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

391–400 of 548 posts

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

#391

Post by terryf »

milesrout wrote: post #364
iamnotlarry wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I beg to differ. Here are a few examples that you might have heard of: ESRI Oracle

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

#392

Post by pizza »

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…

It's the flow graph of the $ thing that is of concern, not the terror of weaponry. Everyday life is terrifyingly unexamined.

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

#393

Post by ctack »

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…

Feudalism is not a terrible analogy. It's just not complete. It's still stick, but now we get carrot too. We still get the stick as in - don't pay your taxes and you go to jail or can't pay rent - you're out on the street. It's not beheading, but it's still force backed up by promise of violence.

But now we also get the carrot - the freedom to consume what you can afford to.

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

#394

Post by devmop »

sumedh wrote: post #386
devmop wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What risk? That they'd spend money on something that made them no/less money? Other than their initial investments business owners are protected from almost all the risks their businesses take on. Company debts aren't personal debts and individuals can't be forced to work to repay the debts they cause the business to take on. Worse still these safety nets aren't paid for as these companies don't make a profit. Whilst…

> What risk? Financial, health, relationships, reputation, opportunity are some of the risks. Are you saying that an employee getting a salary has the same risks as an entrepreneur?

In what way do employees not also take all of those risks? The degree of risk might be different but employees are also betting on the success of your business. You only have to look at the recent US election to see that people are taking all these risks.

Whilst I imagine a lot of people on HN see these risks as negligible they do still exist and it can go wrong.

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

#395

Post by type0 »

milesrout wrote: post #366
WalterBright wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Correct, even just paying for delivery to homeless shelters is the money no store owner wants to pay and even if you get volunteers they still have to pay for gas.

Edit: forget gas even paying the employees to sort the food that is still edible costs too much.

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

#396

Post by foozed »

branchless wrote: post #237
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…

First generation rich, yes. But then his riches will rely on the state's monopoly on violence to defend the "property" of his descendants.

""" His maternal ancestors were settlers who lived in Texas, and over the generations acquired a 25,000-acre (101 km2 or 39 miles2) ranch near Cotulla. As of March 2015, Bezos was among the largest landholders in Texas. Bezos’s maternal grandfather was a regional director of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission in Albuquerque. """ From Bezos wikipedia entry[0].

Hardly what i would call first generation rich... The foundation for his wealth (his education, social status etc) could - his ancestors being texan settlers and all - very well be based on very much violence (theft of land from native americans etc.)

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Bezos

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

#397

Post by golergka »

m12k wrote: post #388
sudhirj wrote: post #375

I just don't get this complaining about wealth concentration - for every person capable of complaining on an online forum that some people have 100 to 1000x the wealth they do, there are also likely to be more people that exist who have 1000x less than you. How exactly am I any more entitled to the wealth of those richer than me, than are those poorer than me entitled to my (relative) wealth? It seems to me that the…

Capitalism, when it works right is a meritocracy that rewards business acumen - the more merit, the more money you get. The problem is that the reward - money - is itself a substitute for merit. Having success is much, much easier, if you already have money (hence the saying 'the first million dollars is always the hardest'). This is also what Capital in the Twenty-First Century highlighted: Owning wealth is rewarded…

The problem with such line of reasoning is an underlying assumption that we have to create a social order that "optimizes" the distribution of wealth in order to achieve some "just" result.

I find this assumption incorrect, and desired result unachievable.

Every person has a different picture of what a "just" distribution of wealth is, and what "optimal" society is. Some think that humanity should concentrate on art & philosophy, and those professions should be rewarded the best. Others are more concerned with our self-preservation, and think that science, and foremost climate science should be rewarded the most. Third just want to enjoy the good life right now, and don't really give a crap about any of those global goals or future generations.

Of course, you may consider some of those people to be more correct and others, and it's not the point. Democracy didn't arise in order to get to the truth - democracy have arisen as a tool for people who think each other as complete idiots and fools to solve their differences without killing each other. If you decide that one of those goals should be the goal of the whole humanity, the problem isn't that you will be incorrect - the problem is that a lot of people will disagree with you, and will defend their point of view. Quite possibly, with violence. And whatever your goal for the humanity was, you won't be able to built a society optimized about that metric anyway.

The capitalist system that we have instead is much wiser. It's not built with a "purpose" in mind. It's built for each person to pursue his own purpose, giving him an ability do compete with others. Any kind of influence, any kind of resource other people want that you have - you can use them in a capitalist system to pursue your goals, and you can keep the exploits. If you don't have what other people want, you don't have the influence. The fact that other people think that "an english major shouldn't have to work at McDonalds" don't mean shit unless they're willing to put their money where their mouth is and donate to your literature-related Kickstarter instead of having a Happy Meal.

Of course it's not "fair". Such a concept doesn't exist across many different minds. But it's a system that individual people decide to build using their own resources over series of small decisions and needs throughout their lives. Seems like a much more stable system than something built out of abstract concept of "justice" and "higher purpose" forced by some people on others.

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

#398

Post by pitaj »

greenhatman wrote: post #357
muninn_ wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is why the most morally consistent position is to be an anarchist. Perhaps not practical in many cases, but morally defensible.

Anarchism is a paradox though. Because it doesn't exist naturally. We always develop some kind of hierarchy. To do away with hierarchy, we need some kind of enforcement body. And how do we get that without some kind of hierarchy? I'm kind of anarchic myself, in that I like decentralization of power and resources. I think the key is to realize that no ideology will work by itself in its absolutist form. Rather we try…

There's a difference between "statelessness" anarchism and the type of anarchism entirely opposed to power structures or other forms of central authority.

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

#399

Post by sumedh »

devmop wrote: post #394
sumedh wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What risk? Financial, health, relationships, reputation, opportunity are some of the risks. Are you saying that an employee getting a salary has the same risks as an entrepreneur?

In what way do employees not also take all of those risks? The degree of risk might be different but employees are also betting on the success of your business. You only have to look at the recent US election to see that people are taking all these risks. Whilst I imagine a lot of people on HN see these risks as negligible they do still exist and it can go wrong.

> The degree of risk might be different but employees are also betting on the success of your business.

The degree of risk is completely different. We can keep on arguing but there are some things you will only understand when you take the leap yourself.

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

#400

Post by peletiah »

jcchen wrote: post #310
_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/...

Sorry, I couldn't disagree more. While Jeff Bezos' upbringing isn't exact destitute, his rise from a modest background[1] to extreme riches is evidence to me that the American system still works to some degree. No offense but I think going all the way to conflating this with feudalism slightly discredits and damages efforts to fix real problems in our society such as increasing wealth gap. [1] https://en.wikipedia.or…

Owning a 25,000-acre farm is a modest background and his rise therefore evidence that the American system still works? Rather sounds like he was born into a sufficiently privileged environment and all the benefits that come with it (Mainly an educated background and discipline to work hard). A Jeff Bezos from a "lesser" background might have strayed from this path earlier due to the circumstances of his upbringing.

Of course the status quo is hardly comparable with a feudalist system, but the stark inequality you are born into is very much - and even more so the difference in wealth and power between "regular people" and the super-rich.

Post reply on HN