5 ms·

I was sure your numbers were wrong but if we assume $200,000 in your sleep means $600,000 a day, that’s $219,000,000 per year. Bezos has an estimated 220,000,0

by lurk2 1y ago

I was sure your numbers were wrong but if we assume $200,000 in your sleep means $600,000 a day, that’s $219,000,000 per year. Bezos has an estimated 220,000,000,000 dollars as of May 2025. $220,000,000,000 per year / $219,000,000 per year = 1004.6 years. Wild.

WalterBright 1y ago
Let's have some fun. $600,000/per day, with an annual investment return of 7%, reaches $220b in 64 years, not 1004. import core.stdc.stdio; void main() { double wealth = 0; double pay = 600_000 * 365; double api = .07; for (int year = 0; ++year;) { wealth = wealth * 1.07 + pay; if (wealth >= 222_000_000_000.0) { printf("year = %d\n", year); break; } } }
- anonym29 1y ago
  There appears to be an unspoken normative view being asserted throughout the thread that people who do not invest their money and take advantage of compounding should achieve outcomes comparable to those who do invest their money and take advantage of compounding, essentially idealizing the elimination of the opportunity cost of not strategically deploying capital, discounting the benefits accrued to those who can do the math and choose to act upon it rationally, and privileging the act of spending all disposable income on nonproductive ends. I suspect a nonzero amount of motivated reasoning is at play on behalf of those who choose to spend disposable income nonproductively on depreciating liabilities rather than assets; this seems closely psychologically related to regretting self-failure to optimize for long-term economic outcomes that is directed back as spite at those who successfully optimize for long-term economic outcomes.
  - lurk2 1y ago
    The point is that you can’t catch up, even making more money than you could ever reasonably hope to earn. If you had $220,000,000, you can catch up to Bezos in 60 some-odd years; but by then he will also have been compounding at 7% per annum, and will have north of $19,000,000,000,000, which is around 2/3rds of America’s GDP today. Of course, Jeff Bezos will be dead in 60 years, but this leads us to the core of the debate: What did Jeff Bezos’ children do that would warrant their wealth?
    - anonym29 1y ago
      I don't need to catch up or get anywhere remotely close to Bezos be financially satiated. If tens of millions of people can achieve financial independence, comfort, and safety, without the privileged upbringing, essentially just through the decision to strategically navigate life with financial independence as a goal, rather than social conformity as a goal, why does it matter if others have more? 7% annual compounding is a decent floor, but it's an iron law that sophisticated investors can't outperform. AMZN is has certainly compounded much faster than 7% per year over the last two decades, and access to that investment was democratized the entire time. Wealth isn't morality, being wealthy isn't a sin, and wealthy people's offspring have no burden of justification to "deserve" their wealth. Insisting otherwise is a direct attack on the fundamental right to private property that underpins western civilization. When the US government provides the same equal protection to all citizens, including those who contribute nothing but violence and suffering to everyone around them at the expense of taxpayers, what horrific atrocity are Jeff Bezos' children of that warrants confiscation of millions or billions of lawfully and voluntarily acquired wealth?
      - WalterBright 1y ago
        I'd like to emphasize that anyone could have invested their $ into AMZN at any point since the IPO, and would have reaped very handsome returns. Those who didn't have no justification to complain about it. I'm rather angry with myself for not investing in Nvidia.
      - lurk2 1y ago
        > I don't need to catch up or get anywhere remotely close to Bezos be financially satiated. No one does. The issue comes when they start using that money to acquire political power. He wasn’t joking about seeing your margin as his opportunity. > Insisting otherwise is a direct attack on the fundamental right to private property that underpins western civilization. Western civilization includes a history of taxation, expropriation, and probate fees. No amount of libertarian revisionism will change this.
        anonym29 1y ago
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

by lurk2 1y ago

WalterBright 1y ago

Let's have some fun. $600,000/per day, with an annual investment return of 7%, reaches $220b in 64 years, not 1004. import core.stdc.stdio; void main() { double wealth = 0; double pay = 600_000 * 365; double api = .07; for (int year = 0; ++year;) { wealth = wealth * 1.07 + pay; if (wealth >= 222_000_000_000.0) { printf("year = %d\n", year); break; } } }

anonym29 1y ago
There appears to be an unspoken normative view being asserted throughout the thread that people who do not invest their money and take advantage of compounding should achieve outcomes comparable to those who do invest their money and take advantage of compounding, essentially idealizing the elimination of the opportunity cost of not strategically deploying capital, discounting the benefits accrued to those who can do the math and choose to act upon it rationally, and privileging the act of spending all disposable income on nonproductive ends. I suspect a nonzero amount of motivated reasoning is at play on behalf of those who choose to spend disposable income nonproductively on depreciating liabilities rather than assets; this seems closely psychologically related to regretting self-failure to optimize for long-term economic outcomes that is directed back as spite at those who successfully optimize for long-term economic outcomes.
- lurk2 1y ago
  The point is that you can’t catch up, even making more money than you could ever reasonably hope to earn. If you had $220,000,000, you can catch up to Bezos in 60 some-odd years; but by then he will also have been compounding at 7% per annum, and will have north of $19,000,000,000,000, which is around 2/3rds of America’s GDP today. Of course, Jeff Bezos will be dead in 60 years, but this leads us to the core of the debate: What did Jeff Bezos’ children do that would warrant their wealth?
  - anonym29 1y ago
    I don't need to catch up or get anywhere remotely close to Bezos be financially satiated. If tens of millions of people can achieve financial independence, comfort, and safety, without the privileged upbringing, essentially just through the decision to strategically navigate life with financial independence as a goal, rather than social conformity as a goal, why does it matter if others have more? 7% annual compounding is a decent floor, but it's an iron law that sophisticated investors can't outperform. AMZN is has certainly compounded much faster than 7% per year over the last two decades, and access to that investment was democratized the entire time. Wealth isn't morality, being wealthy isn't a sin, and wealthy people's offspring have no burden of justification to "deserve" their wealth. Insisting otherwise is a direct attack on the fundamental right to private property that underpins western civilization. When the US government provides the same equal protection to all citizens, including those who contribute nothing but violence and suffering to everyone around them at the expense of taxpayers, what horrific atrocity are Jeff Bezos' children of that warrants confiscation of millions or billions of lawfully and voluntarily acquired wealth?
    - WalterBright 1y ago
      I'd like to emphasize that anyone could have invested their $ into AMZN at any point since the IPO, and would have reaped very handsome returns. Those who didn't have no justification to complain about it. I'm rather angry with myself for not investing in Nvidia.
    - lurk2 1y ago
      > I don't need to catch up or get anywhere remotely close to Bezos be financially satiated. No one does. The issue comes when they start using that money to acquire political power. He wasn’t joking about seeing your margin as his opportunity. > Insisting otherwise is a direct attack on the fundamental right to private property that underpins western civilization. Western civilization includes a history of taxation, expropriation, and probate fees. No amount of libertarian revisionism will change this.
      - anonym29 1y ago

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]