Mexico blasts Forbes for putting drug lord on billionaires list
 

.

WAIT LOL?! Forbes allows criminals in their list?! LOL.

Although I don't know the full extent of it, didn't Microsoft break anti-trust laws?

And if they were convicted of such (and I think they were if memory serves me right), wouldn't Mr. Gates be a criminal himself? Then again, one can separate the corporation from CEO...or not. I have no idea. I'm going to make myself a tuna sandwich.

shit he deserves to be on the list if he found a way to make a billion like that.

Pablo Escobar at one point was the number one guy on the list before Bill Gates and all the others came along... the sick part is that these drug lords' wealth is liquid!

haha drug money baby

he was on the list, just never #1

drug-king pins and corrupt chinese officials could probably fill the top 100

yeah wtf china has like thousands of billionaires.

The people that are complaining are stupid.

Being included in the list isn't praising them. It's just reporting a fact.

If they have that money, regardless of how they made it, they should be included as part of the list.

Unless they change the list to be "list of the wealthiest people who's money did not come from crime".

^In which case, about 90% of the list would be voided.

Pablo gained world infamy as a Colombian drug lord and became so wealthy from the drug trade that in 1989 Forbes magazine listed him as the seventh richest man in the world.

Are you daft or just daft?

Forbes is a national BUSINESS magazine. Covering billionaires is not actually covering them for the fact of their money, but the BUSINESS in which they made their money. Would you feel alright if CNN started putting Hell's Angel's activities under "business news" on money.cnn.com? Or how about we start publishing the local weedman's latest deals on canada.com too? These people are raking in large amounts of money, yes, but it has no place in wholesome business publications.

Regardless of how they made it? OKAY there buddy.

Uh, no he doesn't.

Yes. In the 1980s, Pablo Escobar headed up the Medellin Cartel in Colombia and was ranked 3rd richest man in the world.

Mexico got more serious shit to worry about than Forbes listing some drug lord in their magazine. I mean fuck half of their people lived under poverty line with no clean water.

damn thats nuts

Is there supposed to be more than one option there?

Is the list called "The world's wealthiest legitimate businessmen"? No? Then invalid argument.

It doesn't matter whether it's a business magazine or not.

But how can Forbes know of how much money a criminal is actually worth? I mean its not like they are reporting every year lol. An estimated 1 billion is ridiculous. It's like estimating how many fish are in a fucking lake. They have no idea of the depth of his operations. If anything he could be higher or lower on that list. I guess imo its just incredibly inaccurate which degrades the value of these articles.

Yes the legitimacy of the business does matter.

But if the list is simply "The world's wealthiest individuals", why should criminals be excluded?

And maybe some of his money might be from criminal proceeds, but maybe he then took that money and used it in legitimate businesses to make even more money... who knows... maybe only $100M was drug money, but $900M was from legitimate business... should he still be excluded from the list?

- Bill Gates lost $18 billion (Can$22.3 billion) but regained his title as the world's richest man. Warren Buffett, last year's No. 1, saw his fortune decline $25 billion (Can$31.0 billion) as shares of Berkshire Hathaway (nyse: BRK-B) fell nearly 50 per cent in 12 months, but he still managed to slip just one spot to No. 2. Mexican telecom titan Carlos Slim Helú also lost $25 billion (Can$31.0 billion) and dropped one spot to No. 3.

So is there anywhere one can still make a fortune these days? The 38 newcomers offer a few clues. Among the more notable new billionaires are Mexican Joaquín Guzmán Loera, one of the biggest suppliers of cocaine to the U.S. -

By asking, you've picked both.

Yeah, the title isn't "politically correct" but it needn't be. Like I said, how would you feel if money.cnn.com covered Hell's Angel's activities as a legitimate business?

It doesn't matter whether it's a business magazine or not? LOL okay, I'd expect Canucks.com to have two homos spooning, on an article about how gay couples are just as "regular" as straight couples. Let's see how many people complain. Oh wait! :rolleyes: Just because Canucks.com is a SPORTS website doesn't mean they have to publish SPORTS.

PS. It doesn't become an "invalid argument" just because your ignorant closed mind was capable of typing out 15 letters with a space in between.

BECAUSE it's not BUSINESS. Business = paying taxes, employees, playing your part in society.

And the second part of your post = mad fail attempt at trying to weasel some sort of possible and probable way that it COULD possibly maybe be interpreted as business.

Aggressive much? Are you always this insulting to everyone, or do you have a special agenda with me? I didn't know we had any beef.

The examples you provided aren't counter examples at all.

Forbes published a list of the world's billionaires.

It is not a list of the world's businessmen billionaires.

What part of that do you not understand?

The list is a factual document. If you're a billionaire, you get included in the list. If you're not a billionaire, you're not included in the list. It does not MATTER how the money was obtained for the sake of being included in the list.

What if someone on the list just inherited the a billion dollars? He was never a businessman himself. He never earned any of it. Shoud he also not be on the list?

You're the one who's ignorant and closed minded.

But those billionaires earned the right of ownership of those billions. Drug Kingpins have not. If law enforcement was anywhere near adept, their wealth would be stripped.