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

The Bezos backlash: Is 'big philanthropy' a charade?

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 146 posts

Re: The Bezos backlash: Is 'big philanthropy' a charade?

#131

Post by mindcrime »

lwhi wrote: post #45

Unrestricted capitalism will never be a force for good. Left running without any regulation, the gap between rich and poor will increase adinfinitum. This kind of philanthropy acts as a last ditch attempt to correct the negative affects the system produces .. but in my opinion, it's not an effective or elegant way of doing so. It's main purpose is an exercise in smoke and mirrors .. by trying to influence our percept…

Unrestricted capitalism will never be a force for good.

Unrestricted capitalism, sadly, doesn't even exist. But capitalism in its various forms is already a potent force for good - perhaps the most powerful such force the world has ever known. No other system has done more to create wealth, raise standards of living, and improve the world.

Attacking capitalism because it's slightly less than perfect at delivering the ideal end result for everybody, is a horrible kind of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater".

Re: The Bezos backlash: Is 'big philanthropy' a charade?

#132

Post by mindcrime »

ti_ranger wrote: post #81

> "Jeff Bezos can tout himself as a great philanthropist, yet it will not absolve him of responsibility if Amazon workers continue to be afraid to take toilet breaks and days off sick because they fear disciplinary action at work." In capitalism/free markets, it is the company's responsibility to generate as much value for shareholders as possible. If paying workers more will not result in more value for shareholders…

However, governments are there to ensure that capitalist-motivated behaviour doesn't negatively affect the community,

Where do people come up with this stuff? All evidence suggests that government is mainly there to act as a hammer to force people to adhere to behavioral standards that other people dream up, to protect the interests of the rich, entrenched, elitists who run the government, to enforce regulatory capture, to violate our civil liberties, and to steal our money.

Re: The Bezos backlash: Is 'big philanthropy' a charade?

#133

Post by firstplacelast »

krapp wrote: post #57
cromwellian wrote: post #55

Lots of comments attacking Amazon for lowering wages but ignoring the fact that warehouse work in general is on borrowed time and going the way of horse and buggies ( https://youtu.be/RFV8IkY52iY ) At some point in the near future, these jobs won’t exist. Are the commentators suggesting they not be automated? Likewise long truck driver driving is going to eventually collapse. Any attempt to make Amazon pay a vastly h…

>Any attempt to make Amazon pay a vastly higher salary for packers will just accelerate the drive to full automation. No one is asking that Amazon pay a vastly higher salary to their low tier employees, only that they consider the cost of living for those employees and pay accordingly within a particular market. The means to afford food and housing should not be out of reach of a full time employee, even if their pos…

It's pretty stupid to expect a corporation to pay people more "because they should."

This is what government/laws/unions should help with. I just don't get the idealism of the 21st century. "Jobs should pay more or we will shame you", say the people.

"Get fucked", says the company. And now we are here...

Re: The Bezos backlash: Is 'big philanthropy' a charade?

#134

Post by HeadsUpHigh »

wastedhours wrote: post #89
zekevermillion wrote: post #80

Amazon shares have a lot of value, and Bezos is sitting on a pile of them. What should Bezos do with that currency -- hoard it? spend it? This supermoney represents Bezos' capacity to incentivize his fellow humans to act in concert toward a goal that he can influence. If he hoards it, then it does nothing for society. Bezos doesn't need it for his personal enjoyment either. After he leases a couple jets, buys a few h…

The counter-argument is that, if these super-wealthy individuals didn't feel the need to extract the maximum wealth from the community (the notion that it's their fiduciary duty to pay the least in wages or find loopholes to minimise tax exposure is a myth), then communities in the round would be better off. Regardless of if you agree with his actions or not, it's pretty tone-deaf from a PR perspective - pretty much…

This is factually false because it assumes that the money Bezos takes are taken from other people. But the economy is not a zero sum game, otherwise we would still have the same world wide wealth as cavemen did. What Bezos made, his employees cumulatively made many times over and all that money goes through multiple transactions that can be taxed. Simply spreading out 100b$ to every American would give you a negligible amount of money to each one and then cause the loss of many jobs( you can't expect to spread the money a.k.a. not have rich people but at the same time have the enterprises they create).

Re: The Bezos backlash: Is 'big philanthropy' a charade?

#135

Post by amelius »

lwhi wrote: post #95
Radim wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a cowardly way of saying "I want that guy's money, but am too weak to take it myself". The fundamental problem with such redistribution schemes is: Who gets to decide who's weak and who's the villain? Certainly each individual knows for themselves; typically a variation on "I'm weak; give me". But coming up with stable, fair valuations for social contribution is a hard problem. For example, we already know that…

No it isn't. Limits placed on capitalism, through regulation, might be an example of letting society (the system) sort itself out. If limits aren't introduced, the gap between rich and poor becomes too vast. It become futile for those who have little to even try to adjust their situation. I do believe in capitalism, but left to its own devices, it becomes obscene.

Btw, a good way to show a capitalism-supporter the downsides of capitalism is to let them enter a game of Monopoly a few rounds after it has started.

Re: The Bezos backlash: Is 'big philanthropy' a charade?

#136

Post by zem »

DEADBEEFC0FFEE wrote: post #2

"Matt Kilcoyne, of the free market think-tank the Adam Smith Institute, disagrees. "Quite frankly Bezos's greatest act of philanthropy is Amazon itself," he argues. "Lower prices, more choice and competition have delivered billions for Bezos and billions worth for the hundreds of millions of customers he serves." " I do think feel strong about Bezos plans, but it's a bit of a stretch to claim Amazon is a public good.…

the one thing i've read about amazon's impact that made a lasting, positive impression on me was by a black woman who noted that when she shopped on amazon, no one followed her around the store. there was also some commentary on underserved communities where traditional retailers were reluctant to set up shop.

of course, this is really an argument for ubiquitous online retail rather than amazon in particular, but it was a good point in their favour. (sadly, it seems to be being built by exploiting workers, which is why i cannot take any claims of philanthropy seriously.)

Re: The Bezos backlash: Is 'big philanthropy' a charade?

#137

Post by teslaberry »

501c3 tax deductibility is a massive scam to SHIFT TAX BURDENS ONTO WORKING INCOME EARNERS.

taxes should be paid on property , on increases in the value of property, on PASSIVELY earned money from property, on the purchase of property, on the sale of property.

the more durable the property in temporal sense, the more it should be taxes.

INCOME itself is not where the tax should be. you rare taxing labor. it is a crime to tax 'income' , IT IS INDENTURED SERVITUDE TO YOUR GOVERNMENT.

tax property, licenses, food ( a form of property ).

why should there be 'income' to tax? and why should anyone not have to pay taxes if they give money to a 'church' or 'school' . total nonsense.

Re: The Bezos backlash: Is 'big philanthropy' a charade?

#138

Post by philwelch »

coldtea wrote: post #99
philwelch wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The economy isn’t a zero-sum game.

If one closes their eyes to externalities (societal and environmental and political), then yes, it isn't.

By that reasoning, people are no better off today, in an economic sense, than they were 200 years ago. In fact, they would be worse off because there are more of us and the same (if not fewer) resources to go around.

Re: The Bezos backlash: Is 'big philanthropy' a charade?

#139

Post by onion2k »

Symmetry wrote: post #111
onion2k wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems you can't be charitable without someone telling you you should have given more or given to someone else. Spending money on good causes is great. That's to be definitely something to be encouraged. Putting all of the decision making about which causes are 'good' in the hands of one individual, or a small group of very similar individuals, is very, very bad. That's how entire segments of society get ignored.

To me it seems like philanthropists generally do a much better job spending money well than our government does. They don't tend to use it to bomb other countries, they often consider the lives of foreigners as important as the lives of Americans, and being able to ignore pork barrel considerations makes their projects more efficient. The money spent by philanthropists is small compared to the US budget so they aren'…

I suspect that, at least partly, that's because philanthropists can choose their battles. They don't spend money unless they can see there'll be a good outcome. They can leave the high risk problems and "lost causes" to the government. Consequently governments will always look worse even if they actually do a good job elsewhere.

Re: The Bezos backlash: Is 'big philanthropy' a charade?

#140

Post by thedailymail »

zem wrote: post #136
DEADBEEFC0FFEE wrote: post #2

"Matt Kilcoyne, of the free market think-tank the Adam Smith Institute, disagrees. "Quite frankly Bezos's greatest act of philanthropy is Amazon itself," he argues. "Lower prices, more choice and competition have delivered billions for Bezos and billions worth for the hundreds of millions of customers he serves." " I do think feel strong about Bezos plans, but it's a bit of a stretch to claim Amazon is a public good.…

the one thing i've read about amazon's impact that made a lasting, positive impression on me was by a black woman who noted that when she shopped on amazon, no one followed her around the store. there was also some commentary on underserved communities where traditional retailers were reluctant to set up shop. of course, this is really an argument for ubiquitous online retail rather than amazon in particular, but it…

That's an interesting perspective I hadn't thought about before. At the same time though, it is certain that her every move while on the site was being monitored, recorded and analyzed – just like everyone else's.
Post reply on HN