3 ms·

Ridiculous. There isn't a finite amount of wealth. That's why we call it "making" money. Bezos' wealth is fully invested in the economy, it creates jobs and sto

Ridiculous. There isn't a finite amount of wealth. That's why we call it "making" money. Bezos' wealth is fully invested in the economy, it creates jobs and stock value. It's not sitting in a vault.

viraptor 1y ago
"fully" is a stretch. His $230M island is contributing minimally to any economy. His $600M boats will add a few jobs, but it's a joke compared to what that wealth could create instead. His planes and helicopters contribute close to nothing. Those are assets that may as well be sitting in a vault and we're almost at $1B of them just in this list. And that's while completely skipping the issue of whether his wealth growth actually helps anything or inhibits the growth of other companies at this point. > There isn't a finite amount of wealth That's a weird way to phrase it and ignores how complex the world economy is. If you wanna prove this wrong, feel free to provide me $1T from the infinite wealth source.
- wnc3141 1y ago
  agreed. however the rate of wealth creation and concentration of capital are inverse to one another. Creative destruction does stem through market activity and the creation of Amazon did add to the collective wealth of America, as much of the digital economy lead to increased living standards. However since the entrenchment of Amazon's market position, I would argue that the recent meaningful contribution to the overall wealth has been slight at best and creative destruction in their marketplace's has diminished. Amazon has increased shareholder value recently in ways that do not create, but transfer wealth. Share buybacks, layoffs etc. Creative destruction (i.e wealth creation) is iterative and requires open participation. I should be able to create a business along the value chain and experience competition from other businesses, equitable access to litigation, and benefit from my labor to freely make choices of my purchases and work place. In in the most extractive economies, wealth is concentrated in capital to the point where no meaningful market activities occurs between capital and labor. The Confederate South for example - labor had zero value, no access to a legal system, and there was no resulting value chain development or internal consumer market. Nearly all wealth generated in such an economy came from the yield on capital, rather from wages. In today's modern economy an increasing share of the wealth comes from yield on capital relative to wages. Decreased competition of deployed capital results in an increase in unearned margin, thus higher yields. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/W270RE1A156NBEA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/W270RE1A156NBEA An illustration I always share: Imagine how rich someone earning $1 million a year would be. Certainly rare, and would lead a lifestyle unrecognizable to most. $200k a year puts you solidly in the upper middle class in most of America. To earn a billion dollars, you would need to earn $1 million for a thousand years. For a techno-oligarch, that would be closer to 100+ thousand years. Therefore that level of wealth must only come from the tremendous yield on capital significant shares of the corporations afford. While it's great that people should create such successful companies and retain shares, the intensifying inequality faced in America more closely resembles a more extractive, oligopolistic economy. In these economies, value creation is passed over in favor of preserving the pathways of existing wealth and power entrenchment. Here's a brief snippet of Acemoglu and Robinson's argument. https://www.npr.org/sections/planet-money/2024/10/14/g-s1-28210/a-nobel-prize-for-an-explanation-of-why-nations-fail https://www.npr.org/sections/planet-money/2024/10/14/g-s1-28...

Ridiculous. There isn't a finite amount of wealth. That's why we call it "making" money. Bezos' wealth is fully invested in the economy, it creates jobs and stock value. It's not sitting in a vault.

viraptor 1y ago

"fully" is a stretch. His $230M island is contributing minimally to any economy. His $600M boats will add a few jobs, but it's a joke compared to what that wealth could create instead. His planes and helicopters contribute close to nothing. Those are assets that may as well be sitting in a vault and we're almost at $1B of them just in this list. And that's while completely skipping the issue of whether his wealth growth actually helps anything or inhibits the growth of other companies at this point. > There isn't a finite amount of wealth That's a weird way to phrase it and ignores how complex the world economy is. If you wanna prove this wrong, feel free to provide me $1T from the infinite wealth source.

wnc3141 1y ago
agreed. however the rate of wealth creation and concentration of capital are inverse to one another. Creative destruction does stem through market activity and the creation of Amazon did add to the collective wealth of America, as much of the digital economy lead to increased living standards. However since the entrenchment of Amazon's market position, I would argue that the recent meaningful contribution to the overall wealth has been slight at best and creative destruction in their marketplace's has diminished. Amazon has increased shareholder value recently in ways that do not create, but transfer wealth. Share buybacks, layoffs etc. Creative destruction (i.e wealth creation) is iterative and requires open participation. I should be able to create a business along the value chain and experience competition from other businesses, equitable access to litigation, and benefit from my labor to freely make choices of my purchases and work place. In in the most extractive economies, wealth is concentrated in capital to the point where no meaningful market activities occurs between capital and labor. The Confederate South for example - labor had zero value, no access to a legal system, and there was no resulting value chain development or internal consumer market. Nearly all wealth generated in such an economy came from the yield on capital, rather from wages. In today's modern economy an increasing share of the wealth comes from yield on capital relative to wages. Decreased competition of deployed capital results in an increase in unearned margin, thus higher yields. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/W270RE1A156NBEA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/W270RE1A156NBEA An illustration I always share: Imagine how rich someone earning $1 million a year would be. Certainly rare, and would lead a lifestyle unrecognizable to most. $200k a year puts you solidly in the upper middle class in most of America. To earn a billion dollars, you would need to earn $1 million for a thousand years. For a techno-oligarch, that would be closer to 100+ thousand years. Therefore that level of wealth must only come from the tremendous yield on capital significant shares of the corporations afford. While it's great that people should create such successful companies and retain shares, the intensifying inequality faced in America more closely resembles a more extractive, oligopolistic economy. In these economies, value creation is passed over in favor of preserving the pathways of existing wealth and power entrenchment. Here's a brief snippet of Acemoglu and Robinson's argument. https://www.npr.org/sections/planet-money/2024/10/14/g-s1-28210/a-nobel-prize-for-an-explanation-of-why-nations-fail https://www.npr.org/sections/planet-money/2024/10/14/g-s1-28...