Email from Jeff Bezos to employees

And disincentivize people from working? That's not a sustainable economic system. For a properly sustainable system, consider how Islam solved this problem over 1400 years ago. Zakat is the only form of "tax" if you will that is mandated. Interest and other predatory practices are prohibited (e.g. shorting). Once the fundamentals are correct, everything else naturally falls into place. It has been reported that during the rule of Umar II, there were no poor people left in Iraq to accept Zakat (charity) since everyone paid their share. It would be nice to see that happen again, but the modern financial system won't let it happen.

The question is how to determine the value of non liquid assets in order to implement a maximum wealth tax.

Suppose I own land or a private company or a collection of copyrights that become very valuable. Who and how determines when it crosses the $1B threshold, and how am I brought under said threshold. What if the asset is not easily divisible?

The crux of the argument really focuses on that "for profit" bit, and that's really a conundrum in corporate governance. The problem isn't at all "corporations", which are just assemblies of humans for a common purpose, but is the specific, legally-arguable requirement that their ultimate purpose is maximizing profit. The contrasting idea is the "public benefit corporation", where you're (presumably? IANAL) legally obligated to funnel your profits back into doing the job of the business better).

From a legal/ideological standpoint, this might be a powerful soft-pivot that would solve a lot of problems.

There's a famous line from Walt Disney, during Disney's golden age, where he said "we don't make movies so we can make money - we make money, so we can make movies". That really hits at the heart of it.

The interesting thing is that, to a large degree, most of the meaningful corporations that improve the world - despite nominally being for-profit companies, generally tend to operate halfways into public-benefit territory. Partly because the benefit provided by them is essentially what the owners are "buying for themselves". To put it in perspective - if you're an extravagantly wealthy patron who wants to - themselves - have animated films to watch, you can't just hire some off-the-shelf people to do it, because they don't exist unless an industry to train them, exists. There's not really a "more narrowly selfish" way to do it - you're best served by building some outfit like Disney to build a brain trust of people to produce what you want.

Similarly with Amazon; sure, an extravagantly wealthy individual could probably accomplish the shipping part of it with personal couriers, but the information-gathering part of it where all the products-available-to-buy are laid in front of you as choices would be nearly impossible to match. Like, you could try to match it with some awful, personal, potemkin setup. But by the time you put in all of that effort ... I mean, you're basically already building what could be a business that could serve others, so you may as well.

Incidentally, books.com was taken early on (say 1990) by an outfit in Ohio. Pre-web, they had a telnet interface.

Do people do any analysis anymore or do they just repeat memes? i.e. "we put the customer first".

For reference, I'm someone who hadn't used amazon (i'm in Australia, and I've just had no need). These holidays was my first real experience with the amazon brand and the amazon website.

What I saw was an incredibly user hostile site: reviews mashed together from all over the world, and you can't even be sure whether they're reviewing the right product or the seller. Search that doesn't work and you're never really sure what you're getting and from whom. I was searching for keyboard trays and it quickly became apparent various products were all the same but just re-labelled cheap chinese output.

When I went to check out, i had at least 3 dark patterns encountered where Amazon was directly trying to screw me: trying to trick me to sign up for prime, promising free shipping on the click but then default you out of it when you check out until you go searching for it, and continually spamming me with offers for whatever their streaming service is.

They weren't "customer first", they were actively customer hostile. I don't understand how this keeps getting repeated, unless their tech side is completely different from their consumer side...