Needless to say, the first trillionaire on Earth will be MASSIVELY wealthy. A trillion dollars means 1,000 x billion dollars- or a million x million dollars.

1. John Davison: Productivity Killer: Peggle For Mac Free
2. John Davison: Productivity Killer: Peggle For Mac Download

Find the perfect john jr stock photo. Huge collection, amazing choice, 100+ million high quality, affordable RF and RM images. (1942 –1994) American serial killer and rapist. President John Kennedy plays with son John Jr. At the West Wing of the White House. John Davison Rockefeller Jr. American financier and member of the.

If their cash was stacked in hypothetical $1000 bills, it would extend over 63 miles vertically. An 80 year old trillionaire will have earned, on average, more than $34 million every day of his life. So yeah, it's a massive amount of money (you can read more fascinating trillion dollar facts ). But, it is such a massive figure that some are sceptical that a single individual worth over a trillion dollars will ever walk the face of the earth.

The wealthiest man in the world right now, Bill Gates, would have to multiply his current net wealth around 14 times to reach such a trillion dollars. Despite the daunting mass of such a figure, it is very reasonable to think that we may have a trillionaire within the next 100 years or so.

Rockefeller's net worth (in today's terms) was over $350bn- over 4 times that of Bill Gates. Let's look at the past. The first ever millionaire was John Jacob Astor, a 19th century fellow who profited massively off his monopoly of the fur trade, and later his ventures into real estate.

Then came John Davison Rockefeller Sr., the world's first billionaire and on record the wealthiest man to ever have lived, with a wealth today that would be over 4 times that of Bill Gates. Rockefeller was an oil man- like Astor, a monopolist who at his peak controlled 90% of the oil in the USA. So a common theme between these past juggernauts is monopoly- almost total domination, and complete control over their respective markets. This theme continues today (Bill Gates created the (ex?) monopolist Microsoft), and is very likely to continue when it comes to the first trillionaire.

But what will he/she monopolise? Astor created a monopoly of fur coats in a USA in its infancy of independence, Rockefeller capitalised on the oil boom of the late 19th and 20th centuries, and Gates played a key roll in bringing the personal computer to the mass market. These people did not become massively wealthy by following other businesses of the time, but by taking charge and carving out their own markets, and the first trillionaire will have to do this on an even larger scale.

They will need to be a complete game-changer. The trillionaire could produce key developments in the technology arena. Revolutionise key areas of our infrastructure- like transport (think autonomous technology), or education. But it's very difficult to speculate what particular area they will profit from- their vision will have to be such that they produce something we may not even think about right now. Asteroids such as this have been estimated by some to be home to raw materials. An interesting proposition is that the first trillionaire will be the first to effectively capitalise on something we've always lived with, but been unable to grasp fully- space. In his 1997 book, Professor of Planetary Science John Lewis makes the claim that 'we can relieve Earth of its energy problem, make astronomical amounts of raw materials available, and raise the living standard of people worldwide' by effectively taking advantage of the wealth of materials that can be found in space, whether on planets or bodies like asteroids.

Just like Rockefeller worked to capitalise on a growing but young oil industry in the US to revolutionise energy consumption, the first trillionaire could be the person who leads the revolution of our own energy consumption by venturing into space. A far less thrilling but arguably more realistic prospect, however, is that the first trillionaire is just a current billionaire who becomes a trillionaire as his wealth accumulates and expands, thanks to investments or just ordinary inflation. The wealthiest individuals around the world are already, and for people like Bill Gates it could just be a waiting game- albeit one with the constraint of lifespan. Let's assume Gates lives until he's 100 (40 more years). From his current wealth of just under $80bn, he would require a 6.5% annual interest rate to become a trillionaire by his 100th year. So it is possible that he will become a trillionaire- but unlikely, considering recent US interest rates have barely been exceeding 1%.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg- could he be one of the first trillionaires? However, keeping money in financial institutions could enable younger billionaires, the likes of Mark Zuckerberg, to become trillionaires by the time they reach old age- especially considering the extra time allowed for interest rates to increase.

Again, assuming a life of 100 years, Zuckerberg would require a 4.9% rate for his $36bn wealth to grow to a trillion. Gates and co.

Could make a faster journey to the top by investing all of his $80bn correctly- but again, for a man who plans to give most of his money to charity, this is unlikely to happen. Investing such a large proportion of their wealth would probably be an unlikely move for Gates' fellow billionaires to take. So there are two scenarios- either a trillionaire rises fantastically from some groundbreaking innovation that they are able to quickly monopolise, or a trillionaire rises less glamourously thanks to favourable interest rates and/or long term investments. The first scenario would indeed be a spectacular event, but dwelling on the second makes you realise that perhaps the first trillionaire will not be such an iconic figure. Inflation raises not just the nominal income of the wealthiest, but it raises everyone's incomes.

That's why earning a 5-figure salary is not the big deal now that it was a century ago, and why earning a 6-figure salary in 2115 will probably not be as valued as earning it now in 2015. The first trillionaire could just arise from the wave of inflation that raises everyone's wealth on paper- $1,000,000,000,000, after all, is just a number, not a real wealth indicator. So, at the end of the day, becoming a trillionaire on paper might not be as big as a deal as we think it is now. Anyway, it could be argued that thousands of people have already become trillionaires- in a country called Zimbabwe, I've heard they even used to print bank notes in the trillions. Just a few months ago, London overtook Hong Kong as the most expensive city in the world to live in- a surprising statistic when you consider that just seven years ago, London was ranked fifth. Since then (in dollar terms) the cost of working and living in the capital has risen by almost 40%, the third highest growth behind Rio De Janeiro and Sydney respectively.

Consequently, we've been seeing some crazy stories, like about how finds it cheaper to commute from Poland weekly than live in London accommodation, and how than commuting from Madrid everyday. Even in Britain, London's housing is ludicrously expensive- while the nation's average house costs £299,000, according to the Greater London Authority, London's average price is currently So what is the reason behind London's new status as the most costly city in the world to live in? Well, at the core of this complex issue is supply and demand. Simply put, prices are so high because demand is constantly increasing, as supply is decreasing. It's not too difficult to see why demand for housing in London is so high- one of the most vibrant, iconic cities in the world, the capital of England is a very appealing place to live. Though it has been having its troubles, transport in London is unparalleled in the rest of Britain.

There are all the shops, leisure centres, cinemas, theatres, restaurants, that an individual could desire. But increasing numbers of people are unable to select which city they live in, solely based on these luxuries. For many people, employment is what matters, and the factor that is driving many people to London. While much of the British economy has been slowly recovering since 2008, London's economy has accelerated the fastest- meaning massive numbers of jobs have been created in the capital, such that in early 2014, such as Birmingham and Edinburgh. Jobs have played a significant role in peoples' decisions to move to London, driving up demand for housing.

Despite the 2008 crisis, the City of London has thrived, creating many high paid jobs. However, the recent jobs boom in London has caused prices to rise in more ways than just this. It's important to look not just at how many jobs are available, but what types of jobs these are- and it is particularly noticeable that higher paid jobs make up a larger proportion of jobs in London than in most UK cities. The finance industry has particularly grown in stature in the past 30 years or so in London, despite shocks such as the recent 2008 crisis; data compiled by Z/Yen Group analysts concluded that London was the most competitive financial centre in the world, coming first above cities like New York and Singapore in every category tested. Such an increase in high paid workers coming into London has meant that there has been a housing development boom, largely in luxury properties regular Londoners couldn't afford- pushing up the market prices,.

Globalisation has further compounded this issue, allowing foreign wealthy individuals (the likes of Roman Abramovich and Lakshmi Mittal) to relocate to the capital, purchasing or building massively expensive properties at the same time. While foreign investment in the capital does indeed have its benefits, this aspect means that housing prices rise massively. Currently, (the highest proportion in the world), and the number of millionaires is also rising. Both London's mayor and the government have sought to take on London's housing crisis- but their efforts have been relatively futile. Supply of affordable properties in London has not been keeping up with this rocketing demand. Despite George Osborne's efforts to stimulate home buying through schemes such as Help to Buy, which have made it easier for first time house buyers, not enough houses are being built. Mayor Boris Johnson's target is - but House of Commons research has suggested that would be required to meet demand.

John Davison: Productivity Killer: Peggle For Mac Free

With their financial power, wealthy individuals are able to purchase property in prime areas in central London- causing the average house prices of these areas to increase. Consequently, with a lack of new affordable housing developments in the centre, poorer people are being 'priced out'- forced to move to cheaper areas on the outskirts of the city. A cult of blood thirsty individuals who use a peaceful religion as a basis for the inhumane and callous slaughter of fellow human beings, Daesh claimed responsibility for this onslaught in Paris and boldly reinforced their intention of striking fear and terror into the hearts of the Western citizens.

France’s Prime Minister Francois Hollande responded by reiterating France will remain strong, and he recently urged Russia and America to “unite forces” in a coalition to destroy Daesh. Following the downing of a Russian airliner, the Paris attacks and bombing in Turkey; there is a heightened determination to defeat them. France, the USA and Russia have a common interest in the destruction of the militant group; however tension remains between Russia and the West, as the Russian invasion in Ukraine looms in the background and considering Russia’s vested interest in Syria. Therefore, the prospect of any significant joint attack and alliance against them seems unlikely, despite the bold display of solidarity by the involving nations.

Thankfully, a military invasion is not the only solution. Many strategists say that in order to gain victory, the coalition must halt the militant group’s financing, counter its propaganda and find a diplomatic solution among world powers on Syrian rule, as the Assad regime has proved incompetent time and time again. In terms of counteracting their propaganda, the mirage that Daesh are the saviour against the West is deteriorating, as more and more Syrian refugees flee towards western countries.

This highlights that they are not the saviours but the captors, laying waste to Syria. Although, the longer and more severe the air strikes become the more radicalisation occurs and the worse the situation gets. Furthermore, stopping the financing of the extremist group could prove fundamental to their capitulation. The extremist group receive the majority of their income from selling oil from the Syrian and Iraqi oil fields they seized. It is estimated that overall, they earn about $1.53 million a day, by selling oil directly to independent traders or into the black market.

The U.S have attempted to disrupt and limit oil production by striking several oil production facilities, however it has been to no avail as the militants have been able to repair the sites easily. An alternative would be to directly bomb oil refineries and fields but that would significantly reduce any chance of economic recovery for Syria and Iraq, hence why this issue cannot be easily resolved. The predicament of replacing the Assad regime is also a prominent issue. In order to restore Syria to full economic and social stability, a reliable and competent government is needed. Initially the idea was to replace the Assad regime with a secular, western style democratic government, however many predicted that Assad would eventually be replaced by a similar minded or worse ruler. Therefore, as presumed, the only feasible solution could be to reach an agreement with Russia and Iran, as they both are heavily vested in the country and finding a suitable replacement will almost be as difficult as defeating Daesh.

Further military intervention in Syria, however justified, will only lead to more difficulties- not solutions. The recent decision by Parliament to conduct air strikes in Syria will simply highlight that fact.

Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron claims that these supposed targeted strikes in Raqqa (Daesh’s presumed stronghold) will make Britain safer- a flawed claim indeed. Mr Cameron and the remaining 397 MPs have done the exact opposite of what they intended to do, and simply made a threat to Britain as imminent as ever. Bombing their home will enrage the already distraught Syrians, making them ever more susceptible to propaganda, radicalising them in the process.

And this is before we even get to talking about the inevitably high number of civilian deaths and casualties that will ensue. The minimum wage has also been stagnant. 5 states are yet to even establish a minimum wage. Currently the highest minimum wage is available in Washington, at $9.32, set at the turn of 2014, but according to a 2012 study by the Centre for Economic and Policy research, even this is too low.

The study, setting inflation and productivity as benchmarks, concluded that if the minimum wage had kept pace with productivity and inflation increases since the year minimum wages peaked, 1968, the figure would have reached $21.72 per hour- over double that of the highest in the USA. Questions have been raised over these huge salaries- mainly the question over whether they really deserve it.

Under a true meritocracy, people would be paid according to a mixture of their effort, production and influence- so do CEOs really work 243 times harder than an average worker, or produce 243 times as much? Many would argue that CEOs have it easier than the worker- enjoying the power to delegate work more than doing it- but perhaps the CEOs themselves would argue the salary is more a reward for the hard work they have done to get to that position, rather than their current activities alone. A popular argument against regulating fast food chains such as McDonalds has been that the free market will itself find the best solution over time. Well, as is often the case, there is no definitive answer. US economic policy is not entirely coherent (no nation’s policy is); for example, observing the lack of regulation over fast food, that has contributed to the, one would think America is running a free market almost fully dependent on the ‘invisible hand’, that guides resources to where they are most needed by itself.

Yet a glance at antitrust laws such as The Clayton Act, that bans the monopolistic practice of merging market dominators, suggests the contrary. Gates' Microsoft dominated the computer market during the 1990s. Monopolies such as that of Microsoft over the IT market in the 1990s highlighted further free market failure- a lumbering giant was unrestrained from crushing competition such as Netscape, resulting in a lack of choice that prevented any market self-regulation from taking place. If people didn’t like Windows or Internet Explorer, there was nothing else they could choose- they had to deal with it, without the democratic power free market theory promised. So in an we went through some of the benefits of privatisation- the main conclusion was that, in the main, privatisation leads to an increase in efficiency by replacing ambiguous, short termist political motives with one distinct motive- to make profit. But this motive itself is one that is strongly debated over. Private businesses are pushed more than their state equivalents to turn over profits- but is this something that benefit those stakeholders outside of the company as well as those inside?

The pro-profit motive argument claims that free markets create environments that encourage profit-seeking competition. For example, in the British department store industry, which the state has little involvement in, competition is visible- Debenhams, John Lewis, House of Fraser and so on are competing to gain the highest profits. The contrary is perhaps visible in the British healthcare industry- the state-owned NHS dominates this market, and thus there is little (albeit growing) competition for profits in this sector. Apple and Samsung's rivalry has brought rapid advancements in mobile technology. Though it is arguably not the only means to do so, market competition is key in bringing improvements and allocating resources efficiently in the economy. The global technology market has been a great example of this: Apple and Samsung have constantly been battling over the past 5-7 years over their mobile phones, and what has resulted is an unprecedented rapid development of mobile technology. Look at how far the iPhone, for example, has developed since its release in 2007.

The current iPhone 6 is thinner, lighter and of better quality material than the original iPhone- yet it is decisively faster and more advanced. Competition with Samsung's 'Galaxy' phone drove Apple to proactively seek better technologies for every single generation of iPhone, which has brought us advancements in almost every aspect of the phone. These companies have had to keep up with market demands- if they released a product few people liked (like the iPhone 5C), they would be damaged by it by a drop in their profits; they would by their competitors and over the long term marginalised, or even worse driven out of the market.

RIM (producers of Blackberry phones) have seen this- they saw huge success in the 2000s but they failed to keep up when the iPhone came. Apple and Samsung created huge advancements in the tech industry with the primary motive of chasing profits. They have shown the potential positive effects of profit-making motives. However, this idea of competitive market democracy brought about by the importance of profits is not always appropriate. An industry where there is a monopoly is one example of this- this company is desensitised to most activities of the market, because it has no competitors to protect itself against.

More on the idea of the monopoly can be. Questions can also arise with regards to whether these motives work in certain areas of the economy. Healthcare, for example, is seen as something some see as a right to citizens of a developed country, rather than something they should have to pay for. Privatised healthcare in the USA has seen some rocky results. In principle it is a dangerous idea (what if you have a car accident and wake up to foot a bill you can't pay for?), and in reality it has followed suit.

The cost of insurance is far too much in comparison to other nations, meaning many in America aren't insured- and for these people a single health accident has the potential to destroy their lives not just health-wise but financially. Private hospitals such as those in the USA face a dilemma- should their primary motive be to turn profits or heal patients? The answer is more often than not the former, resulting not just in the inflation of healthcare costs that we've seen but occasionally irresponsible behaviour- it's opened the door to doctors prescribing excess amounts of expensive medicines, suggesting unnecessary appointments; generally practices that are not so helpful to the patient but helpful to the hospital's finances.

The Big Mac: High margins, high calories. Profit-seeking has had visible socially negative effects in the food industry- particularly in fast food.

It is far easier for companies to cut down costs than to try to increase income, and born from this came much of the artificial junk food we see today. Healthy, organic food has become something of a premium in the food industry, as the influx of Big Macs, with their far higher profit margins, have dominated the fast food market. Seeking profits, companies such as McDonalds and Burger King have sacrificed quality in their products. They have sought to make a cheap (and not so cheerful) product that has damaging impacts on the healths of those who consume it, rather than making a product that adds genuine nourishment value to consumers.

Financially, their current activity is incredibly sound- but in the real world? Not so much the case. So while there is a valid argument for private profit-seeking opening up industries to market competition and all its benefits, this is something that is perhaps not applicable to the economy as a whole. With regards to healthcare, profit-seeking is a dangerous motive to have when the primary motive of any such establishment should be to cure their patients. Similar problems arise with fast food businesses, which damage the customer's health but bring in lucrative profits.

As it often is with economics, there is no straight answer. With different industries come different situations, and thus profit seeking has the potential to be both extremely beneficial and damaging to society as a whole.

Credit addiction has without doubt been encouraged by the financial sector in America. The subprime market’s recent catastrophic explosion exemplified how open credit has become in the US. The subprime market emerged from a restricted financial industry- previously, banks had to take great care in selecting who they could lend to, to minimise the likelihood of future unpaid debts. This process was rigorous- any previously outstanding debts, or missed payments would almost rule you out of contention for a mortgage.

One could argue Western society has developed a culture of debt-accumulation. Availability of finance on any consumer product, from a blender to a Mercedes, has encouraged people to be less financially responsible.

You no longer need to take a single heavy hit on your bank account to purchase a car- finance allows the (greater) cost to be spread over a few years. As a result, prices in the short term are lower and thus customers are more likely to be seduced to purchase a car that is beyond their financial boundaries. This unlucky 20 year old got charged $55k for an appendectomy. Even after insurance contributions, he had $11k left to pay. One could argue that health insurance solves this problem- but even ignoring its ever-rising price over 10 million fully insured Americans aged 19-64 are expected to face bills they will be unable to pay in the near future. Plus, as the, even health insurance can leave a substantial bill for the individual to pay.

This idea of healthcare being financially unattainable is something that, while far from being exclusive to the USA, is pretty much unheard of in similarly developed countries like the UK and much of Europe. The initial concept for Nuklius came to me whilst giving a guest talk at Warwick, around my previous startup experiences. The main question asked during the Q&A was where I found my (brilliant) cofounder and close friend, Alex Dobinson. Lots of people there had the issue of having ideas, however none of them had the necessary skill set to act on them. This is when it occurred to me that a big reason why people don’t get involved with startups isn’t because they aren’t motivated, or haven’t got good ideas of their own, etc.

Its the very simple fact that, alone, they haven’t got all the skills needed. And this is a very normal problem: no one has all of the skills needed to create a successful startup. If you look at all the fantastic companies now, they all have one thing in common and that is that they were founded by teams.

I fundamentally believe that startups drive true social and economic innovation, so to me, the more people we could help act on their ideas, the better. This was the initial vision for Nuklius - now it has evolved into something a bit larger; we want to become the platform for the future of work, where we see the future to be moving from “I’ve had x amount of jobs” to “I’ve been involved with x amount of projects”. Now knowing what you are an expert in, how can we find you projects for you to work on, whether they are in your organisation you work for or external to it, which match your personal interests and passion.

John Davison: Productivity Killer: Peggle For Mac Download

This helps employees create a more motivating and stimulating career for themselves, essentially empowering them to steer their own careers, internally. For the organisation, their benefits include increased talent retention, quicker access to talent which speeds up their innovation processes, cross-departmental collaboration which is key when it comes to innovating, etc. One small addition to this: just because it is your idea, do not expect this to be a valid reason to retain 80+% equity within your startup.

Your cofounders are key to the success of your business, so they should feel adequately motivated and have the representative ownership position to validate their risk, etc. Technical cofounders are not ‘resources’ as many business people see them as, they are incredibly talented, creative and hardworking individuals who add just as much value as the sales/marketing/business development cofounder. I guarantee you, that if you consider technical talent to be a resource to “go build this for me” - you won’t get very far. How do you think your childhood in Silicon Valley has influenced your mindset and outlook on business? I am very much inspired by companies whom are design driven; design not purely in its aesthetic meaning but also how a product or service gets created, around and for the individual they are targeted for.

Good design, with all these elements combined is incredibly difficult and hard to pull off. Apple, Square and IDEO are companies that I take a lot of learnings from as well as their respective founders, Jobs, Dorsey and Kelly and Jony Ive (not an Apple founder, but a lot of their current success lies with his genius).

One entrepreneur I deeply respect and admire is John Mackey, the founder of Whole Foods. Reason being is his deep respect and understanding for the social responsibilities of business (he also coined the phrase conscious capitalism) as this is something which resonates deeply with myself. I think that for a long time, since WW2 the majority of organisations have been focused around maximising profits and seeing this as the primary metric of a successful business (Friedman Doctrine) whereas I think its quite clear that in order to be a successful business you also need to consider social contributions and your responsibilities to the communities in which you operate, your supply chain, employees, etc. Not only is it the right thing to do from a moral perspective; its actually proven to make good business sense too. One of your most popular talks has been the one you gave on the topic of ‘Conscious Entrepreneurs’. Could you summarise what a ‘Conscious Entrepreneur’ is, and why the world needs them?

Great question- and I'm glad you enjoyed the talk! To me, a conscious entrepreneur is someone who has a certain perspective of what a business and its purpose is.

Rather than seeing it as a profit machine a conscious entrepreneur sees a problem they are passionate about and seeks to address it through setting up a business/venture. The conscious entrepreneur's vehicle of driving change is through a company, as you can have significantly more impact as an organisation than you ever could on your own. Having the right people, people who are not only skilled and passionate about what it is they are doing but are also flexible in their ways of working, meaning that they don’t bend at the first sight of setbacks, that they are willing to make changes to their approach if need be, that they are stubborn in the sense that they keep pursuing no matter how many times you are told it won’t work. I’d actually like to stop and focus on this point as this is an important lessons I have recently learnt; there is no universal truth.

What I mean by this is that no one in the world can tell you whether you idea is a good or bad one with absolute certainty. Its no one’s place to tell you whether its worth pursuing or not; only you can, the founders. All else is just peoples’ opinion, that’s it (some opinions are backed up by experience, but they stay opinions none the less).

Associated with Luna, both fe minine influences. These are reinforced by Juno, the Roman goddess who watches over the female sex, and was regarded as the Genius of womanhood, in its main attribution. Another correspondence with this Trump is Pallas Athena as the patroness of both the practical and fine arts (the arts are one of the signature characteristics of natives of Aquarius), as is Ganymede, because of his great beauty and because o f his role as Cup-b earer to the Gods.

(Ahepi and Aroueris are the Egyptian equivalents of these Greek and Roman divinities.) The plant associated with this Path is the ol ive, which Athena created for mankind’s benefit. One of its iconic animals is Zeus’s eagle.