Top ten richest people under 32

10. Arash Ferdowsi, 26 – Net worth: $400 million in 2007 Drew Houston and Arash Ferdowsi founded Dropbox, an installable program that lets users save files online and access it from any computer they are using as long as that PC has Dropbox installed and they can log into their account. The two former MIT students were tired of emailing files to themselves in order to work from more than one computer. Ferdowsi dropped out of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 2007 after three years at the school. He's currently the company's Chief Technology Officer. Today, more than 300 million people across every continent use Dropbox to always have their stuff at hand, share with family and friends, and work on team projects. We're looking for more great people to join us, so if you're excited to help simplify life for millions of people. _______________________________________________________________________ 9. Drew Houston, 29 - Net wroth: $1,6 billion Drew Houston is an American Internet entrepreneur who is best known for being the co founder and CEO of Dropbox. Just last June 2013 MIT invited Houston to speak at their graduation ceremony. During his speech he praised Ferdowsi working with him and pushing him to bring the company where it is now. He then told the students to think carefully about the circle of people they spend time with and what they can do for each other. Before working on Dropbox, Houston also worked with other online companies like security platform Bit9, marketing site Hubspot and Accolade. _______________________________________________________________________ 8. Kevin Systrom, 27 – Net worth: $470 million Kevin Systrom (born December 30, 1983) is an American entrepreneur and software engineer, best known as the co‑founder and CEO of Instagram, an online mobile photo, video sharing application and social networking service for iPhone and Android that allow users to apply a filter to a photo and share it on the service or on other social networks like Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, and Flickr.[3] In 2013, Systrom was listed in the Forbes 30 under 30 list under the Social/Mobile category.[4] Together with Mike Krieger, Systrom launched Instagram in San Francisco on October 6, 2010. Instagram is one of the fastest growing services of all time, hitting 80M users by July 26, 2012 and it was acquired by Facebook for $1B less than 2 years after its launch. _______________________________________________________________________ 7. Adam D'Angelo, 27, Net worth: $680 million Adam D’Angelo is a Founder and CEO of Quora. He previously served as Chief Technology Officer at Facebook, where he oversaw new product development and managed the engineering team. In addition, he guided the site’s architecture and infrastructure to ensure scalability as the site expanded. Quora is a question-and-answer website where questions are created, answered, edited and organized by its community of users. The company was founded in June 2009, and the website was made available to the public on June 21, 2010. Prior to serving as CTO, Adam led the Facebook Platform team and, as an engineer, built the initial infrastructure for news feed, ad targeting and delivery, and worked on scalability and optimization. He holds a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science from the California Institute of Technology. - See more at: http://www.crunchbase.com/person/adam-d-angelo#sthash.W2TbcvZ3.dpuf _________________________________________________________________________ 6. Chris Hughes, 28 – Net worth: $935 million In 2008 Chris Hughes was selected to work on the presidential campaign as the Director of Online Organizing. He pioneered the efforts behind the MyBarackObama social network for supporters and volunteers. Hughes later merged his political and social media expertise to found Jumo, a Facebook-based social network for nonprofits. He also served as spokesman Facebook. He is currently the publisher and editor-in-chief of The New Republic, after purchasing the magazine in 2012. __________________________________________________________________________ 5. Albert von Thurn und Taxis, 29 – Net worth: $1.5 billion Albert von Thurn un Taxis from Germany first got listed as a billionaire when he just 8 years old. He is the 12th prince in his family line and officially inherited his fortune in 2001, on his 18th birthday. In June 2008, he received an M.A. in economics and theology from the University of Edinburgh in Scotland. His assets include real estate, art and 36,000 hectares of woodland in Germany, one of the largest forest holdings in Europe. An eligible bachelor, he lives in the family castle in Bavaria, Schloss Emmeram, and drives race cars -- touring with a German league. In 2010 he won the ADAC GT Masters championship for Reiter Engineering (together with Peter Kox). Meanwhile, his mother, Gloria von Thurn und Taxis, manages the family fortune. Appearing in photos taken at their castle, society parties and noble weddings, Gloria, Albert and his two sisters, Maria Theresia and Elisabeth, are no strangers to the paparazzi. ____________________________________________________________________________ 4. Eduardo Saverin Age, 30 – Net worth: $2.2 billion Eduardo Saverin is the second co-founder of Facebook in this list. His family moved to the U.S. from their native Brazil after Saverin’s father found out he was being targeted by kidnap-for-ransom gangs. Saverin grew up in the U.S., was naturalized and came to study at Harvard. He founded Facebook along with Chris Hughes, Mark Zuckerberg and Dustin Moskovitz but later left the company and fought over his shares with the other co-founders in court. In the end he won a five-percent stake in Facebook. He also moved to Singapore, renounced his U.S. citizenship and is living as a Brazilian citizen again. _________________________________________________________________________ 3. Scott Duncan Age, 30 – Net worth: $5.5 billion Duncan is the only son of Lee Ellis and Dan Duncan who co-founded Enterprise Products Partners LP and then took it public in 1998. In 2010, Enterprise consisted of over 48,700 miles of onshore and offshore pipelines and nearly 220 million barrel equivalents of natural gas and natural gas liquids of storage capacity.[3] He also headed mid-stream energy firms Duncan Energy Partners LP (NYSE: DEP) and Enterprise GP Holdings LP (NYSE: EPE). His father died aged 77 of a cerebral hemorrhage at his River Oaks, Houston home on March 28, 2010. He inherited $3.1B upon the death of his father along with each of his sisters inheriting the same share. Due to an elimination of the estate tax for the year 2010, Duncan became the first American billionaire to pay no estate tax since its enactment. He lives in Houston and his net worth continues to grow at a fast pace _______________________________________________________________________ 2. Dustin Moskovitz, 28 – Net worth: $7.9 billion Moskovitz is another co-founder of Facebook along with Harvard schoolmates Mark Zuckerberg, Chris Hughes and Eduardo Saverin. He became Facebook’s first Chief Technology Officer and soon rose up to become Vice President of Engineering. In 2008 he left Facebook to co-found Asana, a mobile communication application, with Justin Rosenstein. It was what they described as something that “will be to your work life what Facebook is to your social life.” Away from work Moskovitz spends time on his philanthropic organization Good Ventures with his fiancée Cari Tuna. _______________________________________________________________________ 1. Mark Zuckerberg, 28 – Net worth: $33,3 billion Mark Zuckerberg is a computer programmer and internet entrepreneur. He is best known as one of five co-founders of the social networking website Facebook. Zuckerberg has become one the world’s most-watched Chief Executive Officers since Facebook took off. He and friends Dustin Moskovitz, Chris Hughes and Eduardo Saverin formed Facebook in 2004 originally intending it for Harvard students only. After it caught on, it was expanded to include the local community and other schools until it eventually branched out into the country and the world. Today around a billion people are Facebook users. Like Moskovitz, Zuckerberg never graduated from Harvard. He, however, values education and allegedly donated $100 million to the public school system of Newark, New Jersey. He also founded the Startup Education Foundation. As of April 2013, Zuckerberg is the chairman and chief executive of Facebook, Inc. and his personal wealth, as of July 2014, is estimated to be $33.1 billion ____________________________________________________________________

Has China really taken over the US on GDP statistics?

The biggest question is "Who is really rich in China that we actually know? No famous billboard artist resides in that part of the world and they don't seem to have any influencial figures of note and what are they producing that is making them so rich besides the lack of labor laws that exposes workers to abuse. According the latest IMF figures for the first time in more than 140 years, the US has lost the title of the world's largest economy - it has been stolen by China. But how reliable are the statistics underpinning this claim? The BBC's economics editor, Robert Peston, explains lower down why China matters to all of us. The Chinese economy is now worth $17.6tn, slightly higher than the $17.4tn the International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimates for the US. So for the first time since 1872, when it overtook the UK, the US has been knocked off the top spot. The IMF calculated these figures by using purchasing power parity (PPP) which enables you to compare how much you can buy for your money in different countries. As money goes further in China than in the US, the figure for China is adjusted upwards. Without the PPP adjustment, the IMF estimates that China's economy is worth far less - $10.3tn. But how much faith can be placed in the accuracy of GDP figures supplied by China when even the current premier, Li Keqiang has doubted their validity in the past? A declassified US diplomatic cable revealed that in 2007, Li, who was then secretary general of Liaoning Province, had told the US ambassador that Chinese GDP statistics were "man-made" and "for reference only". So how easy is it to accurately measure the size of the Chinese economy or even just parts of it? Not very, says Crabbe. "One of the key things that has to be understood is that distortions that happen at the village and provincial levels become amplified as they go out the statistical gathering chain. "Year on year the GDP figures for each province grew faster than the national total, which logically and mathematically could not be." He attributes part of this discrepancy to corruption but also says that inaccuracies became exacerbated by the sheer size of the country and the rate at which it was growing. Inaccurate GDP figures can have serious consequences for companies that base investment decisions on them. Crabbe has a cautionary tale. "I went through each of the sectors to see what the real size of each of those would be, how fast they were growing and therefore what the real size of the retail market was. "My conclusion was that the real retail market at that time was half the value of the official government figure," he says. Crabbe discovered there were problems with definitions of what retail goods actually were. The government figures included wholesale sales of consumer goods, some government procurement, and some business to business sales - so not everything that had been included was strictly retail. It's difficult to gauge whether the accuracy of definitions and the data have really improved in recent years. But the IMF forecasts growth of 7.4% in China for 2014 and 7.1% in 2015, compared to US growth of 2.2% this year and 3.1% next year. This means that the Chinese are unlikely to relinquish their number one status soon. In fact the IMF predicts that by the end of this decade the Chinese economy will be worth $26.98tn - 20% bigger than the US at $22.3tn. But while the US held the top spot for 142 years, China may not be able to match that record - long term financial forecasts from the IMF and others indicate that by 2100 India could overtake them both. The most important number in the world, for the past 30 years and next five years, is China's growth rate. For 30 years its economy grew at a mind-boggling rate - roughly 10% a year but that stopped when the global economy hit problems in 2008 and it fell very sharply. Then the Chinese government did something remarkable and persuaded its banks to lend as if there was no tomorrow. They lent for investment and investment went up from an already extremely high 40% or so of GDP, to about 50% and the growth rate picked up again. There's been nothing like it in the history of capitalism. It's astonishing. The Chinese have worked out that this new way of growing through debt funded investment rather than exports can't go on forever and is actually potentially quite dangerous. So they are trying to reconstruct the economy but it's not going desperately well and growth is now around 7%. I'm not sure whether we can trust these numbers to be honest though. I think most of us would say that if we're slightly uneasy about most government statistics, then we're profoundly uneasy about China's statistics. We do know that China is slowing down and there is a big debate about how fast that should be happening. But the big story that has influenced all our lives in the last 30 years has been the economic revolution in China. For years it improved our living standards by making the things we buy cheaper and cheaper. It gulled central banks everywhere into thinking they had inflation under control so they kept interest rates way too low for too long. China generated these enormous surpluses, which it then lent to the US to finance its colossal deficit. China was the big economic force in the world - and it still is - but it's moving in the opposite direction and the speed at which it slows down and the way that it slows down influences all our lives. We should be under no illusion that the really big thing in the world, which will have an impact on our living standards is what happens in China. Nothing else really matters in comparison. line

Obama plays the right cards for Democrats on immigration

A month after President Obama’s decision to defer deportation and offer work authorization to millions of undocumented immigrants, his action not only looks like a winner, but it also seems to be a fairly promising sign for Democrats after the disastrous midterm elections last month. This is not because Mr. Obama’s immigration decision has proved to be popular. In fact, it is, over all, unpopular. Polls show that a majority of adults oppose his plan. But as is the case on many issues, the politics of immigration reform are not simply about the issue’s popularity in national public opinion polls. They are also about intensity and coalitions: Who are the voters that really care about the issue, and how much do they matter? On immigration, the answer is fairly clear. Hispanic voters care a lot, and matter a lot. A Pew Research poll conducted last week showed that 81 percent of Hispanics supported the immigration action, as did 64 percent in a Gallup poll conducted between Nov. 24 and Dec. 8. And at the same time, there was not much evidence that the decision hurt Mr. Obama much among non-Hispanic voters. Now, it was hard for immigration to visibly damage Mr. Obama among non-Hispanic voters for the exact opposite reason that the issue helped him among Hispanic voters: His approval ratings among non-Hispanics were so low that policies would need to be particularly unpopular to drive them further down. But it is doubtful that it hurt Mr. Obama much among the voters who matter most to his party — the Democratic-leaning or persuadable voters who supported or considered supporting him in 2012, but are now disillusioned by his performance. Most of the people who strongly opposed Mr. Obama’s decision were probably Republican base voters. The balance of public polling data suggests that most persuadable voters are fairly sympathetic to Democratic views on immigration reform, even if they opposed Mr. Obama’s action. Even if many persuadable voters were outraged, the Republicans did not vigorously press their case. The issue will probably fade from memory, if it hasn’t already. Mr. Obama’s decision will eventually fade from the minds of Hispanic voters as well. But the longevity of the bump is probably less significant than its size and the fact that it happened. It may be a sign that Democratic-leaning voters who currently disapprove of Mr. Obama’s performance will come flocking back to the Democrats the moment the 2016 campaign arouses their partisanship. It is a sign that although these voters may be dissatisfied with Mr. Obama’s performance, they remain quite receptive to Democratic messages on the issues that brought them to the party in the first place. In a way, we’ve been here before. In the fall of 2011, after the debt ceiling debacle, Mr. Obama’s approval rating slipped to about the point where it is today. And his approval rating among Hispanic voters dropped to about where it was before his immigration decision. Yet his overall approval rating would rise to 50 percent by Election Day, just a year later. His 71 percent showing among Hispanic voters, according to the exit polls, was even more than he won in 2008. The voters who traditionally lean Democratic, at least outside the South and coal country, returned to his side. The Obama campaign employed a diverse suite of messages to appeal to every facet of the Democratic coalition: contraception and same-sex marriage for young, secular and well-educated voters; Mitt Romney’s time at Bain Capital and the auto bailout for working-class voters; and, yes, deferred action for undocumented minors to appeal to Hispanic voters. Whether the next Democrat will reassemble the coalition that re-elected Mr. Obama remains to be seen. That said, Mr. Obama’s rebound among Hispanic voters may be a sign that the tactics that worked for the Obama campaign in 2012 might still work in 2016.

Russian currency plunges to biggest falls since 1998

The ruble has lost over half its value against the dollar since the year began, with falling oil prices and western sanctions combining to hit the currency. Oil prices fell below $60 a barrel for the first time since 2009 on Tuesday morning, putting further pressure on the ruble. The dollar was trading at 80 roubles on Tuesday afternoon, compared with 32.8 at the beginning of the year. The currency had plunged about 12% on Monday, meaning it's lost nearly 50% against the dollar this year. Early Tuesday in Russia, the central bank hiked its key interest rate for a sixth time this year to 17% from 10.5%. A double-whammy of collapsing oil prices and Western sanctions is driving up inflation. Cash is flooding out of the country and the risk that some Russian companies may default is increasing. Russia's central bank has not only been raising interest rates, but has spent nearly $90 billion trying to defend the ruble and prevent prices spiraling out of control. But investors are growing increasingly alarmed about the prospects for the Russian economy. The Bank of Russia said Tuesday that the country could sink into a deep recession next year if oil prices remain at $60 a barrel. GDP could contract by as much as 4.7% in 2015, and then by a further 1.1% in 2016 unless oil prices pick up. Related: Wall Street bets on Russia and Venezuela defaults The falling ruble makes it harder for Russian companies and banks to repay their foreign creditors. Russia has relatively low government debt and hefty international reserves of about $430 billion. Yet Wall Street has pushed up the yield on Russian government debt, betting on greater risk. The cost of insuring Russia's five-year bonds have also risen, to their highest levels since 2009. A collapse in oil income takes a bite out of government revenue, meaning it has less to spend. President Vladimir Putin has already ordered government departments to cut their budgets by 5%, and more cuts could follow. Defense and national security has so far been spared the ax -- Russia is pumping trillions of rubles into modernizing its military. Related: Could Russian economic turmoil lead to Putin's downfall? Ordinary Russians are feeling the squeeze instead. Consumer price inflation is expected to hit 10% by the end of the year, in part due to the weakness of the ruble, but also due to a ban on imports of most food products from the West. That was retaliation for U.S. and European sanctions imposed over Russia's actions in Ukraine. Even the price of bread is rising, prompting some Russians to begin hoarding staples. Putin's approval rating remains high but Russians are losing confidence in the future. Some opposition politicians say the economic storm will eventually sweep Putin from office. "In three years the situation will change," Dmitry Stepanov of the liberal RPR-PARNAS Party said at an opposition conference in Moscow this week. "The country is in economic crisis and no one in the government knows how to solve that." However Russia is not the only country that has been hit by the falling oil prices. Several countries that depend on oil revenue are being severely affected such as Venezuela, Nigeria etc.

4 year imprisonment for a maid who assaulted,stamped on toddler

Jolly Tumuhiirwe, a 22-year-old Ugandan (African) maid, has been sentenced to four years in jail for assaulting a toddler, in a case which sparked outrage across the country after a video was released. Jolly Tumuhiirwe, 22, was filmed beating, kicking and stamping on the 18-month-old child. On Friday, she told a court in Kampala the attack was revenge after she was beaten by the child's mother. The mother denied beating her. Earlier charges of torture were dropped. Chief Magistrate Lillian Buchan told Tumuhiirwe she had committed an "unjustifiable and inexcusable" crime. She said the sentence was appropriate in light of the "ruthlessness exhibited" on an "innocent, helpless child", reports the AFP news agency. The video footage, which prompted the case, came from a camera the child's father, Eric Kamanzi, had installed in his home after noticing his daughter was bruised and limping. He reported the abuse to police last month and circulated the video online to family members. The footage was later shared more widely, provoking horror and upset internationally. Psychological consequences After the sentencing, Mr Kamanzi said: "It's not for us to decide the punishment for what she committed. "We hope this has set an example for other maids out there, that you can't just go to someone's house and torture their baby and expect to walk out," AFP reports. Another family member, Rose Zimulinda, said the child was physically well now but there were likely to be longer term psychological consequences. In Uganda, there is no requirement for people paid to look after children to have qualifications. Police have recommended that parents do background checks with friends, neighbours, local police, council and previous employers before taking on nannies or maids given these responsibilities.

When plastic surgery goes wrong

South Korea,Asia is a modern country swathed in green, prodding its stony fingers skyward, and the Koreans are a people obsessed with nature, and with mountains in particular. Wherever you travel, you'll see Koreans out in the open air, clad in the latest adventure fashions, pushing ever onward and upward. Having said all that there is another interesting twist. On the train and in the street, you're told you can "bring your face to life". "Facial contouring" is on offer - "breast surgery", "anti-ageing", "eyeplasty", "body contouring". There is "square jaw reduction" (mainly, the adverts imply, for men). Or transforming your face "from saggy and loose to elastic and dimensional", targeted mostly at women. One acquaintance of mine complains that her chin becomes painful when it rains. And then it emerges that she went into the surgery for a nose job but got persuaded - or persuaded herself - that it was her chin that really needed its contours changing. The result: a more shapely chin that is also a more painful chin. Despite that, she is now intent on breast enlargement. Continue reading the main story “Start Quote This is not a human face - it is more revolting than monsters or aliens” In this country, parents tell me that they give their teenage daughters a present of what's called "double eyelid surgery" which makes eyes more pronounced - "less Asian" is the truth of it. Why, I wonder, when Korean eyes seem so beautiful the way they are? The retort that blares from the adverts on the train is that "confidence in appearance brings positive energy which can be the foundation of happiness". Happiness - so easily found at the cut of a knife! Except that, of course, it's not. There is now a backlash, a slew of court cases where patients - or victims as they might be known - are suing doctors who re-arranged their faces, but not in a good way. One victim said when the bandages came off: "This is not a human face. It is more revolting than monsters or aliens." Part of the problem is that plastic surgery is so lucrative that unqualified doctors have been drawn in - or rather doctors qualified in other areas of quite different medicine. It's alleged that procedures have been done by what are called "ghost doctors". In one court case, it's claimed that the advertised doctor slipped out of the operating room once the patient was under the anaesthetic and the job was then botched by the replacement surgeon. On top of that, it's emerged that some before-and-after photos have had a bit of surgery themselves - surgery of the Photoshop variety. The upshot is that the Korean Association of Plastic Surgeons has called for tighter rules for doctors and for advertisers. They fear that the bad publicity is damaging the reputation of an industry which is largely well-run. But they're fighting against the tide. Plastic surgery is very profitable, even with prices that undercut the US and Europe. One of the big businesses in Gangnam, here in Seoul, prices "eye-shape correction" at 1.7m Korean Won. That's about £1,000 ($1,500) for a 30-minute, simple procedure. It rises to 12m Won for a "full-incision face lift" - that's about £7,000 ($11,000).

Bill Cosby Accuser Shrink was Molested as a Kid

Bill Cosby has turned from hero and comedy icon to a villain in short space of time. Even though he has been proven guilty in any court of law but there surely is no smoke without fire. Whats more worrying is that the number of women who has accused him of either rape or infidelity keeps on rising. It all began with a comedian - Haniball Buress who made a joke about Cosby being a rapist in October. According to Buress he had been utilizing content relating to Cosby's rape allegations about six months before it went viral. On of dozens of woman who claims Bill Cosby got her drunk and then sexually assaulted her at the Playboy Mansion when she was just 15 -- says a psychologist validates her claim of childhood sexual abuse, but the shrink doesn't say who did it.Huth is suing Cosby -- even though the alleged incident occurred in 1974 and the statute of limitations has long since run. She just filed legal docs saying she met with Dr. Anthony Reading, a clinical psychologist and a UCLA professor. The docs quote Dr. Reading as saying, "I have concluded, based upon my knowledge of the facts and issues, that there is, in my professional opinion, a reasonable basis to believe that Ms. Huth had been subject to childhood sexual abuse."Cosby has asked that the case be dismissed and sanctions imposed, arguing Huth tried extorting him with a phony story. Do you think Bill Cosby is a rapist? Share your thoughts here with us by commenting on this story.