Those with aspirations of unfettered wealth look for clues everywhere. From top schools to unique talents, they build profiles of what it takes to become absurdly wealthy ... as though the process can be blueprinted. Well, if you're looking for answers, the Forbes 400 list is a great place to start. If anyone has mastered the art of making money, it's this collection of billionaires. They have the answers, and you are ready to learn.

A look at the lives of the Forbes 400 implies that the most important attribute is the ability to sift through ambiguity. Contradictions abound, meaning that shades of gray hold the answer to your burning desire for riches. Should you go to a great school? Well, yes ... but only if you're going for an MBA and plan to work for a major financial firm. But, you can still go to an Ivy League school if you're not studying finance but join Skull and Bones. Of course, dropping out of Harvard can be a great way to launch a career in the technology field.

It's tricky. There are no easy answers. But, the road to billions is littered with the corpses of aspiring magnates who thought it wouldn't be difficult. So, don't just read the seven attributes after the jump. Understand them. Read them twice. Then, your future financial situation will be assured.

Or, you can just do one of those chain e-mails and wish for wealth.

[Thanks, Forbes and MSNBC]

Once upon a time, a law degree from the likes of Harvard meant not only that the job offers would come but that they would be substantial. A big check from a prestigious firm, of course, is a great way to start a career, as that name stays on your resume for the rest of your life. A decline in demand for legal services, however, has left the major law firms rethinking their campus hiring volume. As a result, even students from the top law schools are likely to have trouble landing their dream 90-hour-a-week jobs.

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, the top law firm in the United States by revenue, forecasted a 50% drop in summer hiring for next year, recruiting partner Howard Ellin told Bloomberg News. In 2009, Skadden brought in 225 students for the summer. Next year, only half that amount is expected.

Is it 2009-2010 or 1972-1973? If you're paying college tuition this year, it may be hard to tell. Tuition is up only 4.3% for the coming school year, the lowest rate of growth in 37 years, according to a survey of 350 private schools by the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities. This is down substantially from the 5.9% increase for the 2008-2009 school year. Of course, this is for tuition only and does not include room and board inflation.

Before celebrating, though, remember that depressed housing prices and constrained financial markets make it tougher to dip into home equity to pay for school (a favorite strategy of the past few years), and layoffs are putting an obvious strain on household finances. So, the bargain in all this may be hard to find, even with financial aid increases of 9.2%.

The Wall Street Journal reports (subscription required) that Harvard Medical School professor David Sinclair has resigned from the board of Shaklee, a company that markets Vivix Cellular Anti-Aging Tonic, "the world's best anti-aging supplement", through a multi-level marketing system.

The Wall Street Journal has video footage (see below) of Dr. Sinclair speaking at the company's sales convention, describing the company's chairman and CEO Roger Barnett as the "greatest visionary of the 21st century."

That was in August and now he's gone. What prompted the change of heart? According to the Journal, "Following questions by The Wall Street Journal about his seeming endorsement of the product, Dr. Sinclair resigned from the board last week and now says his name has been misused in connection with Vivix, which contains the antioxidant resveratrol."

In an email to the Journal, he wrote that "To my dismay I have found numerous uses of my name and reputation on the Web and in other media that implies endorsement by me of Shaklee's Vivix product. I have engaged counsel to deal with this matter and have demanded that Shaklee cease using my name."

Methinks the good doctor doth protest too much. A cynical person might say that Sinclair endorsed a dubious network marketing product enthusiastically in exchange for his paid position on the company's advisory board and is now crying foul after the media raised questions about it.

Harvard Medical School is looking into the matter.

The Dow lost 385 points this week with a 315 point election day rally on Tuesday, two consecutive days which totaled 929 points down, and a Friday rally of 248 points. Did the market rise on hopes of a McCain upset only to fall due to disappointment that Obama won? Did the market rally Friday because the 6.5% unemployment rate was not as bad as expected? It could be, but I doubt it.

More likely, the markets are moving because of the trading behavior of endowments, pension funds, and hedge funds. They make decisions for very different reasons. But some reporting on daily market movements looks like a joke -- nobody knows why the market goes up or down, but commenters use price movements as a daily barometer of the national mood. So how do endowments, pension funds, and hedge funds move the markets? Here's how:

• Endowments. Big university endowments, such as Harvard's, are desperately trying to unload billions of dollars worth of illiquid interests in venture capital and private equity firms. Harvard is reportedly trying to dump $1.5 billion worth of such interests into a market where there is likely to be very little interest. Not only that, these private equity firms are demanding that endowments fork over the money they committed to them so they can make new investments. And with the S&P 500 down 36.6% so far this year, many endowments are selling anything liquid to meet these commitments and to pay shorter-term obligations -- such as paying professors and keeping the lights on.

Despite Fed Chair Ben Bernanke's comments this week about inflation, the dollar is dropping -- which is fueling higher oil prices. And the reason for that relates to the different strategies of the Fed and European central banks for fighting inflation.

The difference? The Fed talks about inflation but keeps its interest rate at 2%. If Bernanke was serious about fighting inflation, he'd raise rates. Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that two European central banks -- which set their rates at 4% (European Central Bank (ECB)) and 5% (Bank of England) -- are talking about raising the rates further because they're "alarmed by soaring prices for food and fuel." The ECB thinks May inflation was 3.6% and it expects a 3.4% price rise for all of 2008.

The dollar has lost 70% of its value since January 2001 -- it's dropped from 92 cents to the Euro down to $1.56. Now if you're an investor, would you rather get a 4% return or a 2% one? That's the simple choice faced by people trying to decide whether to buy Euros or Dollars. And with the ECB on track to raise interest rates next month, the dollar is likely to fall further behind unless Bernanke puts the Fed Funds rate where his mouth is.

Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter.

Who says economics is a dismal science?

Economists are a laugh riot at dinner parties. They even like to write elaborate technical papers designed to tickle the funny bones of their colleagues such as the one highlighted in Saturday's New York Times proposing a tax on the tall. Here's a link to the paper for those that are gluttons for punishment.

Even the Times plays it for laughs, saying, "It may be a satire of progressive taxation (or of what the authors call "`utilitarian social planners')"

Economists should take note that the phrase "utilitarian social planners" isn't ever funny in any situation. A pie in the face, a pratfall, clowns exiting a small car, now that's funny.

Seton Hall University Professor Frank Pasquale dismissed the paper as a "parlor game," the Times said. Harvard University Professor N. Gregory Mankiw, one of the authors of the paper, doesn't seem to be insulted. By the way, the former chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisors stands 6 feet, 2 inches so this tax would presumably apply to him.

"Besides, as the erstwhile president of my high school chess club, I do not object to a good parlor game now and then," he writes on his blog.

A high school chess club president becomes an economist? What are the odds?