10 New Year's Resolution Suggestions
For Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and George Soros
By Alex S. Gabor
Bill Gates is still the richest man in the world according to Forbes. Warren Buffet comes in a tight second. Both men have a combined net worth estimated at around $100 billion and with Buffet announcing that he will donate 85% of his stock holdings to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, it will remain the worlds’ largest foundation in terms of assets for a long time to come. It will have financial resources greater than half of all the sovereign nations in the world.
George Soros, on the other hand is a Hungarian philosopher, philanthropist, and financier, who ranks as the 70th richest man in the world and has contributed more toward political causes in his career that Gates and Buffet combined.
In one year alone Soros donated $26 million to defeat George Bush in the 2004 elections, and over the course of the past two decades helped bring about the fall of communism in over ten different countries. He has done more for the cause of open democracy in his lifetime than Bush has during six years as President of the United States.
While Bill Gates is more widely known as a founder and Chief Software Architect of Microsoft, and Warren Buffet is known as the “Oracle of Omaha”, the long time leader of Berkshire Hathaway, and one of the most savvy investors in the world, George Soros is best known as the “man who broke the Bank of England” when he and his Quantum Fund made a billion dollars in one week shorting the British Pound in the early 1990’s.
The combined talents of these three men, if brought into a collaborative environment could change the course of human destiny for the better should they elect to accept the following new years resolutions for 2007 as their own personal mission’s impossible. This article, or the visions of its’ author, will not however self destruct any time soon.
New Years Resolution One: Resolved, that the three men named in this article, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and George Soros, meet in a convenient location in January of 2007 for the purpose of forming a new collaborative adventure designed to change the course of history for mankind.
Some suggestions for the newly formed organization could be the Free New World Organization, the Organization for Open Organizations, or the New World Peace Organization, whereas the goals of the organization would include world peace, better management of global resources, better humanitarian advances designed to leapfrog advances in the sciences and technology, and better world mental and physical global health.
New Years Resolution Two: Resolved, that the three men herein, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and George Soros, each recruit three other people from the ranks of the richest people in the world to join the Board of Advisors of the new Organization, making the entire Board of Advisors become composed of twelve of the richest people in the world.
Some suggestions for potential recruits include Carlos Slim Helu, Latin America’s richest man, Ingvar Kamprad, founder of Swedish furniture giant IKEA, Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Alsaud, the nephew of the King of Saudi Arabia, Li Ka-shing, Asia’s richest and most influential real estate investor, Lakshmi Mittal, the Indian steel magnate, Bernard Arnault, the French Pope of Fashion, David Thompson, son of Canada’s richest man, Kenneth Thompson, whose Tradeweb subsidiary of Thompson Corporation, handles over $50 trillion in bond trades a year, Roman Abramovich, a Russian college dropout who made billions from Russia’s privatization of the oil and mining sectors, and Oprah Winfrey, Queen of American Media and perhaps the only black female billionaire in the world.
New Years Resolution Three: Resolved, that the new organization using the existing wealth created by the founders and board of advisors, consolidate all their various foundations, assets and income streams under one roof to become the worlds most powerful organization, dwarfing and becoming superior to any other well meaning organization the world has ever seen, including the governments of the G8.
By combining their resources in this way, the new organization and its board of advisors would control in excess of a trillion dollars in assets, giving each individual advisor control, rather than ownership, of an average $83 billion each, far greater than any individual by themselves.
Depending upon the make up of the board, this number would vary, but the general positive synergistic qualities of such an organization far outweigh the complexities of bringing it about.
New Years Resolution Four: Resolved, that the new organization to be composed of twelve of the richest people in the world then take Microsoft, Citibank, Berkshire Hathaway, and their other publicly traded holdings private through leveraged buyouts, saving them billions in legal fees, filing fees, and other costs associated with being public corporations.
Microsoft and Berkshire Hathaway with combined cash on hand in excess of $100 billion could deposit all their money into Citibank, giving Citigroup close to half a trillion dollars in liquid cash, legal lending capacity to lend out more than $6 trillion new dollars, and by becoming a privately held corporation under the auspices of the new organization could then launch a global zero interest mortgage program in conjunction with the next resolution.
Such a lending behemoth could then smash every non correspondent competitor in the mortgage industry and make housing more affordable for every American. Watch out Countrywide and Washington Mutual.
To conclude the leveraged buyouts, the group of twelve would have to harness all their political and economic power to make it legally possible for Citibank to syndicate the loans necessary to make it all happen.
Power which they may not have individually, but as a synergistic economic force, could easily persuade any government, including the United States, to permit them to conduct their affairs in the best interests of the future of humanity.
New Years Resolution Five: Resolved, that the new organization set up a hedge fund which takes advantage of the growing depression in the real estate markets of the United States, Europe, Canada and Britain.
By shorting certain over-valued stocks such as Google, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Countrywide, Washington Mutual, various publicly traded home builders, mortgage related real estate investment trusts, and other housing industry stocks, the hedge fund could and would make billions more in profits which could then be plowed back into zero interest mortgages.
These are loans which would still generate cash flow, but because of the tax exempt nature of the new organization, non interest bearing principal payments coming back to it would not be taxable, and would provide a way for the economies of the four nations experiencing a depression in the real estate markets a softer landing in the long run. It would save the world from global financial collapse.
As part of their political clout, this organization could set up a separate lobbying group to show the benefits of changing the tax laws to repeal the mortgage interest deductions on personal tax returns and replace them with a tax credit for rapid accelerated repayment of debt. This would stimulate the real economy and begin to undo the negative effects of gradual inflation which has caused ever increasing prices over the past 100 years.
New Years Resolution Six: Resolved, that the new organization would then take Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac private in a leveraged buyout, thus ensuring that the five trillion dollars worth of mortgage backed securities sold to foreign investors do not become worthless in the process and prevents China and the rest of Asia from falling into a global depression along with Europe, Britain, Canada and the United States.
China currently has over $1 trillion in cash reserves denominated in dollars and so far this year, because the dollar has continued to fall against the Euro, Yen and other major currencies, China has lost $100 billion in the purchasing power of the dollar.
New Years Resolution Seven: Resolved, that Bill Gates remain the Chairman of the new organization and that all other Foundations which are headed or founded by the other members of the group of twelve consolidate their expenses and operations under this new roof, permitting the new organization to give away at least $100 billion a year in charitable contributions to meet the goals of the organization as stated in the first resolution.
New Years Resolution Eight: Resolved, that the heirs of the group of twelve who make up the Board of Advisors, become and remain, through their nominees or appointed representatives, the managing Board of Directors and Advisors of the new organization.
In this way, control of the wealth will stay within the families and provide succession planning and training to accomplish the long range goals of the organization.
New Years Resolution Nine: Resolved, that the newly formed organization do everything in its’ power to expand the humanities at a faster rate than the growth of scientific and technological discoveries, that it provide at least $10 billion a year to create better global mental and physical health programs, that it disinvest from any corporation or group that invests in or supports, directly or indirectly, any business or enterprise, including government’s, related to war, terrorism, nuclear weaponry, biochemical weapons, or other means which can be used to destroy, contaminate or impact human life on earth, and to support and take any and all legal actions necessary to constructively dismantle the global military industrial financial media complex for the greater good of all mankind.
New Years Resolution Ten: Resolved, that the three men named in this article, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and George Soros, after the newly formed organization is put in place, thereafter immediately hire the author of these resolutions to further implement them.
Have a Happy New Year and may Global Peace be upon the world sooner than later.
Tuesday, December 5, 2006
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
HOW BIG CORPORATIONS TERRORIZE SMALL BUSINESS MEN
HOW BIG CORPORATIONS TERRORIZE SMALL BUSINESS MEN
BY ALEX S. GABOR
For many years before the internet rolled up the global media complex, one could find ads for “How to Form Your Corporation Without a Lawyer for $50” in the back of such magazines as Business Week, Entrepreneur Magazine and Money.
What the book, which cost around $14.95, didn’t tell you was that if you form a corporation and it get’s sued; you cannot represent it in Federal Court without a lawyer who is admitted to practice law before that court.
If you are a genius and you do come up with some innovative ideas that make your products, services and company unique in the marketplace, you are liable to be terrorized if you go up against the lawyers who are behind some of the world’s largest corporations.
Most civil lawsuits are a form of legalized harassment or threat of financial terrorism when it comes to beating someone over the head to get a point across. We’ve all heard that only the lawyers win when the courts are concerned, particularly in family law courts.
Take for example LVMH, a globally dominating corporation that deals in luxury goods, fashion, leather, watches, perfumes, and alcoholic beverages under more than 50 different brand names. How many alcoholics drink Hennessy?
LVMH’s Louis Vuitton unit sued a fledgling company named Haute Diggity Dog over a line of canine products it called “Chewy Vuiton.”
During the first round of their legal battle defending against the behemoth, a federal court ruled in favor of Chewy Vuiton, whose products are decorated with a pattern reminiscently similar to the luxury-goods maker’s famed logo.
Judge James Cacheris wrote this opinion in ruling in favor of the little doggie biscuit maker; “The fact that the real Vuitton name, marks and dress are strong and recognizable makes it unlikely that a parody — particularly one involving a pet chew toy and bed — will be confused with the real product.”
Understand that both sides had to pay retainers for their lawyers, and that the cost of goods in America today has a tremendous amount of price inflation built into the economics of product marketing due to the legal costs of doing business. Naming a product is part of marketing.
You don’t have these kinds of problems in China which recently became the largest market for initial public offerings of stock in the world, beating out the NASDAQ and the London Stock Exchange.
The first round victory was a costly one because the legal fees for Chewy Vuiton added up to more than $200,000. During the process of defending against an unjust goliath it lost distributors and had merchandise sent back as a result of the lawsuit.
But it’s not over because Louis Vuitton says it will appeal. “It’s been a horrible experience,” says one of the five employees at the Las Vegas company, which has less than a million in annual sales. But we had no choice but to fight back, she adds, “because we would have had to go out of business.”
That is usually the intention behind any type of lawsuit brought on by a big corporation whose finances are threatened - to put the defendant out of business, but in this case, the entire action will probably add a few pennies to the cost of a Louis Vuitton purse in the United States if nothing else.
Big companies are the most litigious in protecting their brand names. Last year alone, Louis Vuitton conducted more than 7,000 anti-counterfeiting raids around the world and began more than 15,000 new lawsuits. Those pennies keep adding up so no wonder a leather purse costs around $500 these days.
The ruling in Chewy’s favor surprised trademark lawyers. A change in the U.S. Federal Trademark Dilution Act that went into effect in early October favors companies trying to protect their trademarks, lowering the bar for proving damage. Instead of showing actual dilution of a trademark, the company would have to prove only a “likelihood” this has happened.
“We believe the court’s ruling misinterprets the law, which is designed to protect freedom of speech, not to allow companies like Haute Diggity Dog to make money by exploiting the good name and trademark of Louis Vuitton,” said lawyers for LVMH, which makes a few posh pet products, like leashes and collars for up to $1,600. Are you paying attention Paris Hilton?
It would appear that any tiny threat to LVMH’s $13 billion in global sales in the first three quarters of 2006 and their 60,000 employees worldwide is more important to defeat than dealing with sweatshop labor it probably employs from factory workers around the globe. Its’ stock trades at over $100 per share with a market cap in excess of $50 billion on the Paris stock exchange.
Haute was represented by Bob Mason of Mason & Petruzzi in Dallas, who said, “Sometimes famous marks don’t see the humor that the rest of us see.”
It is very unlikely that the owners and employees of Haute saw anything funny in being terrorized by the legal brutality of a company that sells highly price inflated products to mostly women whose husbands really cannot afford to have their credit cards racked up this Christmas season because they have already tapped out the equity in their home three times over the past decade to stay ahead of the neighbors.
LVMH is controlled by billionaire Bernard Arnault of France, whose family controls the world's largest luxury goods group. His $17 billion worth of stock makes it easy for him to hire big law firms to harass little business men half way around the world with hired legal hands, just to protect his wealth from being encroached upon by some upstart little dog biscuit company.
Last month Arnault announced he was partnering with Belgian billionaire Albert Frere to go on a corporate shopping spree. Arnault, the world's seventh-richest man, said that he and Frere had decided to form a joint investment company, with the objective of providing it with an equity financing capacity of 1 billion euros ($1.3 billion).
Arnault had a bonanza year in 2005. LVMH posted record sales of $16.6 billion and with Christmas around the corner, it looks like he will be able to afford to buy Aston Martin and start acting like an elderly James Bond.
BY ALEX S. GABOR
For many years before the internet rolled up the global media complex, one could find ads for “How to Form Your Corporation Without a Lawyer for $50” in the back of such magazines as Business Week, Entrepreneur Magazine and Money.
What the book, which cost around $14.95, didn’t tell you was that if you form a corporation and it get’s sued; you cannot represent it in Federal Court without a lawyer who is admitted to practice law before that court.
If you are a genius and you do come up with some innovative ideas that make your products, services and company unique in the marketplace, you are liable to be terrorized if you go up against the lawyers who are behind some of the world’s largest corporations.
Most civil lawsuits are a form of legalized harassment or threat of financial terrorism when it comes to beating someone over the head to get a point across. We’ve all heard that only the lawyers win when the courts are concerned, particularly in family law courts.
Take for example LVMH, a globally dominating corporation that deals in luxury goods, fashion, leather, watches, perfumes, and alcoholic beverages under more than 50 different brand names. How many alcoholics drink Hennessy?
LVMH’s Louis Vuitton unit sued a fledgling company named Haute Diggity Dog over a line of canine products it called “Chewy Vuiton.”
During the first round of their legal battle defending against the behemoth, a federal court ruled in favor of Chewy Vuiton, whose products are decorated with a pattern reminiscently similar to the luxury-goods maker’s famed logo.
Judge James Cacheris wrote this opinion in ruling in favor of the little doggie biscuit maker; “The fact that the real Vuitton name, marks and dress are strong and recognizable makes it unlikely that a parody — particularly one involving a pet chew toy and bed — will be confused with the real product.”
Understand that both sides had to pay retainers for their lawyers, and that the cost of goods in America today has a tremendous amount of price inflation built into the economics of product marketing due to the legal costs of doing business. Naming a product is part of marketing.
You don’t have these kinds of problems in China which recently became the largest market for initial public offerings of stock in the world, beating out the NASDAQ and the London Stock Exchange.
The first round victory was a costly one because the legal fees for Chewy Vuiton added up to more than $200,000. During the process of defending against an unjust goliath it lost distributors and had merchandise sent back as a result of the lawsuit.
But it’s not over because Louis Vuitton says it will appeal. “It’s been a horrible experience,” says one of the five employees at the Las Vegas company, which has less than a million in annual sales. But we had no choice but to fight back, she adds, “because we would have had to go out of business.”
That is usually the intention behind any type of lawsuit brought on by a big corporation whose finances are threatened - to put the defendant out of business, but in this case, the entire action will probably add a few pennies to the cost of a Louis Vuitton purse in the United States if nothing else.
Big companies are the most litigious in protecting their brand names. Last year alone, Louis Vuitton conducted more than 7,000 anti-counterfeiting raids around the world and began more than 15,000 new lawsuits. Those pennies keep adding up so no wonder a leather purse costs around $500 these days.
The ruling in Chewy’s favor surprised trademark lawyers. A change in the U.S. Federal Trademark Dilution Act that went into effect in early October favors companies trying to protect their trademarks, lowering the bar for proving damage. Instead of showing actual dilution of a trademark, the company would have to prove only a “likelihood” this has happened.
“We believe the court’s ruling misinterprets the law, which is designed to protect freedom of speech, not to allow companies like Haute Diggity Dog to make money by exploiting the good name and trademark of Louis Vuitton,” said lawyers for LVMH, which makes a few posh pet products, like leashes and collars for up to $1,600. Are you paying attention Paris Hilton?
It would appear that any tiny threat to LVMH’s $13 billion in global sales in the first three quarters of 2006 and their 60,000 employees worldwide is more important to defeat than dealing with sweatshop labor it probably employs from factory workers around the globe. Its’ stock trades at over $100 per share with a market cap in excess of $50 billion on the Paris stock exchange.
Haute was represented by Bob Mason of Mason & Petruzzi in Dallas, who said, “Sometimes famous marks don’t see the humor that the rest of us see.”
It is very unlikely that the owners and employees of Haute saw anything funny in being terrorized by the legal brutality of a company that sells highly price inflated products to mostly women whose husbands really cannot afford to have their credit cards racked up this Christmas season because they have already tapped out the equity in their home three times over the past decade to stay ahead of the neighbors.
LVMH is controlled by billionaire Bernard Arnault of France, whose family controls the world's largest luxury goods group. His $17 billion worth of stock makes it easy for him to hire big law firms to harass little business men half way around the world with hired legal hands, just to protect his wealth from being encroached upon by some upstart little dog biscuit company.
Last month Arnault announced he was partnering with Belgian billionaire Albert Frere to go on a corporate shopping spree. Arnault, the world's seventh-richest man, said that he and Frere had decided to form a joint investment company, with the objective of providing it with an equity financing capacity of 1 billion euros ($1.3 billion).
They are looking at Aston Martin. "It falls within the scope of their investment fund," an anonymous person close to the pair told the Financial Times. Any bid for the luxury car unit would be worth more than 1 billion euros, the newspaper added.
Frere sold his 25% stake in the media giant Bertelsmann back to the German company through his investment vehicle Groupe Bruxelles Lambert last May.
His net worth will be close to $8 billion. Bertelsmann agreed to pay 4.5 billion euros ($5.8 billion) for Frere's stake to avoid a public listing of the firm.
Many upper crust Europeans know him as a workaholic who claims he'll never retire; the 80 year old Baron Frere is a connoisseur of fine wine and already co-owns the Chateau Cheval Blanc vineyard with Arnault.
Many upper crust Europeans know him as a workaholic who claims he'll never retire; the 80 year old Baron Frere is a connoisseur of fine wine and already co-owns the Chateau Cheval Blanc vineyard with Arnault.
Arnault had a bonanza year in 2005. LVMH posted record sales of $16.6 billion and with Christmas around the corner, it looks like he will be able to afford to buy Aston Martin and start acting like an elderly James Bond.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
