Talk:Trillionaire

Article about trillionaire

I think there could potentially be an article by now for trillionaire like what exists for billionaire and millionaire. It looks like there have been three past AfDs, two in the 2000s and the last most recently being 2021, but there has been coverage talking about the trillionaire concept since then. Some sources that could be used:

• "trillionaire" at Oxford English Dictionary: "The earliest known use of the word trillionaire is in the 1860s. OED's earliest evidence for trillionaire is from 1861, in Huddersfield Chron."
• "TRILLIONAIRE Definition & Meaning" at Dictionary.com (citing The Wall Street Journal, BBC News, Barron's, and Salon, 2026): "It can be hard to understand Elon Musk's reality—especially as he appears to be on track to become the world's first trillionaire this year" (WSJ, January 4, 2026); "The SpaceX share sale could make Musk the world's first trillionaire" (BBC, March 25, 2026); "Those don't seem like great odds, but they show that people overwhelmingly believe Musk will soon become the world's first trillionaire" (Barron's, March 26, 2026).
• "Trillionaire" at Acadian Asset Management (January 2026): "The first appearance of the word 'trillionaire' in The New York Times occurs in the 1920s describing the hyperinflation of the Weimar Republic. More recently, Zimbabwe's hyperinflation produced at least one Zimbabwean trillionaire." Also: "Whether it is Musk or someone else, I predict that at least one USD trillionaire will walk among us by 2030."
• "The world could get its first trillionaire within 10 years, anti-poverty group Oxfam says" at The Washington Post (January 15, 2024): "The world could have its first trillionaire within a decade, anti-poverty organization Oxfam International said Monday in its annual assessment of global inequalities." Also quoting Oxfam's Amitabh Behar: "'Very soon, Oxfam predicts that we will have a trillionaire within a decade... Whereas to fight poverty, we need more than 200 years.'"
• "World Could Have First Trillionaire by 2034: Oxfam" at Time (January 2024): "The world is on track to see its first-ever trillionaire within a decade... while nearly five billion people worldwide were made poorer since 2020, the world's five richest people saw their wealth more than double over the same period."
• "Oxfam Report: Growing Inequality Could See World's First Trillionaire" at Voice of America (January 16, 2024): "'At current rates, the world will see its first trillionaire within a decade, while it will take over two centuries to end poverty,' said Nabil Ahmed of Oxfam America."
• "Oxfam inequality report: Billionaire wealth surges by $2 trillion" at CNBC (January 20, 2025): "The world is now on track to see five trillionaires within a decade." Quoting Oxfam Executive Director Amitabh Behar: "'The failure to stop billionaires is now spawning soon-to-be trillionaires. Not only has the rate of billionaire wealth accumulation accelerated—by three times—but so too has their power.'" Also: "Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla and close ally of Trump, is on track to become the world's first trillionaire by 2027, according to a report from Informa Connect Academy."
• "Elon Musk, world's first trillionaire: one implication of the massive SpaceX IPO" at Fortune (April 2, 2026): "A SpaceX IPO promises to be one of the biggest Wall Street events of the year... and could make its founder the world's first trillionaire... Forbes magazine estimates Musk's net worth at roughly $823 billion... he is likely to pierce the trillion dollar mark because he is already close."

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) 13:57, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

@Erik: Draft:Trillionaire has been started by @GN22. –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 20:52, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

"so far"

@Jevon167: Why does "so far" need to be included? It strikes me as providing no information that could not be deduced with common sense. –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 18:05, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Defintion

It should be made clear that "trillionaire" like "billionaire" or "millionaire" refers to possessing a net worth of a specific currency, not "any given currency", as stated in the opening sentence. More specifically, it should mean the largest base currency (e.g. US dollar, British pound sterling, Euro, etc), not the smallest (e.g. cents, pennies, etc).

For example, a person is not a "millionaire", for possessing a million Japanese Yen, or a million cents (equivalent to $10,000), because by that definition, MOST people would be millionaires or billionaires. Instead, it should be made clear that we are talking about owning a million units of the largest base currency (again, e.g. dollar/pound/euro). Exceptions should be made when talking about very small base units, such as the Japanese Yen, because the latter is only equivalent to a cent.

Due to this lack of clarity, this leads to the article directing contradicting itself; it states in the second paragraph that Elon Musk is "the first and only", then IMMEDIATELY in the next paragraph goes on to say that there have been trillionaires in "other currencies". ~2026-26316-46 (talk) 06:10, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Clean up

This article needs a massive clean up. So much of this is just pure speculation without any sources. Why are we citing Wikipedia itself for the claims about the House of Saud? That's not even mentioning the odd grammar and random capitalisation. ~2026-34810-09 (talk) 12:53, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi, when something is uncertain I clearly say that it is uncertain and that's valide for the article, for example I didn't say the prince od saud is a Trillionaire, but that he may control a trillion dollars and it's not certain. Similar for the Rochilds, I said it's a conspiracy. These are nice extra facts really worth noting, they desrve to stay, they don't make the article worse, I'll keep them.

As for the grammar and capitalization, I agree, that's one of my weak parts, I'm not a philologist but I more than welcome you to fix grammar and capitalization, I would apreciate do that, just dont edit any of my information, just fix the grammar.

As for the citation, if you can find a better citation about the Saud's net worth being 1.4 trillion feel free to add it. Stavru (talk) 13:55, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

@Stavru, we don't build Wikipedia based on our own speculation. We summarise reliable secondary sources. Wikipedia is not one of those sources. Etiquette wise, telling others to correct your errors is not on. If you can't find reliable sourcing supporting material you have added, remove it. TarnishedPath^talk 22:18, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Sure, I am a new editor and I want to use this site in good faith from now.

I will be more serious and proper on my sources when I add content, I'll be on line with all you said; and I'll also not force people to correct things I make as you said. Stavru (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

@Stavru, I linked a policy and a guideline above. Please have a read at some point. TarnishedPath^talk 22:24, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I'll do seriously read it, thank you. Stavru (talk) 22:26, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

The "wealth inequality" part is politically charged and one sided

There has been an addition to the article addressing wealth inequality, while this was added in good faith, I disagree with the way it is portrayed. Also, even if, for the sake of the argument, there is some relation with wealth equality, it's not that direct to put in the article itself (not just a link or "see also"), there were other related things, like with the richest royal families and historical trillionaires and etc., all gone, maybe there are double standards.

What any organization, including Oxfam, shouldn't be used as "facts" in the article, also it fails to show that poorer countries just have weaker currencies, which makes the comparison unfair, also Elon made his money more from the West and not from the third world. Also extremely important, the wealth accumulation is by and large responsible for inflation, and that has academic consensus.

Speaking of quality of life, because that's what we care about on wealth inequality, is Musk having a trillion dollars to blame any less than billionaires having in total more than Musk's money? Also does it matter that much with this logic if Elon has 200 billion or a trillion, when the tottal money of bilionaires is the same, as it's true mathematically that billionaires excluding Musk have much more than his one trillion. So this shows even with the jump in Musk's wealth, the billionaire to the rest of the people hasn't really changed, let's say the last 50 years or at least 15 years, even if Musk has got more money individually.

Most importantly does the quality of life, the wealth of the average person, or the poverty of the 3rd world is Elon Musk, or even the billionaire class? I doubt it. We need consensus that he, being a trillionaire, is directly to blame for the poverty or the alleged worst quality of life (in reality, quality of life is getting better, and poverty and extreme poverty statistically decrease, regardless of the billionaire class and the Elon's money, poverty is still decreasing. Also, we should acknowledge if this is impacted by a product aspect, if this causes us to have less, I doubt, no matter Elon's money, iPhones will be produced, so cars, airplanes, and cereals.

I recommend either deleting this section or editing it to have a balanced and informed perspective that shows economic reality.

Lastly, the topic of the article is not wealth inequality; the topic was added without asking on the talk page. There are double standards when I wrote about Genghis Khan to get removed, but wealth inequality to stay. Stavru (talk) 18:08, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I have renamed the section from "wealth inequality" to "reactions" as it primarily just shows the opinion of Oxfam. I support adding further perspectives on the matter by reliable sources. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 18:15, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I may add sources. But why even write the prespective of Oxfam or (or of any organization, it isn't the unbiased encyclopedix spirit), no matter if an opinion is pro wealth or anti wealth that's not my point, just gathering prespectives seems counter productive, I would rather deletion, people can form their conclusions. Stavru (talk) 18:18, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Oxfam is an established global NGO which focuses on producing reports on poverty and wealth inequality. Their reports are frequently cited in media coverage and academic papers. While they are biased, this does not mean we can't use them as a source for their analyses and opinions, similar to how we commonly cite Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch (see WP:BIASED).

However it may be worth considering if Oxfam is a reliable source on wealth inequality, as the only RSN discussion about them was 8 years ago. It may be a good to start a new discussion on WP:RSN about their reliability on global poverty. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 18:35, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Definetly that discussion should be re opened, as they seem to drift a bit from economic pragmatism, (e.g. some of the ideas I adressed above). Stavru (talk) 18:46, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

@Stavru: if you're going to add alternative perspectives you cannot base them off synthesizing secondary sources to create your own personal rebuttal. Opposing perspectives must be attributed to sources which directly address the topic at hand, such as , , . ―Howard • 🌽³³ 18:58, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

@Stavru, you stated to me in the discussion above that you would read the policy and guideline I linked above. One of those links was to a section of No original research which you stated that you would read. When you made that statement I expected you would read the broader policy and not just the section I linked. TarnishedPath^talk 01:26, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I had read it, no worries from that part. I thought that applied only for articles; I didn't know this applied to the talk page as well, but thanks for letting me know. Stavru (talk) 10:08, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

The problem is you did synthesise in the article as mentioned on the ANI thread you were already participating in before leaving your above comment. Nil Einne (talk) 12:48, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Red link

Why do people keep removing the red link to "artificial intelligence industry"? It is a notable topic that deserves its own article at some point or another. We already have articles about the industry in China, the UK, Taiwan, Canada, and Italy. Red links help articles grow and I don't want to keep reverting it. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 08:38, 15 June 2026 (UTC)