亿万富翁的困境与公众认知
作为一名记者,我 spent my last 35 years as an anthropologist, embedded with a unique subspecies: Billionarius Maximus(巨富阶层). When I joined Forbes in 1991, there were only 274 billionaires. It was an aspirational club, dreamt of by artists like Bruno Mars. Today, Forbes tracks 3,428 individuals with a net worth of a billion dollars or more. Yet, despite their immense wealth, a striking disconnect exists: nobody likes them. A recent survey by Forbes and Harris X revealed that Americans' views on billionaires are unfavorable, ranking them similarly to members of Congress and barely above TikTok influencers.
Original English
I am a journalist, trained as a journalist, but I spent most of my last 35 years as an anthropologist. I've kind of been embedded with a very unique subspecies. You might know them by their Latin name, Billionarius Maximus. And uh when I got to Forbes out of college in 1991, there were all of 274 billionaires in the world. It was a very aspirational little club. You know, Bruno Mars in his song Billionaire sings of dreaming of being on the cover of Forbes magazine, standing next to Oprah and the Queen. Well, you know, fast forward, if we did that cover now, it would be very crowded. Forbes tracks 3,428 people we believe have a net worth right now of a billion dollars or more. And they all have one thing in common. Who wants to know the secret uh of every billionaire right now in the world, which is nobody likes them. Uh Forbes and Harris X, we conducted a survey a couple weeks ago, 1,009 Americans. The results are not good. Uh trial lawyers are kicking billionaires' ass. They are tied with members of Congress. They are barely beating TikTok influencers.
亿万富翁的经济驱动力
However, this public disdain masks a critical truth: the world desperately needs billionaires. Countries with billionaires tend to possess the hallmarks of progress: jobs, growth, and societal advancement. Consider China: at the turn of the century, it had virtually no billionaires on the Forbes list and nearly 500 million people in extreme poverty. Two decades later, the situation is reversed, with almost 500 Chinese billionaires and no one living in extreme poverty – a correlation that is not coincidental. Similarly, Nigeria, despite its large population, has only four billionaires, yet 100 million people live in extreme poverty. The absence of billionaires in countries like Cuba, Iran, and Belarus further illustrates a historical pattern: incentive creates personal wealth and societal wealth. When you cap earnings, that correlate with repression and stagnation.
Original English
But there's a disconnect going on right now because the world needs billionaires. The world desperately needs billionaires. If you look at countries that have billionaires, they tend to have all the things that we all love, progress, jobs, growth. Let's go to China. At the beginning of this century, there were no Chinese billionaires on the Forbes list, and almost 500 million people living in extreme poverty. Fast forward 20 years, it's almost the opposite. Almost 500 Chinese billionaires and no one living in extreme poverty. That is not a coincidence. If you go to Nigeria, one of the largest countries in the world by population, only four billionaires, but 100 million people live in extreme poverty. There are no billionaires in Cuba. There are no billionaires in Iran. There are no billionaires in in Belarus. History shows that incentive creates personal wealth and societal wealth. When you cap earnings, that correlate with repression and stagnation.
财富差距与商业的终极目标
So, why all the hate? A significant factor is wealth disparity. With SpaceX reportedly going public soon, Elon Musk may become the world's first trillionaire. While this figure is staggering – a million million – it's crucial to note that Elon's wealth, adjusted for GDP, is not vastly greater than that of John D. Rockefeller when he became the world's first billionaire a century ago. Rockefeller, an OG monopolist, was highly respected by the end of his life due to his significant philanthropic work, as was Andrew Carnegie. People generally aspire to become billionaires, not resent them. Resentment arises when billionaires forget that the fundamental purpose of business is to create happiness, not merely to die with the most toys.
Original English
So, why all the hate? Why all the hate? Wealth disparity is some of it. In a few weeks, if [snorts] SpaceX goes public as scheduled, Forbes believes that at that moment, Elon Musk will become the world's first trillionaire. That's a million million. But here's the deal. Elon is no richer not much richer at least com- when you measure by GDP as John D. Rockefeller when he became the world's first billionaire 100 years ago. John D. Rockefeller, he was an OG monopolist. But by the end of his life doing lots of good works, he was highly respected. Andrew Carnegie, even more so. People don't resent billionaires. People want to become billionaires. People resent billionaires when they forget that the purpose of business is to create happiness, not who dies with the most toys.
慈善赤字与“真实净资产”的诞生
This brings us to the critical philanthropy deficit. Currently, the world's five richest people, all Americans with net worths exceeding $200 million, collectively donate less than 1% of their net worth to charity (0.9%). This starkly contrasts with the average American – a teacher or fireman – who gives around 2% of their income. This gap is a primary driver of societal discontent, the very reason for the "pitchforks." Fortunately, this is an addressable issue, one that can be influenced by tapping into a powerful motivator for many billionaires: their egos. The allure of Forbes lists and rankings is undeniable. From the "Trump rule" of wealth estimation to Prince Alwaleed's stock manipulations, Kylie Jenner's alleged inflated company numbers, and Kanye West's demands regarding his perceived wealth, the desire for status is a potent force. Inspired by these dynamics, we've created True Net Worth(真实净资产), a new metric designed to reward rather than penalize.
Original English
[applause] >> So, here's the here's the scorecard. Right now, here are the five richest people in the world, all Americans, all with a net worth north of 200 million dollars. Forbes tracks pretty much every billionaire in terms of how much they give to charity, how much winds up end result goes into charity. Right now, these five collectively, compared to their net worth, less than 1% of their net worth has been donated to charity, 0.9%. Compare that with the average American, teacher, fireman, gives 2% of his or her income to charity. That gap, as somebody who loves entrepreneurial capitalism and defends entrepreneurial capital capitalism, bothers me. That gap is why there are pitchforks. But that gap is something we can address and we can address by leaning into the final decision-maker that a lot of billionaires have when they decide if they're going to be philanthropic or not, which is their egos. It turns out that a lot of people care about where they are on various Forbes lists. In fact, in 1982, the very first Forbes 400, we had one tycoon who helped us create an immutable law of wealth tracking, the Trump rule. Take what the Donald tells you, divide by three, and refine from there. Saudi Arabia's Prince Alwaleed created an entire public company basically to get higher on the Forbes list. Every year before the Forbes issue came out, the Billionaires issue, he would buy up his own stock, pump up his own stock, and after it came out, he would sell it. Look, it's like a 10-digit cardiogram there. Kylie Jenner Steen gave us what we believe are bogus numbers about her company to get onto the Forbes Billionaires list, and she's not even the thirstiest member of the Kardashian family. During COVID, Kanye West called me maybe every other day. We talked about an hour at a time, mostly about how he thinks he was richer than we said he was. When we respectfully disagreed, he respectfully responded by tweeting my cell phone to 30 million followers on Twitter. That was a tough day. I was >> [laughter] >> But Kanye inspired an idea. Why can't we lean into this strange leverage we have over some people? Why can't we create a list that rewards people for donating to charity versus penalize them by taking further down on the Forbes list? >> [applause] >> So, we created something called True Net Worth, and we're going to debut it right here. >> [applause and cheering] >> True Net Worth is your regular net worth combined with the money you've donated that we appreciate like you still own it. >> [applause]
财富榜样与慷慨的意义
True Net Worth combines a person's regular net worth with their charitable donations, recognizing this giving as if they still "own" it. This system offers a new way to measure impact. For instance, Warren Buffett, a true pioneer, has already given away more in today's dollars than he still possesses. He has pledged 99% of his remaining wealth to charity, with the stipulation that it must be spent within 10 years of his death, rather than sitting in a foundation for decades. Another prominent example is MacKenzie Scott, who is distributing wealth faster, smarter, and with no strings attached, more than almost anyone in history. While she ranks 84th by net worth, she is 26th by True Net Worth. This demonstrates that people don't value what you can't measure. True Net Worth offers role models for everyone, from billionaires to millionaires to thousandaires. The message is clear: "Give while you live. Give faster and bigger, perhaps more than you are comfortable with. Donate your money or your time. Ultimately, all of this supports the system that makes all of us prosperous."
Original English
Here are a refresher, here are the top five in the world. Here are the top five by True Net Worth. >> [applause] >> Look at my friend Look at my friend Warren Buffett. He's already given more away in today's dollars than he still has. He's pledged 99% of what's left to charity, and he's stipulated that all that money has to be spent down within 10 years of his death as opposed to just sitting in a foundation gathering interest for years. That >> [applause] >> That's true That's true net worth. Now, let's look at the biggest movers on this list. >> [cheering] [applause] >> MacKenzie Scott is giving away money faster, smarter, no strings attached than pretty much anyone in history. She's the 84th richest person in the world by net worth, she's 26 by True Net Worth. >> [applause] >> People don't value what you can't measure. True Net Worth offers role models for billionaires, for millionaires, for thousandaires. Give while you live. Give faster and bigger maybe than you're comfortable with. Give your money or your time. But what all of it does is support the system that makes all of us prosperous. Thank you. >> [applause]
📌 文中提及的人物和组织
产品/模型: True Net Worth