3 ms·
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 ne
by 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.
- vacuity 3y agoI don't think it's unfair to make him divest some of his shares. I suppose there could be leeway there, but having over $100 billion in shares certainly seems excessive. Hey, if taxes are paid as they should be, working conditions improved, and whatever else, I personally don't care so much about a wealth cap. But a wealth cap is a means to ensure that the government has the money to redistribute the wealth appropriately. In the end, as long as the outcomes are achieved, I'll consider that a win.