11 ms·

This reply has very strong "the average human does not eat 10 spiders a day; the average was thrown off by Spiders Georg who eats 10000 spiders a day" energy.

by kg 9mo ago

This reply has very strong "the average human does not eat 10 spiders a day; the average was thrown off by Spiders Georg who eats 10000 spiders a day" energy. Amazon does not have an exceedingly high profit margin, and my understanding is that a lot of it comes from stuff like AWS, not Amazon deliveries - correct me if I'm wrong here. So I'm not sure that "three amazon deliveries a day" - if this is even common - is why that man is personally rich. Even if it were a big source of revenue, that would go into Amazon's coffers, not necessarily his directly. Another way to look at this: Even if Amazon is wildly successful, does that mean Jeff Bezos specifically should become filthy rich as a result, instead of all its employees and investors? How should the gains from successful entrepreneurship be distributed?

lotsofpulp 9mo ago
> Another way to look at this: Even if Amazon is wildly successful, does that mean Jeff Bezos specifically should become filthy rich as a result, instead of all its employees and investors? How should the gains from successful entrepreneurship be distributed? The answer depends on how should the losses from unsuccessful entrepreneurship be distributed?
- jacquesm 8mo ago
  Oh that's an easy one: that's societies' problem. Always has been. The same with pollution and all of the other stuff that can be externalized.
  - lotsofpulp 8mo ago
    Can you be more specific? Suppose I put $1M into developing a business. For whatever reason, construction hits a snag or revenues are not enough to cover expenses, how would it become “society’s” problem? Do I get made whole by the government giving me $1M, and the government takes posession of the property? If so, I foresee a lot more opportunities for corruption.
    - jacquesm 8mo ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality#Negative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality#Negative
    - ceejayoz 8mo ago
      > For whatever reason, construction hits a snag or revenues are not enough to cover expenses, how would it become “society’s” problem? You declare bankruptcy. Your vendors who extended credit get hosed. Your employees go on unemployment benefits. Each of these costs money, and each of these reduces taxable income.
      - lotsofpulp 8mo ago
        Those are not socialized losses. The aforementioned suggestions are a great way to kill any incentive to take risks and start a new business with one’s savings, further tilting the playing field to SP500 dominance.
rayiner 9mo ago
> why that man is personally rich. Even if it were a big source of revenue, that would go into Amazon's coffers, not necessarily his directly. Jeff Bezos owns 9% of Amazon. So 9% of the expected value of the money going "into Amazon's coffers" indefinitely into the future is counted as part of his current "wealth." It's not money under his mattress. Is your argument that people shouldn't be allowed to own 9% of a company that they started?
- lores 8mo ago
  People should not be allowed to accumulate capital beyond $X, yes. What natural law means they should? Society created the conditions for that person to be so successful; in fact, the person only had the minor part in that success. Once you reach $X, you get a certificate saying you won at life and society is really grateful, and society gets the rest of the rewards while they dedicate their life to philanthropy or torturing kittens or whatever it is they do as a hobby.
  - rayiner 8mo ago
    > People should not be allowed to accumulate capital beyond $X, yes. The term "capital" is an abstraction that's not helpful here. The big "wealth" numbers are all about equity ownership in highly valued companies. Bezos owns 9% of Amazon stock. That's why he's "rich." What should happen to that stock? What happens to his voting control over Amazon?
    - fragmede 8mo ago
      The problem is people that rich don't own anything. It's all shell corporations and LLCs and money borrowed against those shares (so no need to pay any taxes). But they clearly have access to yacht money. We're not going to write an airtight law in the comments section. We can just ignore paper wealth and ownership stakes for the purposes of wealth redistribution. The question boils down to a feeling that when the revolution comes, that no one person needs more than, say, $100 million for themselves, or not. Trying to distract the conversation into defining "for themselves" will only prolong your time before the firing squad, comrad.

by kg 9mo ago

lotsofpulp 9mo ago

> Another way to look at this: Even if Amazon is wildly successful, does that mean Jeff Bezos specifically should become filthy rich as a result, instead of all its employees and investors? How should the gains from successful entrepreneurship be distributed? The answer depends on how should the losses from unsuccessful entrepreneurship be distributed?

jacquesm 8mo ago
Oh that's an easy one: that's societies' problem. Always has been. The same with pollution and all of the other stuff that can be externalized.
- lotsofpulp 8mo ago
  Can you be more specific? Suppose I put $1M into developing a business. For whatever reason, construction hits a snag or revenues are not enough to cover expenses, how would it become “society’s” problem? Do I get made whole by the government giving me $1M, and the government takes posession of the property? If so, I foresee a lot more opportunities for corruption.
  - jacquesm 8mo ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality#Negative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality#Negative
  - ceejayoz 8mo ago
    > For whatever reason, construction hits a snag or revenues are not enough to cover expenses, how would it become “society’s” problem? You declare bankruptcy. Your vendors who extended credit get hosed. Your employees go on unemployment benefits. Each of these costs money, and each of these reduces taxable income.
    - lotsofpulp 8mo ago
      Those are not socialized losses. The aforementioned suggestions are a great way to kill any incentive to take risks and start a new business with one’s savings, further tilting the playing field to SP500 dominance.

rayiner 9mo ago

> why that man is personally rich. Even if it were a big source of revenue, that would go into Amazon's coffers, not necessarily his directly. Jeff Bezos owns 9% of Amazon. So 9% of the expected value of the money going "into Amazon's coffers" indefinitely into the future is counted as part of his current "wealth." It's not money under his mattress. Is your argument that people shouldn't be allowed to own 9% of a company that they started?

lores 8mo ago
People should not be allowed to accumulate capital beyond $X, yes. What natural law means they should? Society created the conditions for that person to be so successful; in fact, the person only had the minor part in that success. Once you reach $X, you get a certificate saying you won at life and society is really grateful, and society gets the rest of the rewards while they dedicate their life to philanthropy or torturing kittens or whatever it is they do as a hobby.
- rayiner 8mo ago
  > People should not be allowed to accumulate capital beyond $X, yes. The term "capital" is an abstraction that's not helpful here. The big "wealth" numbers are all about equity ownership in highly valued companies. Bezos owns 9% of Amazon stock. That's why he's "rich." What should happen to that stock? What happens to his voting control over Amazon?
  - fragmede 8mo ago
    The problem is people that rich don't own anything. It's all shell corporations and LLCs and money borrowed against those shares (so no need to pay any taxes). But they clearly have access to yacht money. We're not going to write an airtight law in the comments section. We can just ignore paper wealth and ownership stakes for the purposes of wealth redistribution. The question boils down to a feeling that when the revolution comes, that no one person needs more than, say, $100 million for themselves, or not. Trying to distract the conversation into defining "for themselves" will only prolong your time before the firing squad, comrad.