8 ms·

"permits the existence of Jeff Bezos" - your mind on capitalism. What things of importance has Bezos done? End world hunger? Or are we celebrating the death o

by rsoto2 3y ago

"permits the existence of Jeff Bezos" - your mind on capitalism. What things of importance has Bezos done? End world hunger? Or are we celebrating the death of local stores and malls? What about a society that prevents kids from starving instead of making bombs and satellites for world wars?

missedthecue 3y ago
Society has collectively voted that Amazon massively improves their lives. If they didn't think so, they'd still be choosing to shop at Sears and Kmart and hosting their software on HP enterprise servers in a musty office basement. That's all the clear and evident result of the market system which is very democratic. People vote with their dollars every day. The winners of these billions of daily democratic votes rise to the top and losers die out.
- devbent 3y ago
  > If they didn't think so, they'd still be choosing to shop at Sears and Kmart Let's be clear: Amazon has been responsible for the shutting down of so many in-person businesses that entire product categories are can only be purchased on Amazon. The choice is a false one.
  - rajup 3y ago
    Come on. You make it sound as if Amazon started a campaign to directly shut these in-person businesses down. The reality however is more mundane and exactly what parent comment mentioned: people voted with their feet and dollars, the in-person businesses that did shut down could not adapt and we are all the better for it.
    - rsoto2 3y ago
      I completely agree that it was mundane and expected that's why I don't think bozos deserves to be viewed as a demigod of productivity. It was bound to happen.
    - vacuity 3y ago
      Some people aren't better off for it, like the people who are being overworked at Amazon.
      - missedthecue 3y ago
        Better to be overworked at Kmart? That's a red herring.
        vacuity 3y ago
        Why do we have to overwork people anywhere? But certainly it shouldn't happen at Amazon, seeing as Bezos makes so much money. If not that alone, then maybe the fact that Amazon has used many unethical business practices. Unbridled capitalism and propping up the super rich (who, if they are so impressive, surely wouldn't be handicapped by having to play fair) isn't good for society as a whole.
        missedthecue 3y ago
        I'm not saying we have to overwork anyone or that overworking is good. I'm pointing out that Amazon isn't where they are due to overworking people. And capitalism as it exists today isn't even close to being "unbridled". In fact many have good arguments that it's far too bridled in terms of tariffs and import quotas and price controls and so on and so forth.
        vacuity 3y ago
        > I'm pointing out that Amazon isn't where they are due to overworking people. I don't know enough to weigh in on if this was a thing in past Amazon, but if Amazon isn't willing to lose, say, 5% profit to ensure that people aren't overworked, that seems to be done in bad faith. And the lost profit certainly doesn't have to come out of the manual workers' paychecks. > And capitalism as it exists today isn't even close to being "unbridled". In fact many have good arguments that it's far too bridled in terms of tariffs and import quotas and price controls and so on and so forth. I think it's unbridled enough if we have companies outsourcing to other countries or hiring illegal immigrants so they can pay workers a pittance, exorbitant sums spent on lobbying to preserve the environment-negative status quo and whatnot, anti-competitive behavior leading to monopolies/oligopolies, and Boeing planes having fatal malfunctions because executives know how to build planes, I guess? (Hint: they clearly don't.) Oh, but the bottom line will be harmed. My bad, I guess we should continue overpaying executives and heaping negative externalities onto consumers and broader society. Maybe that isn't all what you personally think, but clearly a "profit at all costs" model has huge ramifications. You pretty much have to abandon your morals to become a person who comes out on top of the system.
  - latency-guy2 3y ago
    > The choice is a false one. No, its just something you personally dislike and generate false equivalences to.
- amalcon 3y ago
  The meme that the market system is democratic is strange to me. It's not a dictatorship, but it's odd to claim that something is democratic when I (as a moderately well off American) have as many votes as ten less well-off people in my own country. More, if you adjust for the number of votes each person need to use to not die. The difference grows further when you consider that there are people with well over 1,000x my assets, and when you consider the global nature of the modern economy.
  - missedthecue 3y ago
    The definition of democracy is NOT limited to one person one vote. For instance, corporate board seats are democratic, but you only get to vote with as many shares as you own.
    - amalcon 3y ago
      Not strictly, no, but there are limits. I think most people will agree that it's not a democracy when a single person controls all of the votes (dictatorship), or when a small group with usually-aligned interests controls a majority of the votes (oligarchy). That said I think you've helped a bit with my confusion here. The point where it moves from democracy to something else is obviously not clear -- so probably the people who consider the market system to be democratic just draw that line differently from me.
MacsHeadroom 3y ago
Bezos' AWS made cloud computing viable, leading to the last two decades of economic growth without per capita energy consumption (due to datacenter energy efficiency). Bezos' Amazon lowers the cost and availability of goods of all kinds drastically, enriching everyone (and especially the poorer among us). The State makes bombs and drops bombs, not Bezos. Bezos deploys capital in ways which have proved to fill market needs. Markets are people. His money is meeting the needs of the people while taxes build bombs.
- rsoto2 3y ago
  AWS would not be possible without the contribution of hundreds of thousands of people and projects from the inception of the internet. It really is just a software on some redundant servers running open source software... it's not that incredible.
  - vacuity 3y ago
    Aside from that, it's not obvious to me why we need a Bezos to achieve this. If people were capped to $5 billion (which seems absurdly high to me), would AWS never come into existence?
    - gottorf 3y ago
      > If people were capped to $5 billion Bezos's net worth is basically just the number of shares of Amazon he holds times the price per share that the market arrived at (and continues to arrive at, changing every minute of every day). How would you cap him at $5B? Would you force him to divest his shares as that equation approaches $5B, even though he's not the one setting the price per share? That hardly seems fair, like an old widower whose home's value arbitrarily fluctuates with the real estate market, and who may no longer be able to afford the property taxes at a higher valuation. Would you force the market to not value each share above that which would place his stake at $5B, even though each buyer and seller (neither of which is Bezos) agrees that it's a fair price for them to transact at? That doesn't seem right, either.

by rsoto2 3y ago

missedthecue 3y ago

Society has collectively voted that Amazon massively improves their lives. If they didn't think so, they'd still be choosing to shop at Sears and Kmart and hosting their software on HP enterprise servers in a musty office basement. That's all the clear and evident result of the market system which is very democratic. People vote with their dollars every day. The winners of these billions of daily democratic votes rise to the top and losers die out.

devbent 3y ago
> If they didn't think so, they'd still be choosing to shop at Sears and Kmart Let's be clear: Amazon has been responsible for the shutting down of so many in-person businesses that entire product categories are can only be purchased on Amazon. The choice is a false one.
- rajup 3y ago
  Come on. You make it sound as if Amazon started a campaign to directly shut these in-person businesses down. The reality however is more mundane and exactly what parent comment mentioned: people voted with their feet and dollars, the in-person businesses that did shut down could not adapt and we are all the better for it.
  - rsoto2 3y ago
    I completely agree that it was mundane and expected that's why I don't think bozos deserves to be viewed as a demigod of productivity. It was bound to happen.
  - vacuity 3y ago
    Some people aren't better off for it, like the people who are being overworked at Amazon.
    - missedthecue 3y ago
      Better to be overworked at Kmart? That's a red herring.
      - vacuity 3y ago
        Why do we have to overwork people anywhere? But certainly it shouldn't happen at Amazon, seeing as Bezos makes so much money. If not that alone, then maybe the fact that Amazon has used many unethical business practices. Unbridled capitalism and propping up the super rich (who, if they are so impressive, surely wouldn't be handicapped by having to play fair) isn't good for society as a whole.
        missedthecue 3y ago
        I'm not saying we have to overwork anyone or that overworking is good. I'm pointing out that Amazon isn't where they are due to overworking people. And capitalism as it exists today isn't even close to being "unbridled". In fact many have good arguments that it's far too bridled in terms of tariffs and import quotas and price controls and so on and so forth.
        vacuity 3y ago
        > I'm pointing out that Amazon isn't where they are due to overworking people. I don't know enough to weigh in on if this was a thing in past Amazon, but if Amazon isn't willing to lose, say, 5% profit to ensure that people aren't overworked, that seems to be done in bad faith. And the lost profit certainly doesn't have to come out of the manual workers' paychecks. > And capitalism as it exists today isn't even close to being "unbridled". In fact many have good arguments that it's far too bridled in terms of tariffs and import quotas and price controls and so on and so forth. I think it's unbridled enough if we have companies outsourcing to other countries or hiring illegal immigrants so they can pay workers a pittance, exorbitant sums spent on lobbying to preserve the environment-negative status quo and whatnot, anti-competitive behavior leading to monopolies/oligopolies, and Boeing planes having fatal malfunctions because executives know how to build planes, I guess? (Hint: they clearly don't.) Oh, but the bottom line will be harmed. My bad, I guess we should continue overpaying executives and heaping negative externalities onto consumers and broader society. Maybe that isn't all what you personally think, but clearly a "profit at all costs" model has huge ramifications. You pretty much have to abandon your morals to become a person who comes out on top of the system.
- latency-guy2 3y ago
  > The choice is a false one. No, its just something you personally dislike and generate false equivalences to.
amalcon 3y ago
The meme that the market system is democratic is strange to me. It's not a dictatorship, but it's odd to claim that something is democratic when I (as a moderately well off American) have as many votes as ten less well-off people in my own country. More, if you adjust for the number of votes each person need to use to not die. The difference grows further when you consider that there are people with well over 1,000x my assets, and when you consider the global nature of the modern economy.
- missedthecue 3y ago
  The definition of democracy is NOT limited to one person one vote. For instance, corporate board seats are democratic, but you only get to vote with as many shares as you own.
  - amalcon 3y ago
    Not strictly, no, but there are limits. I think most people will agree that it's not a democracy when a single person controls all of the votes (dictatorship), or when a small group with usually-aligned interests controls a majority of the votes (oligarchy). That said I think you've helped a bit with my confusion here. The point where it moves from democracy to something else is obviously not clear -- so probably the people who consider the market system to be democratic just draw that line differently from me.

MacsHeadroom 3y ago

Bezos' AWS made cloud computing viable, leading to the last two decades of economic growth without per capita energy consumption (due to datacenter energy efficiency). Bezos' Amazon lowers the cost and availability of goods of all kinds drastically, enriching everyone (and especially the poorer among us). The State makes bombs and drops bombs, not Bezos. Bezos deploys capital in ways which have proved to fill market needs. Markets are people. His money is meeting the needs of the people while taxes build bombs.

rsoto2 3y ago
AWS would not be possible without the contribution of hundreds of thousands of people and projects from the inception of the internet. It really is just a software on some redundant servers running open source software... it's not that incredible.
- vacuity 3y ago
  Aside from that, it's not obvious to me why we need a Bezos to achieve this. If people were capped to $5 billion (which seems absurdly high to me), would AWS never come into existence?
  - gottorf 3y ago
    > If people were capped to $5 billion Bezos's net worth is basically just the number of shares of Amazon he holds times the price per share that the market arrived at (and continues to arrive at, changing every minute of every day). How would you cap him at $5B? Would you force him to divest his shares as that equation approaches $5B, even though he's not the one setting the price per share? That hardly seems fair, like an old widower whose home's value arbitrarily fluctuates with the real estate market, and who may no longer be able to afford the property taxes at a higher valuation. Would you force the market to not value each share above that which would place his stake at $5B, even though each buyer and seller (neither of which is Bezos) agrees that it's a fair price for them to transact at? That doesn't seem right, either.