4 ms·

> Zuck has his net worth tied to FB. Corporations are no angel, but they are accountable, and as such they are more trustworthy. There is no scenario where Zuc

> Zuck has his net worth tied to FB. Corporations are no angel, but they are accountable, and as such they are more trustworthy. There is no scenario where Zuckerberg's net worth is reduced to an amount that one person is capable of spending in a lifetime. In terms of acting as an accountability mechanism, what is the difference between $100M and $65B? > Moreover, when they screw up, they do not pass a law to force us to clean up their mess. What was the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 about then? And did the CEOs of any of the banks that were bailed out by TARP end up suffering any material deprivation as a result?

DennisP 7y ago
Don't underestimate what one person can spend. If your reference point is a billionaire lifestyle with a giant yacht, half a dozen estates on multiple continents with staff to manage them, and a private jet capable of crossing oceans to ferry you between them, then with $65B all that is a drop in the bucket and you've got plenty left to spend on whatever political or philanthropic causes you wish, and with $100M you actually have to economize.
leetcrew 7y ago
> In terms of acting as an accountability mechanism, what is the difference between $100M and $65B? you or I would be overjoyed to be left with a mere $100M. if zucc were that type of person, he would have sold when fb was worth $100M. if there were a real risk that his net worth could drop that much, I'd bet he would be willing to do an awful lot to prevent it.
throaway466744 7y ago
>There is no scenario where Zuckerberg's net worth is reduced to an amount that one person is capable of spending in a lifetime. In terms of acting as an accountability mechanism, what is the difference between $100M and $65B? This is the problem of your own making when you want to decide for others the amount of money you can steal/take from them for whatever reason (don't really need that much, must be punished an arbitrary number because you think it's fair etc...). Whether it is this topic or another, the conclusion is that people will never be satisfied as long as the person is not homeless. Even if he is reduced to 1 million of net worth, you will say: "but he is still a millionaire while people from the millions of lives he has destroyed earn minimum wages" As someone else said in this thread, with 50 billion you can invest (angel investment etc..) and live very differently than with 100 million. Most people cannot understand that but they do not need to, and shouldn't feel entitled to understand because this is not their life. The most important thing is that market dynamics truly keep a private entrepreneur/corporation accountable. I am not saying regulations is never needed, I am strictly strictly speaking about the topic of keeping people in check in the context of this discussion. And net worth is a shortcut to say many other things: trust, reputation, ability to raise money for ventures etc... what I'm saying is that corporations face this type of pressure so there is a line they can't cross (unless the government granted them a monopoly, like in telecoms, but then this is the government's fault). > What was the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 about then? And did the CEOs of any of the banks that were bailed out by TARP end up suffering any material deprivation as a result? I do not disagree but these systemic banks are largely extensions of the government, 99.99% of corporations are not banks.
throaway466744 7y ago
And Facebook clearly isn't a bank. If Facebook collapsed, half of the world would cheer and bailing them out with - supposedly - taxpayers money would be political suicide. Even with Libra Facebook wouldn't be bailed out because people wouldn't lose their savings since Facebook is just a wallet. With this regard, FB would even be safer than banks, it's like deposits are automatically insured, yet there is no limit to the amount being insured (no 100k cap). There more I think about it, the more I feel Facebook really screwed in terms of communication, they were really naive and there were much better ways to present this project.

DennisP 7y ago

Don't underestimate what one person can spend. If your reference point is a billionaire lifestyle with a giant yacht, half a dozen estates on multiple continents with staff to manage them, and a private jet capable of crossing oceans to ferry you between them, then with $65B all that is a drop in the bucket and you've got plenty left to spend on whatever political or philanthropic causes you wish, and with $100M you actually have to economize.

leetcrew 7y ago

> In terms of acting as an accountability mechanism, what is the difference between $100M and $65B? you or I would be overjoyed to be left with a mere $100M. if zucc were that type of person, he would have sold when fb was worth $100M. if there were a real risk that his net worth could drop that much, I'd bet he would be willing to do an awful lot to prevent it.

throaway466744 7y ago

>There is no scenario where Zuckerberg's net worth is reduced to an amount that one person is capable of spending in a lifetime. In terms of acting as an accountability mechanism, what is the difference between $100M and $65B? This is the problem of your own making when you want to decide for others the amount of money you can steal/take from them for whatever reason (don't really need that much, must be punished an arbitrary number because you think it's fair etc...). Whether it is this topic or another, the conclusion is that people will never be satisfied as long as the person is not homeless. Even if he is reduced to 1 million of net worth, you will say: "but he is still a millionaire while people from the millions of lives he has destroyed earn minimum wages" As someone else said in this thread, with 50 billion you can invest (angel investment etc..) and live very differently than with 100 million. Most people cannot understand that but they do not need to, and shouldn't feel entitled to understand because this is not their life. The most important thing is that market dynamics truly keep a private entrepreneur/corporation accountable. I am not saying regulations is never needed, I am strictly strictly speaking about the topic of keeping people in check in the context of this discussion. And net worth is a shortcut to say many other things: trust, reputation, ability to raise money for ventures etc... what I'm saying is that corporations face this type of pressure so there is a line they can't cross (unless the government granted them a monopoly, like in telecoms, but then this is the government's fault). > What was the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 about then? And did the CEOs of any of the banks that were bailed out by TARP end up suffering any material deprivation as a result? I do not disagree but these systemic banks are largely extensions of the government, 99.99% of corporations are not banks.

throaway466744 7y ago

And Facebook clearly isn't a bank. If Facebook collapsed, half of the world would cheer and bailing them out with - supposedly - taxpayers money would be political suicide. Even with Libra Facebook wouldn't be bailed out because people wouldn't lose their savings since Facebook is just a wallet. With this regard, FB would even be safer than banks, it's like deposits are automatically insured, yet there is no limit to the amount being insured (no 100k cap). There more I think about it, the more I feel Facebook really screwed in terms of communication, they were really naive and there were much better ways to present this project.