Live data from Hacker News

Jeff Bezos Becomes the Richest Man in Modern History, Topping $150B

bloomberg.com

281–290 of 399 posts

Re: Jeff Bezos Becomes the Richest Man in Modern History, Topping $150B

#281

Who really thinks that stock price has anything to do with ownership? Since no one can actually buy Amazon, it's "market" price is purely speculative. In both senses.

What are you talking about? A share represents a literal 1/485320000 ownership stake in Amazon and the market price of a share is definitely not speculative as I can go out and easily purchase shares at a given price.

If Walmart or Alibaba or some other sufficiently large enough company wanted to buy Amazon, they absolutely could. And they'd probably pay a premium over Amazon's current market cap!

Re: Jeff Bezos Becomes the Richest Man in Modern History, Topping $150B

#282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because you don't personally own a gun doesn't mean you're also against owning guns.

And that is not relevant, either you own a gun or you don't. Americans by and large don't own one.

Only if we're talking about gun ownership, which you did not do. You brought up the gun lobby. It's relevant because you equate gun owners only to the gun lobby.

There are many non-gun owners that are without a doubt for owning guns.

Re: Jeff Bezos Becomes the Richest Man in Modern History, Topping $150B

#283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s hard to be sure exactly what scenario people are picturing when they speculate about this. If you want an example of urban warfare vs. a modern military, check out Iraq about 10 year ago. While it was difficult, for them, guess who won. As far as the rest of the theorizing, we would have to be on common ground about the entire scenario before it’s worth speculating about. For example, I don’t know what food you’…

Well I was specifically speaking in very broad terms. I don't know what a Civil War in the modern US will look like and I hope to Christ or whoever else is running this thing that it doesn't come to that. I think though that far beyond contemplating who is shooting at who with what, the more interesting question is what does victory look like for the 1%? Just shoot everyone who complains until there's nothing but pea…

I think a modern U.S. Civil War will look a lot like Syria. Once social order collapses, you'll get a bunch of different armed factions all pursuing their own social agenda. Remember that the 99% generally hates each other a lot more than they hate the rich; I can't imagine a Nazi from North Carolina, an Evangelical from Arkansas, a proud Southerner from Alabama, a blue-collar Irish Catholic from Boston, a cattle-rancher from Montana, a Jewish doctor from NYC, a poor urban black from Atlanta, and a Californian tech-worker all fighting on the same side.

Any conflict where the U.S. disintegrates will likely spread worldwide, too, as other nations take advantage of the power vacuum to press their own claims. So emigration is unlikely to be a solution for people who wish to remain neutral.

The endgame for the 1% is likely to become lords or petty kings of little feudal domains. They may offer to provide security services to their employees in exchange for economic service. They wouldn't be global titans of industry, but they'd be heads of their little fiefdoms. The smart ones will avoid major military action, instead only clearing the local area around their corporate offices of populist insurgents. If the insurgents want to fight other insurgent groups, that's their business; they can all kill each other off.

Re: Jeff Bezos Becomes the Richest Man in Modern History, Topping $150B

#284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Today we have a military industrial complex supported by both parties and our most vital student loans (championed by our "left" party) come with no bankruptcy protection. We do have a very strong Federal government, but it's designed to funnel money to various interest groups. By making compute infrastructure affordable and by making consumer review data available for all products, Bezos is a champion of the little…

>By making compute infrastructure affordable and by making consumer review data available for all products, Bezos is a champion of the little guy. He hasn't gotten rich through government crony capitalism or fraud, he's done the simplest stuff better than anyone else could. He let's people buy products that are reviewed thoroughly by other customers, he has a reasonable return policy, etc. This benefits consumers AND…

Not saying that I disagree with the sentiment of your comment but Bezos does not have $150B. I would be surprised if he had any more than a few million in cash/liquid assets. His worth is tightly coupled to the value of Amazon stock that he owns. A lot of workers do benefit from their stock increase through granted stock options.

All that said. Amazon needs to take a long hard look at how they manage their warehouses and fulfillment centers when it comes to workers rights and common decency.

Re: Jeff Bezos Becomes the Richest Man in Modern History, Topping $150B

#285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your margins are so thin that you're worth $150,000,000,000. Right.

That's largely the value of his stock, though. Not defending him or the inequality as such, but it's not as if he's got $150 bn in cash that he could just distribute to his employees.

He has $150 bn in stock that he could just distribute to his employees.

Re: Jeff Bezos Becomes the Richest Man in Modern History, Topping $150B

#286
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But a Monopoly on "stuff" and "moving stuff around" is a much more valuable Monopoly (pretty much by definition) than one in "eyeballs to advertise stuff to". Ultimately, the majority of Google's and Facebooks profits are from the advertisement of retail, services, and digital goods, which Amazon is trying (and doing very well) to monopolize. Sure, it may be harder to get there but the rewards are much better if you…

Please explain how Amazon will gain a monopoly on stuff and moving stuff around. I stopped buying shit from Amazon and haven't had a problem finding things elsewhere. Yeah, I pay 1% more... big deal. Fuck those guys.

That's what they have been focusing on for the last few years. A lot of the money they have reinvested has gone towards physical infrastructure (data centers, fulfillment centers, courier vehicles). Not only are they gaining a monopoly in moving physical goods from A to B but also information through AWS. You may not use their services but an increasing number of people are using them regularly.

Re: Jeff Bezos Becomes the Richest Man in Modern History, Topping $150B

#287
post #220
post #15

I feel that America is in the midst of a new gilded age; instead of Standard Oil, we have Amazon. Like the late 1920s, we saw losses in purchasing power of the average American, the collection of wealth among the top 1%, and disruption of our civic spaces as a result. I think the thing that many Americans aren't aware of was just how violent that time in US history was[1]. The US economy isn't just about how comforta…

> I feel that America is in the midst of a new gilded age; instead of Standard Oil, we have Amazon. Except that Standard Oil probably had real oil (asset) and Amazon now has an inflated valuation based on potential future earnings. Apple to Oranges in my opinion. > The US economy isn't just about how comfortable the average US citizen is If people are comfortable, they'll accept whatever. Look at the middle-easter co…

>Standard Oil probably had real oil (asset) and Amazon now has an inflated valuation based on potential future earnings. Apple to Oranges

Amazon has a dominant market position in online sales. It's not a natural resource but it a position that affords it strong economies of scale and, eventually, monopoly rents, just like those earned by Microsoft, Facebook or Google in their markets.

Network effects are the oil of our age.

Re: Jeff Bezos Becomes the Richest Man in Modern History, Topping $150B

#288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When you look at Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford, and perhaps even Gates, they had near total control over some aspect of the American Economy According to TechCrunch[1], Amazon controls 49% of the entire e-commerce market, and 5% of the entire retail market overall. They're also in a position to jockey for even more market share as retail continues to move online. Amazon is in the perfect position to completely own e-…

49% could be the high-water mark; we don't know yet. If Amazon doesn't get a grip on the counterfeit product problem, sales could plummet. The switching cost to a new retailer is low.

But Amazon's war chest is near infite. Jet had half a billion in funding but was barely making a dent (while bleeding money) against Amazon and its unprofitable for anyone else pricing. Amazon barely makes a profit with their streamlined system so how can anyone compete with that.

And we've seen what they can do when a competitor emerges like diapers.com. They bury them in the ground Walmart of the 90s style.

Re: Jeff Bezos Becomes the Richest Man in Modern History, Topping $150B

#289

In my opinion, the biggest risk to Bezos' wealth is the same thing that drew me into the service to begin with. In the mid-to-late 2000s it was easy to go to Amazon, search for "thing I want" and blindly purchase the 4.5-5 star item with enough reviews to appear legitimate. I could do this and expect to get a great product _every_ time. Now, I find myself spending an hour screwing with the filters and reading reviews…

And after all these years there still isn't a good weighted (by number of ratings) SORT option for those star ratings.

Re: Jeff Bezos Becomes the Richest Man in Modern History, Topping $150B

#290
post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A house hold often includes more than one person. Those other individuals are not gun owners. Gun owners are a fairly small group with a very powerful lobby that needs to be ignored.

This (and the sibling) strikes me as an odd interpretation - there are more guns than people in the US - most households with any guns, have more than one gun. And as I see it living in a household with guns, generally means access to guns? So I readily read one in three households, as strictly more than one in three persons - have access to guns?

Why even care about this meaningless distinction? Households can give other households guns. What's important is if there are enough guns and ammunition for every person, not how they are distributed unless it's extremely skewed to a very specific part of the population.
Post reply on HN