7 ms·

Ten billionaires reap $400B boost to wealth during pandemic

37 points by scottbucks 6y ago

beamatronic 6y ago
How much is “actual value creation” and how much is “irrational exuberance”? Or is there no difference?
lazyjones 6y ago
There's nothing wrong with reaping the benefits when you are providing people with direly needed goods that local governments foolishly prohibit small shops from selling.
- 8fGTBjZxBcHq 6y ago
  yah there fucking is lol. mega-wealth like bezos has accumulated is so so far beyond "reaping the benefits" of any of his own labor or imagination. that's the lives of workers he's hoarding in the form of wealth too great for him to use. that is extremely wrong by my moral standards, both personally on him for doing it and collectively on us for allowing it.
  - perryizgr8 6y ago
    > that is extremely wrong by my moral standards Selling people what they want for cheap prices is extremely wrong?
  - lazyjones 6y ago
    Arguably, those workers aren't paid below typical levels and would not earn more elsewhere. Not being extra generous is key to Amazon's profitability, which ensures those workers have job security. You could argue that Amazon should let workers benefit directly from the profits, but by going public, they let anyone who wants benefit directly by buying shares. I'm way more concerned with Bezos' political ambitions (as oligarch with his own, pretty terrible and partisan, newspaper and who knows what other sorts of lobbying).
valuearb 6y ago
Yes, the stock market is being pumped up by government fiat. What’s the point?
- sschueller 6y ago
  Government fiat = taxpayer fiat
d23 6y ago
I know this is usually brought up as a clearly bad thing, but I have a non-rhetorical question: what do we do about it? In this case, the value of the company Bezos created, Amazon, has gone up because it provided a useful service during the pandemic. If we decide we want to tax that, it seems like the only means we'd have available is to force him to give up shares in his company. Are we essentially saying a company's success entitles the government to take over ownership?
- Bakary 6y ago
  >Are we essentially saying a company's success entitles the government to take over ownership? This implies that the company is creating wealth all on its own, with no help from the local environment. In reality, we could turn the argument around and ask why these large companies aren't paying their fair share in light of all the pre-existing effort and wealth they benefit from and the negative externalities they disseminate.
  - throwawaysea 6y ago
    What you’re calling “fair share” has no clear definition. It’s a goal post that keeps changing with the political winds, as some politicians/voters ask for more and more redistribution. Not to mention it is fundamentally meaningless when a high income person pays far more in taxes than the average person. That does not strike me as “fair” at all.
    - hobby-coder-guy 6y ago
      Just because you lack the ability to solve a problem doesn’t mean there isn’t a problem.
  - mlindner 6y ago
    Please help me understand. What "negative externalities" (a euphemism generally reserved for environmental destruction) is the likes of Amazon causing here? You could say that they increase carbon footprint, but that's generally false because the amount of carbon they create is quite limited for the number of people they employ. If you're talking about worker health, that's already very regulated through the likes of OSHA and similar organizations.
mdaniel 6y ago
A related Fresh Air episode this month: https://www.npr.org/2020/12/23/949578530/how-covid-19-became-a-tremendous-windfall-for-the-ultra-rich https://www.npr.org/2020/12/23/949578530/how-covid-19-became... The guest was an heir to the Oscar Mayer fortune who actually gave up his money and stated a non-profit focused on inequality; the discussion was pretty hand-wavy about solutions, but still interesting (IMHO)
perryizgr8 6y ago
This is what happens when the state acts like your nanny. Overzealous local restrictions on businesses is what led to this. The market would have dealt with the threat of infection perfectly. But it wasn't allowed to. And it shows that any sort of government regulation, regardless of intent, will always hurt the small guy, while the Bezos' of the world will find a way to profit from it.

37 points by scottbucks 6y ago

How much is “actual value creation” and how much is “irrational exuberance”? Or is there no difference?

There's nothing wrong with reaping the benefits when you are providing people with direly needed goods that local governments foolishly prohibit small shops from selling.

8fGTBjZxBcHq 6y ago
yah there fucking is lol. mega-wealth like bezos has accumulated is so so far beyond "reaping the benefits" of any of his own labor or imagination. that's the lives of workers he's hoarding in the form of wealth too great for him to use. that is extremely wrong by my moral standards, both personally on him for doing it and collectively on us for allowing it.
- perryizgr8 6y ago
  > that is extremely wrong by my moral standards Selling people what they want for cheap prices is extremely wrong?
- lazyjones 6y ago
  Arguably, those workers aren't paid below typical levels and would not earn more elsewhere. Not being extra generous is key to Amazon's profitability, which ensures those workers have job security. You could argue that Amazon should let workers benefit directly from the profits, but by going public, they let anyone who wants benefit directly by buying shares. I'm way more concerned with Bezos' political ambitions (as oligarch with his own, pretty terrible and partisan, newspaper and who knows what other sorts of lobbying).

valuearb 6y ago

Yes, the stock market is being pumped up by government fiat. What’s the point?

sschueller 6y ago
Government fiat = taxpayer fiat

d23 6y ago

I know this is usually brought up as a clearly bad thing, but I have a non-rhetorical question: what do we do about it? In this case, the value of the company Bezos created, Amazon, has gone up because it provided a useful service during the pandemic. If we decide we want to tax that, it seems like the only means we'd have available is to force him to give up shares in his company. Are we essentially saying a company's success entitles the government to take over ownership?

Bakary 6y ago
>Are we essentially saying a company's success entitles the government to take over ownership? This implies that the company is creating wealth all on its own, with no help from the local environment. In reality, we could turn the argument around and ask why these large companies aren't paying their fair share in light of all the pre-existing effort and wealth they benefit from and the negative externalities they disseminate.
- throwawaysea 6y ago
  What you’re calling “fair share” has no clear definition. It’s a goal post that keeps changing with the political winds, as some politicians/voters ask for more and more redistribution. Not to mention it is fundamentally meaningless when a high income person pays far more in taxes than the average person. That does not strike me as “fair” at all.
  - hobby-coder-guy 6y ago
    Just because you lack the ability to solve a problem doesn’t mean there isn’t a problem.
- mlindner 6y ago
  Please help me understand. What "negative externalities" (a euphemism generally reserved for environmental destruction) is the likes of Amazon causing here? You could say that they increase carbon footprint, but that's generally false because the amount of carbon they create is quite limited for the number of people they employ. If you're talking about worker health, that's already very regulated through the likes of OSHA and similar organizations.

mdaniel 6y ago

A related Fresh Air episode this month: https://www.npr.org/2020/12/23/949578530/how-covid-19-became-a-tremendous-windfall-for-the-ultra-rich https://www.npr.org/2020/12/23/949578530/how-covid-19-became... The guest was an heir to the Oscar Mayer fortune who actually gave up his money and stated a non-profit focused on inequality; the discussion was pretty hand-wavy about solutions, but still interesting (IMHO)

perryizgr8 6y ago

This is what happens when the state acts like your nanny. Overzealous local restrictions on businesses is what led to this. The market would have dealt with the threat of infection perfectly. But it wasn't allowed to. And it shows that any sort of government regulation, regardless of intent, will always hurt the small guy, while the Bezos' of the world will find a way to profit from it.