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

531–540 of 548 posts

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

#531

Post by terryf »

metaphorm wrote: post #471
terryf wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I like the freedom that monetary success gives. I've seen it briefly and it was freaking awesome.

The only reason it gives that freedom though is derived from inequality. The world is an extremely complex system and complex systems have weird emergent and unpredictable behaviours.

Also, some people contribute more than others. I'm certainly not saying that I'm the biggest contributor, but I do know people who can code circles around me (yes, I used to be a software developer, hey, this is HN you know) and really can do things that I could not, because they depend on fundamental understanding of complexity that I'm simply unable to comprehend. There is no way I could have come up with Paxos for example and clearly it has been extremely useful technology. Also I'm sure the inventor (Alan Kay, IIRC) makes a ton more money than I do and he deserves it!

There is no fundamental equality, because people are not equal and peoples contribution to society is not equal.

Bezos already has paid more taxes than I will ever pay - so he has in fact contributed more.

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

#532

Post by ionised »

JustSomeNobody wrote: post #173
blueside wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

until the competition is completely annihilated, jeff is not content.

You say that like it's a bad thing.[0] If you had a business (assuming you don't for the sake of argument), no competition would be amazing! People could ONLY come to you for your product or service. [0] The truth is in the middle.

Monopolies are only good fore the monopoly and bad for everyone else in society.

Monopolies mean no choice, no competition, low innovation and high prices

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

#533

Post by zer0tonin »

ImSkeptical wrote: post #499
zer0tonin wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why should people conform to your unusual position on property, as opposed to the mainstream one? That's a nice fallacy you've got here, and that would imply that his opinion is actually uncommon around people who have studied the subject (spoiler : it's not). >Personally, I quite like owning things that are mine. Possession and property are not the same thing.

If you interpret "property is violence" to mean that property is maintained by organizations willing to use violence - I.e. That something is "my property" because I can appeal to a police system who will help me defend, retain, or regain possession of it, then that's obviously true. I expect nobody disagrees with that. If that is the interpretation you're trying to defend then I have no objection beyond an arched ey…

Owning thing isn't violent but property is about a lot more than "owning things".

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

#534

Post by sumedh »

andrepd wrote: post #468
sumedh wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are going to count poor people then I agree most of them dont have a choice, I am talking about people who visit HN.

Hacker News gets about 300K unique visitors per month. That's ~0.0042% of the world population. Hardly a representative sample to make those kinds of ridiculous statements.

The reason I am talking about HN demographics is because we are on HN.

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

#535

Post by hyperpallium »

loeg wrote: post #530
hyperpallium wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course you're right that the accepted measures of inflation would have already considered and addressed the issue. And I would guess that fundamentals like food and land/housing have indeed gotten more expensive. I'm a little intrigued though: shouldn't technological progress and "accelerating returns" have made things cheaper? I do see for land, that location is a monopoly ("they aren't making any more" - at leas…

> And I would guess that fundamentals like food and land/housing have indeed gotten more expensive. > > I'm a little intrigued though: shouldn't technological progress and "accelerating returns" have made things cheaper? I do see for land, that location is a monopoly ("they aren't making any more" - at least, in that spot, in that community, with that access). Healthcare and education costs have increased hugely, hou…

Interesting, it's a bit different here in Australia, we have free healthcare, free education and incredibly high house prices (eg ordinary house in suburbs > $1 million; 2br unit almost $0.5 million). Of course, those first two aren't actually "free" and eg drug prices can be very high.

Patented drugs are at least something new - you're getting better tech, enhancing or even saving your life, to an extent previously impossible. The "standard" cost of drugs increases with our expectations, but also their true value. Inflation measures mightn't account for this. eg basics like aspirin and ibuprofen are dirt cheap these days.

House and education prices are above their actual utility; a bubble, an insidious monopoly, or something else.

Isn;t educatiin high because it's a false ticket to a "good job"? i.e. people get it for that reason (not for the education itself, or for a market demand for that specific skillset/knowledge), but the jobs aren't there, so they double down. Demand for education exceeds supply so the price goes up. Yes, more places are made available to meet demand, but they lack the prestige (and network effects) of the top institutions... On it goes. Mightn't apply to K12 though (that's highschool I guess?).

LCOL is it. BTW I used to want to retire, now I want to be able to work on projects. That's a subset, I guess.

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

#536

Post by samstave »

astrodust wrote: post #522
samstave wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK - thats a fair comment... I apologize for not being salient in my sentiment. Gaddafi was killed, he MAY have been the richest person alive at the time, the US had many reasons to want him gone... HRC MAY have profited off his death - and we do not know where his money went. Perhaps the people who worked for/with Gaddafi stole it (at least some of it) -- perhaps HRC profited off it. its all out in the ether and we…

I'm starting to believe you took all the money. You're so quick to blame everyone but yourself.

I'll share the money with you! All you have to do is....

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

#537

Post by nojvek »

gitah wrote: post #207
nojvek wrote: post #199

World's two richest men from Seattle tech companies. I hope some of this money translates to venture capital. Number of successful startups in Seattle pale in comparison to SV

They're also neighbors who live in the same neighborhood: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medina,_Washington You can kinda see both of their mansions (covered by privacy hedges) when driving across the SR-520.

That's just nuts. Should have bought a property in Medina back in the day. Would have seen great appreciation by today.

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

#538

Post by timothycrosley »

wtf_is_up wrote: post #278
timothycrosley wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well that's def not true: Tableau, Rover, OfferUp, and countless more http://www.geekwire.com/startup-list/ and that's with only 2.61% of venture investment.

Literally who

Username checks out

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

#539

Post by thinkling »

dkrich wrote: post #427
thinkling wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not having net profits does not mean that parts of your business are not profitable. You may want to take a closer look at Amazon's financials and see what kind of free cash flow they're generating before they reinvest that cash in expansion and new businesses. Net operating cash flow for 2016 was $16B and the trend is strongly upwards. https://secure.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/AMZN/financia...

Right, but free cash flow is one of the most common areas of a balance sheet to use deceptive accounting to show huge numbers. Amazon is notorious for this, actually, particularly with their widespread use of capital leases. A big reason that that number has jumped so much is because of their increased investment in AWS hardware which they lease instead of purchasing.

Why is leasing equipment considered deceptive rather than a cost-cutting measure?

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

#540

Post by aljungberg »

memmcgee wrote: post #493
aljungberg wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just another way of saying people shouldn't be allowed to give their shares freely. You give your shares to Wilt, the government gives them back to you (assuming the government has no overhead). So the original argument stands: forced wealth redistribution is incompatible with free will and liberty. The word "force" itself means the removal of freedom.

The government doesn't give you back everything you gave to WC and it doesn't necessarily give it back to you. You van spend your money however you want. Taxes simply mean that everyone benefits from spending, not just WC.

Right but in this particular thought scenario it doesn't matter what the government does with the shares. It is still the case that the government constrained your liberty regarding your shares. You wanted Wilt to have them, Wilt didn't get them.

I'm not making a moral statement here. I'm not saying whether it's good or bad for the government to do this. I'm just making an observation that, logically, the parent didn't provide a "solution" to the grandparent's thought experiment.

Post reply on HN