5 ms·
And you’re actually implying that these people, who have not done anything even remotely successful in terms of business, elected by roughly 4% of the populatio
by bluedevil2k 8y ago
And you’re actually implying that these people, who have not done anything even remotely successful in terms of business, elected by roughly 4% of the population of Seattle, who meet once a week for a few hours, who have split incentives to both “help the city” and get continually re-elected, who need to fundraise for elections from entities they could potentially benefit with the money...these are the people you trust more with money than one of the 5 most successful businessmen in the last 100 years?
- electricEmu 8y agoHaving worked for him, yes I'll trust the Seattle city council. You sure seem to be on this thread frequently with some hard opinions and loose facts.
- bluedevil2k 8y ago2 posts is posting frequently?
- mankash666 8y agoDon't make it personal about another HN member
- ionised 8y ago> these are the people you trust more with money than one of the 5 most successful businessmen in the last 100 years? Yes, because I don't equate being rich and 'successful' with having a social conscience. If anything I'm more inclined to believe that rich and successful person didn't do it by being a paragon of virtue. And what exactly do you think Amazon's incentives are? To the city? Come on now.
- bluedevil2k 8y agoAmazon, the corporation, should only have 1 incentive - to maximize shareholder value.
- ionised 8y agoI mean, that's not a legal requirement and in the past companies were expected to maintain some kind of social conscience. Not sure when that changed.
- Maybestring 8y agohttps://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedman-soc-resp-business.html https://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/f... Friedman argued it was good for corporations to be greedy, and corporate America liked that idea.
- ionised 8y agoThe more I learn about Friedman and Hayek the more I hate them and the politicians that still cling to their hack theories in the face of overwhelming evidence that they don't work for anyone but the amassers of capital. Their views on people as individual self-interested rational actors are so narrow and simplistic.
- bluedevil2k 8y agoI think in the past companies were far less concerned with social conscience than they are today. The entire reason for the EPA is because too many companies were dumping toxic chemicals into the water supply (1). (1) http://time.com/4696104/environmental-protection-agency-1970-history/ http://time.com/4696104/environmental-protection-agency-1970...
- notahacker 8y agoThis is good for people who are Amazon shareholders and sometimes good for people who are Amazon customers. There are many people in Seattle who stand to benefit more from having better roads, schools or provision for homeless people. Some of them, shockingly, are not Amazon shareholders or even Amazon customers. Why would they trust Jeff Bezos to help more than even an unusually inept public official with their problems, when providing such services to the people of Seattle without charge is manifestly not in the financial interests of the average Amazon shareholder?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- xmonkee 8y agoI don't understand your point. Amazon has no incentive to help the city. What do you mean when you say you trust them with the money. Trust them to help themselves? How does that help the people who don't work at or own Amazon shares?
- bluedevil2k 8y ago"you trust them with the money" -> "you trust them with THEIR money" Why is Amazon, the corporation, with offices in 30 countries, under any obligation to help people in a city where they're headquartered, who don't work there or own shares?
- sidrajaram 8y agoDepends on what you mean by "trust with money" - trust them to spend it on something that will give back to society? In that case, yes...I trust almost anyone more than Jeff Bezos.