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

Bezos donates $100M each to CNN contributor Van Jones and chef Jose Andres

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

621–630 of 879 posts

Re: Bezos donates $100M each to CNN contributor Van Jones and chef Jose Andres

#621

Post by presentation »

systemvoltage wrote: post #419
bigthymer wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Giving people money is absolutely the last thing anyone should do. Why? Cash transfers to poor people is starting to look like an effective way to alleviate poverty. Despite the old stereotype of poor people blowing it all on booze and drugs, in reality, most people put it to good use. This is also another reason why UBI has started gaining more support.

I vehemently disagree. Handing out cash to the poor isn’t fixing the problem. It will make matters worse (inflation). It’s almost unbelievable that investing in education and apprenticeship is considered a negative thing but giving straight up cash from Billionaires is popular. Homelessness and poverty needs to be tackled by getting these people jobs.

Hopefully a few hundred peer reviewed papers might change your mind.

https://www.givedirectly.org/research-on-cash-transfers/

Re: Bezos donates $100M each to CNN contributor Van Jones and chef Jose Andres

#622

Post by X6S1x6Okd1st »

systemvoltage wrote: post #447
X6S1x6Okd1st wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I vehemently disagree. Handing out cash to the poor isn’t fixing the problem. It will make matters worse (inflation). Huh? Bezos giving away money likely isn't going to lead to inflation. The money supply is held constant here.

I was referring about the concept of giving people cash (UBI) in general and replying to the comment above mine.

You can have ubi without inflation. See Alaska permanent fund

Re: Bezos donates $100M each to CNN contributor Van Jones and chef Jose Andres

#623

Post by dane-pgp »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #247
Zelphyr wrote: post #9

All the critics lobbing cynicism against Bezos, Branson, and Musk saying, in essence, that their money is better spent here at home reminds me of a wonderful scene from The West Wing when one character asks why we have to go to Mars: "'Cause it's next. For we came out of the cave, and we looked over the hill, and we saw fire. And we crossed the ocean, and we pioneered the West, and we took to the sky. The history of…

Sounds like “manifest destiny” where we destroyed thousands of indigenous civilizations in the country because “it was next”. I’m starting to come around to the idea that this kind of thinking is exactly why we have poverty and hunger in the USA. We allow individuals to accumulate endless wealth even when that money could be used to help those who need a helping hand. I’m not saying we necessarily have the government…

> Amazon draws a lot of profit (presumably) from millions of cheap plastic objects from overseas which will break and end up in landfills in some poor country.

So you're saying he's found a way to make carbon sequestration profitable at scale? Maybe he is a hero.

Re: Bezos donates $100M each to CNN contributor Van Jones and chef Jose Andres

#624

Post by wyre »

causalmodels wrote: post #398
edmundsauto wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is wealth being redistributed, or are the Bezos’ simply slurping up the new money that have been so abundant? It matters, I think. Because if people are only getting relatively poorer when compared to the top 1%, it’s not as bad as if they are losing their standard of living. There are other issues about how excessively rich people can distort our society, but that’s not so much about the redistribution but the distr…

I think wealth actually is being redistributed, but not in the sort of nefarious way that some people are claiming. Last year incomes went up for the lowest earners. When less wealthy people get more money they tend to buy material, mass market goods. Large corporations tend to be the main suppliers of those goods. Thus, increasing buying power at the lower end of the income distribution results in companies earning…

Incomes went up for the lowest earners because of the trillions the government pumped into unemployment. You’re right that all this money gets spent and funneled up to large corporations, except now these large corporations are buying property en masse and aren’t significantly raising wages for the lowest earners, especially not enough to keep up with the inflation caused from all the stimulus.

I guess the point is these corporations need to be taxed at higher rates so low earners aren’t being shafted by our broken economic system.

Re: Bezos donates $100M each to CNN contributor Van Jones and chef Jose Andres

#625

Post by pb7 »

andrepd wrote: post #593
pb7 wrote: post #572

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. I want people to keep being incentivized to create innovative companies, products, and services that make my life easier and more enjoyable. The people that are successful in doing so will reap rewards many orders of magnitude more than their employees that did not take on any risk and whose output is measured by “productivity”.

> I want people to keep being incentivized to create innovative companies, products, and services that make my life easier and more enjoyable. Funny, I do too! That's why I don't want all the wealth and power in the hands of a few oligarchs, and that's why I want everyone to be properly compensated and rewarded for their work and their creations. Capitalism, especially in its current flavour, prevents this. > their e…

Well then if it's so easy, then why doesn't everyone just start their own businesses? There's no risk after all. Get a loan from a bank and start a small business -- millions of people do this around the world! Easy. Guaranteed wealth, right?

>If a business fails and closes down its employees will be out on the dole, and that's the best case scenario. They lose their health care, possibly their homes and other possessions.

No, best (and most likely) scenario is that they find a job elsewhere a few weeks later while they collect unemployment. The business owner who likely had no savings because everything was reinvested into the business is actually screwed. You keep thinking every owner is Jeff Bezos but there are millions of small to medium business owners who risk it all for the chance to make it big. It's not "one less luxury auto". It's their entire livelihood.

Since you think that employees should share in the equity when a company is as successful as Amazon, I take it you also agree that employees should have all of their past wages clawed back when the company goes out of business, right? It's only fair. If they helped take the company to success, then they must have also brought it down to failure as well.

Re: Bezos donates $100M each to CNN contributor Van Jones and chef Jose Andres

#626

Post by dd444fgdfg »

I'm glad billionaires like Bezos exist. They can choose to fund grand visions when people who need votes either don't, or they do and the funding gets cut after the next election.

This is one of the ways China is able to execute long term strategy better than the west, they can maintain focus.

We're not able to do that without a significant necessity (winning a cold war).

Get over your jealousy of the billionaires. Some people are luckier than you, smarter, work harder. That's just life.

Re: Bezos donates $100M each to CNN contributor Van Jones and chef Jose Andres

#627

Post by layoric »

dumbfoundded wrote: post #362
WalterBright wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Government did indeed put man on the moon. But they did it at an insane and unsustainable cost, which is why the moon was then abandoned. Musk/Bezos/Branson are making space travel a paying proposition, which makes all the difference.

Musk is creating a constellation of satellites that can provide global internet. His technology seems like the only viable way to and back from Mars. Bezos/Branson made a rollercoaster for the super wealthy.

>Musk is creating a constellation of satellites that can provide global internet

And is a good example of creating negative externalities, lots of ground based astronomy (a field that has contributed immensely to our collective scientific knowledge and pushed technology advancements forward globally) extremely difficult due to those same satellites that create interference. Yes, global internet is good, but funnily enough this satellite network creates the need for more astronomical observations be done from space/orbit.. Handy that he is in the business of selling that service as well..

So while I agree his rocket technology is a great advancement and has spurred others to create similar reusable first stage rocket tech, these efforts were already underway. Musk might have accelerated this through risking his personal wealth when creating SpaceX but this was not a one man effort and people should spend less time attributing these advancements to one person.

Hoping "competition" in this space returns to helping orgs like NASA achieve scientific goals (rather than private joy rides), but that would require convincing govs to spend more tax money on these organizations..

Re: Bezos donates $100M each to CNN contributor Van Jones and chef Jose Andres

#628

Post by fighterpilot »

Decker87 wrote: post #526
jamesgreenleaf wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Earth is going to die one day. The Sun will die too. There is no guarantee that intelligent life will survive on this single planet, even if we do a perfect job of taking care of it. Catastrophic, species-killing events can happen at any time. If we wish to ensure the long-term survival of the only intelligent life in the universe that we know about (as well as the survival of all the other creatures on Earth, wh…

I respect your position but I completely disagree. We are so far off from needing to worry about the sun dying out. We should be focused on stopping and reversing climate change.

It's not just about the sun dying out. A large asteroid could strike at any time and wipe us out. If that is going to happen on Earth with probability p and we make it to Mars then our chances of going extinct due to that cause shrinks to less than p-squared (it's less than p-squared because Mars is smaller than Earth), which is many orders of magnitude smaller than p. Diversification is extremely important to our long term survival as a species.

Re: Bezos donates $100M each to CNN contributor Van Jones and chef Jose Andres

#629

Post by themolecularman »

kypro wrote: post #115

Kind of genius… My understanding as a Brit is that CNN are known to be supportive of progressive economic policies. I suspect they’re also critical of the existence of billionaires like Bezos in a society where many struggle to feed their families. Bribing influential CNN contributors who hold progressive or far-left economic policies is probably one of the better ways to help shift the media narrative towards one th…

It's not a bribe. Van Jones will likely quit his job as a CNN commentator. Why would he stay?

It's a strange donation tbh. Also CNN is a very partisan news source and Van Jones isn't a "middle of the aisle" type. I personally find the Jose donation fine but am kind of put off by this donation to a CNN "journalist".

Re: Bezos donates $100M each to CNN contributor Van Jones and chef Jose Andres

#630

Post by themolecularman »

readonthegoapp wrote: post #589

Van Jones left activist-town a long time ago -- and he's been called out for it. But as an already-rich person, to agree to be fully, comprehensively bought....this world is crazy. ...adding, I'm available for $10M. negotiable.

Right. I'm wondering what the hell this donation means. Van Jones isn't an activist and is a partisan commentator. This country has been divided by people like him in the news media constantly turning out better ratings by instigating and propagandizing.
Post reply on HN