It's fucking ridiculous how closed minded you are about this being a BUSINESS magazine.

Just because it's a BUSINESS magazine doesn't mean every single freaking detail in all of its articles need to be 100% business related.

They must have made a mistake on their website because they have dedicated sections for stuff like health, sports, style, and food.

And I GUARANTEE you many of the articles are not actually business articles.

http://www.forbes.com/lifestyle/health/
http://www.forbes.com/lifestyle/sports/
http://www.forbes.com/lifestyle/wine/
http://www.forbes.com/lifestyle/style/

You and most others who are making a big deal out of this seem to be under this false impression that being included in the list is a special honour or accolade, or that each person was hand-picked by Forbes.

IT'S NOT.

It's a factual list. Period.

This argument just isn't relevant to why they should or should not be included in the list.

Because they're not legally entitled to the wealth they possess. That very much is the relevance.

Are you sure about that?

Are you sure that he doesn't actually have a billion dollars that he is legally entitled to?

I don't know the answer to that, but my assumption is that if he was included in the list, the figure associated with him is the acual amount of money he DOES have legal entitlement to, not just some random figure of how much worth of drugs he has or whatever.

Of course I'm not sure. I am neither an associate of the "El Chapo" nor am I Mexican and am aware of their local society. But the President of Mexico and Mexico's Attorney General sure are.

How not? Last time I checked, drug dealing is a business which involves many transactions and profit, losses and so on.

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k9...y/facepalm.jpg

Maybe listen to a little less T.I., a little less Ricky Ross there guy.

Uh, yeah they have other sections to their magazine. However, the "Billionaires" portion is under BUSINESS. I'm sure you know that already since you've browsed the site so much, so I don't really know why you're bringing in the "lifestyles" section of the site on it.

And no, it's not a big deal, honour or accolade. It IS publicity however, AND a bad influence to be publishing drug traffickers as "successful businessmen".

Yep, I've got a special agenda for online keyboard warriors. How did you guess?

How was my example not relevant? Why are drug lords not on the front page of money.cnn.com? Some organizations make much more than some of the small fry corporations out there, especially nowadays. Yet, like I said, I don't see Hell's Angel's, MS-13, or whatever else gang on the front of the finance section in the paper.

Inheriting is legal. Drug trafficking is not.
(I actually deconstruct your crappy examples instead of just saying "NO ITS NOT TRUE!")

You'd better start writing editorials in to the Vancouver Sun telling them that they're missing out on some crazy business going down on the street corners at 4am then...

So does that mean every single detail in every article under the business section have to be 100% related to "legitimate business"? The article is under business because it relates to money. It's about how much money certain individuals have. It does not discuss how these individuals obtained the money.

Who said anything about successful businessmen? Nowhere in the article does it describe those listed as businessmen. They are described as "people" or "billionaires". Is that drug guy a person and a billionaire? Yes.

Once again, it is just a FACT. Can you get that through your thick skulled head? Sure, you can consider it "publicity", but it's not like he's being featured, is he? He is just one out of hundreds of names there. Bad influence? Yeah, I'm sure all the little kids reading Forbes is going to be a bad-ass drug dealer instead of the hundreds of successful business people also on that list. Give me a break.

You're the one being the biggest keyboard warrior, guy.

Is this guy featured on the front page of Forbes? No. He is just one of hundreds of names on a LIST for an article about who the world's billionaires are.[/quote]

WHO THE FUCK CARES. Do you see any qualification rules that says any person included in the list must have made all of their money through legitimate business?

NO.

THE LIST INCLUDES ALL OF THE WORLD'S BILLIONAIRES.

Is that guy a billionaire?

Yes.

END OF DISCUSSION.

how about the rothschilds?

where are THEY on the list?

lol, anger much?

get a room ladies

care to join us?

jesus. I just posted 2 post's up that it was 7.

They are until they're convicted.

LoL, nope.

And that's the only retort you have left? LoL, okay.

This is the same guy that had like 200 million USD stacked on a pallet that was confiscated by the authorities. The pictures circulated the net a while back.

what a silly argument.
wealth and immorality go together like peanut butter and jelly.
i'm sure a good number of the people on that list committed some form of unscrupulous act to get where they are. some more elusive than others. in the big picture, what's the difference? you don't get on that list by helping others

Agreed...this billionaire drug dealer is no different then the other billionaires commiting white collar crimes.

He's ranked 700 on the list...I bet you half of the 699 on the list has attain their wealth by illegal means.

These jealous haters trying to discredit El Chapo achievements are naive in believing the rich and politicans are good people.

well, i did use the word immoral rather than illegal. as time passes, and wealth amasses, those two words grow further and further apart

You dont have to listen to shitty rap music to know that its a business. What else is it? Selling lemonade? This man made possibly a BILLION from his business. Within what he does, there are many risks and its amazing to see that he's still alive with that much money made. HA's, I.S. and all them are not in the business page of the newspaper because they're small time compared to this guy. Many of them make millions, but we're talking billions here.

I don't think that's Chun's point. Making the list is a matter of misappropriation of recognition.

Are you saying a win is a win regardless of how it's achieved? MLB is having the same kind of dilemma (regarding steroid use).

Only in RS eh? :rolleyes:

That's right. Let the inadequacies of law compromise your given intellect and sound-judgement. If any. I mean, it's not like I'm taking the word of hear-say reputation here, it's just the words of people of stature such as the President of Mexico or it's Attorney General

Does the MLB have a rule saying that steroid is banned? Yes.

Does Forbes list have a rule saying that the money had to have been made legitimately? No.

But again, that's not exactly a very good counter example.

When you think of Fobres..

drug dealing doesnt come to mind.

It should come as a surprise..and personally i dont think illegit stuff should be included into Forbes list.

EIther way someone else brought up a good point, it's not like drug dealers publically annouced their earnings and claim their business and file taxes, therefore how are we ever gonna know how much they actually made.

I'd assume it's just an rough estimation

It is just another name on a list of hundreds of names. It's only these people who KNOW he's a drug dealer to begin with that's causing the ruckus. It's not like Forbes mentions in the article anywhere that his fortune was made from dealing drugs.

I'm assuming it is NOT a rough estimation. My guess is that he may have made most of his money through drug dealing, but the reported amount of his net worth is based on the amount of money that he has either washed or otherwise made legitimately WITH the money that the got through drug dealing.