Forum Thread

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg now richer than the Koch brothers

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 9 Posts
  • Schmidt
    2016-01-28 05:34:55 PM
    Not Logged In
    Liberal Democrat
    Schmidt
    5.7k
    27
    57
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    msn: Facebook's Zuckerberg is now richer than the Koch brothers

    "The Facebook founder saw his fortune rise by $5.5 billion in early trading Thursday as the world’s biggest social network delivered another quarter of record revenue. That gives the 31-year-old a net worth of about $47 billion, enough to surpass the $45.3 billion holdings of brothers Charles and David Koch, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index."

    Born in 1984, Zuckerberg is 31 years old. His salary is $1.00 per year.

    According to Wikipedia: "In December 2012, Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan announced they would give the majority of their wealth over the course of their lives to "advancing human potential and promoting equality" in the spirit of The Giving Pledge. On December 1, 2015, they announced they would give 99% of their Facebook shares (worth about $45 billion at the time) to the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative."

    I wonder how Zuckerberg fits into the Bernie Sanders stereotype of the hated "millionaires and billionaires" that he castigates in every stump speech.

  • lonely bird
    2016-01-28 06:19:00 PM
    Not Logged In
    lonely bird
    1k
    0
    8
    Independent
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    I have no use for zuckerberg nor any other philanthro-capitalist. Facebook produces nothing, undermines inter-personal relations by taking away the nuance of body language and face-to-face conversation. Of course the Internet does that as well since this and other boards are examples of that.

    As a further example of philanthro-capitalists the gates foundation sticks its nose in education supporting charter schools and the whole hoax of the market "solving" the education problem when the market can't even solve its own problems.

  • Dutch
    2016-01-29 08:24:10 AM
    Not Logged In
    Dutch
    9.3k
    1
    31
    Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    lonely bird Wrote:

    I have no use for zuckerberg nor any other philanthro-capitalist. Facebook produces nothing, undermines inter-personal relations by taking away the nuance of body language and face-to-face conversation. Of course the Internet does that as well since this and other boards are examples of that.

    As a further example of philanthro-capitalists the gates foundation sticks its nose in education supporting charter schools and the whole hoax of the market "solving" the education problem when the market can't even solve its own problems.

    Yes Lonely, I wrote before about Bill Gates and his money sqandering in Africa; all nice gestures but seldom produce changes in any of those countries; i.e. if the money stops, then any such area will go right back to what it was.
  • Schmidt
    2016-01-29 09:59:24 AM
    Not Logged In
    Liberal Democrat
    Schmidt
    5.7k
    27
    57
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    The point of posting the Zuckerberg article was that there are lots of very rich people that share much of their wealth with those less fortunate. Most all of them are self made millionaires or billionaires as opposed to those who inherited family wealth.

    We can mock them and ridicule them anyway, just because they are rich...the professional athletes, rock stars, inventers, actors, computer geniuses, or just the Joe Blow who happened to win the lottery on his 1000th try. None of them had anything to do with the lobbyists who helped craft the tax legislation that drives economic inequality. Yet we condemn them and stereotype them without knowing much about them personally.

  • Chet Ruminski
    2016-01-29 10:50:12 AM
    Not Logged In
    Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Chet Ruminski
    3.8k
    0
    4
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    lonely bird Wrote:

    I have no use for zuckerberg nor any other philanthro-capitalist. Facebook produces nothing, undermines inter-personal relations by taking away the nuance of body language and face-to-face conversation. Of course the Internet does that as well since this and other boards are examples of that.

    As a further example of philanthro-capitalists the gates foundation sticks its nose in education supporting charter schools and the whole hoax of the market "solving" the education problem when the market can't even solve its own problems.

    Generating an income without producing a product or service. Facebook serves a purpose but not in the proportion to 45 Billion Dollars. But the OP illustrates the confusion perpetrated between wealth and worth. Does the end justify the means? Does 45 Billion dollars create success or would 900000 (nine hundred thousand) jobs represent success. The bottom line is that wealth is a zero sum concept. When a few people have all the wealth a lot of people have no wealth. Bernie opposes a system that abuses wealth. I can assure you that if hedge funds used factories as collateral Bernie would be a supporter of hedge fund managers. Bernie's problem is not wealth but the means to acquire wealth. Hedge funds operate on fees. In order to generate millions of dollars through fees billions and trillions have to be under control. The end result is money stagnation, high unemployment and increasing poverty. The evil is money stagnation and not the people that want to make money work. Money velocity is a known, studied and valuable tool. Money now has low velocity. It is stagnant. Companies are accused of going overseas to cut costs. The other side of that is that companies have to complete with the shrunken and shrinking supply of money. Bernies socialism is simply to resocialize money. He wants money to increase in velocity. In other words he wants fees collected from money to be from money invested in factories and not hedge fund accounts. Whatever his name was (I think my mind had automatically banned it) that was head of the Fed and said he didn't understand derivatives he should be cross examined about that statement. He can claim ignorance by not understanding the accounting that derivatives use to produce a profit, but he can't claim ignorance to the fact that derivatives use a bubble to create a profit. A bubble because derivatives aren't secured by income producing companies. Derivatives are secured 401ks, pension funds, retirement funds, mutual funds and in other words subscription funds that exist because of fees, not income producing sources.
  • Chet Ruminski
    2016-01-29 11:34:06 AM
    Not Logged In
    Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Chet Ruminski
    3.8k
    0
    4
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    The point of posting the Zuckerberg article was that there are lots of very rich people that share much of their wealth with those less fortunate. Most all of them are self made millionaires or billionaires as opposed to those who inherited family wealth.

    We can mock them and ridicule them anyway, just because they are rich...the professional athletes, rock stars, inventers, actors, computer geniuses, or just the Joe Blow who happened to win the lottery on his 1000th try. None of them had anything to do with the lobbyists who helped craft the tax legislation that drives economic inequality. Yet we condemn them and stereotype them without knowing much about them personally.

    Schmidt, You are using an argument of diversion. I am sure that not all the Russian Bourgeois were tyrannical. That is not the point. The result of a system that distorts value for profit is the culprit. All those people that you described took advantage of a system that defines monetary reward through precedence. Value is initially determined for a transaction and for simplicity that determination becomes precedence. eg lawyers fees. There is nothing represented by a percentage of an award other than that is how the very first fees were determined. All the instances you described of self made millionaires are simply cases of people utilizing a traditional fee generating system. IPOs are based on distortion and luck. The haves will always be challenged by the have nots even tho in many cases the position of the haves was artificially generated. I made an earlier post analogizing the use of money to a person damming a stream preventing use further downstream. The money steam in this country is being adversely manipulated. The last snow storm was blamed for a number of deaths. Do you think the widened income gap is responsible for deaths? The animosity is growing.
  • TJ
    2016-01-30 12:15:41 PM
    Not Logged In
    Center Left
    TJ
    4.2k
    0
    2
    Independent
    Central, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    lonely,

    You speak very negatively about facebook. I agree many people have issues but it doesn't have to be all bad. After refusing to join for a long time.... I recently did. I don't get fully involved but I see photos shown by my kids and friends, I see general things that are interesting. I never post things and I don't get overly involved. Just saying that nothing is all this or all that.

    Bad charity is no charity. Even the mega wealthy learn what does and does not work. I'm so glad they are trying.

    Charitable activity is very good in my opinion. It's addressed in another thread.

  • Schmidt
    2016-01-30 06:31:50 PM
    Not Logged In
    Liberal Democrat
    Schmidt
    5.7k
    27
    57
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: IPOs are based on distortion and luck. The haves will always be challenged by the have nots even tho in many cases the position of the haves was artificially generated.

    From Wikipedia:

    The social networking company Facebook held its initial public offering (IPO) on Friday, May 18, 2012. The IPO was the biggest in technology and one of the biggest in Internet history, with a peak market capitalization of over $104 billion. Media pundits called it a "cultural touchstone." You know the rest of the story. The company employs 12,900 people.

    Facebook may be the exception to the norm. I will agree that IPOs generally underperform in the first few years. So did Facebook. But once the company is established with investment returns from its new capital from its IPO, they become like any other company.

    Having said that if you are not a knowledgeable investor, CDs give peace of mind, but low returns.

  • Chet Ruminski
    2016-02-06 09:07:24 AM
    Not Logged In
    Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Chet Ruminski
    3.8k
    0
    4
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I remember Mark Zuckerberg abusing social media by embarrassing a girlfriend. And this is how he was characterized in the movie : "You are probably going to be a very successful computer person. But you're going to go through life thinking that girls don't like you because you're a nerd. And I want you to know, from the bottom of my heart, that that won't be true. It'll be because you're an asshole."
Reply to ThreadDisplaying 9 Posts