to acknowledge that most of this superclass are immensely talented, and gifted. Any flaws? Perhaps they might show more concern about the huge inequities in how we have organised the world. (Rothkopf would like some beneficial system of world governance, run by Davos man with - the subtext clearly reads - Rothkopf himself as their spiritual and moral guide.)

But even Rothkopf is rightly outraged by the behaviour of some of the world's richest: they acquire billions and give back on average about one per cent (compare that with the 90 per cent that Andrew Carnegie gave back in his lifetime) when more than a billion people live on under $1 a day.

That state of affairs is unacceptable, and will increasingly be a stain on the civilisation of the 21st century, if not a danger to world stability. Though it is hard to see how it's possible to spread that enormous wealth beyond just a few, unless you redraft capitalism on a global scale, and that's not going to happen.

When people are that rich, what is

it for? They can't just leave it all to their children: that's obscene. And it can't just be to buy more and bigger yachts. Abramovich has four, and Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen (as well as Perelman) have vast boats.

Maybe one consolation is that they aren't always that happy. Another friend was at a reception on Allen's boat at Cannes recently. The billionaire was bored, tetchy, unhappy, surrounded by ex-Spetsnaz bodyguards in olive green suits with bulging guns.

My friend started talking to Allen (left) about the day that he and Gates wrote the first programme for a PC. Allen suddenly became animated: soon the table of financiers, actresses and movie moguls fell silent as he relived the first steps of the computer revolution, of Gates writing programmes from his head on 40 yellow legal pads and not making a mistake. Simpler, happier days. But not much solace for the beggar in Mumbai.