Earlier quoted context omitted.
For people paying alimony and child support, you must work or go to jail. And buying cheap stuff goes along with that.
Were you forced into having that child in the first place? We don't need children for farm work anymore (in first world countries).
Jeff Bezos Is Now the World's Second Richest Person
221–230 of 548 posts
Re: Jeff Bezos Is Now the World's Second Richest Person
#222Everytime I see these types of articles I wonder if we're still in feudalism. Should we really be celebrating that a single individual is worth more than hundreds of millions of people[1]? I dunno, it seems dystopian , like we're enslaved to the system. [1] https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2017-01-16/...
I don't see anything wrong in people becoming super rich by exploiting their talents in the free market. That's the opposite of feudalism.
The alternative was tried in Soviet Union and Maoist China. The results were not exactly pretty.
Re: Jeff Bezos Is Now the World's Second Richest Person
#223Everytime I see these types of articles I wonder if we're still in feudalism. Should we really be celebrating that a single individual is worth more than hundreds of millions of people[1]? I dunno, it seems dystopian , like we're enslaved to the system. [1] https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2017-01-16/...
The problem is not that there are people with huge sums of money. The problem is that groups of those people have an acute control over legislation and policy.
Re: Jeff Bezos Is Now the World's Second Richest Person
#224Earlier quoted context omitted.
In an ideal society, we identify theft/criminal activity and get the money back. That's part of what we have government for right? Also inheritance is ultimately the extension of the will of someone who was economically productive, so I see no problem there.
> Also inheritance is ultimately the extension of the will of someone who was economically productive, so I see no problem there. Like Queen of England's inheritance, for example? Or anybody inheriting land on American soil? Totally no violence involved in initially obtaining those assets?
Crimes aren't inherited.
Re: Jeff Bezos Is Now the World's Second Richest Person
#225Everytime I see these types of articles I wonder if we're still in feudalism. Should we really be celebrating that a single individual is worth more than hundreds of millions of people[1]? I dunno, it seems dystopian , like we're enslaved to the system. [1] https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2017-01-16/...
I don't see anything wrong in people becoming super rich by exploiting their talents in the free market. That's the opposite of feudalism. The alternative was tried in Soviet Union and Maoist China. The results were not exactly pretty.
There is no "alternative". Government can be approached from a million different ways. To say it's black or white (capitalism vs communism) is completely self-serving and offers no real insight into the fundamental complexity of human civilization.
Re: Jeff Bezos Is Now the World's Second Richest Person
#226Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read somewhere that it was related to tax optimization. That is, if you sell a book from California, you have to apply state tax to California residents (38M) but if you sell it from Washington, you don't. So the fact that Washington had fewer potential customers than California (or New York, where Jeff Bezos was working previously), meant a smaller tax bill for its country-wide customer base.
I've heard this also, and it makes sense. Although Amazon is now finally going to charge sales tax everywhere, it undoubtedly helped their growth that they could undercut others in large markets like NY and CA by not charging sales tax. I'm sure this wasn't the only factor, but if it meant a 9% pricing advantage in CA, it could have been a real consideration.
They also sold under MSRP since their product was basically virtual (aka just in time).
Re: Jeff Bezos Is Now the World's Second Richest Person
#227Earlier quoted context omitted.
In an ideal society, we identify theft/criminal activity and get the money back. That's part of what we have government for right? Also inheritance is ultimately the extension of the will of someone who was economically productive, so I see no problem there.
> Also inheritance is ultimately the extension of the will of someone who was economically productive, so I see no problem there. I see a problem with the dead ruling over the living. Your will ends when you do with no extension. That's not to say there might not be legitimate reasons to allow some inheritance, but extending the will of the dead, economically productive in life or not, is not among them.
Isn't that why wills are written while people are still alive, and executed as they die? Isn't that why it's called the last will? Not "extending the will of the dead" isn't any kind of legal principle anyways. It's absurd. We don't rewrite every law after the people that wrote it died, come on.
Re: Jeff Bezos Is Now the World's Second Richest Person
#228Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neither. He had money which he risked. Capitalism isn't about working harder, it's about getting a return on risk.
But this is what many people defend. And what do you say to the billions earning less than 5$ a day?
I'll defend it myself. And to the billions earning less than $5/day I'd say "You'd still be earning $5/day if Jeff Bezos didn't exist."
Re: Jeff Bezos Is Now the World's Second Richest Person
#229Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Also inheritance is ultimately the extension of the will of someone who was economically productive, so I see no problem there. I see a problem with the dead ruling over the living. Your will ends when you do with no extension. That's not to say there might not be legitimate reasons to allow some inheritance, but extending the will of the dead, economically productive in life or not, is not among them.
Isn't that why wills are written while people are still alive, and executed as they die? Isn't that why it's called the last will ? Not "extending the will of the dead" isn't any kind of legal principle anyways. It's absurd. We don't rewrite every law after the people that wrote it died, come on.
> We don't rewrite every law after the people that wrote it died
Sure, for one reason for convenience. But Jefferson, it must be noted, wanted something similar for every law and Constitution (time based, because the alternative is impractical), specifically because the law should represent the will of the people living under it, not the dead hand of the past generation.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch2s23.h...
Re: Jeff Bezos Is Now the World's Second Richest Person
#230Everytime I see these types of articles I wonder if we're still in feudalism. Should we really be celebrating that a single individual is worth more than hundreds of millions of people[1]? I dunno, it seems dystopian , like we're enslaved to the system. [1] https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2017-01-16/...
I think that's a little hyperbolic. In feudalism the balance of power is enforced by violence, whereas Jeff Bezos got rich because you gave him money in exchange for products. Like, "Hey, here's this cool electronic device called the Amazon Echo for $50." is a markedly different from "Farm here or I'll decapitate you." The fact that you harbor a resentment as if the former is anything like the latter is slightly terr…
In essence you're right, but i just wanted to point out that that's not how feudalism worked.