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

471–480 of 548 posts

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

#471

Post by metaphorm »

terryf wrote: post #384
dragonwriter wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you reject all inheritance, you reject much of the incentives of capitalism. I reject the idea that inheritance is a matter of right, and particularly that there is any moral right in extending the will of the dead past their death. I don't, OTOH, disagree that some inheritance may even socially useful and worth permitting, with appropriate conditions and limitations, on that basis. In fact, I said so explicitly…

So where's the line? I was born and grew up under an actual communist rule. It was terrible. Also, it didn't really work due to fundamental human nature. What human nature you ask? Well, mine for example. I'm working my ass of so that I can have more than you have. So that I can leave my wealth to my children (three so far) so that they can continue from a better position than where I started from (almost nothing, ex…

> I'm working my ass of so that I can have more than you have.

why do you want to have more than someone else? that implies that you derive pleasure from the deprivation of others, which is sadistic.

I think you should work so that you can have the things that you want for yourself, not so you can have more than someone else.

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

#472

Post by metaphorm »

terryf wrote: post #445
pikzen wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I only want to take 75% of that option from you if it didn't return into the economy during your lifetime.

Good luck trying, you're not getting it :)

actually, you'll be dead

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

#473

Post by metaphorm »

milesrout wrote: post #367
logicchains wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People have a natural right to the results of others' toils solely by virtue of having been born?

People have a natural right to a fair share of society's toils solely be virtue of being human beings, yes, absolutely. What you have is not the result of your toils.

> What you have is not the result of your toils.

be careful with your phrasing. better to say "What you have is not solely the result of your toils."

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

#474

Post by metaphorm »

WalterBright wrote: post #331
greghatch wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The negatives need not be so similar for the two to occupy the same space of vast property ownership concerns - namely that a single person has what many consider to be a troubling amount of wealth and power. EDIT: sentence structure change

> a troubling amount of wealth and power Any rookie cop can force you to pull over in your car, and confiscate any cash you have with you. Bezos can do none of that.

Bezos can buy The Washington Post and use it a megaphone to shape elite debate and tilt policy towards his preferences. No rookie cop can do that.

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

#475

Post by metaphorm »

824ueirwfjd wrote: post #321
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.

> I think in a perfect society, this sort of cash flow would be severely tempered. The problem is if we had your society, there would be no Jeff Bezos or similar capitalistic-minded entrepreneurs to create these mega companies in the first place. Remember it started out small.

there is a meaningful compromise position here somewhere. being able to accumulate $1 billion of personal wealth is still a mighty incentive even if we tax wealth enough so that accumulating $90 billion is almost impossible.

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

#476

Post by badosu »

tucaz wrote: post #451
badosu wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am sorry for sidetracking on this, but I need to understand why I am reading so much 'loose' here on HN. Is this error being used with intent? I have no interest in shaming grammar errors, it's just that I am seeing this too often here, in the same place where I read great arguments. English is not my native language, so maybe this is a colloquial use of the word?

Ahhhhhhhh I'm sorry! In fact English is not my native language and I hate making these errors. Thanks to you that specific error is not gonna happen anymore as it was public pointed out. It will help me remember next time.

No problem at all dude, as I said I have no interest in shaming for grammar, my english is not perfect as well.

I just wanted to check if there was some colloquial use of 'loose' that I was not aware of, as I am seeing this a lot and HN sometimes is a benchmark for me of good writing.

I am glad you received that with sportsmanship, I am totally for having my errors checked out too, have a good one!

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

#477

Post by metaphorm »

guskel wrote: post #334
archagon wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's the reward for past work, not current. Imagine kid A studies really hard during his youth and doesn't get to have any fun because he's working so hard. Kid B likes to slack off and party and do drugs. If Kid A grows up and makes it big, why does kid B deserve half? Why should he deserve any portion? You could tax kid A's wealth but you can't tax kid B's youth and pleasure. Why put a cap on on kid A's wealth if y…

> We put no such caps on anything else whether it be beauty, intelligence, number of friends, popularity even though all of these things cause disparity.

there are natural limits on those things whereas there are not natural limits on capital accumulation because capital isn't natural.

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

#478

Post by rsync »

gonvaled wrote: post #434
rsync wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Interesting. the solution should be to just to tax Wilt Chamberlain at a rate high enough that the astronomical net worths become merely "stratospheric"." The solution to what ? Could you describe the problem in the (above) Wilt Chamberlain example ?

Inequality. The problem is, nearly never, access to resources: modern society (including in poor countries) puts necessary resources (food, clothing, shelter and even transportation) available to all at a very small price. Our material needs are 100% guaranteed. The problem is that most of the goods that modern society produces are unavailable for most of the population. By reducing inequality, we could improve life…

I was asking specifically about the WC example, not real life.

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

#479

Post by laughingman2 »

rohit89 wrote: post #463
laughingman2 wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If you put an upper limit, you'll have people stop once they hit that limit. By that logic most scientists, philosophers and mathematicians from ancient times till now wouldn't have had the incentive to do anything. Einstein didn't discover relativity because he thought he would become a billionaire. Isn't that a "moonshot". But the people whose contribution is fractional compared to intellectual giants think their…

Different people are motivated by different things. While its true that scientists and engineers and everyone else have done a great deal in advancing things, the sad reality is that unless someone fronts the money, nothing will get done.

>the sad reality is that unless someone fronts the money, nothing will get done.

Its not the natural law of universe which cannot be changed. We humans create the systems of economic organization. So if you agree that profit is not main motivation for many creative jobs, then perhaps the optimization function of the economy should not be to optimize for monetary profits.

So perhaps other modes of economic organization be explored?

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

#480

Post by metaphorm »

rdtsc wrote: post #453
emt02 wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that's communism. I think you're confused about communism. What you're talking about seems more about soviet russia and other countries that run/ran an authoritarian state-capitalism system (often calling it communism). However, communism has nothing to do with enforcing people to work under a threat of death, rather the contrary.

I am not confused I lived in a communist country.

communism as an ideal seems impossible to implement in any way besides the authoritarian state-capitalism way that it has been implemented. that accomplishes the objectives of having a command economy with full employment (even if its monstrously inefficient), but it certainly doesn't come close to creating a just political order where the policies serve the people instead of the owners of the means of production (which is the state).

the Mondragon Corporation[1] is one of the few interesting experiments with a Communism-inspired system that does not immediately degenerate into authoritarian state-capitalism.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation

Post reply on HN