5 ms·

Bezos’ pockets.

by egypturnash 8y ago

Bezos’ pockets.

Ajedi32 8y ago
And from there?
- wlesieutre 8y ago
  Launched in to space for Bezos's Scrooge McDuck gold pool on his moon colony. But don't worry, nobody needs to get paid for this. The rockets will be built by robots, and the robots will be built by more robots.
  - wlesieutre 8y ago
    This may come across as a total joke, so I should clarify. Do I really think Bezos will do this? No. Would I be surprised if he did? Also no.
- onion2k 8y ago
  Is this where you try to claim trickle down economics works despite the top 20% of people owning more than 80% of the financial assets? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Unite...
  - Ajedi32 8y ago
    You didn't answer the question.
    - RhodesianHunter 8y ago
      Into investment assets that get swapped amongst the wealthy ad-infinitum, and generate enough capital on their own to feed the poor.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - Fricken 8y ago
    'trickle down' implies a watershed, where water/wealth collects in small tributaries that come together to form a main River where wealth/water is most concentrated. Actual trickle down economics is trickle up economics, so no shit it doesn't work. Let's just dump a bunch of water here at the mouth of the Amazon and watch it flow up into the Andes.
  - mlcrypto 8y ago
    The 20/80 rule applies in all aspects of life. Like 20% of the soccer players account for 80% of the goals. So why wouldn't we expect it to apply to money as well? This is like a law of gravity. You can attempt to fight against it artificially but eventually it will come crashing down
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
- ed_balls 8y ago
  Probably gone due to social unrest.
- SolaceQuantum 8y ago
  And from there to fund already rich parties to continue to enforce control in a way that washes Bezos' hands clean of any wrongdoing. Outsourcing the task of maintaining inequality, per se. (Billionares funding millionares springs to mind). Or, stated with less emotional rhetoric: Funding 1$ to the wealthy returns 0.7$ to the economy. So, from 'there' nothing, because Bezos' pocket is keeping it.
  - Ajedi32 8y ago
    > Funding 1$ to the wealthy returns 0.7$ to the economy. So going solely by that figure, as long as the gain in efficiency from automating a job is > 42% it's a net positive for the economy? And that's even _if_ you assume 100% of the savings goes directly into the company owner's pockets and isn't simply being re-invested somewhere else.
    - SolaceQuantum 8y ago
      > So going solely by that figure, as long as the gain in efficiency from automating a job is > 42% it's a net positive for the economy? No, because 1$ to a poor person is actually 1.12$ returned to the economy. It gets even bigger when you go into 1$ to education. >And that's even _if_ you assume 100% of the savings goes directly into the company owner's pockets and isn't simply being re-invested somewhere else. Well that's the thing. Even if you give money to wealthy people they're not going to invest more than a poor person will with it. A person in poverty has immediate needs to spend the money on where a wealthy person does not.
      - Ajedi32 8y ago
        > No, because 1$ to a poor person is actually 1.12$ returned to the economy. Okay, so >60% then, assuming the average worker at an Amazon warehouse meets your definition of "poor". Still a totally achievable figure. > Even if you give money to wealthy people We're not talking about _giving_ money to anyone here, we're talking about automation. Automation means efficiency gains for _Amazon_ (the corporation) not Bezos personally, so you can't just make the lazy assumption that 100% of any savings made by Amazon goes directly into Bezos' pockets (as egypturnash did earlier in this thread). But even if you do make that ridiculous assumption, _and_ we assume your figures are correct, it still only takes a >60% efficiency gain for the economy to break even on the transaction, correct?
- sundaeofshock 8y ago
  He will horde most of it. Occasionally he will spend on lobbying efforts, purchase insane luxury items (ie yachts), or vanity projects. Sometimes, he will splurge on a business that employee a few people. When he is feeling particularly generous, he may contribute to some project that makes home look good while putting his name on something (ie new opera house).
  - logicprog 8y ago
    Where does the money for the yachet go?
    - theflyinghorse 8y ago
      To the yacht builders of course. There happens to be only a few of those however. I think if that money were to be spent by 10,000 people buying everyday groceries, cars, clothing the economic benefit would be far greater.
      - mactrey 8y ago
        What do the yacht builders do with the money?
- egypturnash 8y ago
  Pretty much nowhere given my experience as a non-software person living in Seattle. Well, nowhere except fighting attempts to do things like “make big businesses pay their fair share of taxes for once”.

Bezos’ pockets.

Ajedi32 8y ago

And from there?

wlesieutre 8y ago
Launched in to space for Bezos's Scrooge McDuck gold pool on his moon colony. But don't worry, nobody needs to get paid for this. The rockets will be built by robots, and the robots will be built by more robots.
- wlesieutre 8y ago
  This may come across as a total joke, so I should clarify. Do I really think Bezos will do this? No. Would I be surprised if he did? Also no.
onion2k 8y ago
Is this where you try to claim trickle down economics works despite the top 20% of people owning more than 80% of the financial assets? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Unite...
- Ajedi32 8y ago
  You didn't answer the question.
  - RhodesianHunter 8y ago
    Into investment assets that get swapped amongst the wealthy ad-infinitum, and generate enough capital on their own to feed the poor.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- Fricken 8y ago
  'trickle down' implies a watershed, where water/wealth collects in small tributaries that come together to form a main River where wealth/water is most concentrated. Actual trickle down economics is trickle up economics, so no shit it doesn't work. Let's just dump a bunch of water here at the mouth of the Amazon and watch it flow up into the Andes.
- mlcrypto 8y ago
  The 20/80 rule applies in all aspects of life. Like 20% of the soccer players account for 80% of the goals. So why wouldn't we expect it to apply to money as well? This is like a law of gravity. You can attempt to fight against it artificially but eventually it will come crashing down
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
ed_balls 8y ago
Probably gone due to social unrest.
SolaceQuantum 8y ago
And from there to fund already rich parties to continue to enforce control in a way that washes Bezos' hands clean of any wrongdoing. Outsourcing the task of maintaining inequality, per se. (Billionares funding millionares springs to mind). Or, stated with less emotional rhetoric: Funding 1$ to the wealthy returns 0.7$ to the economy. So, from 'there' nothing, because Bezos' pocket is keeping it.
- Ajedi32 8y ago
  > Funding 1$ to the wealthy returns 0.7$ to the economy. So going solely by that figure, as long as the gain in efficiency from automating a job is > 42% it's a net positive for the economy? And that's even _if_ you assume 100% of the savings goes directly into the company owner's pockets and isn't simply being re-invested somewhere else.
  - SolaceQuantum 8y ago
    > So going solely by that figure, as long as the gain in efficiency from automating a job is > 42% it's a net positive for the economy? No, because 1$ to a poor person is actually 1.12$ returned to the economy. It gets even bigger when you go into 1$ to education. >And that's even _if_ you assume 100% of the savings goes directly into the company owner's pockets and isn't simply being re-invested somewhere else. Well that's the thing. Even if you give money to wealthy people they're not going to invest more than a poor person will with it. A person in poverty has immediate needs to spend the money on where a wealthy person does not.
    - Ajedi32 8y ago
      > No, because 1$ to a poor person is actually 1.12$ returned to the economy. Okay, so >60% then, assuming the average worker at an Amazon warehouse meets your definition of "poor". Still a totally achievable figure. > Even if you give money to wealthy people We're not talking about _giving_ money to anyone here, we're talking about automation. Automation means efficiency gains for _Amazon_ (the corporation) not Bezos personally, so you can't just make the lazy assumption that 100% of any savings made by Amazon goes directly into Bezos' pockets (as egypturnash did earlier in this thread). But even if you do make that ridiculous assumption, _and_ we assume your figures are correct, it still only takes a >60% efficiency gain for the economy to break even on the transaction, correct?
sundaeofshock 8y ago
He will horde most of it. Occasionally he will spend on lobbying efforts, purchase insane luxury items (ie yachts), or vanity projects. Sometimes, he will splurge on a business that employee a few people. When he is feeling particularly generous, he may contribute to some project that makes home look good while putting his name on something (ie new opera house).
- logicprog 8y ago
  Where does the money for the yachet go?
  - theflyinghorse 8y ago
    To the yacht builders of course. There happens to be only a few of those however. I think if that money were to be spent by 10,000 people buying everyday groceries, cars, clothing the economic benefit would be far greater.
    - mactrey 8y ago
      What do the yacht builders do with the money?
egypturnash 8y ago
Pretty much nowhere given my experience as a non-software person living in Seattle. Well, nowhere except fighting attempts to do things like “make big businesses pay their fair share of taxes for once”.