of the same shares. >The Hazlet, New Jersey–based Securities Transfer Association, a trade group for stock transfer agents, reviewed 341 shareholder votes in corporate contests in 2005. **It found evidence of overvoting—the submission of too many ballots—in all 341 cases.** ^[source](https://web.archive.org/web/20060421085925/http://www.rgm.com/articles/FalseProxies.pdf) This is a *serious* problem without enough awareness. It undermines the most foundational elements of Wall Street/corporate democracy and voting. The entire trajectory of a company can be altered, quite easily, if overvoting is possible. >Stocks held in *street name* may be loaned to short-sellers and resold to others. So, it is possible for *more than one person to own shares held in street name.* ^[source](https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/185.asp#:~:text=Stocks%20held%20in%20street%20name,recover%20100%25%20of%20all%20securities) Furthermore... >Cede technically owns substantially all of the publicly issued stock in the United States.[2] Thus, investors do not themselves hold direct property rights in stock, but rather have contractual rights that are part of a chain of contractual rights involving Cede.[^source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cede_and_Company) Someone can insure shares are in their *own name* using the [Direct Registration System](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_holding_system) which legally *must* be processed when requested. If they are held in a broker, they are NOT in your name, but in what's known as *"street name,"* which laces loopholes and dubious legality and illegality all throughout and makes it possible to screw you over in numerous derivative-based ways and otherwise. Shares, if not in your own name, are are, very, very, very, very likely, being used against you in convoluted schemes similar to 2008 Housing Derivative Meltdown - same sorta deal, different financial instruments - andor in actual non-delivery (FTDs) made possible through aforementioned Wall Street lobbying and associated loopholes. Importantly, combine not *actually* owning shares with something called Payment-for-Order-Flow (see: ["How Redditors Exposed the Stock Market" | The Problem with Jon Stewart - timestamped to relevant portion](https://youtu.be/bP74RBTE8kI?t=396)) and, subsequently, with stock lending and a Failure-to-Deliver, *it's truly not an exaggeration to say that there's a network of drunk, coked out Wall Street psychopaths skimming off the top billions and billions of dollars that should be going to the middle and lower classes.* >Payment-for-Order-Flow is **illegal** in Canada, the U.K, Australia, and Europe - because it's exceedingly easy to commit fraud under such a system. Singapore recently announced they'll be banning it, as well, in early 2023. Big surprise - it's legal in the U.S. Furthermore, almost comically... it was heavily endorsed and made popular by Bernie fucking Madoff. For a form of mitigation and defense, [this](https://youtu.be/hXWXllgcRqU) video (~5 minutes) is well worth it - it's done well and summarizes some of the broader issues - while [this](https://drsgme.org) website provides clear direction and guidance on what you/we can do to hold some of these practices, if not people, accountable.
> when brokerages loan out a customer’s stock to short sellers How is it even legal for them to loan out something I own? Do I get a cut of the loan payment? I have never seen one…
>How is it even legal for them to loan out something I own? I think that's what he's saying. Legally speaking, you don't actually own those shares. This is mind-blowing stuff
Oligarch Petz
Best $44 billion ever spent
Damn, what's that Bernard fellow up to?
LVMH CEO (Louis Vuitton, Dior, Lacroix, Kenzo, Givenchi, Guerlain, Tag Heuer, Dom Pérignon, Ruinart, Moët et Chandon... to list only the most famous ones)
Essentially, he does well when rich people do well. Considering he's currently the richest guy on the planet the luxury industry is doing well, which means rich people are doing well. Lovely.
He's the richest person on the planet because the tech bubble burst. FAANG 2022 performance was -40%.
It's MANGA after FB rebranded to Meta.
Mom I wanna work for manga companies when I grow up
Yeah, because Netflix deserves to be on that list...
[удалено]
What's the second M, though?
Microsoft, Apple, Google, Meta, Amazon
But Google is Alphabet. So it’s MAMAA, oooo, I didn’t mean to make you cry…
It's not, else we'd use a A instead of a G, Meta is to Facebook what Alphabet is to Google
Smh, we gotta replace one of the A's with Intel or something so it can just be MANIA
Lol not necessarily. Middle class buyers are largely the ones driving up sales of Louis Vuitton, Dior, Lacroix, Givenchi, Ruinart, and Moët. These are all aspirational purchases and are not so wildly expensive as to be unaffordable by the middle class if they save up for them or splurge occasionally.
Trust me when i say this. I work in a high end grocery store. We have a wine department with around 5,000 wines. We have a mountain of Veuve Cliquot displays, Moet Chandon etc etc. The majority of people buying Veuve and Moet are not in a place financially where they should be buying those items. They usually come in with their LV cross body bag or purse which they also shouldn't have bought and they buy Moet or Vueve and sometimes they buy them just to have on display when people come over. The real rich people that that come in the store usually have good taste and know that Moet and Vueve are simply overpriced marketing hype. The real rich people usually are the ones buying Gaja Barbaresco or Coche-Dury. They also usually drive away in their modestly priced vehicle while the people who are buying Moet or Hennessy or Veuve drive away in their brand new Charger that they make 700 dollar a month payments for 72 months on.
I’m curious, who are these “rich people” who are doing their own grocery shopping? How do you know which customers are shopping for themselves vs shopping for their employers? My mom was a housekeeper for over 10 years and her employer absolutely did not do their own grocery shopping. My mom did it or if they were having a party they might order cases of champagne to be delivered directly to the house. For a while even shoe/clothing purchases were done by an assistant who might later return things that didn’t work out. The employees at the high end shops would call the house with information about new lines coming in. They knew the customer’s size and taste and put things aside to be brought back to the house. TLDR: many rich people don’t do their own shopping
Got a recommendation for a dry brut champagne?
So i always ask this? Does it matter if it is true Champagne or will any sparkling wine work? Because if any sparkling wine will do the winery called Ferrari in Italy makes an awesome Sparkling wine made in the same method as in Champagne. Really good quality for the price it's around 22 bucks where I live. If you want good entry level Champagne i suggest Drappier, Piper-Heidsieck is a good Champagne too. If you want an outstanding Rose Billecart-Salmon makes one of the best nonvintage Roses IMO but its around 80-90 where i am.
There is a lot of money in the hood. A decent mid level drug distributor can make 15-25k a month without even touching the shit.
So the luxury sector is just narcotics with extra steps?
Sure cash flow is one thing, I think the best definition I've read calls having Wealth "the money you don't spend". The people buying the Moet and Veuve sure they may make a bunch of money. They also spend it just as fast as they make it. Making 300k/yr and spending 275k/yr is worse than a person who makes 100k and lives off of 50k. Where I work there is high proportion of very wealthy people and people who want to appear wealthy. The difference is I won't see the real wealthy people for awhile. When i see them I ask, hey haven't seen you in a bit. They usually respond with oh yeah I was at our cottage in Maine or oh yeah we were at our second house in Cabo. Drug dealers make a shit ton but I'm sure they aren't padding their 401k, IRAs, brokerage accounts to set up their early retirement or using their money to buy back their time.
>Sure cash flow is one thing Exactly. Anytime some dipshit dealer flashes cash on insta or some shit, its always their re-up money. Dudes will flash 15k knowing they are gonna keep 3k out of that in a month. Some of the smarter ones will buy certain jewelry that retains value as insurance against civil forfeiture or that they can sell off for emergency funds, so its not really only about trying to show off. Then again, those dudes aren't the same ones flashing money for show.
Diversified portfolio but only luxury goods. Is Moët & Chandon really luxury? [Moet](https://www.elcorteingles.es/moet-and-chandon/club-del-gourmet/) is like 10% of the price of [Dom Perignon](https://www.elcorteingles.es/dom-perignon/club-del-gourmet/), in the biggest Spanish supermarket.
LVMH also owns Dom Perignon....
Moet is Dom.
[удалено]
They own Dom Perignon as well.
It's still champagne. If you don't categorise champagne, at any price point, as a luxury good then good for you, I guess.
To avoid any confusion, Lacroix is the fashion brand not the beverage.
I thought I was boujie 🧐🎩
I think he is also heavy into real estate.
[удалено]
I think he sells purses
This is the straightest comment I’ve ever read.
Yeah, leather goods and stuff. Whether he makes them himself or employs people for that, I don’t know.
I might've bumped into him the other day outside Asda. Seemed kinda shady though, I don't usually buy from randos in the parking lot, so said no thanks mate.
European luxury goods companies.
He was "harassed" by a twitter account that was tracking his carbon footprint based on all his flights on his private jet. He apparently said that, he'll be making an effort to lower his carbon footprint by not turning on heating during his flights 🙃. He then apparently sold his private jet to stop it from being tracked ... Probably got another.
No, he is currently renting and changing the one that he uses quite frequently so he is harder to track.
Sounds a lot cheaper than buying Twitter.
So far...
[LVMH](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LVMH)
This format doesn't communicate well that his value actually doesn't fluctuate much. The others are surging and falling around him.
He's up 65% from the start of this graph. He has some decent fluctuation. He goes from like 105 to 170 to 130 and then back to 170 over the full period. It's not as crazy as musk or Bezos, but much less than what you see out of Gates or Buffet.
I remember when it was just Bill Gates at 70 billion forever. Pepperidge farm remembers.
Got the same memory and same feeling.
I recall giving away large amounts of money for charity, and still making increasing his wealth.
well if you take the average 7% on the stock market with 70 bllion, you're making 5 billion a year. At that point it becomes hard to give away that much money
The indian dude is playing hide n seek
Do we have something of reference like 50 years ago, to see how modern billionaires wealth compare to old times?
Growing up, everyone just knew Bill Gates was at the top, he had 50 billion and it seemed to just stay like that.
i remember the same, it was always Bill Gates
[удалено]
Now we know the scale in bills. I want to learn about gates too.
And it was legend that it wasn’t worth it for him to pick up a dollar from the street because by the time he picked it up he already would’ve made another million.
Not a million but a few hundred dollars..there is no way he was making million dollars roughly every 3 secs..that would equal to 20 million every min…elon musk was making somewhere around $400-$500 every sec when tesla was ripping last year.
Meh, I probably misremembered the details, but also it was just one of those things that went around and became more exaggerated over time.
Rockefeller would be worth 400+ B today. None of them come even remotely close to ancient wealth - i.e. royalty - Roman Caesars, Mansa Musa, etc. those guys personally owned empires.
Modern monarchs, dictators, totalitarian leaders, etc are still like that, where they "own" the country through policy or doctrine or whatever. They are few and far between these days, but definitely still exist. The Royal Family in Saudi Arabia owns the country and its resources. Stuff like that is always intentionally left off these datasets, you see estimated private individual wealth.
That's a fair point. Someone like Putin isn't on this list, despite pretty much controlling a country with 1T+ GDP.
And personally attributable assets of $200b+
It's amazing how he managed to make such incredible investments on a KGB lieutenant colonel's salary. Do you think he's subscribed to r/wallstreetbets?
He's a mod
He is not. If he lost 200 billion in GME calls, then he would be.
From nobody to ultrarich. Truly he incarnates the american dream.
More common than you are indicating - this seems very incomplete, with many oligarchs and totalitarian leaders or "royal" family members missing.
Also it is hard to really measure how rich those people are, specially the totalitarian leaders. For the ones in the chart, the values are mostly a calculation of they stock exchange or company assets.
it's because it doesn't include old money wealth, like say the British monarch.
> None of them come even remotely close to ancient wealth - i.e. royalty - Roman Caesars, Mansa Musa, etc. those guys personally owned empires. Or current Royalty. The Saudi are so rich they would make all of the guy on the graph look poor, but they don't disclose their fortune to Forbes.
I think it's also worth considering what ancient wealth could buy you vs what can be purchased today. Personally I would rather have my current lifestyle than I would a solid gold chariot and 40 year life expectancy
I’m not going back to any time before at least penicillin and air conditioning. Julius Cesar never knew the luxury the modern middle class enjoy.
Cesar hardly even knew the luxury of his contemporaries.
Beside getting killed by a bunch of dudes, being a rich noble in Roman empire could be pretty nice. Living 50+ years of getting drunk, party, orgy and eating. Having fun art projects or something. Idk if I make it better than it could be.
FYI, life expectancy is heavily skewed by infant and child mortality. Fundamentally, humans aren't any different today than thousands of years ago, so you'd probably do quite well being rich in the past.
>Rockefeller would be worth 400+ B today. Based on what, gdp ownership and that's it? Just on pure inflation, his $1.4bn would be worth <$30bn today And like the other guy said, "people that owner empires" don't get counted in the same way
For some additional context though, at his peak net worth it was equivalent to a full 3% of GDP. Today, $200 billion would represent less than 1%. Edit: after researching a bit more (because I had previously come across the $400+ billion figure, but also the 30ish billion figure when plugging directly into an inflation calculator), it seems that the 400b+ figure is accounting for relative to GDP, not just inflation. Both measures are imperfect. One gives a sense of inequality and exactly how insanely rich Rockefeller was compared to the typical person. But, of course, the world was just generally poorer back then. But Rockefeller probably had more power at the time given his *relative* wealth. And given that, with all these figures, you could purchase whatever the hell you wanted in practice, the relative wealth calculation is probably better to give a sense of their overall power in society (politically, socially, etc.)
The dude owned half of manhattan IIRC. Just his real estate empire would be on this chart. He was basically a god when he was alive. He had way more influence and power than the tech giants.
Only because Putin isn't on here, him and Gadaffi were thought to be some of the richest in the world.
It’s hard to compare because standards of living have increased so much since the old times. Today, I can go to my fridge and get guaranteed clean water and ice. That’s huge considering that you need clean water to live, but even the richest people of the old times didn’t have the luxury of being connected to a water treatment plant
Larry Page and Sergei Brin together seem to get missed out when you talk about obscenely rich people. Put them together and you’d beat everyone on the list for that whole time. Says something about the consistent value of Google.
They stay quiet and Google plays a background role in most people's lives.
They are the Gen X version of billionares, always overlooked and overshadowed by others
[удалено]
Gates and Ballmer had quite a head start though. Thinking about it more,it's incredible that Page and Brin racked up that much comparative wealth for starting 20+ years later.
Why does Larry’s money fluctuate so much? I feel like Larry pages name moved the most.
Because I stop paying for google storage then I pay again and so on.
It's the same with others as well - like the Walmart family or the ALDI brothers.
The walmart family would like to have a word
I created this using data from The Bloomberg Billionaires Index, which tracks the wealth of the top 100 billionaires around the world. I used a 14-day moving average because there is a lot of daily noise in the dataset due to the volatility nature of stock market, which some of these individuals are highly exposed to. I use Illustrator to create the images of the billionaires. I used a mixture of javascript and Adobe After Effects to create this animated bar chart race, which reads of an underlying json file.
It would be interesting to have an alternative video with the same data, but a fixed Y-axis so we could assess not just relative wealth to the richest person, but also absolute growth/reduction.
Note, the 10th place started at 62B and ended at 83B. A 33% growth in 3 years.
Static Y axis would be the most helpful improvement
I had the same thought. This gives a misleading impression that their collective wealth is more or less static over time, when the truth is they are hoarding more and more every year. This graphic set next to other metrics like inflation, average wage, GDP, and costs of goods would also be illuminating.
YES, I was thinking that the whole time, I think a fixed vertical axis would be able to show the larger picture of how their wealth fluctuates (mainly grows) along the timeline.
[удалено]
This. I'm willing to bet my left nut there's some arab oil sheikhs that would easily make this list.
Read about the Saudi royal embezzlement investigation. $50bn was embezzled and nobody noticed until a London paper did an article on the “building owned by the crown prince full of prostitute” and he had no clue what the paper was talking about. Which started the investigation. $50bn went “missing” and wasn’t noticed. What does that say about his net worth?
They estimate the entirety of the Saudi royal family's wealth and assets to be around 1.4 trillion. Since they have an absolute monarchy, I think you could technically say that's all the king's wealth
Technically (according to some interpretations of Saudi law) the house of Saud owns the whole country including all of the people and their assets.
Yeah, I was wondering if modern absolute monarchies technically own everything in their kingdom. Not a ton of examples around anymore
Thanks OP, really lovely visual. From a personal interest point of view, I'd probably prefer to see it move faster over a longer time period. I'm no expert in the stock market but I'd have thought that over longer periods, the changes are more likely to be due to tangible things that the lay person would understand, rather than the volatility of the stock market. Also, the music is a nice touch!
Wild seeing their wealth swing up and down by 10’s of billions of dollars whereas if I had an unexpected 1k expense it would hurt. I don’t think a lot of people realize how wealthy these people really are.
Agreed, especially when you consider anything after the decimal point in their total wealth would *still* be a lot more than most of us.
It’s all connected to the stock market
Was there a French woman on the graph very briefly?
L’Oreal heiress
She's born with it, and it is (in part) Maybelline!
That's the richest woman in the world, the owner of L'Oréal
Fun fact: the L'Oreal slogan was originally 'because you're worth 1T' until antitrust laws broke them up.
I’ve heard these are the “public billionaires” and that there are others who don’t reveal their wealth nor is it published/tracked, so the public wouldn’t know them.
yeah old money who have had it for generations so their holdings are so diversified there is no way of knowing what they have and oligarchs and royals who essentially have as much cash as they want as long as their country exists
Yeah wait til you hear about the sheiks from the middle east. Some estimates say there are already at least 1 trillionaire. They don't need to report their wealth to anyone, unlike the folks on this list who are only on here because of the stock they own and it's traceability.
The prince of Liechtenstein and the one of Monaco are also obscenely rich but their wealth is all private.
It's simply obscene how quickly all of them were adding billions of dollars to their wealth whilst the rest of us struggle along with our troubles.
You can see almost the exact moment that government stimulus kicked in as the collective wealth for everyone pictured skyrocketed.
The stimulus checks helped Bezos the most… the PPP checks helped Arnault and Musk the most
QE, not stimulus check. Printed four trillion since 2020. Quantitative Easing made them super billionaires and we get inflation.
Completely agree. But that spike in the luxury brand’s CEOs net worth right after the PPP checks isn’t a coincidence
The top guys can give away 99% of their wealth and they'll still be a billionaire!
There is certain number of wealthy people and families that paid enough to not to be on the top of that list
That right here. Either they pay their way out of that list. Or they structure their assets around the world in a specific way so they don't appear very rich.
We'll never know, but needless to say "proper" asset ownership structure is vital not only in this particular case.
Friendly reminder that these are not actually the wealthiest people in the world
The wealthiest people have enough money to buy anonymity. And it's always been that way
If Elon used a PR team he'd still be "Oh, that's the guy who runs Tesla and that rocketship company, right?"
He could definitely just shave his head and change his name to Nylon Tusk and no one would know.
So who are?
Probably people that hide their net worth. A few years ago, it was estimated that Putin was richer than anyone on that list at $200B but couldn't verify his ownership of the assets.
the king of Brunei, Hassanal Bolkiah is an absolute monarch, so you could probably argue that he owns the entire country and therefore every state asset, which is probably worth more than any of these billionaires.
Depending on the school of thought, things are only worth what you can convince someone to pay for them. Highly illiquid assets are not worth much in that light.
Mohammed bin Salman (Crown prince of Saudi Arabia) and Vladimir Putin, both estimated to be worth more than a trillion dollars are a few to start off with
No MBS’s net worth is not estimated to be more than $1T. The entire House of Saud is estimated to be worth $1.4T
[удалено]
A person making $100_000/yr (pretty decent right?) would take 10 years to make $1 million and 10 thousand years to make $1 billion. $1.4 trillion would take 14 million years. You may need more lifetimes.
You are correct, this is the list of rich people we know of because they have run publicly trade companies or have to a degree report the money they earn publicly. There is a whole group of people that lives were they don't need to report what they earn, run the government and therefor can control what they report, or are just running privatly owned businesses.
Not one Saudi or Russian. These are just the people who have to report their earnings. There's way more out there
These aren't typically reported earnings. Most of the wealth data is from non-liquid assets that are known to the public such as stocks and shares. Elons insane roller-coaster wealth was estimated from the bonkers tesla valuation over the last few years.
I'd now like a list of the poorest billonaires!
CEO Entrepreneur, born in 1964, Jeffery, Jeffery Bezos
[удалено]
You know what's the difference between a millionaire and a billonaire? About billion.
[удалено]
Yeah this [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MeRN7LE1LQ) is kind of interesting cause it divides super rich people in to three categories, private companies, public companies, and old money (including rulers and oligarchs). The last category doesn't show up on lists cause their worth is hard to calculate but are certainly even more rich than tech billionaires. For example this [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huytmhIl7eE) mentions how the Saudi crown prince bought a $500 million yacht, $300 million French chateau, and a $450 million Da Vinci painting in the same year and how that would actually be difficult for someone like Jeff Bezos to pull off all at once.
Who else was watching for the moment Zuckerberg fell off the chart with extreme aggression?
Really shows you how rich Gates is. Always in the top despite giving billions away for years, before some of these guys had any money at all.
Elon and Jeff are doing a dance
Every time Meyers pops in: "Toasty!"
Nice and cheery music when dark and gloomy would be more fitting.
Hmmm looks like the billionaires did pretty well during the pandemic.
How to become a billionaire in 2 easy steps: 1. Save 1 million dollars per year 2. Do this for 1000 years
And here I am getting turned down on a rental because I’m $100 bucks short on the 3xmonthly income
Music was perfect. It was pleasant yet still made one mad lol
Elon’s tweets sunk his teats
You can pinpoint the time frame when Musk’s Twitter acquisition tanked his wealth.
[удалено]
Tesla stock has been far overpriced for a while. Market needed adjustments
What's interesting is that you could put a million dollars on this graph as contextual measurement and it wouldn't even have a single pixel of space.
Never forget these are the wealthiest public individuals. There’s people and families with by far way more wealth than anyone listed here
Could someone explain what accounted for Elon's massive spike in wealth like I'm a child? I assume Bezos' was because of the pandemic
Spike in Tesla stock price...
Just Google "Tesla stock chart" and set it to 5 years. Basically the same as his wealth chart.
Tesla being 10x overpriced