8 ms·
I don't understand this. Clearly not all people have the same political power, regardless of the existence of billionaires. AOC, as a party firebrand, has more
by amscanne 6y ago
I don't understand this. Clearly not all people have the same political power, regardless of the existence of billionaires.
AOC, as a party firebrand, has more political power than Jeff Bezos, although it manifests differently. You can argue that the power was "earned" (in the sense that AOC won a primary), but how is the power that Bezos has any less earned? The same argument applies not just to politicians, but literally any influential public figure (artists, authors, journalists, actors, etc.).
- oblio 6y agoAOC has to actually work for her political power. Billionaires can sic 1000 lawyers and lobbyists at whatever initiative they want, without lifting a finger. And that's just an example :-) Activists do it as their day job, for billionaires it's just one of the many side effects of their wealth.
- airstrike 6y ago> AOC has to actually work for her political power. Meanwhile, Amazon was gifted to Bezos by God himself at the age of 15.
- oblio 6y agoUmmm... are you misreading my comment? Bezos had to work to found a successful business. Which came with a ton of benefits. Political power is a (un?)intended side effect of owning that successful business. That side effect is the problem.
- cultus 6y agoI'm not sure how this is apparently a controversial point. There's vast and obvious evidence that this is the case. More Dunning-Krugerism from the tech industry.
- JackFr 6y agoGood thing you're immune.
- airstrike 6y ago"Political power" is an unavoidable side effect of having power, simply – this almost reads like a tautology, but it's worth keeping in mind that the former is effectively an extension of the latter. I argue money is power in a free market society. I'm not sure there is a way to fix the first part of that sentence without completely modifying the latter.
- cultus 6y agoIt was actually gifted to him by his parents, in the form of a $300,000 loan. How is it so difficult to accept that the vast majority of the wealthy were helped by having wealthy parents rather than pulling themselves up their bootstraps? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Bezos#Business_career https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Bezos#Business_career
- airstrike 6y agoHow many people with $300k go on to build Amazon? Nobody is saying he didn't have any help, and that's frankly not the bar we want to measure people by.
- cultus 6y agoStatistically, people with wealthy parents are far more likely to be wealthy than those of poor parents. Bezos would have been far less likely to create Amazon did he not get that loan. Do you dispute this?
- airstrike 6y agoI don't dispute that, but also don't want to write policy to change that. It isn't really an informative fact. It's almost obvious, really.
- kolbe 6y agoMaybe. So what? No one is an individual. “He” is also a product of his parents’ DNA mixing to produce an intellectually healthy and superior brain. His parents also stuffed copious amounts of useful information into that brain. As did people around him growing up. And his parents used savings, likely derived from many generations of people passing on their wealth/culture/knowledge, to aid in the continuation of their DNA’s importance to humanity.
- isoskeles 6y ago$188,700,000,000 - $300,000 = $188,699,700,000
- cycomanic 6y agoActually there is significant research that successful people significantly overestimate their skills/contributions even if they rely largely on luck or advantageous starting conditions. There is also significant research that shows that even in a relatively "fair" trading scenario wealth distribution very quickly becomes completely unequal, just based on luck in the first couple of trades [1] [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-inequality-inevitable/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-inequality-ine...
- zimmern 6y ago>>>without lifting a finger They lifted many fingers to become billionaires. You are denigrating them in order to cover for your own inadequacies of effort, skill, and competence.
- istjohn 6y agoAOC's power stems from democratic support. Jeff Bezos' power stems from monetary wealth. It's the difference between oligopoly and democracy. No, there will never be absolute equality of power. Certain people will always have a louder voice in the culture than others. But cultural power is fickle and comes and goes easily unlike wealth.
- zozbot234 6y agoJeff Bezos' monetary wealth stems from billions of Amazon customers voting with their collective wallets. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
- istjohn 6y agoAOC's power will vanish the moment she breaks with the interests of her constituency. Bezos' wealth does not represent a continuing endorsement of his actions.
- zozbot234 6y ago> [Politician]'s power will vanish the moment s/he breaks with the interests of his/her/their constituency This is almost never the case. Power corrupts.
- jakelazaroff 6y agoHow would AOC continue to have power if people were to stop voting for her or caring about what she has to say?
- darawk 6y agoHow would Bezos continue to have power if people stopped using Amazon? Most of his wealth is in Amazon stock. Sure, he'd have a few billion left over, but his real political power comes from his companies, not his money.
- mountainboot 6y agoI believe Jeff Bezos has more power than AOC.
- TheOtherHobbes 6y agoBezos has vastly more power than AOC. His decisions affect the lives of 840,000 direct employees and at least as many again - I'm not sure the figures even exist - "freelance" content suppliers, small businesses, and casual workers. His tax avoidance policies have a significant impact on the budgets of the larger Western countries. AOC has a media profile, but - so far - almost no influence at all on US policy. That may change in the future, but given that the Dem Establishment seem to consider her a dangerous extremist, it's possible she'll be sidelined into becoming her generation's powerless token left-leaning icon.
- WalterBright 6y agoAOC effectively prevented Amazon from establishing a second headquarters in NY. > the Dem Establishment seem to consider her a dangerous extremist They invited her to speak at the Dem convention. That makes her mainstream.
- amscanne 6y agoCertainly in some ways. But AOC (with others) arguably shifted an entire mainstream party's platform. I think that the "hard power" that Bezos has is larger, but the "soft power" wielded by political and cultural elites is massive and easy to underestimate.
- joshuamorton 6y agoIs AOC either politically or culturally elite?
- maxharris 6y agoWhat kind of power, though? Political power and economic power are fundamentally different.
- foobiekr 6y agoWhy do you think AOC has any actual power at all?
- zjaffee 6y agoAOC does not have more political power than Jeff Bezos and to suggest otherwise is tremendously foolish. Political power is far more than just the ability to change federal statutes, it includes things like being able to get faster approval for the zoning of your particular projects or getting your company tax breaks.
- cycomanic 6y agoI would like to introduce you to a family which is called the Murdochs. This family alone has probably yielded more political power than most elected officials in many western democracies combined. You don't even need to look at Fox news, but only look at Australien politics, where Rupert Murdoch (who isn't even an Australien citizen or taxpayer anymore) has had the most intimate access to politicians. I encourage you to look at the repeal of the NBN (which was very popular) and the role of Murdoch newspapers in getting the labor government voted out.