Live data from Hacker News

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

cnn.com

811–820 of 879 posts

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

#811
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…

Aiming high is all well and good when you got problems at home settled. For too long we've been avoiding fixing those problems which aren't intractable such as homelessness and poverty. If we can supposedly do both like the article mentions then why aren't we?

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

#812

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The implicit assumption in what you're saying that the only way to obtain a billion dollars is by immoral means. There is no proof that this is always the case.

As someone who thinks it's morally wrong to have billionaires in a society let me try to make an argument why I think so. If a person has a billion dollars it does not exist in a vacuum. It interacts heavily within the economy in which it exists and more importantly with the people who participate in that economy. Think for example the amount of people employed to do work in order to service a billionaire. A vast est…

Ok there is a lot to unpack here and it may need a few comments.

First, you seem to conflate being a billionaire with conspicuous spending or otherwise inefficient use of their capital. Once again this is a generalization and many billionaires don’t have these sports cars and estates that you describe.

Secondly, you state “I just think the idea of many humans spending their lives in order to satisfy a single human is absurd”. This seems extremely blind considering that your iPhone was probably made the same way, and the food you get at the restaurant and literally anything you pay for. Countless humans have toiled to sustain your life too.

You also state that “If the billionaire holds majority stakes within prominent industries we are delegating important decisions to opaque power with unknown agendas that we can not hope to influence in meaningful ways.”. Yea it’s a risk, but it’s absurd to say with complete certainty that all billionaires use their power to influence the world in nefarious ways. What if they use it in moral ways that benefit us all? Does that make the billionaire a better person than the rest?

There is nothing to be fixed here. Your sense of deep equity is a feeling that’s born out of some kind of primal sense of fairness. In reality, there is nothing inherently amoral about billionaires.

Try applying all the arguments you have above from the perspective of someone with lesser means than you, with your relatively wealthy position being that of the billionaire.

Do you benefit from the labor of others? Check. Do you have more influence on the society than the other person? Probably, check. Somehow these add up to you being an immoral person. It’s pretty absurd bro.

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

#813
I’m not upset that he isn’t paying taxes. I’m upset that he’s paying for leverage on other people’s taxes.

But Bezos did not create this system, he’s just using it to his advantage, exactly the way it was designed. At least he’s transparent about it.

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

#814

What an overtly political move by Bezos. He could have donated to libraries, schools, medical research … nope donates to defacto narrative control.

The guy already bought the Washington Post? What do you expect?

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

#815
post #185

If billionaires entrust their money to more or less random people for philanthropic objectives I rather have them be taxed higher and let a (somewhat inefficient) government decide how to invest the money. At least I had a role in electing the government and can change my vote based on their performance.

> At least I had a role in electing the government and can change my vote based on their performance. The real crux. You want control over what other people do.

If it's at the scale of society-level impact, yes, I'd like to have a vote. That's why I prefer to live in a democracy rather than a dictatorship. Don't you?

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

#816
post #805

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So in Bezos case with his estimated net worth of 205B USD and assuming a average net worth of an american family of 750k (not sure how accurate this number is it was the first thing on google) this comes down to Bezos owning 266666 Apples for every apple a "normal" famliy owns. Noone would complain if it was a 1000 to 3 ratio. Almost noone argues that we should take all his apples away but I think there is a lot of r…

I'm still thinking that any bigger taxation could decrease potential risk taking and/or investments into new potentially innovative avenues. Maybe there could be a golden taxation point that's higher than it is now, but I also think it's definitely possible that it would work out worse overall for everyone. If there's 1000 to 3 ratio, the things small group of people could organize to build would be far off what indi…

I agree that at some point there will be a decrease in risk taking and investments but I don't think that risk and investments are inherently more important than all other factors.

I am also not arguing for 1000:3 or any other specific ratio. The only reason I brought his net worth up is to show the ratio that we have right now (not even including the ratio compared to amazon workes which would be even higher). And even if he doesn't do anything evil with his money its money that other people dont't have. People that could use that money to provide for their families or put their kids through school. People that could have the potential to create something new or come up with new ideas who never get to do it because they barely make enough to get through the month. For Bezos it is indeed just a number but for others it could mean a lot more.

For all of those people it suddenly doesn't matter how hard they work or how skilled and talented they are. We do not live in a meritocracy and its probably impossible to achieve that so the only answer can be a more socialized system.

You are right in that it would not help to just split the money up my point is that we should not allow this to happen in the first place. As for prices increasing - If our system only works if a few have a lot and a lot have very little I think we should think about the sustainability of this system. If we do nothing things will get out of hand sooner or later (if they are not already).

People wont stop investing or taking risks just because they cannot reach bezos levels of wealth. Bezos has absolutely no reason to aquire another dollar but he still keeps going. Again I am not arguing for 1000:3 the number can be a lot higher but there needs to be an upper limit.

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

#817
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”.

> employees that did not take on any risk You must be kidding that Bezos took any risk... The only risk he had was that he wouldn't continue making money from his well paid Wall Street job. He was already well off when he started raising other people's money to found Amazon. So, no, he didn't take any risk to justify all this money. Only the very deluded think he did anything of great risk. He is an oligarch who expl…

Yes… that is the risk. He was already comfortable and could have had a guaranteed easy life but he decided to throw that away to start Amazon that could have failed after many years of foregoing his cushy salary. Most people wouldn’t have taken this risk in his position and that’s why they will never have a chance to be wealthy like him. Your foot stomping won’t change that.

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

#818
post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in DC so I don't have any Senators and barely any say in how my tax dollars get spent.

Congress voted to do that. They could undo it and make everyone a citizen of Virginia if they wanted to undo it.

Oh great let me just lobby my no senators and single non voting house delegate to fix it. How about in the meantime I don’t have to pay federal taxes if I don’t get a day in how they’re spent?

Also: neither VA not DC want retrocession and you can’t force a state to change its borders. So no, the answer is DC statehood, which is something Congress can do. It’s long past time.

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

#819
post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in DC so I don't have any Senators and barely any say in how my tax dollars get spent.

I agree with your other points but isn't it kind of your choice to move to DC, knowing full well that they lack full representation? It isn't like DC is this massive landscape of a bunch of natives who have lived there for generations and are too poor to move 10 miles away.

Voting representation in America is privilege not a right after all. History shows us that time and again.

Also I like DC. Why do I have to choose between living in the American city I like and having a vote in Congress?

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

#820

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rich people hoard bitcoins, now.

The money they paid for the bitcoin went into the economy.

Or into stocks. Or into existing real estate. Or into existing "NFT" arts. Or into any other bubble. When you print money, rich people can get price to inflate without any trickling down.
Post reply on HN