Forbes

Forbes company created a 12,800 acre, 3500 lot, subdivision in Missouri called Forbes Lake of the Ozarks Park in 1983-1984, but they failed to bother to get the legally required Missouri Department of Natural Resources approvals to make this subdivision a legal subdivision. Now Missouri DNR has decided to go after all the current lot owners and after the private Forbes Land Owners Association due to Forbes company not following the subdivision laws at that time. Missouri DNR is now considering it illegal for 3500 lot owners, who have been paying taxes and association dues for almost 40 years, from building on or re-selling their lots. This (retroactive) regulating from DNR against those who bought lots in Forbes LOA subdivision in good faith over the last 40 years, believing the subdivision was a legal subdivision, is harming 3500 lot owners. Forbes should step up and do whatever is now required by Missouri DNR to make Forbes LOA subdivision legal. But I doubt that will ever happen because I suspect that money is more important to Forbes than the thousands of people who believed that any subdivision developed by Forbes, and with Forbes name on it, was legal and not a scam.

Reading is always been part of my daily routine, and Forbes is one of the amazing magazine when it comes i information and details. Love to read anything here and definitely one of the avid fan

I do not miss a single issue becausr it`s the best magazine you can find
-interesting articles
-attractive illustrations

Your article on Ivermectin is BS, when your ready to write an honest article, please contact me, the results are impossible to dismiss

Forbes online touts itself as "home page for the world's business leaders", and such it may be, but if you don't happen to be a world business leader - and let's face it, if you're reading one of my reviews you probably aren't - don't let that put you off. Forbes does devote considerable space to business and high finance, but it also reports on anything in life which has some economical interest or significance. And that's just about everything, when you come to think of it. For example, the current issue has an article about Lady Gaga, not something you'd expect to find in, say, The Financial Times, and frankly it's a gossip article too, but the reason it's there is because it involves her earnings. And that gives Forbes the excuse to write about it. Oh, yes, and what are her earnings, I hear you cry? Sixty-two million, last year, estimated. Not bad. But no need for Oprah to start worrying about her position at the top of the celebs annual earnings table, clocking in at an astonishing $315 million.

(Intriguing or obscene, depending on your standpoint, the list of the wealthiest and most socially sought-after is here:
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/53/celeb-100-10_The-Celebrity-100.html)

Forbes is a surprisingly wide and varied venue and well worth spending some time looking around, even if you don't think a magazine for business leaders has anything in it for you. It's an icon of capitalism, though, and as such it may offend some by its absorbing interest in money, and for good reason. If you fall into that category you don't have to visit, of course, but on the other hand it's always worth seeing what the enemy is thinking.