Who is world's second richest man? Meet Larry Ellinson who beat Bezos and Zuckerberg, his net worth is Rs..., business is...
Elon Musk remains the world's richest person, with $411.4 billion followed by Larry Ellison of Oracle with $275.9 billion. Mark Zuckerberg is now at third place with $235.7 billion, followed by Jeff Bezos at fourth place with $227 billion.
The sudden surge in Larry Ellison's fortune has come on the back of a powerful rally in Oracle's stock, which soared 32% in June alone. Ellison holds nearly 41% of Oracle while he added more than $56 billion in just over a month.
With Ellison at the forefront, Oracle's strong earnings and momentum in the tech sector have turned it into a key player in the AI arms race. Who is Larry Ellison?
Lawrence Ellison is an American businessman and entrepreneur who co-founded software company Oracle Corporation. He was Oracle's chief executive officer (CEO) from 1977 to 2014 and is now its chief technology officer and executive chairman. As of June 2025, Ellison was the third-wealthiest person in the world, according to Bloomberg Billionaires Index and the second-wealthiest person in the world according to Forbes.
Larry Ellison has, since 1977, led Oracle to success and recognition worldwide with strong earnings and provided it a fillip in the tech sector turning the company into a key player in the AI arms race. His vision and assertive business tactics led Oracle to become one of the world's largest database software provider and a formidable player in enterprise tech.
Ellison was born in New York City in 1944 to to Florence Spellman, an unwed Jewish mother. His biological father was an Italian-American United States Army Air Corps pilot. He was raised by his aunt and uncle on Chicago's South Side. He dropped out of college twice, then spent 10 years coding for companies like Ampex and Amdahl. How was Oracle formed?
Larry Ellison, Bob Miner, and Ed Oates co-founded Oracle in 1977 in Santa Clara, California, as Software Development Laboratories (SDL). SDL changed its name to Relational Software, Inc (RSI) in 1979, then again to Oracle Systems Corporation in 1983, to align itself more closely with its flagship product Oracle Database. Among Oracle's early success was a $50,000 Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) contract to develop a relational database management system, codenamed Oracle. That contract not only gave the company its name but also its first major customer. Within two years of formation, Oracle released the first commercial version of its SQL-based database system.
Ellison left the post of the CEO in 2014 but remains chairman and chief technology officer.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Boost for beekeepers: Haryana CM Nayab Saini announces inclusion of honey in Bhavantar Bharpai Yojana
KURUKSHETRA: In an important step for the welfare of farmers and beekeepers, Haryana chief minister Nayab Singh Saini on Saturday announced that honey will now be brought under the Bhavantar Bharpai Yojana (BBY), on the lines of horticulture crops. The move aims to ensure fair prices for honey producers while promoting scientific beekeeping as a profitable venture across the state. Addressing a state-level workshop on beekeeping at Ramnagar in Kurukshetra, CM Saini also declared that a honey sales and storage facility will soon be established at the Integrated Beekeeping Development Centre (IBDC), Ramnagar, with arrangements for quality testing. To further support this initiative, the government will set up a Quality Control Laboratory at a cost of Rs 20 crore. The Ramnagar institute, developed in collaboration with Israel, will be elevated to the status of a national-level centre for advanced and scientific research in apiculture, the CM said. Highlighting the role of beekeeping in strengthening rural incomes, CM Saini said, 'Beekeeping not only provides farmers with an additional source of earnings but also boosts crop yields through pollination. Haryana is committed to realizing Prime Minister Narendra Modi's call for a 'Sweet Revolution'.' by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like American Investor Warren Buffett Recommends: 5 Books For Turning Your Life Around Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo The CM informed that under the Beekeeping Policy-2021, the state has set a target of preparing 7,750 beekeepers and producing 15,500 metric tonnes of honey by 2030. Currently, the Ramnagar centre provides training and has already distributed 74,000 bee boxes and 3.43 lakh comb sheets. Facilities for honey processing and bottling are also available. Farmers are being offered up to 85% subsidy on bee boxes, colonies, and equipment, he said. Underscoring the importance of diversification, Saini said horticulture and allied activities like dairy, fisheries, and beekeeping are becoming pillars of rural prosperity. 'In 2014, horticulture in Haryana was spread over 1.17 lakh acres, which has now expanded to 2.60 lakh acres. With FPOs, excellence centres, procurement schemes, and now BBY, farmers are becoming stronger,' he added. Encouraging youth and women entrepreneurs, the CM urged them to launch their own honey brands and explore global markets through online platforms. 'Beekeeping requires minimal land and can be an ideal startup opportunity. The government will extend full financial and technical support,' he assured. Supporting the initiative, Haryana Agriculture and Farmers' Welfare minister Shyam Singh Rana emphasized that enhancing farmers' income is the government's top priority. He said that sectors like dairy, animal husbandry, fisheries, and beekeeping are being promoted alongside crops to build a stronger rural economy. The workshop was attended by former minister Subhash Sudha, senior officials, agricultural experts, and representatives of beekeepers' associations. As per the data available on the website of Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority under Union Ministry of Commerce and Industry, about 500 flowering plant species, both wild and cultivated, are useful as major or minor sources of nectar and pollen. As per Union Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers' Welfare-2023, India's total production of honey was 142 thousand metric tonne (MT). In India, the area under production of natural honey includesUttar Pradesh (17%), West Bengal (16%), Punjab (14%), Bihar (12%) and Rajasthan (9%). These states amount to the top five natural honey producers. The country has exported 107963.21 MT Natural Honey worth USD 177.52 million to the world during the financial year 2023-24, with major export destinations including USA, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Libya, as per DGCI&S data. As per an article 'Beekeeping: Opportunities and Challenges in Haryana' published in August 2024 by Biological Forum journal and written by experts of Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, 'Beekeeping in Haryana offers significant potential due to the state's favorable climate, diverse flora, and agriculture-based economy, which enhances crop yield through pollination, and provides opportunities for income diversification. The varied cropping patterns, affected by different soil types, irrigation facilities, temperature, relative humidity, and agro-climatic conditions, make Haryana suitable for beekeeping, particularly with Apis mellifera . Haryana is among the top seven honey producing states (in India), yielding approximately 4,500 metric tons annually, with over 5,000 active beekeepers.' Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area. Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Happy Krishna Janmashtami Wishes ,, messages , and quotes !
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Déjà vu in Delhi! India knows the sting of tariffs
US President Donald Trump's decision to impose punishing tariffs on India might seem unprecedented — until you flip the calendar back 36 years. In 1989, Washington tried to pry open the Indian economy by threatening tariffs, leading to a 12-month bitter stand-off between the two nations. Eventually the US backed down, but the conflict left a scar on the bilateral relationship. A look back at the Super 301 episode can help us better understand the dynamics at play today. In the late 1980s, the US was engaged in an intense trade war with Japan, its primary economic rival at the time. Washington developed an arsenal of diplomatic and economic weapons for its war including Super 301, a legal mechanism upgraded in 1988. It authorised the US President to identify countries with 'unfair' trade practices and punish them with retaliatory tariffs. Once the statute came into force, President George HW Bush did not limit its use to Japan. His administration sought to address America's rising trade deficit by using the threat of Super 301 to strong-arm several countries, including American allies like Europe, South Korea and Taiwan. Parallels with the current administration are evident. In his first term, Trump used tariffs to battle China; now he uses them on friends and foes alike. Once Washington develops a policy tool to coerce one country, it becomes all too tempting to use that tool indiscriminately and sometimes unthinkingly. It is an important facet of US hegemony, regardless of who occupies the White House. Many countries tried to avoid Super 301 by hastily cutting deals with Washington to open their markets or voluntarily restricting their exports. In June 1989, the Bush administration declared that it would target three countries — Japan, Brazil and India. New Delhi was taken by complete surprise. Its relations with Washington had been improving in the previous few years. Its trade surplus with the US was relatively paltry. Washington's two central demands, that India allow American investments and foreign insurance companies, seemed arbitrary. Unlike Japan and Brazil, India refused to even enter into negotiations with the US. Then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi said he wouldn't let the US dictate how to run the country. American heavy-handedness sparked intense outrage in the Parliament, further tying the govt's hands politically. At the same time, the American threat of tariffs posed serious risks for the Indian economy. US share in India's exports at the time was about one-fifth, the same as it is today. India was much less dependent on foreign trade in 1989 than it is today, but it was also a much smaller and more vulnerable economy. India failed to enlist world opinion to its side. Western countries, including even Japan, agreed with Washington that India was too restrictive of foreign investments. Today, Indian diplomats looking for international solidarity against US tariff assault may discover a similar situation. Many countries may deplore Trump's ham-fisted tactics, while endorsing his goals of lowering Indian protectionism and weaning it away from Russian oil. PM VP Singh, elected in December 1989, tried to placate Washington through a tightrope act. While India continued to refuse negotiations on the two demands under Super 301, it offered concessions on other economic fronts. Americans were not satisfied with Indian offerings. In April 1990, Japan and Brazil were dropped from the Super 301 list, leaving India as the sole target. Washington issued a two-month ultimatum to New Delhi. American 'bullying' was loudly condemned by Indian media and politicians. In the end, the showdown never arrived. At the expiration of the ultimatum deadline, the Bush administration determined that following through with its threats was not worth it. It declared that while India was an 'unfair trader', it was not in American interest to take retaliatory actions. The Super 301 process against India was discontinued. The Bush administration backed down without much loss of face because Washington's trade campaign was global and India was only a small piece of it. Same remains true today. Although the tariffs are a major issue for New Delhi, they are just one battle among dozens that Trump is fighting on multiple fronts. The Indo-US relationship quickly bounced back, buoyed by alignment of certain economic and geopolitical interests. However, the Super 301 episode left a bad taste in the Indian mouth. It was yet another reminder that American power can unexpectedly become capricious and overbearing. In the last few years, many commentators have expressed befuddlement at why New Delhi resists moving closer to Washington despite its persistent conflict with Beijing. Its reticence partly stems from its fear that greater dependence on the US will leave it more vulnerable to Washington's volatile high-handedness that manifests from time to time. Trump's tariff assault has again affirmed the wisdom behind India's caution. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer Views expressed above are the author's own.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Could India have handled President Trump better?
The Narendra Modi government converted an economically disastrous idea such as demonetisation into a political win. It dealt with a brutal Covid-19 pandemic that took millions of lives and devastated livelihoods, yet emerged politically unscathed. The Modi government played with fire on land acquisition and farm laws, yet pulled back without getting burnt. And despite its limited success in pulling off a manufacturing revolution to generate jobs on scale, it has remained politically dominant and maintained its multi-class and multi-caste alliance. The Modi government confronted a serious national security crisis with a far more powerful adversary, China, and had to redefine the idea of normalcy for the sake of peace, yet it did not pay a domestic political price. India dealt with a highly polarised West-Russia landscape and a China that was either actively hostile or passively aggressive or absent, yet pulled off a spectacular G20 presidency. It had to secure its interests with diametrically different American administrations with almost opposing priorities, and yet it was able to be friends with the sitting administration while still having enough goodwill with the preceding power constellation. How did a government that has been so adept in dealing with the domestic and international landscape, and overcoming its own missteps and mistakes, fumble in reading the US? How did a government so sharp in reading danger signals not manage friction when there were clear possibilities of trouble with the US from earlier this year, but definitely from May 10 when Donald Trump claimed credit for the ceasefire? How is it that in over 90 days since then, India, with all its equities and power, has failed to shift the conversation or make enough inroads into Trump's world to find a meeting ground while keeping to its redlines? To be sure, it has been difficult to predict the US president's next move, but there are countries that have managed to get their (limited) way. Let there be no doubt about the severity of the crisis. India is worse off among all the regional competitors for investment, and in its own immediate neighbourhood in terms of access to the US market. This has implications way beyond trade, for suddenly, the signal to American capital about India is of uncertainty, despite the charms of its huge market and extensive talent pool. This puts under strain India's broader economic modernisation roadmap that hinges at least partly, if not substantially, on western investment and technology partnerships to boost manufacturing and generate mass employment. India is confronting repeated blows against its core strategic concerns: Trump appears more than willing to make long-term strategic concessions for a deal with China. Pakistan's comeback to the Washington DC theatre, even if it is only in the short-term as some pundits believe, is arguably on a more broad-based diplomatic, economic and strategic footing than even 2001 when it was driven by the narrow counter terror frame in Afghanistan. And, India is paying a price for US-Russia tensions in ways that it hasn't for decades. India is also staring at a crisis in the people-to-people relationship, given the challenges in getting student visas, the backlash against H1Bs in Trump's base and intense spurt in anti-Indian and anti-Hindu racist rhetoric from the White supremacist Right. The biggest crisis, of course, is there are no easy pathways out of it anymore. The more time has passed, the more rhetoric has got meaner, the more demands have escalated and become public, the less political space there is to make compromises. The Indian political and street mood is now, justifiably, furious at how the country has been treated by the US even as everyone realises the importance of that country and the bilateral relationship. There are structural factors at play, for core contradictions on trade openness and relationships with third countries have come to the fore. There are personality-centric issues at play, especially on the American side with a president who revels in sharpening contradictions with his own country's institutions, the international system, and allies and partners in the quest for political or personal or financial wins. And, there are unanticipated variables and events that have affected the chessboard. But none of this can take away from the fact that the government may have missed out on multiple opportunities to manage Trump. This is particularly striking since the political leadership has usually been alert in responding creatively in difficult situations, managing narratives, engaging with all kinds of interlocutors, unleashing diplomatic charm in the external domain or pre-empting rivals by appropriating political issues in the domestic domain, finding wins-wins when possible and framing compromises as wins when necessary. To be sure, as Pratap Bhanu Mehta has eloquently and wisely argued, the Trumpian project is an imperial project and dignity is essential. But avoiding being in the direct firing line of the imperial project was in national interest and the government's core diplomatic duty. And, yes, there may have been ways to do it without compromising on India's historic stance on third-party mediation, or on core interests of small farmers, or on Indian manufacturing potential. And, this was possible because a childishly transparent, vain and corrupt Trump world is always open to a better deal and packaging has always been more central to his politics than substance. To return to the puzzle then, what happened? A detailed empirical account will only emerge once the crisis passes, actors move on from their current roles, and files are declassified. And even a more specific discussion on who got what wrong and when and what could have been done need not detain us here. One school of thought is there was a problem with the personnel chosen to make judgments on the ground and offer advice. Another is that India may have genuinely misread the problem, or been unable to anticipate second or third order consequences of Trumpian rupture. A third suggests that there may have been a problem with the channels selected for execution of goals; India's adversaries and critics have been constantly in Trump's ear while India's perspective has failed to register a mark. It could well be a combination; the problems with personnel, judgment and execution, may have resulted in a problem in decision making. And, to be fair, all of this may have been exacerbated by domestic concerns, not just of the man (and woman) on the street, but the political Opposition. After 11 years, this is the biggest challenge facing Narendra Modi, and he may want to consider a reset. It could start with foreign policy but a full Kamraj-plan style reset across the party and government may not be a bad idea at this time, especially given the ambitious agenda the Prime Minister laid out in his Independence Day speech. This could bring fresh energy and ideas and shatter vested interests to help India prepare for the coming political, economic and strategic storms. For coming they are.
