Ex-Nintendo chairman now Japan's third wealthiest
by Ross Miller 
{ Jun 11th 2007 at 5:59PM }
Hiroshi Yamauchi, former chairman of Nintendo's board of directors and the company's president prior to Satoru Iwata, is now the third wealthiest person in Japan, according to Forbes. Yamauchi reportedly has a net worth of $4.8 billion.On Forbes' list of the 40 richest Japanese, Yamauchi is noted for jumping up 11 spots, making him the list's biggest gainer. The reason cited for Yamauchi's increased worth is his shares in Nintendo; the company's stock has reportedly tripled in value since January 2006, thanks to the success of Nintendo DS and Wii.
We know, you're expecting us to throw up a picture of Iwata and Shigeru Miyamoto holding a DS that prints money. But we've got self control ... we'll just link to an article that already has the image instead.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
ComradeTrotskii @ Jun 11th 2007 6:18PM
I thought Iwata had his Koopa troopas kill this guy and dump him in the castle moat.
Joshua @ Jun 11th 2007 6:21PM
Nobody needs that much money. This is a fact.
Anam @ Jun 11th 2007 6:22PM
So Saturo takes his place, makes Nintendo a success, and their ex-president benefits from it. I find that funny.
I fully expect him to be 2nd wealthiest by the end of the holidays. Wonder if he owns a DS...
Kye @ Jun 11th 2007 6:42PM
Joshua
The fact you just stated is much debatable. Let's imagine this: All of the world's multi billionaires all throw in a billion to eradicating global poverty etc.
No-one would ever have to starve to death again.
That's something we need to do.
Therefore, needing that much money is relative upon what you intend to do with it.
On topic:
I wish I had enough money to invest in the big N back in the first half of 2005.
Joshua @ Jun 11th 2007 6:45PM
Kye, that's what I meant. All this multi-billionaires should donate their money to something meaningful, like what you suggested. I don't believe they should horde all their money for themselves.
Aberu @ Jun 11th 2007 7:15PM
Satoru* Iwata.
The syllable "tu" doesn't exist in japanese outside of multiple kana combinations to form a foreign word or name.
Roo @ Jun 11th 2007 7:53PM
Tell you what, when you build up a juggernaut of the gaming industry and then make profit in the billions off of its success, you can donate all the money you want to eradicate that which you deem fit. Deal?
NintendoFanbot @ Jun 11th 2007 8:03PM
Yes, you DO need that money. It keeps you from being bought out. ;)
And people seem to forget that he makes charitable donations from time to time.
Chris Putnam @ Jun 11th 2007 8:47PM
Has anybody pointed out that the main reason for Nintendo's turnaround is the fact that this crotchety old douchebag is no longer in charge?
That's right. I went there.
Joe @ Jun 11th 2007 9:14PM
@9: That's valid, but if it wasn't for crotchety old douchebag, Nintendo would probably still be dabbling in love hotels and Mickey Mouse playing cards.
Rubang B @ Jun 11th 2007 9:22PM
He may be a crotchety old douche bag who would do anything for a buck (ramen, love hotels, taxis, etc.), but he's a part of the super-triumvirate of oldschool Nintendo that birthed the gaming industry as we know it. Shigeru Miyamoto was the mad software genius, Gunpei Yokoi was the mad hardware genius, and Hiroshi Yamauchi was the mad evil corporate genius who ruled the industry worldwide with an iron fist for over a decade. They are the Trinity behind the NES, which revived the broken industry so we don't have to play E.T.!
Rubang B @ Jun 11th 2007 9:24PM
@9, they were 100% cards until this Yamauchi came along and went through taxis, ramen, and love hotels until he dabbled in the shooting arcades and then breakout clones and then Game & Watch and Famicom happened, etc. So yeah, he WAS the love hotel guy. I mean, he IS.
Aberu @ Jun 11th 2007 9:40PM
Thanks for fixing it rossy baby. You know I love ya. *smooch* *hugs* *kisses* *love-makins*
...
I'll stop now.
Quakeulf @ Jun 11th 2007 9:43PM
That's an awful lot of money in gaming!
Ross Miller @ Jun 11th 2007 9:48PM
Aberu,
No problem, I hate having errors.
Now my lawyers have advised I keep 500 feet from you.
Rosco
Joystiq
zwarrior @ Jun 11th 2007 10:04PM
"Yamauchi refused to accept his retirement pension, which was reported to be around $9 million to $14 million, feeling that Nintendo could put it to better use"-wiki
See, the guy is respectable
Tom @ Jun 11th 2007 10:06PM
@Kye
There IS such a thing as having TOO MUCH money: it's when you are taking money away from someone else. This is very simple to calculate. Take the total amount of money in the world and divide it by 6 billion people. The resulting value is the average wealth of each person. If you have more money than the average, that means you have too much money. I'm not trying to tell people how to live their lives (heck, I probably have too much money myself), and I'm not making judgements about anyone, I'm merely pointing out your solution of relying on billionaires to voluntarily redistribute wealth to the poor, while helpful, is in many ways diminished by the fact that, in a fair world (which we don't live in), the impoverished would have enough money to get by, thereby removing poverty from existence and not a problem that needs a solution.
Joe Winders @ Jun 11th 2007 10:32PM
Tom,
#1. You're a communist.
#2. You do not understand money as a concept. Most people don't. That's why the bankers rule the Earth.
Grog @ Jun 11th 2007 11:11PM
Money would be meaningless if you constantly redistributed it so everyone had an equal share. If you didn't, on the other hand, eventually you would get to a point where things are unequal again. So take a minute, put down your young idealism, and realize that billionaires don't stash their cash under their mattresses - they invest in companies that create jobs for people so that they can make money, spend money, and generally live.
Tom @ Jun 12th 2007 2:14AM
@Joe Winders
#1.Yes, I am a Communist. I consider that a compliment, just like when people try to insult me by calling me a liberal. That's a GOOD thing.
#2.You're a banker... and a capitalist.
#3.Capitalism has done more damage to the world (Read: United States' long history of overthrowing foreign leaders) than Communism ever could.
Joe Winders @ Jun 12th 2007 3:28AM
Tom,
Admitting you have a problem is the first step to curing it.
Communism requires total power be placed in the hands of the government, and no power in the individuals. This is what folks like Hitler (Nazi = National Socialist), Stalin, and Mao needed -- complete control.
Communism killed 100,000,000 people in the 20th century. Check it out in the Big Black Book of Communism.
Because you, and other communists, don't understand money & wealth, they think they can redistribute it without consequence. Instead, communists destroy wealth, and that is why all communist regimes collapse in poverty and murder of their own people.
Kye @ Jun 12th 2007 4:26AM
Tom,
Again, having too much money is relative. It depends on the price of goods and services. Allow me to use this example:
If you have 50 mil. in the bank and everything costs only 1% of what it does now - you laughing for the rest of your life.
But, if you have 50 mil. in the bank and a loaf of bread costs 20 mil. that's not good.
Hence, my point - It doesn't matter how much you have (compared to anyone else) if you don't have enough to live (even if it's more than the average person has).
Having "too much" just goes back to my early argument
But this point is lost in many ways. 1- this blog won't make a difference to anyone's life. :(
p.s. capitalism has destroyed many lives
On topic:
Isn't this the guy who said he never played games? That's life Bill Gates saying he got rich off of computers but never used one. Frickin amazing if you ask me.
WillTheSecond @ Jun 12th 2007 6:09AM
"Isn't this the guy who said he never played games? That's life Bill Gates saying he got rich off of computers but never used one. Frickin amazing if you ask me."
Lol, yep, that's what pisses me off. As far as I'm concerned Miyamoto is responsible for Nintendo's success (and whoever was in charge of the hardware element). The fact is that much of his money is made from a success (in my opinion earlier on and definitely now) that had nothing to do with him. If I believed in allowing people to be that rich it should certainly not be him with all that cash.
"Hence, my point - It doesn't matter how much you have (compared to anyone else) if you don't have enough to live (even if it's more than the average person has)."
This is true, but because of the nature of economics a person in the US, while earning less, also has to spend less than a person in the UK, so the point is moot really (other than the fact that in the UK we get ripped of with over-priced console hardware).
"Communism requires total power be placed in the hands of the government, and no power in the individuals. This is what folks like Hitler (Nazi = National Socialist), Stalin, and Mao needed -- complete control."
You don't know that communism is, or at least, you are only looking at the Stalinist definition, which utilized the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat. My philosophy tutor informed me that Marx never came up with that, it was Lenin who did, and he only meant it as a transitional phase before true communism (you break down the state into a non-hierarchal horizontally aligned co-operative groupings of workers [or community by community, or both, which ever way is easier]). Stalin screwed that right up, though.
Of course what you really need is to wait until the democratic transition has taken place then use that and a mixture of civil-disobedience (that is non-violent action in the style of Ghandi and Martin Luther King) to break down capitalist oligarchies. Violence and wars are for authoritarians and profiteering capitalists.
"Communism killed 100,000,000 people in the 20th century. Check it out in the Big Black Book of Communism."
As I have already shown, they are only part of a small cross section of socialists, and their views are no longer widely held. Also, Hitler was a facist, no a socialist. Yes, I realize he called it 'National Socialism' but the fact was that he was not apposed to capitalism in any way, in fact, many companies (especially arms and transport companies like Skoda) did very well under the Nazis. Also 'National Socialism' is an oxymoron, because any true socialist believes in the world equality of every human being (Karl Marx was Jewish, after all) and Hitler was certainly a racist.
Of course, that many deaths was also possible because of modern technology, had pre-20th century dictators had the same technology we would have seen just as much destruction earlier on by non-communists.
"Money would be meaningless if you constantly redistributed it so everyone had an equal share. If you didn't, on the other hand, eventually you would get to a point where things are unequal again."
I believe money becoming meaningless is the idea.
"#2. You do not understand money as a concept. Most people don't. That's why the bankers rule the Earth."
Bankers have only existed for around 200 years (at least in any recognizable form), which is also the length of time capitalism has existed. There was money long before capitalism.
"So take a minute, put down your young idealism, and realize that billionaires don't stash their cash under their mattresses - they invest in companies that create jobs for people so that they can make money, spend money, and generally live."
As apposed the the workers on the company owning the company and controlling it democratically? (I don't mean the kind of 'I have 2000 shares which means I have 2000 votes, you have 200 shares so you have only 200 votes kind of democracy, I mean proper equal one-member-one-vote democracy).
Kite @ Jun 12th 2007 6:16AM
@Joe winders
You might want to rephrase your latest statement. Since communism(not socialism, might I add), in its core, is actually a good way to maintain a stable economy. The main problems are that the human behaviour is not calculated (if you hadn't noticed, humans cheat), and a communistic system quite much kills creative concepts like competition and innovation.
You are right when you say communism is not possible here, but to say 'communism' killed all these people is just wrong. Do you have ANY idea how many people died for democracy, or for religion?
I would rather have that you think a bit before you make bold claims like 'this killed so many people, therefor it must be evil!'
Oh, and you invoked Godwin's law. So actually I didn't even had to make a tl;dr - column to try and state my opinion :)
Kye @ Jun 12th 2007 8:00AM
Very well put Will the Second.
One small point though; I believe you were reffering to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Not Martin Luther King - his father. It's a common mistake. I'm sure you wouldn't like to be held accountable for the actions of Will the First, woudst thou?
hvnlysoldr @ Jun 12th 2007 8:29AM
It's a moot point since communism is dead.
Tom @ Jun 12th 2007 2:00PM
No matter what you think about Communism or Capitalism, I pose the following hypothetical:
You have $500 you wish to give to charity. Do you...
a) Give the $500 to a billionaire who may or may not turn around and give it to the people who need it?
b) Find 5 homeless people and give them each $100?
Personally I would go with option B, but that's only because I'm an intelligent person. Perhaps when Joe Winders and Kye are done ranting about the apparent evils of Communism, they'd like to answer my question.
Joe Winders @ Jun 12th 2007 2:23PM
@23: "Bankers have only existed for around 200 years (at least in any recognizable form), which is also the length of time capitalism has existed. There was money long before capitalism."
Bankers have been around about 5000 years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_banking . Modern banking has been around since at least 600 A.D., when Chinese first used paper money. As soon as you have savings, you have bankers. I realize communists destroy wealth, so it is a bit academic to speak of savings in this context.
"because any true socialist believes in the world equality of every human being"
That has been very untrue; in the past, socialists attempted to keep races from mixing because they recognized that racial disharmony would be useful for the capitalists to keep the people divided. Why do you think todays globalists are so much in favor of diversity?
Merely as a scientific position, equality of races is also false as any Darwinist could tell you.
@24: "Do you have ANY idea how many people died for democracy, or for religion?"
I'm afraid we're talking about economic systems today, not other things. You can't dismiss communisms crimes by pointing at other criminals.
@26: Communism is not dead; it can never die. It grows from the bitter roots of Envy and Jealousy.
@27: I would not give it to A) because the billionaire would not be able to apply the money in any meaningful way. He is too busy considering larger issues and larger numbers.
I would not give it to B) because homeless people are largely of poor caliber and could not be trusted with the money.
If I was feeling charitable, I might give it to a well run local homeless shelter; one which I knew operated with a stern discipline and only helped those who are willing to help themselves.
Tom @ Jun 12th 2007 3:07PM
"If I was feeling charitable, I might give it to a well run local homeless shelter; one which I knew operated with a stern discipline and only helped those who are willing to help themselves."
Thank you, that's a good answer. I think we're in agreement then that rich people should not just keep getting richer and richer.
WillTheSecond @ Jun 12th 2007 3:46PM
"One small point though; I believe you were reffering to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Not Martin Luther King - his father. It's a common mistake. I'm sure you wouldn't like to be held accountable for the actions of Will the First, woudst thou?"
Lol, very good point, I shall be more careful with that from now on (especially since I called myself that because of all the historical figures that are named William).
"Merely as a scientific position, equality of races is also false as any Darwinist could tell you."
Er... yeah... except human beings i.e. homo sapiens are all one species and should really have no reason compete for resources.
"Modern banking has been around since at least 600 A.D., when Chinese first used paper money. As soon as you have savings, you have bankers. I realize communists destroy wealth, so it is a bit academic to speak of savings in this context."
Fair enough, but capitalism has not existed for anywhere near that length of time.
"I would not give it to B) because homeless people are largely of poor caliber and could not be trusted with the money."
Err... right. Any evidence?
"The main problems are that the human behaviour is not calculated (if you hadn't noticed, humans cheat), and a communistic system quite much kills creative concepts like competition and innovation."
Apparently, in a situation that requires co-operation humans naturally trust each other. Game theorists tested this and found that the only distrustful groups are economists and psychopaths.
Competition has deeply undermined creativity in both the cinema and games industries, because it has forced studios and publishers into a business model revolving around big-budget media products: as a result the funders of games are less willing to risk their money, and thus we have a stream of formulaic, predictable product.
In terms of console hardware, competition has other effects. Apart from causing us to have two massively priced consoles that are not really compatible with mass-market ownership, the forced five-year cycle (with many users who buy mid-way through or later getting a lot less) is wasteful of resources and damaging to the environment, when we could instead be using a single piece of upgradeable hardware.
Co-operation is also superior to competition as demonstrated by a great deal of open-source software (Firefox, Open Office, Democracy, all are superior to their corporate counterparts). And let's not forget Wikipedia, which is nowhere near as inaccurate as you would think (for every three mistakes in Encyclopedia Britannica there are four in Wiki).
There, I just about managed to swing this conversation back to games...
Joe Winders @ Jun 12th 2007 5:19PM
"Er... yeah... except human beings i.e. homo sapiens are all one species and should really have no reason compete for resources."
?!? Humans compete over everything! That is a key part of how sexual selection speeds up the evolutionary process in a species. Any species that has male & female is going to have competition within the species. Race is what we call the results of these differences in evolution of the species in different environments over the 110,000+ years since humans started separating out.
"Fair enough, but capitalism has not existed for anywhere near that length of time."
What would you say DID exist then? Capitalism is the natural extension of an individuals inalienable rights. That's really what is at play here: What is more important: The individual, or the group? And if you answer the group, what group? The Race? The Religion? The Smart? What happens to the other groups? Communism has only been possible in the past in small, closely knit and RELATED (race or clan) people. It's application to entire nation-states is relatively new as technology and communication have permitted it. It is a tested failure.
"Apparently, in a situation that requires co-operation humans naturally trust each other. Game theorists tested this and found that the only distrustful groups are economists and psychopaths."
Psychologists have also tested this and found that the natural trust is reduced as the group becomes composed of other races than their own, and increases as the group is composed of those more similar to themselves. Diversity kills trust.
Mr Khan @ Jun 12th 2007 5:27PM
That's Communism's only problem, it goes so far to the left that it becomes indistinguishable from the far right
The economic philosophy (when its not wasted like the Soviet Union did on pointless military buildups) is fairly sound, but the political philosophy needs to be fixed a bit before the Reds can take another shot at taking over the world
but on topic, yes; this man is responsible for Nintendo as we know it today, both the NES/SNES glory days and the darkness of the Nintendo 64 (i think)
Aberu @ Jun 13th 2007 2:13AM
@All the political bullshit in this thread:
WTF how the FUCK did you even get onto this subject? I've seen some pretty bad trolls in my time, but this is ridiculous!!