doubleplusundead

April 16, 2009

Now this is an interesting question

Forbes has their Billionaire list out and there's some controversy because one of the newcomers is a Mexican drug lord. This raises an interesting point, if the list is to be a listing of the world's billionaires then why should the source of the funds matter at all? If he is a billionaire, then he should be listed. But still, there does seem something a bit odd about including him in that list.

Then again, there's a bunch of Russian tycoons on there and, frankly, I think the drug lord is being way more honest about how he's getting his money.

I do find it fascinating that there's no mention of the fact that there are multiple Waltons on that list yet there's no mention of Wal-Mart in the main article, at least not that I saw. There's some discussion of it in the blurbs under the pictures, but I would think that some indication that Wal-Mart is doing fairly well would be in order.

Posted by: alexthechick at 03:37 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 171 words, total size 1 kb.

I read that but all I got out of it was thoughts of Dita in a giant martini glass.

Where am I now?

Posted by: Moron Pundit at April 16, 2009 03:41 PM (83gRI)

2 When I first heard about that Alex, first thing I was thinking was. . ."how do you gauge his wealth?"

I mean, if he has bank accounts and investments and stuff like that, then we should seize his bank accounts and investments, or is that an estimation based on the (likely inflated) statistics that the Mexican government throws out to make us feel bad for how they can't stop drug trafficking?

Posted by: WickedPinto at April 16, 2009 09:05 PM (uU+Ss)

3 ."how do you gauge his wealth?"

I thought that too, I mean, how the hell would anyone know?

Posted by: alexthechick at April 16, 2009 09:18 PM (TD1lU)

Hide Comments | Add Comment