3 ms·

Bezos? The world would not be the poorer or have missed out one bit if he hadn’t created Amazon.

ObserverNeutral 5y ago
Somebody else would have created it. The argument around wealth taxes is that we tax lottery winnings, hence we should tax this sort of things. Bill Gates was a fanboy of a company called Digital Equipment which he predicted would be the next big thing. Stuff went the other way for them and Microsoft emerged instead. There is very little agency in these massive net worth stashes People who are smart already know this. Doge developers refute to bow down and genuflect to Musk even though his net worth is 1,000,000 times theirs. Andy Jassy not like he'd not confront and get in heated arguments with Bezos even though his net worth is 300x his own. It's people who buy into the propaganda and Republicans who elevate these people as they were divine beings. They are just smart people who got outsized returns because of luck....a wealth tax would just mimic the mechanism of taxes on lottery winnings
nickpp 5y ago
The very success of Amazon is proof that the world is better with it than without it: Amazon did not take out money by force. We, the customers, have made it successful by rewarding it with our business every time it won it in our minds over its competitors. Every extra cent of Amazon profit comes from a happy customer. Happy customers == better world. In a world full of competition and alternatives, in a world where the low price is far from being the only differentiating factor, Amazon is winning due to innovation, better customer service and choice, massive, almost infinite, choice.
- md_ 5y ago
  I’ll avoid taking an absolute position on Amazon—socially beneficial or not—but I do take issue with your argument: only by the most stunted measures of “better” is turning a profit sufficient or even necessary to show someone “makes the world better.”
  - brayhite 5y ago
    I think the perspective of “happy customers = better world” is a bit sickening. I’ll give benefit of the doubt that if really pressed, that sentiment would be walked back. That sort of quippy line is how crooked politicians and their cronies come into and stay in power, though. And no, the world isn’t a better place with them unless your definition of world excludes billions of the population.
- danaris 5y ago
  The world would be better if Amazon were not anticompetitive, and were not extracting what is arguably monopoly rent in several sectors. The world would be better if Amazon treated its employees fairly, hired enough of them that they didn't have to work themselves to the bone to achieve the desired speed of shipping, and allowed them the basic dignity and freedom every human being deserves. The world would be better if the money Amazon has made were distributed much more evenly—even if it were only among Amazon's employees. "This is a great idea, and should be in the world, as it makes it better" is not the same thing as "the person who came up with this idea deserves every cent they ever made." The good aspects of any given person, company (or other organization—including countries), product, or service do not justify inequalities created by them, oppression perpetrated by them, and generally the negative things they create. The world is not black and white, and we can absolutely say "the convenience Amazon brings to retail is an amazing thing that is a benefit to the world," while also saying "Amazon is a predatory monopoly and monopsony in some areas, and should be better regulated" as well as "Jeff Bezos is a terrible person, and absolutely does not deserve the amount of wealth he has amassed."
- anoncake 5y ago
  That's nonsense. Facebook is also successful and the world would clearly be better off without it.
- nobodyandproud 5y ago
  I don’t agree with this at all. The “value” was lower cost (and later, convenience). But by hiding the actual cost. Amazon grew a large customer by cutting corners, like sales tax; not taking monetary responsibility for defective and dangerous items; making IT “easier”, but eventually more expensive. When that became insufficient, they began stealing small business ideas and making it their own. In other words, their only path forward is becoming a monopoly. Not innovation.

Somebody else would have created it. The argument around wealth taxes is that we tax lottery winnings, hence we should tax this sort of things. Bill Gates was a fanboy of a company called Digital Equipment which he predicted would be the next big thing. Stuff went the other way for them and Microsoft emerged instead. There is very little agency in these massive net worth stashes People who are smart already know this. Doge developers refute to bow down and genuflect to Musk even though his net worth is 1,000,000 times theirs. Andy Jassy not like he'd not confront and get in heated arguments with Bezos even though his net worth is 300x his own. It's people who buy into the propaganda and Republicans who elevate these people as they were divine beings. They are just smart people who got outsized returns because of luck....a wealth tax would just mimic the mechanism of taxes on lottery winnings

nickpp 5y ago

The very success of Amazon is proof that the world is better with it than without it: Amazon did not take out money by force. We, the customers, have made it successful by rewarding it with our business every time it won it in our minds over its competitors. Every extra cent of Amazon profit comes from a happy customer. Happy customers == better world. In a world full of competition and alternatives, in a world where the low price is far from being the only differentiating factor, Amazon is winning due to innovation, better customer service and choice, massive, almost infinite, choice.

md_ 5y ago
I’ll avoid taking an absolute position on Amazon—socially beneficial or not—but I do take issue with your argument: only by the most stunted measures of “better” is turning a profit sufficient or even necessary to show someone “makes the world better.”
- brayhite 5y ago
  I think the perspective of “happy customers = better world” is a bit sickening. I’ll give benefit of the doubt that if really pressed, that sentiment would be walked back. That sort of quippy line is how crooked politicians and their cronies come into and stay in power, though. And no, the world isn’t a better place with them unless your definition of world excludes billions of the population.
danaris 5y ago
The world would be better if Amazon were not anticompetitive, and were not extracting what is arguably monopoly rent in several sectors. The world would be better if Amazon treated its employees fairly, hired enough of them that they didn't have to work themselves to the bone to achieve the desired speed of shipping, and allowed them the basic dignity and freedom every human being deserves. The world would be better if the money Amazon has made were distributed much more evenly—even if it were only among Amazon's employees. "This is a great idea, and should be in the world, as it makes it better" is not the same thing as "the person who came up with this idea deserves every cent they ever made." The good aspects of any given person, company (or other organization—including countries), product, or service do not justify inequalities created by them, oppression perpetrated by them, and generally the negative things they create. The world is not black and white, and we can absolutely say "the convenience Amazon brings to retail is an amazing thing that is a benefit to the world," while also saying "Amazon is a predatory monopoly and monopsony in some areas, and should be better regulated" as well as "Jeff Bezos is a terrible person, and absolutely does not deserve the amount of wealth he has amassed."
anoncake 5y ago
That's nonsense. Facebook is also successful and the world would clearly be better off without it.
nobodyandproud 5y ago
I don’t agree with this at all. The “value” was lower cost (and later, convenience). But by hiding the actual cost. Amazon grew a large customer by cutting corners, like sales tax; not taking monetary responsibility for defective and dangerous items; making IT “easier”, but eventually more expensive. When that became insufficient, they began stealing small business ideas and making it their own. In other words, their only path forward is becoming a monopoly. Not innovation.