Jeff Bezos Is Now the World's Second Richest Person • Hacker News Board

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

#461

Post by metaphorm » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 2:54 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #333

8note wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

each system is as violent as the people running it. An ideal king is just the land owner collecting rents from the people on their land, and lending rights to people they think can make more wealth from it. Capitalism is perfectly happy with slavery; it didn't end because it wasn't profitable. There's still some rather violent things in today's capitalism like "give me all your money or die from cancer" which when th…

> it didn't end because it wasn't profitable. Actually, it ended because it could not compete with free labor. It was dying around 1800 because of that, and then the cotton gin revived it. It was dying again in the 1850s, and a big driver of the Civil War was the slave states trying to protect their economy from free labor competition. I don't think it's a coincidence that social justice has tended to follow what wor…

> I don't think it's a coincidence that social justice has tended to follow what works best economically.

citation needed

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

#462

Post by metaphorm » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 2:55 PM UTC

mjfl wrote: post #224

baursak wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also inheritance is ultimately the extension of the will of someone who was economically productive, so I see no problem there. Like Queen of England's inheritance, for example? Or anybody inheriting land on American soil? Totally no violence involved in initially obtaining those assets?

Crimes aren't inherited.

that's a legal convention that we agree with in America today, kinda, mostly. it has not always been the prevailing legal convention in society.

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

#463

Post by rohit89 » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 2:56 PM UTC

laughingman2 wrote: post #443

rohit89 wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

>If you put an upper limit, you'll have people stop once they hit that limit. By that logic most scientists, philosophers and mathematicians from ancient times till now wouldn't have had the incentive to do anything. Einstein didn't discover relativity because he thought he would become a billionaire. Isn't that a "moonshot". But the people whose contribution is fractional compared to intellectual giants think their…

Different people are motivated by different things.

While its true that scientists and engineers and everyone else have done a great deal in advancing things, the sad reality is that unless someone fronts the money, nothing will get done.

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

#464

Post by samstave » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 2:57 PM UTC

openasocket wrote: post #205

samstave wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry - but you're accusing me of a timeline I had not stated. I said that fuckery was afoot -- I didn't give any timeline or sequence to events... I simply stated that Gaddafi was murdered for his money (and the fact that he refused to bow to the Rothschild central banks, and wanted to run his system on a gold standard) -- I did NOT stand up for anything regarding his character, dictatorship or anything. And yes - I…

> Sorry - but you're accusing me of a timeline I had not stated. That was my best guess at a timeline for your conspiracy theory. Would you care to give an alternative? You're also kind of all over the road here. First you say "I simply stated that Gaddafi was murdered for his money" but in the next paragraph you say "Gaddafi got killed for a reason we will never know". And you follow that up with "and his ~$70 billi…

OK - thats a fair comment...

I apologize for not being salient in my sentiment.

Gaddafi was killed, he MAY have been the richest person alive at the time, the US had many reasons to want him gone... HRC MAY have profited off his death - and we do not know where his money went.

Perhaps the people who worked for/with Gaddafi stole it (at least some of it) -- perhaps HRC profited off it.

its all out in the ether and we shall never know the truth.

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

#465

Post by krapp » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 3:02 PM UTC

samstave wrote: post #457

astrodust wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> now, I shall admit my ignorance... You've already demonstrated it in spades. When something seems odd, maybe you don't have all the facts that would instead paint a much better picture. You're like someone with two pieces of a jigsaw puzzle who's convinced it's something perverted but really it's just a fruit bowl.

You've literally provided nothing to this conversation other than talking shit to me. So fuck off unless you have a better contribution. Answer the following question with some fact, Astroturf: * Where has Gaddafi's money gone?

You're slinging far more shit in this thread than are the people replying to you, and you know perfectly well that accusing other posters of commenting in bad faith or of astroturfing isn't acceptable here.

If you're going to bring speculation from the "/r/conspiracy" crowd onto this forum, which you won't even admit to believing yourself, you should expect and tolerate the inevitable reaction that follows.

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

#466

Post by pikzen » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 3:11 PM UTC

terryf wrote: post #449

pikzen wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately for you, that is not up to you to decide, but to society as a whole. And society has those pretty fun tools like police forces, etc. But don't worry, there are much bigger fish to fry than you. You probably won't even be impacted, given the amount of wealth that can be recuperated from the leeches at the top, we can probably already make a much more egalitarian society.

I can vote, just as everyone else :) So, the problem here is that I don't understand why you think Jeff Bezos is a "leech" exactly. The guy built a business and became very successful. What the heck is wrong with that? I'm building a house for me and my family. I mean literally building it myself, not hiring people to build it for me. It's fun - sometimes. Other times it's hard and frustrating. I've also been involve…

Absolutely! And in most likelihood, such a system will never be put in place, so you can sleep soundly.

Amazon could run very well without Bezos, at this point, solely through workers. Bezos at this point serves nothing but effectively leeching the wealth produced by employees. But appropriation of the means of production is not the subject.

Bezos being successful is not the issue. However, he is effectively an annuitant, and produces very little of value. This brings up the question of why does he deserve that money now? As he's been building the company, yes, eventually (and even then, his only contribution is capital. The rest of his work can be done by anyone else). Nowadays? I'm doubtful.

Secondly, this fortune would much better serve society as a whole than be passed through generations, effectively creating a lineage of oligarchs. If I have to choose between bettering the living conditions of millions or letting Bezos keep his net worth... I'm not going to cry for him.

The most important question is of course, how much should be taxed, and what amount of wealth is too much? Everyone will have different answers. But there are other solutions to taxation. Capping salaries and profits from shares to a factor of the lowest salary in the company, etc.

If one of those companies is successful, that you have managers upon managers doing most of the work for you, yes, you would be a leech.

Good luck on that house, however. I know from first hand experience that it is a tough thing to do. Make sure everything's done properly.

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

#467

Post by rohit89 » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 3:13 PM UTC

archagon wrote: post #378

rohit89 wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

Companies would still be able to accumulate money, and moonshots could still be pursued under corporate control. People would pursue billion dollar ideas in order to strengthen the companies they created rather than to enrich themselves.

They can already do it now and they aren't. If you have to convince the board, the shareholders etc to take on a risk that has a high chance of failure, it has even less chance of happening.

If a person has enough control at a company so as to be able to unilaterally spend its money, its not much different than having the money yourself.

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

#468

Post by andrepd » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 3:17 PM UTC

sumedh wrote: post #417

andrepd wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't have to choose to prioritise, they don't have a choice ! Which brings your entire argument down.

If you are going to count poor people then I agree most of them dont have a choice, I am talking about people who visit HN.

Hacker News gets about 300K unique visitors per month. That's ~0.0042% of the world population. Hardly a representative sample to make those kinds of ridiculous statements.

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

#469

Post by metaphorm » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 3:19 PM UTC

iamnotlarry wrote: post #300

dragonwriter wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 b…

you're arguing against a strawman, the post you're replying to was discussing the posthumous will specifically.

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

#470

Post by metaphorm » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 3:22 PM UTC

averagewall wrote: post #428

dragonwriter wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you reject all inheritance, you reject much of the incentives of capitalism. I reject the idea that inheritance is a matter of right, and particularly that there is any moral right in extending the will of the dead past their death. I don't, OTOH, disagree that some inheritance may even socially useful and worth permitting, with appropriate conditions and limitations, on that basis. In fact, I said so explicitly…

People care about what's going to happen after they die. You can see this from any global warming activist. They're not concerned about their own live but about future generations. Are you saying they should mind their own business and ignore the grandkids who might have more storms and famines?

that's not the same type of thing as inheritance of material property and money. the inhabitability of the earth is an existential priority. what we do with leftover bank account balances when someone dies is not.