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

Jeff Bezos Is Now the World's Second Richest Person

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 548 posts

Re: Jeff Bezos Is Now the World's Second Richest Person

#281

Post by dkrich »

ricardo_piano wrote: post #268
dkrich wrote: post #255

I know that I'll get skewered for this, but here goes: recently I've convinced myself we are on the verge of a very serious Amazon stock correction. Just today I saw three separate articles (without seeking them out) giving umpteen reasons Amazon is going to a trillion, or that Amazon is only getting started. Then I turned on CNBC during lunch and what are they talking about? Amazon. There's simply too much positive…

Amazon already went through 2 downturns. Dot com bubble and the last recession. During the recession they faired extremely well. they've been facing tough competition from Walmart since the late 90s. Alibaba is still miles away from competing in the same areas as Amazon although that will change with time. For now, if you're a consumer, aliexpress is only good for buying cheap low quality items. If there's something…

The difference to me is the valuation- during previous downturns they weren't trading at a $400 billion market cap.

I think a lot of people assume that because they're amazon that they'll crack the last mile delivery problem, a problem that FedEx and ups, two exceedingly smart and successful and well run companies have not, not to mention the usps. FedEx and UPS want no part of last mile delivery because there's no money in it. The money is in flying it across the country with 300,000 other parcels. I'm very skeptical that Amazon can warehouse and deliver goods to your door with a significant margin, and a significant profit margin is what will eventually be required to justify a $400 billion valuation.

To date, this has not been the case, and the fact is that while they've made shopping an amazingly easy process, they haven't made a lot of money doing so, certainly not compared to the few other companies trading at similar valuations.

I'm not predicting a doomsday scenario in that amazon is going to go belly up. I just think the stock is headed for a dive.

Re: Jeff Bezos Is Now the World's Second Richest Person

#282

Post by friedman23 »

bluedino wrote: post #178

I am failing to see how someone who founded a company that hasn't made > $1B in profit over each of the last twenty years can have a fortune of $75B

Because Amazon has continually reinvested it's revenue into more capital and the value of that capital is worth significantly more than $75B?

Re: Jeff Bezos Is Now the World's Second Richest Person

#283

Post by iamnotlarry »

milesrout wrote: post #244
javajosh wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The standard claim is that you need to be a better buyer, and to have backups for all of your suppliers. It can be painful to switch suppliers (and successful suppliers quite intentionally make it more painful to switch away). The social world is entirely constructed, just as much as societies infrastructure. In capitalism the goal is to make as much as possible doing as little as possible, and the only way you do th…

Well that standard claim is utterly bunk given the reality is that we cannot just choose to switch to a different supplier when: 1. Most of the time there is no alternative 2. Even when there's alternative, it's probably crap 3. If the alternative isn't crap, then the existing market players will engage in anti-competitive tactics until there are only crap market players remaining. Amazon is, by any definition, a com…

First, losing money to edge out competition is not illegal. Loss-leaders are a normal business practice.

Second, none of your three points refute the Chamberlain argument.

1. There were limited alternatives to Wilt. When Wilt was named MVP in 1959, there were 8 NBA teams.

2. Technically, there were 39 other players in the starting lineups of NBA teams that year.

3. Among those starters was Bill Russell, whose Boston Celtics won their second straight NBA championship that year. The NBA has controlled membership very tightly in all the years since. It has been granted exceptions from laws prohibiting anti-competitive behavior.

And yet, Wilt is still featured in this classic thought experiment to illustrate fair distribution of wealth.

Re: Jeff Bezos Is Now the World's Second Richest Person

#284

Post by visarga »

mjfl wrote: post #211
majormajor wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Feudalism wasn't unjust because the kings had a lot of money, it was unjust because they got a lot of money through force and not through productive economic activity. What if they just inherited it? How confident are we that everyone who has a lot of monetary power today got to that place originally through productive economic activity vs. illegitimate/criminal activity, or unproductive economic activity, or inher…

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.

> In an ideal society,

There has never existed an "ideal society". Power always corrupts.

Re: Jeff Bezos Is Now the World's Second Richest Person

#285

Post by archagon »

adventured wrote: post #277
archagon wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gave money to Amazon, which funneled it to a single individual. I think in a perfect society, this sort of cash flow would be severely tempered.

> which funneled it to a single individual. You mean, which funneled a small fraction of it to a single individual. Bezos individually got more of it than anybody else, however to pretend that he got all of it, is silly. Total non-stock compensation paid by the business. Total stock compensation paid. Total investor return since inception. Total benefit to all consumers in convenience and savings. Total benefit to th…

And yet he's now one of the richest people in the world. As an employee, is Bezos really a million times more valuable than a typical Amazon engineer? That seems almost self-evidently unfair to me.

I think in a truly just society, the multiplier on the amount that a single individual could be compensated compared to his or her peers would have a hard cap. It would solve so many societal problems and also incentivize corporations to run more like collectives instead of fealties. Companies like Amazon, Google, and Apple would still exist, just as they do today; after all, their founders didn't get started out of the desire to make big bucks. But there wouldn't be any oligarchs on the other end of the pipe.

Not that it's likely to happen, of course! A person can dream...

Re: Jeff Bezos Is Now the World's Second Richest Person

#286

Post by malandrew »

mhermher wrote: post #195
mjfl wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Property is violence. If I try to take something that "isn't my property", the state will intervene with violence (e.g. forced imprisonment, etc.) on behalf of the person deemed to be the "lawful owner".

Can you propose any alternative system that doesn't involve the concept of property that manages to avoid violence?

Broadly speaking, demand is unlimited and supply is limited. With these two as a given, violence is essentially inevitable. Property near as I can tell, is a cultural tool that minimizes violence and maximizes supply.

Only when there is abundance outstripping demand of a population, is violence avoidable. A couple million people spread across North and South America 600 people enjoyed abundance, relatively speaking. 7 billion people spread across 7 continents is an entirely different scenario, and one where violence is unavoidable.

Re: Jeff Bezos Is Now the World's Second Richest Person

#287

Post by visarga »

mjfl wrote: post #240
baursak wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if I kill you and take your house, and somehow escape justice before dying myself and passing said house to my son, your son forfeits any claim to the house? Correct?

I think the general consensus is that if you can identify a specific property that has been stolen from you in an estate, you can reclaim it (from the estate). But claims against someone who purchased the stolen goods unknowingly, or general claims from one group to another, like a common English person against the Queen, a colored person against a random white man, or a Palestinian against an Israelite, those are no…

> claims against someone who purchased the stolen goods unknowingly ... are not valid

I am not sure about that. A stolen good cannot be legally buyed from the thiefs.

Re: Jeff Bezos Is Now the World's Second Richest Person

#288

Post by coredog64 »

astrodust wrote: post #70
seizethecheese wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seattle has one of the lowest amounts of sun per year of all metros in the USA. It selects for those who are serious about work, more than weather.

Seattle isn't going to suffer a fresh-water shortage any time soon, either.

You would think, but just because it frequently rains doesn't mean it is all captured and can be treated for use. In the late 80s there were water shortages in King County.

Re: Jeff Bezos Is Now the World's Second Richest Person

#289

Post by visarga »

mjfl wrote: post #176
SerpentJoe wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whatever economic system may be in place, it will be possible to profit by making better decisions in that context, but that doesn't prove the superiority of that system, and it doesn't make it "terrifying" to wonder whether this or that emergent phenomenon is a feature or a bug.

The terrifying part is someone with a completely un-nuanced understanding of Jeff Bezo's wealth going around saying "Hey! This man committed violence against me! He committed violence against you too!" when the violence was selling them an Amazon echo at a cheap price, or just being richer than them. What happens when they reach a consensus that Bezos committed violence against them? History tells me very clearly (se…

> when the violence was selling them an Amazon echo at a cheap price

How about when the violence was selling under the normal market value undermining competition, then remaining the only vendor. Also replacing employees with robots.

So in the end, people who would have had a job lost it, no matter if they work directly for Amazon or for the competition.

It's not violence to take people's jobs, but in a society with few social protections, it's as bad as violence.

Re: Jeff Bezos Is Now the World's Second Richest Person

#290

Post by iamnotlarry »

visarga wrote: post #276
mjfl wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I think that's a little hyperbolic. In feudalism the balance of power is enforced by violence Tell that to the hordes of unemployed people. Amazon is doing it darndest to employ as few people as possible in their warehouses and now are testing drone delivery.

How is minimizing labor costs an act of violence?

The point was that Jeff Bezos did not violently force anybody to work for him. Nor did he force anybody to buy from him.

Your complaint is that Amazon is profitable because nobody works for them, and that's just feudalistic. That's an absurd argument.

Post reply on HN