3 ms·

>Because they were first or best to do it. MySpace was already a thing, several other social media sites but today they're mostly dead while FB is not. Luck doe

>Because they were first or best to do it. MySpace was already a thing, several other social media sites but today they're mostly dead while FB is not. Luck does have a lot to do with it. I feel trying to quantify luck though will get us no where. Trying to "correct" for it, even more so. I think this is a fundamental feature a winner take all/most market. FB beat out myspace and happened to win, but if not them it would have been someone else. 5 billion internet connected social animals is the value, not the app that facebook built. >Do you think they should be? I cannot think of a reason... but I do understand what you mean. I don't think they should be because I don't think billionaires should exist. But I do think the value they created was much bigger than the value Zuck created. They were better at creating value than capturing it. >I don't see how the two are related though. There were a lot of things different about back then vs today. I would like to see the focus be on rent and CoL as I see those as way more of a problem than if Jeff Bezos has $50b or $100b. (his wealth has fluctuated like crazy with covid and divorce). The two are fundamentally related. Gdp per capita is higher now than it was in the 60s, yet the median person is no better off. That can only be explained through how the wealth distribution has changed between now and then. Whether Jeff Bezos is worth 50B or 100B doesn't matter too much. The issue is that the wealthiest are capturing a larger percentage of income now than they did 60 years ago. I don't view our age as being more innovative than a time where we invented the atom bomb and went to the moon and other cool shit. And we paid for it with taxes! Jeff Bezos isn't more innovative than those guys, he is just having his workers piss in bottles to squeeze out every last cent. It is a return to the bad old days of Rockefeller. >I would consider that beyond a straw man. Did not realize that Yang supported it, learn something new everyday. Would like to hear his reasoning beyond the short blurb on his website as he has always struck me as deep thinker.

robswc 6y ago
>I think this is a fundamental feature a winner take all/most market. FB beat out myspace and happened to win, but if not them it would have been someone else. 5 billion internet connected social animals is the value, not the app that facebook built. What do you feel is the "solution" ? >I don't think they should be because I don't think billionaires should exist. But I do think the value they created was much bigger than the value Zuck created. They were better at creating value than capturing it. How much do you think they should be worth and why? I have some ideas, however I think it just comes down to the fact that some things are more easily monetizable than others. I don't think that's necessarily a problem. >That can only be explained through how the wealth distribution has changed between now and then. How do you come to this conclusion? I feel there are more factors than any one person can point to for the reason why people are "worse off" >The issue is that the wealthiest are capturing a larger percentage of income now than they did 60 years ago. Is it income? I still fail to see how Bezos, Musk, Zuckerberg, Gates etc. Having an ownership in their respective billion dollar companies makes the average person worse off. > I don't view our age as being more innovative than a time where we invented the atom bomb and went to the moon and other cool shit. It depends on what you view as "innovative" - by this logic, I fail to see how going to the moon helped the average person. I can agree with the sentiment though. >Jeff Bezos isn't more innovative than those guys, he is just having his workers piss in bottles to squeeze out every last cent. I don't think Jeff Bezos is a billionaire because of this. Stuff like that certainly happens at other places, you just don't hear about it because its not as interesting. These aren't billion dollar companies by a long shot. Poor working conditions aren't exclusive to billion dollar companies. I'm not defending it though, that is terrible. I've worked in a warehouse and thankfully I never had anything like that happen but I did see some questionable things. >Did not realize that Yang supported it, learn something new everyday. Would like to hear his reasoning beyond the short blurb on his website as he has always struck me as deep thinker. I feel you. I really liked him. Still do I suppose, its just I do algotrading and I was shocked to see all that about "profitable algorithms" - I don't think he personally wrote that but I guess he has to be responsible for what is on his site. I will have to see if he's ever been asked about it directly. A shocking amount of people seem to think they know how "wall street" works... I don't even know and would be silly to pretend but I do know that trying to eradicate "profitable algorithms" and imposing FTTs would be disastrous. That is what I'm worried about in regard to "going after billionaires". I'm not an economist though, so I can't pretend to know what will or will not happen. All I know is that the same principals when applied to "wallstreet" or trading in general always end in disaster and only end up hurting the "average person" indirectly. I'm bias though, as I've personally worked on a few things that were only possible because it was funded by wealthy people with an idea. To me I hardly see a difference if their company is worth $100m or $1b. I suppose it affects how many projects they can realistically start... but eh.

robswc 6y ago

>I think this is a fundamental feature a winner take all/most market. FB beat out myspace and happened to win, but if not them it would have been someone else. 5 billion internet connected social animals is the value, not the app that facebook built. What do you feel is the "solution" ? >I don't think they should be because I don't think billionaires should exist. But I do think the value they created was much bigger than the value Zuck created. They were better at creating value than capturing it. How much do you think they should be worth and why? I have some ideas, however I think it just comes down to the fact that some things are more easily monetizable than others. I don't think that's necessarily a problem. >That can only be explained through how the wealth distribution has changed between now and then. How do you come to this conclusion? I feel there are more factors than any one person can point to for the reason why people are "worse off" >The issue is that the wealthiest are capturing a larger percentage of income now than they did 60 years ago. Is it income? I still fail to see how Bezos, Musk, Zuckerberg, Gates etc. Having an ownership in their respective billion dollar companies makes the average person worse off. > I don't view our age as being more innovative than a time where we invented the atom bomb and went to the moon and other cool shit. It depends on what you view as "innovative" - by this logic, I fail to see how going to the moon helped the average person. I can agree with the sentiment though. >Jeff Bezos isn't more innovative than those guys, he is just having his workers piss in bottles to squeeze out every last cent. I don't think Jeff Bezos is a billionaire because of this. Stuff like that certainly happens at other places, you just don't hear about it because its not as interesting. These aren't billion dollar companies by a long shot. Poor working conditions aren't exclusive to billion dollar companies. I'm not defending it though, that is terrible. I've worked in a warehouse and thankfully I never had anything like that happen but I did see some questionable things. >Did not realize that Yang supported it, learn something new everyday. Would like to hear his reasoning beyond the short blurb on his website as he has always struck me as deep thinker. I feel you. I really liked him. Still do I suppose, its just I do algotrading and I was shocked to see all that about "profitable algorithms" - I don't think he personally wrote that but I guess he has to be responsible for what is on his site. I will have to see if he's ever been asked about it directly. A shocking amount of people seem to think they know how "wall street" works... I don't even know and would be silly to pretend but I do know that trying to eradicate "profitable algorithms" and imposing FTTs would be disastrous. That is what I'm worried about in regard to "going after billionaires". I'm not an economist though, so I can't pretend to know what will or will not happen. All I know is that the same principals when applied to "wallstreet" or trading in general always end in disaster and only end up hurting the "average person" indirectly. I'm bias though, as I've personally worked on a few things that were only possible because it was funded by wealthy people with an idea. To me I hardly see a difference if their company is worth $100m or $1b. I suppose it affects how many projects they can realistically start... but eh.