Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Jeff Bezos Is Now the World's Second Richest Person

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 548 posts

Re: Jeff Bezos Is Now the World's Second Richest Person

#291

Post by rdtsc »

mjfl wrote: post #100
_m8fo wrote: post #84

Everytime I see these types of articles I wonder if we're still in feudalism. Should we really be celebrating that a single individual is worth more than hundreds of millions of people[1]? I dunno, it seems dystopian , like we're enslaved to the system. [1] https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2017-01-16/...

I think that's a little hyperbolic. In feudalism the balance of power is enforced by violence, whereas Jeff Bezos got rich because you gave him money in exchange for products. Like, "Hey, here's this cool electronic device called the Amazon Echo for $50." is a markedly different from "Farm here or I'll decapitate you." The fact that you harbor a resentment as if the former is anything like the latter is slightly terr…

> "Farm here or I'll decapitate you."

I think you got confused, that's communism. :P And it's not decapitation (too messy) it is a bullet to the back of the head or death in a labor camp.

Feudalism is "you can farm here but you owe me and your promise to fight in my wars".

> The fact that you harbor a resentment as if the former is anything like the latter is slightly terrifying.

Really? Is it terrifying to compare a vassal's contract with the "work for me in the warehouse and I'll pay you a minimum wage, if you don't like, there is a line waiting at the door". They are not the same, it's a bit silly but is that sending shivers down our spine?

Re: Jeff Bezos Is Now the World's Second Richest Person

#292

Post by ajmurmann »

visarga wrote: post #276
mjfl wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's a little hyperbolic. In feudalism the balance of power is enforced by violence, whereas Jeff Bezos got rich because you gave him money in exchange for products. Like, "Hey, here's this cool electronic device called the Amazon Echo for $50." is a markedly different from "Farm here or I'll decapitate you." The fact that you harbor a resentment as if the former is anything like the latter is slightly terr…

> I think that's a little hyperbolic. In feudalism the balance of power is enforced by violence Tell that to the hordes of unemployed people. Amazon is doing it darndest to employ as few people as possible in their warehouses and now are testing drone delivery.

If automation is so evil we should ban the loom.

Re: Jeff Bezos Is Now the World's Second Richest Person

#293

Post by nroets »

zdean wrote: post #26
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #5

So is Bezos our modern day Carnegie or Rockefeller?

As a reference example, Rockefeller was worth over $300 billion in 2007 dollars: https://www.google.com/search?q=Rockefeller&oq=Rockefeller&a...

The $300 billion was estimated by assuming that his assets expand with US economic output. That makes no sense because the US population grew substantially (and the US economy has diversified into many new fields).

Re: Jeff Bezos Is Now the World's Second Richest Person

#294

Post by lukifer »

indeed_thetruth wrote: post #169
habosa wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reminds me of Nozick's Wilt Chamberlain example, which I will quote here: > Nozick's famous Wilt Chamberlain argument is an attempt to show that patterned principles of just distribution are incompatible with liberty. He asks us to assume that the original distribution in society, D1, is ordered by our choice of patterned principle, for instance Rawls's Difference Principle. Wilt Chamberlain is an extremely popu…

This argument is trivially inconsistent. The state must protect liberty by interfering with one's liberty? State interfence is a direct transgression against an individual's liberty. Thus far the majority has decided that such interfence is a greater evil than the "inequality" that it could reconcile.

The only way to have the freedom from being punched in the nose, is by taking away the freedom to punch people in the nose, punishing punchers with more nose-punching, but constrained by due-process (peer-reviewed violence).

Re: Jeff Bezos Is Now the World's Second Richest Person

#295

Post by mrkgnao »

indeed_thetruth wrote: post #169
habosa wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reminds me of Nozick's Wilt Chamberlain example, which I will quote here: > Nozick's famous Wilt Chamberlain argument is an attempt to show that patterned principles of just distribution are incompatible with liberty. He asks us to assume that the original distribution in society, D1, is ordered by our choice of patterned principle, for instance Rawls's Difference Principle. Wilt Chamberlain is an extremely popu…

This argument is trivially inconsistent. The state must protect liberty by interfering with one's liberty? State interfence is a direct transgression against an individual's liberty. Thus far the majority has decided that such interfence is a greater evil than the "inequality" that it could reconcile.

"It's full of contradictions!"

"So is independence!"

Re: Jeff Bezos Is Now the World's Second Richest Person

#296

Post by iamnotlarry »

majormajor wrote: post #210
mjfl wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's not the important part. The violence is the important part. Feudalism wasn't unjust because the kings had a lot of money, it was unjust because they got a lot of money through force and not through productive economic activity. Also, I think it is extremely problematic to compare any system with large disparities of outcome with an essentially violent system like feudalism (or just defining "inequality = v…

> Feudalism wasn't unjust because the kings had a lot of money, it was unjust because they got a lot of money through force and not through productive economic activity. What if they just inherited it? How confident are we that everyone who has a lot of monetary power today got to that place originally through productive economic activity vs. illegitimate/criminal activity, or unproductive economic activity, or inher…

We're not talking about all rich people. We're talking about Jeff Bezos. How did Jeff become the second wealthiest human on the planet?

Well, his mother's family had some wealth. But his mother was a single teenage mom until she married his step-father. His step-father immigrated alone from Cuba at the age of 15. Later, he worked his way through a degree at the University of Albuquerque.

So, I'm not sure how much of a silver spoon he had.

Re: Jeff Bezos Is Now the World's Second Richest Person

#297

Post by dredmorbius »

indeed_thetruth wrote: post #169
habosa wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reminds me of Nozick's Wilt Chamberlain example, which I will quote here: > Nozick's famous Wilt Chamberlain argument is an attempt to show that patterned principles of just distribution are incompatible with liberty. He asks us to assume that the original distribution in society, D1, is ordered by our choice of patterned principle, for instance Rawls's Difference Principle. Wilt Chamberlain is an extremely popu…

This argument is trivially inconsistent. The state must protect liberty by interfering with one's liberty? State interfence is a direct transgression against an individual's liberty. Thus far the majority has decided that such interfence is a greater evil than the "inequality" that it could reconcile.

Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes!

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/w/waltwhitma132584...

Re: Jeff Bezos Is Now the World's Second Richest Person

#298

Post by lukifer »

milesrout wrote: post #246
mjfl wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's not the important part. The violence is the important part. Feudalism wasn't unjust because the kings had a lot of money, it was unjust because they got a lot of money through force and not through productive economic activity. Also, I think it is extremely problematic to compare any system with large disparities of outcome with an essentially violent system like feudalism (or just defining "inequality = v…

Capitalism is inherently violent whether you like it or not. The police violently repress anyone seeking what they have a natural right to: their fair share of the wealth.

Capitalism is absolutely violent, and just as concerned with with-holding value as providing it (the primary means of price negotiation is the threat of walking away). Look at how much food a grocery store throws away, or how many houses are unoccupied, all in the interests of accounting and bargaining leverage.

However: I take umbrage with "natural right" (the only right nature guarantees is entropy and death), and "fair share" (as decided by whom?). I think a wealthy, free, and just society would include infrastructure investment and The Commons in addition to free enterprise and private property; but good luck getting every single person to agree on the same definition of "fair".

Re: Jeff Bezos Is Now the World's Second Richest Person

#299

Post by namlem »

ImSkeptical wrote: post #213
mhermher wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Property is violence. If I try to take something that "isn't my property", the state will intervene with violence (e.g. forced imprisonment, etc.) on behalf of the person deemed to be the "lawful owner".

I haven't seen opinion polls, but I doubt that's a widely held view. Why should people conform to your unusual position on property, as opposed to the mainstream one? Personally, I quite like owning things that are mine. The cost, that other people can own things that are theirs and not mine, seems well worth it.

Parent comment didn't lay forth a good argument, but I think there is something to be said for the societal cost of people owning investment capital. However, there is also something to be said for the benefit of incentives. It's important to balance these factors, for example by making capital gains tax progressive and raising the rate for high earners.

Re: Jeff Bezos Is Now the World's Second Richest Person

#300

Post by iamnotlarry »

dragonwriter wrote: post #219
mjfl wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In an ideal society, we identify theft/criminal activity and get the money back. That's part of what we have government for right? Also inheritance is ultimately the extension of the will of someone who was economically productive, so I see no problem there.

> Also inheritance is ultimately the extension of the will of someone who was economically productive, so I see no problem there. I see a problem with the dead ruling over the living. Your will ends when you do with no extension. That's not to say there might not be legitimate reasons to allow some inheritance, but extending the will of the dead, economically productive in life or not, is not among them.

Good luck with that.

The daughter of a wealthy estate might receive the very best in private education, music lessons, etc. She might take her allowance and start a successful business. She might just have a successful business because of all her parents' social connections.

Then dad dies. How do you propose to nullify all the advantages she still enjoys because of her father's wealth?

Can you take away the child's business that was started with a few million dollars from dad? No? But you can take away the million dollars still sitting in the bank?

How about the farm? the house? the boat? Can those not be inherited?

If you reject all inheritance, you reject much of the incentives of capitalism.

EDIT: better English

Post reply on HN