Forbes just released its list of wealthiest fictional characters. OK, at leasst I didn't say "BREAKING."
But follow me here, and understand the methodical financial analysis provided by the brainiancs at conservative Forbes magazine which suggests that Daddy Warbucks, because of the So-Called War on Terror (SCWOT©)has ammased a fortune of US$36.2 billion dollars.
How did the magazine calculate Daddy Warbucks' net worth?
When possible on known commodity and share price movements or by comparing private businesses to comparable fictional public companies plus a "tiny grain of common sense and a large dose of salt."
Consider that for a moment: The analysts and editors at Forbes believe that the war has enabled the building of wealth in the billions of dollars. They are tacitly acknowledging that there is money to be made in this war. And why would they presume that?
Could it be because of the no-bid contracts?
Could it be due to the veep's stock options and deferred compensation based on Halliburton's current revenues?
Could it be due to the sale of nuclear technologies by Pakistan to North Korea?
Could it be due to the pillaging of national treasures by mercanary-like free agents in Iraq?
Could it be the billions in profits logged by the oil companies as they squeezed drivers?
Could it? Is Forbes actually stating that they finally believe the corrupt system has created a whole class of Daddy Warbucks, yet dodgingany bullet by framing the list in the context of its annual list of wealthiest fictional characters?