Seems the world economy is growing and changing so fast that staying on top for very long will become harder. Carlos Slim of Mexico did not retain the title very long, as CNBC is reporting Meet the World's New 'Richest Person' -- For Now, a story about Mukesh Ambani. It has been reported that he is just completing a ONE BILLION DOLLAR HOME! Here's how the Indian press reports rank the world's top five richest people as of today, based on known public stock holdings:

• Mukesh Ambani - $63.2 billion
• Carlos Slim Helu - $62.2993 billion
• William (Bill) Gates - $62.29 billion
• Warren Buffett - $55.9 billion
• Lakshmi Mittal - $50.9 billion

To me, this all amounts to creating headlines, since the slight difference between one, two, and three could be altered with a single day's stock movement. Given that Ambani is on the other side of the world with great fortunes in Europe and Asia it could change back and forth depending on which stock exchanges are open at the time. In a rising market you could go to sleep as the richest person in the world and wake up to find you were overtaken, only to find by the close of the market you were on top again.

What's more important is who is taking what actions. What are these supernova rich guys doing with their wealth? In the case of Gates and Buffett, they have become the world's biggest philanthropists. Carlos Slim has expressed a desire to share his wealth as well by setting up a $10 billion foundation -- I'm not sure how far he has gone with that idea. Mittal is still busy buying up all the steel production on the planet, and is now the largest player in the market. That will increase his wealth for now. On the other hand, the Hunt Brothers of Texas thought that way in the 1970s about silver, and found out rather quickly that was not their brightest idea. Steel is likely a much better bet.

My recent stories about American Idol inflamed reader passions from many perspectives. Sanjaya aside, the idea of American companies out-sourcing jobs to India or anywhere else offends many people. Some readers of American Idol: Are Indian call centers skewing the vote? thought I was singling out the people of India which they interpreted as hostile and racist. I thought I would set the record straight about my views on the subject.

1. The jobs we are sending overseas to India, or elsewhere, is not affecting the employment rate in the United States to any appreciable level. Last I read the unemployment rate stood at 4.5%. It has been hovering between 4% and 5% for several years. To me that is actually close to full employment in a market society as complex as ours. I have no expectation that we could sustain anything lower.
2. Our connection and developing relationship with India in particular is extremely valuable. I believe India has as much potential as any nation, and more than most, to help us expand our economy. It's size, value system, geographic location, history, English foundation, and more make it a great partner. There is much more to gain than to lose for both sides.
3. The fluidity of markets and the greatest transparency in business dealings should be our focus and the word globalization is sometimes a distraction. It is not specific and means different things to different people. Integration is a better word. International partnering is a better term. Since the market is becoming more and more fluid we have not only witnessed call-centers and software development moving overseas, but in some cases they are coming back as companies experiment and decide they function better with local talent and control.

One of the greatest ironies I find in this whole discussion is that the people that complain about the outsourcing of work to other countries are the same ones that complain if a foreign company comes to set up shop in the United States - bringing jobs here!