Mr. Carlos Slim is the world's richest person since 2010, when his fortune was valued by Forbes Magazine at 53.5 billion dollars. In 2011 his fortune was over the 70 billion mark and still growing quickly.
How did he do it? Well, we are finding out, and we'll apply those processes, knowledge and stamina to our daily activities.
Born in 1940, he lives in Mexico City in a modest house, and has lived there for the last 40 years. He is a widower since 1999, and has 3 daughters and 3 sons from his one-time wife. He began investing and running companies in 1965, when he was 25. Today in 2011, at 71 years of age, he is still investing in more than 200 companies throughout the world while at the same time he manages a few of them, particularily those in the areas of mining and real estate; while his telecommunications empire and finance empire is run by his CEOs.
His physical appearance is very much like that of the greatest man on Wall Street, Sanford E. Weill, better known as Sandy Weill. Both have the same way of speaking and addressing an audience, and perhaps of making deals. Both strongly believe in being honest when doing a deal as well as in their long term business relationships, and in their own behavior as buisnessmen in the long run.
On the internet and on You Tube are perhaps the best places to learn more on the great attributes of Mr. Carlos Slim. As for Sandy Weill, there is the very well written biography about him called "Bringing Down the Walls."
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Bolivia Sin Bolsa de Valores
Bolivia no tiene una Bolsa de Valores que funcione. Como dice el muy buen amigo de Allan Greenspan y ex presidente del Banco Central de Bolivia, Juan Antonio Morales, "en Bolivia tenemos una Bolsa de Valores de alacitas"! Es así que Bolivia, como pocos países del continente, se ha quedado sin una "Bolsa de Valores" debido a que desde los años 80, 90, 2000, 2010 y en adelante, los bancos de este país no han permitido que los ciudadanos bolivianos puedan tener otras opciones de invertir su dinero que no sea la caja de ahorros o los DPFs (los depósitos a plazo fijo) que los ciudadanos mantienen en dichos bancos.
El momento que la gente pueda invertir su dinero en empresas nacionales, tanto privadas como estatales, ese momento las empresas bolivianas crecerán de forma exponencial, ya que el dinero de la gente irá directamente a las empresas en las que los ciudadanos decidan inviertir y, por ende estás empresas crecerán astronómicamente y serán competitivas y además le podrán hacer competencia a las empresas de los países vecinos. De esta manera, naturalmente, Bolivia crecerá y progresará muchísimo.
Sin embargo, como se sabe, la banca miope de este país y super millonaria, no desea que la gente invierta su dinero en empresas bolivianas; ya que dejarían a los bancos sin los gigntéscas ganancias que perciben gracias a los ahorros que la gente mantiene en esos bancos.
El momento que la gente pueda invertir su dinero en empresas nacionales, tanto privadas como estatales, ese momento las empresas bolivianas crecerán de forma exponencial, ya que el dinero de la gente irá directamente a las empresas en las que los ciudadanos decidan inviertir y, por ende estás empresas crecerán astronómicamente y serán competitivas y además le podrán hacer competencia a las empresas de los países vecinos. De esta manera, naturalmente, Bolivia crecerá y progresará muchísimo.
Sin embargo, como se sabe, la banca miope de este país y super millonaria, no desea que la gente invierta su dinero en empresas bolivianas; ya que dejarían a los bancos sin los gigntéscas ganancias que perciben gracias a los ahorros que la gente mantiene en esos bancos.
Deficit vs. Debt
Like many Americans, I'm concerned with the state of talks to reduce our government spending. One thing I have found extremely frustrating while researching the steps being taken to address this problem is the inability of the media at large to use the proper terminology. Specifically, I'm concerned with the constant interchanging of debt and deficit as if they were the same thing. This problem exists across written, audio, and video based media forms. The deficit is the negative difference between the national revenue and the national spending. This is an annual figure. The debt is the sum total of all the money owed by the nation. It is the accumulation of all the deficits and surpluses, plus accumulated interest.
First thing, the U.S. does NOT have a $14 trillion dollar deficit! I can't believe how often I have read/heard this. That's almost the entire GDP for 2010. That would mean our government is spending twice what the entire country (not just the government) produces in the year. The reality of our budget is unsustainable, but this is just absurd. The actual deficit is in the neighborhood of $1.5 trillion, while the debt is just above $14 trillion. (More than twice what it was when I took economics in 2003!)
Second, all the plans that are floating around to reduce the national debt will actually do nothing to reduce the debt. In order to reduce the national debt, we would need to cut spending and raise taxes (both are necessary) to a level which is greater than the deficit. The most ambitious plan currently bouncing around Washington plans to cut $4 trillion from the deficit over the next 10 years. Assuming that this plan passes and there is no increase in spending in the next 10 years, that still leaves us with a ~$1.1 trillion dollar annual deficit, or an additional $11 trillion added to the national debt. To really make a difference, we need a minimum of $15 trillion in cuts over the next 10 years. Even that level of cuts would only prevent the debt from increasing too much (there's still interest to be paid). We would need even more drastic cuts to start reducing the debt.
The third thing that is frustrating is the "over the next 10 years" phrase that is used frequently when talking about reduction figures. It is a way of inflating the numbers to make them sound larger than they actually are. The phrase becomes well hidden in articles or lost in retelling when people discuss the economy with others. We should be talking in annual figures so the public is fully aware of the reality and gravity of the situation.
It is important to use the proper terms when reporting the news. As journalists or television/radio personalities you have a responsibility to report the facts. Reporting poorly worded "news" only creates a misinformed public which will make important decisions (like in the voting booth) based on bad information. There are news outlets which understand the proper distinction and even dive down to report the reality of the numbers being tossed around, but those are sadly the exception.
Taken from a blog on deficit on the internet.
Sunday, July 10, 2011.
First thing, the U.S. does NOT have a $14 trillion dollar deficit! I can't believe how often I have read/heard this. That's almost the entire GDP for 2010. That would mean our government is spending twice what the entire country (not just the government) produces in the year. The reality of our budget is unsustainable, but this is just absurd. The actual deficit is in the neighborhood of $1.5 trillion, while the debt is just above $14 trillion. (More than twice what it was when I took economics in 2003!)
Second, all the plans that are floating around to reduce the national debt will actually do nothing to reduce the debt. In order to reduce the national debt, we would need to cut spending and raise taxes (both are necessary) to a level which is greater than the deficit. The most ambitious plan currently bouncing around Washington plans to cut $4 trillion from the deficit over the next 10 years. Assuming that this plan passes and there is no increase in spending in the next 10 years, that still leaves us with a ~$1.1 trillion dollar annual deficit, or an additional $11 trillion added to the national debt. To really make a difference, we need a minimum of $15 trillion in cuts over the next 10 years. Even that level of cuts would only prevent the debt from increasing too much (there's still interest to be paid). We would need even more drastic cuts to start reducing the debt.
The third thing that is frustrating is the "over the next 10 years" phrase that is used frequently when talking about reduction figures. It is a way of inflating the numbers to make them sound larger than they actually are. The phrase becomes well hidden in articles or lost in retelling when people discuss the economy with others. We should be talking in annual figures so the public is fully aware of the reality and gravity of the situation.
It is important to use the proper terms when reporting the news. As journalists or television/radio personalities you have a responsibility to report the facts. Reporting poorly worded "news" only creates a misinformed public which will make important decisions (like in the voting booth) based on bad information. There are news outlets which understand the proper distinction and even dive down to report the reality of the numbers being tossed around, but those are sadly the exception.
Taken from a blog on deficit on the internet.
Sunday, July 10, 2011.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)