 |
Money money money money Call Him "Rick," Not "Rich"By Rick Horowitz The numbers are in, and now the questions start. I don't mind the questions. In fact, I welcome them. These particular numbers come from Forbes magazine, which has once again decided to tell the world exactly who has got, and who has not: It's the magazine's annual ranking of America's 400 wealthiest people. I'm sure it makes totally compelling reading, and the very next time I find myself turning into mulch in some doctor's waiting room, I intend to let myself be totally compelled. For the moment, though, I'm partially compelled just reading the highlights in the newspapers. A fellow named Bill Gates from some company called Microsoft seems to be hanging onto the No. 1 spot for the seventh year in a row, the stories say, with an estimated worth of $63 billion. But hanging on is all he's doing; last year, Gates was worth $85 billion. Meanwhile, another fellow named Larry Ellison, from another little company called Oracle, is nipping at Gates' loafers; Ellison's worth quadrupled in the past year to $58 billion, a mere five bill behind Bill. The rest of the list includes lots of the usual suspects, plus a few hot new faces. (Martha Stewart, for instance, at No. 274, and wrestling promoter(!) Vince McMahon at No. 260.) Three out of every four people on the list are worth at least a billion, and it takes $725 million -- a hundred million more than it did last year -- just to make No. 400. Those are some of the numbers. And the questions? They'll be arriving any day now. "Dear Rick," some of you will say, "I noticed you didn't make the Forbes list." Or from those of you out there with a finely tuned sense of history: "I noticed you didn't make the Forbes list again." Absolutely true. Search it high, search it low -- you won't find me there. I think you deserve an explanation. Here it is: I like it that way. And I planned it that way. Yes indeed: Through astute management of my vast and far-flung holdings, including (when market conditions warrant) perfectly timed pruning of my deep and highly diversified portfolio, I have contrived for yet another year to keep my name out of the Forbes rankings. It wasn't easy, I'll admit it -- not with an economy as hyper-cyber-charged as this one is. A moment's inattention or a single wrong decision, and I'd have been splashed across those glossy pages, the same as all the other high-flyers. Gliding just below the radar, on the other hand -- keeping myself barely on the quiet side of $725 million -- took a single-mindedness of purpose that many dream about, but few can achieve. I'm proud to say I was up to the task. Who needs it? That's how I look at it. Who needs the attention -- or for that matter, the tension -- that comes with the rankings? There's Bill Gates, for instance, sitting there with his $63 billion; according to the stories, that's more than the annual economic output of Peru! But can he enjoy being bigger than Peru when he can't even be sure he'll stay bigger than Larry Ellison? No way. Once you're on the list, you've got to defend your position. You're always hearing footsteps. You're always looking over your shoulder. Drop a notch or two and you're a loser. But if you're not on the list in the first place, you never have to worry about that kind of thing. And -- here's the other problem -- you can be a loser even before you drop a notch or two. Sure, Bill Gates is worth $63 billion, but is anybody thinking $63 billion is a ton of money? Nope. All anybody's talking about is how Bill Gates used to be worth $85 billion, how he's down $22 billion in just one year. Nobody has ever said that about me. And -- I promise you this -- nobody ever will. Posted 9/26/00. No
losers here -- get your money's worth at "Rick's" twice every week!
|
  |
Rick Horowitz