Bill Gates may have lost the "wealthiest man" title

[OzzyKP]

I for one welcome our new Mexican overlord.

[alva]

* starts holding a collection *

Save the Bill's status!!!

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
What happened to Ingvar Kamprad?

He was anagrammed to death on the steps of Uppsala Cathedral.

[Dinner]

Gates' net worth moves up and down with Microsoft's stock. Back around 1999, before the tech crash, Gates supposedly was worth $90 billion. Between charitable donations, decreases in stock value, and just spending money he's down to $59 billion.

I'm kind of surprised a Mexican hasn't won the title of world's richest before. Economically it is tied to the US and Canada so there are lots of chances for big business to make money and the tax rates in Mexico are by far the lowest in the hemisphere. Even Haiti taxes people higher then Mexico so rich Mexicans stay rich without ever actually have to help pay for education or building infrastructure for their country.

[Lancer]

Any news on why they call him 'slim'?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Lancer
Any news on why they call him 'slim'?

The Zapatistas have introduced Text-Mex Saving Time.


It should of course read 'Carlos Slimey Fatb@stard Capitalist Running Dog Yanqui Arselicker'.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Mexico is the worst example - single worst - of a country under capitalism. The rich-poor divide is incredible, and they don't have the excuse of some countries in Africa and such that are underdeveloped and tried to industrialize too fast. Mexico has the ability to be a first world (or at least second world) nation, they just don't give a $#@#.

I don't know, Brazil could have a claim to that.

[Dinner]

Brazil and Mexico both have similar problems but big business in Mexico really is part of North America with North American sized profits and stock valuations. The poor are locked out of that due to lack of education, lack of connections, and just shear poverty. Mexico does really have two societies living in one country. The rich are unbelievably rich and control government and the economy while the poor don't even get a basic education, running water, or even paved roads. The government really should be taxing the rich more so that they can pave roads and provide education to all children as that's how the country is going to move from 3rd world to 1st world.

The problem is the guys in charge don't want to pay so you end up with 2/3 to 3/4 of the population have almost no options while the top 10% have every option in the world. This is true every where but you figure the government should provide minimal services to the poor like paving roads, paying for kids to be educated through high school, and some sort of minimal poverty relief programs a la the New Deal. Without them you end up with organized crime and periodic rebellions like the Zapatistas.

[snoopy369]

I wonder how much of this problem stems from how Mexico was settled - Spanish imperialists, and then briefly French imperialists, who treated the native inhabitants as subhuman barbarians. Obviously not that different from the rest of south america...

However, Mexico has a much higher population of natives - either true natives, such as in Guadalajara, or the large body of mixed breed mestizos. 60% of Mexicans are mestizo, and that wealthy 10% are the 10% who are white (spanish), pretty much. And those 10% are in power. I think in most of the rest of Latin America, you either have a higher non-native population, or a lower white population... or else the revolutions changed things for the nonwhites.

The way I see it, Mexico's revolution did nothing other than empowering the local Spanish population, as well. Their much higher 'white' population means they have more power than in most South American nations... and still have much of the attitude of their ancestors centuries ago towards the non-white Mexicans.

[Barnabas]

The latin american independence wars were wars of spaniards (the local elite) versus spaniards from spain, not wars of natives or mestizos vs spaniards from spain.

Altough this is a simplification (Mexico has had native american presidents) it is largely true that in many latin american countries the white minority of spanish origin rules the country.

[Barnabas]

By the way, in mexico the indians are quite despised, but the spaniards are absolutely hated (cortez is ansolutely completely hated, while aztecs are seen in a heroic way)

they see themselves as something completely new, neither native american nor spanish, and they believe or try to believe in a myth that they are all "mestizos" even if you look like a european or if you look like a native american.

But in spite of this there is still racism.
Also, racism is to a large degree cultural, a native american who speaks a antive american language and is a poor peasant is definitely a native american, but a westernied one who only speaks spanish will probably be seen as mestizo.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Saras
May I bring forth a theory that a profit driven investment by B.Gates of money he spent on charity would have benefitted more people in more aggregate dollars than charity?

Undoubtly. Charity is most likely going to be consumed very quickly, not saved and reinvested. The point, I think, of charity is simply distribution of wealth for immediate consumption.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Barnabas
Altough this is a simplification (Mexico has had native american presidents) it is largely true that in many latin american countries the white minority of spanish origin rules the country.

Do you think this is good or bad?

[Barnabas]

Bad

[VetLegion]

Why?