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

361–370 of 548 posts

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

#361

Post by sobani »

archagon wrote: post #324
824ueirwfjd wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think in a perfect society, this sort of cash flow would be severely tempered. The problem is if we had your society, there would be no Jeff Bezos or similar capitalistic-minded entrepreneurs to create these mega companies in the first place. Remember it started out small.

I think most of the big players today would have started out just the same. People like Jobs & Woz, Page & Brin, Bezos, and Musk didn't get in the game to make billions, at least at first. They wanted to change the world, or maybe pursue an interesting opening, or perhaps chase after a fascinating new technology. In a more equal society, these instincts would hardly be curtailed. And even if you're right, maybe a wor…

Musk is a nice example. He probably would've started the same, but Tesla and SpaceX wouldn't have existed / been the same as today.

Remember that at some point Musk had poured all his wealth into those companies and they were one failure away from bankruptcy. If Musk had any less money after PayPal, he couldn't have done what he did.

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

#362

Post by sooheon »

greenhatman wrote: post #360
sooheon wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is Poe's law making a fool of me, or do you truly believe this?

He is sarcastic. But it's also a false dichotomy. It is different from taking things by force. There is in general mutual benefit between all involved parties. Though that doesn't mean we can just completely relax. We should stay vigilant, because tyranny is always just around the corner.

Was the way that inequality was achieved ever the only problem? Is inequality in itself a social ill? Inequality achieved through socially accepted means is still inequality. I'm not advocating Harrison Bergeron levels of flattening here, but there has got to be diminishing returns on the utility of extreme wealth which could better be used to help the uber poor.

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

#363

Post by saiya-jin »

bromuro wrote: post #341
Aron wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon quite frequently makes my life better. On the other hand, I can't remember ever experiencing a difficult situation because Bezos is rich.

> Amazon quite frequently makes my life better because you can finally buy more things and own more things and consume more things. how does this make your life better?

you are clearly envy-trolling but I'll bite - if things like education, portable device with access to all of human knowledge so far, buy clothing, basic equipment to your hourse/apartment, sporting equipment, buy camera to capture your happy moments for rest of your life, enjoy your favorite movies and so on... yes, it improves lives a bit or more, on super-massive scale.

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

#364

Post by milesrout »

iamnotlarry wrote: post #318
milesrout wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bezos is effective because his company engages in illegal anti-competitive practices. Amazon either breaks even or loses money, and the reason is because they have incredibly low prices. Why do they have incredibly low prices? Because they can, because they have the venture capital, and because others can't compete with those prices without that venture capital. We're quickly reaching the point where without venture…

You can open a hair salon without venture capital. You can start a tech consulting company without venture capital. You can start a construction company, a law practice, an auto repair shop, or a dental practice without venture capital. Oh, you mean that you can't build a multi-billion dollar company overnight without venture capital? Thank you for your insight.

>Oh, you mean that you can't build a multi-billion dollar company overnight without venture capital?

No, you can't build a large company ever without venture capital. Money begets money. The only way that any company will ever be large in the future is if some other existing billionaire decides they think they deserve funding.

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

#365

Post by archagon »

sobani wrote: post #361
archagon wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think most of the big players today would have started out just the same. People like Jobs & Woz, Page & Brin, Bezos, and Musk didn't get in the game to make billions, at least at first. They wanted to change the world, or maybe pursue an interesting opening, or perhaps chase after a fascinating new technology. In a more equal society, these instincts would hardly be curtailed. And even if you're right, maybe a wor…

Musk is a nice example. He probably would've started the same, but Tesla and SpaceX wouldn't have existed / been the same as today. Remember that at some point Musk had poured all his wealth into those companies and they were one failure away from bankruptcy. If Musk had any less money after PayPal, he couldn't have done what he did.

In this alternate universe, PayPal could have morphed into PayPalphabet and spawned other companies corresponding to Musk's interests. I think that would still work fine as long as the money stayed within the company and out of executives' hands.

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

#366

Post by milesrout »

WalterBright wrote: post #335
lukifer wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Grocery stores throw a lot of food away due to regulation and liability issues, not for bargaining leverage.

Crap. They throw away food because it's cheaper to throw it away than to give it to those that need it. It has nothing to do with 'liability' or 'regulation', given they still do the same in NZ, which has neither the concept of personal injury liability nor onerous food regulations.

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

#367

Post by milesrout »

logicchains wrote: post #303
milesrout wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

People have a natural right to the results of others' toils solely by virtue of having been born?

People have a natural right to a fair share of society's toils solely be virtue of being human beings, yes, absolutely.

What you have is not the result of your toils.

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

#368

Post by gambiting »

viuduib wrote: post #359
sumedh wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> yet they share in very little of the value they produced. Those employees are free to start their own companies. If you take the risk of starting a business then you should get the rewards if it succeeds.

Oh yeh, because creating a startup is a breeze isn't it ? And most anyone could simply drop every commitment in their lives and like 4 years later they're rich! Why doesn't everyone do that, given they're free to do it ? Well, because they're not free to, not at all. 90% of people are strapped into financial obligations and have families. None of these people can afford to risk starting a business, even if they would…

Absolute nonsense. People start companies in extremely difficult positions in life and only some of them succeed. No one said it's easy.

But that doesn't change the fact that every single one of Amazon employees is free to leave the company and start their own tomorrow. You don't have to have complete financial security to be "free" to do something.

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

#369

Post by rohit89 »

archagon wrote: post #352
guskel wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the reward for past work, not current. Imagine kid A studies really hard during his youth and doesn't get to have any fun because he's working so hard. Kid B likes to slack off and party and do drugs. If Kid A grows up and makes it big, why does kid B deserve half? Why should he deserve any portion? You could tax kid A's wealth but you can't tax kid B's youth and pleasure. Why put a cap on on kid A's wealth if y…

Well, I'm not necessarily suggesting that wealth be distributed equally throughout all society. But maybe we would be better off if wealth and ownership operated on a more human scale. Even in a massive company like Amazon, no matter how hard A works or how much B goes on Reddit, A will never be one million times more valuable than B. That sort of piece-of-every-pie money is an absurdity. In my fantasy economy, A cou…

If you put an upper limit, you'll have people stop once they hit that limit. Why would you go after that billion dollar idea when you are hard capped at millions? Nobody would ever go after moonshots.

If we're talking about fantasy economies, IMO we should move to a system where we don't need money at all. Money is basically a way to partition access to limited resources among people. Except, outside of this planet, resources are near infinite. With complete automation and unlimited access to space, everything would be free with our only real cost being energy - which luckily, is also near infinite given the billions of stars in the universe. Something like Wall-E but less dystopian.

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

#370

Post by gambiting »

mhermher wrote: post #336
no-state-needed wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious to understand how you've decided that your desire to take someone else's property makes it a trivial truth that only violence prevents you from having the natural right to take it.

I never suggested such a thing. Natural rights don't exist. That's just something some people make up. So what prevents me from taking someone else's stuff, if I really wanted it?

The same thing that prevents you from killing people that you really don't like, I guess? I assume you don't do it because you are at least a half-decent human being, and not because of the threat of violence. Same with taking property.
Post reply on HN