5 ms·

There's some misunderstandings in this comment. Liquidating only his gains would not mean he no longer owns any stake in Amazon. And while you're right that sel

by drewrv 6y ago

There's some misunderstandings in this comment. Liquidating only his gains would not mean he no longer owns any stake in Amazon. And while you're right that selling some of the gains might cause the share price to dip, there's no need to sell shares. He could transfer the shares rather than cash. But honestly the fine details of this hypothetical cash transfer don't matter. It's a thought experiment to demonstrate the absurd situation here: a handful of people in this country are amassing more wealth than entire nations while millions of people are struggling to keep a roof over their head. Structuring our society that way is a choice, and I don't understand why anyone thinks it's a sensible choice.

throwaway4007 6y ago
>I don't understand why anyone thinks it's a sensible choice. Hint: it's because they usually work for the people they are defending. Remember which site you are on
aaron695 6y ago
> Structuring our society that way is a choice, and I don't understand why anyone thinks it's a sensible choice. Because we are the richest humans who have ever lived. The greatest king from 400 years ago doesn't have what I have. So, maybe us who want to structure it this way are just not selfish and don't want to kill a golden goose while pretending destroying the rich through jealousy might help the real poor.
credit_guy 6y ago
> It's a thought experiment to demonstrate the absurd situation here: a handful of people in this country are amassing more wealth than entire nations while millions of people are struggling to keep a roof over their head. The absurdity is subjective. As far as I personally am concerned, I could be as rich as Bezos, but I didn't put in the work and I didn't make various choices in my life, while he did. I am where I am and he is where he is, and I don't have a problem with that. I don't know that he ever broke any laws, and in my book that means he is entitled to enjoy the lawful fruits of his labor. I am truly happy to live in a country where people are not subject to confiscation of their hard earned gains because of some perceived "unfairness". My son enjoys a lot a silly book series called "Diary of a Wimpy Kid". This series sold many hundreds of millions of copies, and most likely its author is a billionaire. He made millions of kids lough and be happy for a bit. My son can't wait for the next book, which is supposed to come out next month. If ideas like "tax billionaires 100%" were to pass, the next book would never exist.
- salawat 6y ago
  >The absurdity is subjective. As far as I personally am concerned, I could be as rich as Bezos, but I didn't put in the work and I didn't make various choices in my life, while he did. I am where I am and he is where he is, and I don't have a problem with that. I don't know that he ever broke any laws, and in my book that means he is entitled to enjoy the lawful fruits of his labor. I am truly happy to live in a country where people are not subject to confiscation of their hard earned gains because of some perceived "unfairness". You seriously underestimate the role of dumb luck involved at being at the center of just the right causal nexus. Not saying that he's not had to be willing to work hard. However, Don't deceive yourself into thinking Besos is somehow built of a stouter stuff than you or anyone else. Circumstance doesplay into it A lot.
  - credit_guy 6y ago
    > role of dumb luck Dumb luck is winning millions at the lottery. I doubt Bezos, or Zuckerberg, or Musk, or Gates, ever did that. What they did instead was take calculated risks. Like quitting a job at DE Shaw to start an online bookstore, at a time when online bookstores were not a thing. If you or I are senior executives at one of the most successful hedge funds in history, would we quit for a pie in the sky idea? Well, he did, and Gates and Zuckerberg quit Harvard, and Musk went all in into rockets until he almost lost it all. The part of the iceberg that's not seen in this picture is the hundreds or thousands of entrepreneurs who risked it all and lost it all. We are on HN here, and from time to time we get a peek into the struggles of founders. Attributing the success of various founders to "dumb luck" is lazy and disrespectful. I did not take these types of risks in my life, so I'm not rich. But I tip my hat to those who did, and got rich in the end. I could be very well be luck, but absent any evidence, I prefer to extend the benefit of doubt, and to just respect these guys for what they did in life.
zaptheimpaler 6y ago
> But honestly the fine details of this hypothetical cash transfer don't matter. It's a thought experiment to demonstrate the absurd situation here: a handful of people in this country are amassing more wealth than entire nations while millions of people are struggling to keep a roof over their head. Structuring our society that way is a choice, and I don't understand why anyone thinks it's a sensible choice. Redistributing that wealth wouldn't create any more houses or food, it would only bid up their prices. For example, in the bay area, rents steadily increased as salaries did because supply of housing stayed the same. Adding more money to a system with the same amount of goods being produced does not change anything. SF has been unable to build more housing, or maintain public infrastructure, or take care of the homeless and thats all in the midst of a tech boom and tons of tax revenue. Thats evidence to me that the problems are simply not about a lack of money.

by drewrv 6y ago

throwaway4007 6y ago

>I don't understand why anyone thinks it's a sensible choice. Hint: it's because they usually work for the people they are defending. Remember which site you are on

aaron695 6y ago

> Structuring our society that way is a choice, and I don't understand why anyone thinks it's a sensible choice. Because we are the richest humans who have ever lived. The greatest king from 400 years ago doesn't have what I have. So, maybe us who want to structure it this way are just not selfish and don't want to kill a golden goose while pretending destroying the rich through jealousy might help the real poor.

credit_guy 6y ago

> It's a thought experiment to demonstrate the absurd situation here: a handful of people in this country are amassing more wealth than entire nations while millions of people are struggling to keep a roof over their head. The absurdity is subjective. As far as I personally am concerned, I could be as rich as Bezos, but I didn't put in the work and I didn't make various choices in my life, while he did. I am where I am and he is where he is, and I don't have a problem with that. I don't know that he ever broke any laws, and in my book that means he is entitled to enjoy the lawful fruits of his labor. I am truly happy to live in a country where people are not subject to confiscation of their hard earned gains because of some perceived "unfairness". My son enjoys a lot a silly book series called "Diary of a Wimpy Kid". This series sold many hundreds of millions of copies, and most likely its author is a billionaire. He made millions of kids lough and be happy for a bit. My son can't wait for the next book, which is supposed to come out next month. If ideas like "tax billionaires 100%" were to pass, the next book would never exist.

salawat 6y ago
>The absurdity is subjective. As far as I personally am concerned, I could be as rich as Bezos, but I didn't put in the work and I didn't make various choices in my life, while he did. I am where I am and he is where he is, and I don't have a problem with that. I don't know that he ever broke any laws, and in my book that means he is entitled to enjoy the lawful fruits of his labor. I am truly happy to live in a country where people are not subject to confiscation of their hard earned gains because of some perceived "unfairness". You seriously underestimate the role of dumb luck involved at being at the center of just the right causal nexus. Not saying that he's not had to be willing to work hard. However, Don't deceive yourself into thinking Besos is somehow built of a stouter stuff than you or anyone else. Circumstance doesplay into it A lot.
- credit_guy 6y ago
  > role of dumb luck Dumb luck is winning millions at the lottery. I doubt Bezos, or Zuckerberg, or Musk, or Gates, ever did that. What they did instead was take calculated risks. Like quitting a job at DE Shaw to start an online bookstore, at a time when online bookstores were not a thing. If you or I are senior executives at one of the most successful hedge funds in history, would we quit for a pie in the sky idea? Well, he did, and Gates and Zuckerberg quit Harvard, and Musk went all in into rockets until he almost lost it all. The part of the iceberg that's not seen in this picture is the hundreds or thousands of entrepreneurs who risked it all and lost it all. We are on HN here, and from time to time we get a peek into the struggles of founders. Attributing the success of various founders to "dumb luck" is lazy and disrespectful. I did not take these types of risks in my life, so I'm not rich. But I tip my hat to those who did, and got rich in the end. I could be very well be luck, but absent any evidence, I prefer to extend the benefit of doubt, and to just respect these guys for what they did in life.

zaptheimpaler 6y ago

> But honestly the fine details of this hypothetical cash transfer don't matter. It's a thought experiment to demonstrate the absurd situation here: a handful of people in this country are amassing more wealth than entire nations while millions of people are struggling to keep a roof over their head. Structuring our society that way is a choice, and I don't understand why anyone thinks it's a sensible choice. Redistributing that wealth wouldn't create any more houses or food, it would only bid up their prices. For example, in the bay area, rents steadily increased as salaries did because supply of housing stayed the same. Adding more money to a system with the same amount of goods being produced does not change anything. SF has been unable to build more housing, or maintain public infrastructure, or take care of the homeless and thats all in the midst of a tech boom and tons of tax revenue. Thats evidence to me that the problems are simply not about a lack of money.