Because incumbents were set in their ways and didn’t think this series of tubes was important to heir business.
But, ok, say he was a unique visionary in the creation of online retail, only don’t stop there. He’s also smart to understand the error of his predecessors and competitors and makes sure that his company buys off anyone that can challenge him, assuming they don’t just violate one of its math patents.
As a free market believer, do you see a problem?
He did, actually. It’s not a comparable situation by any means, but he did get a $300.000 investment from his parents who got it out of their retirement plans. But, yeah, the network of financial people he knew was probably more important.
No, he leverages his company’s money to buy 128 companies off, why waste his?
I mean, they’re so big they can afford to when they want to win in one of the markets, but they do it “often”, out of their cut? Press X to Doubt.
True, it’s deflationary, starting with wages, and kept kicking by unplayable private debt, which is much worse.
Amazon didn’t buy off Barnes & Noble, or Target, or Walmart. Their main acquisitions were in markets where they weren’t yet competing, for example Whole Foods or the company that turned into Amazon Video. Even now, they are competing with Target, Walmart, Netflix, and Kroger.
He certainly increases the price of amazon stock by holding all that stock privately. He increased the price of the WaPo by bidding on it. But I wasn’t saying that he’s single-handedly causing price inflation. I meant he was imposing costs on everyone else in the broader, Pigovian sense. His power means his actions move more water and that means everyone else moves less, and it harms society for him to be so powerful. I don’t think anyone disputes this in the case of people who actively use their money for purely political reasons like the Kochs or Adelson or Murdoch. But it’s true of all them, just in less-direct ways. Bezos has a massive amount of power within a company that completely dominates the online retail economy. However he wields that power, any decision he makes, it drives that sector of the economy. He could be ousted by the board, presumably, if he was doing a bad job as CEO, but he would still wield tremendous influence just because of the size of his stake.
I know we love our inventors, but building a better mousetrap shouldn’t make you the Lord of Pest Control.
I dunno. The alternative is the yearning, huddled masses breaking into the wealthy’s houses and demanding equality, throwing them out on the street, trying to seize assets. I think taxes are the preferable alternative. Does anyone need 6 houses, a yacht, and 6 golf club memberships?
You tax, or you get a revolution, France and Russia style.
That power is wielded by Amazon. If Bezos donated all his money to the poor but remained CEO of Amazon, he would be equally powerful. If Bezos died and his wealth were donated to the poor, Amazon would continue to do whatever it’s doing.
If Amazon’s stock price goes up, Bezos gains wealth but does not gain power. If it goes down, he loses wealth but does not lose power. His wealth is a red herring, your complaints are all with Amazon itself.
I think a lot of this is actually due to inter-sector competition. That is, amazon can dominate online retail, but still be competing with brick-and-mortar retail, video games, cable TV, movies, live sports, and hobbies. They still need to have thin margins and quality products to get your money.
A CEO of amazon who wasn’t also the founder and largest share holder would not wield anywhere near as much power as Bezos does. A different CEO and a more powerful board of Amazon would likely make different choices than Bezos. If Bezos’s fortune was spread out to a bunch of companies but still owned by one man, that man would wield inordinate power. I don’t think there’s much dispute about that last statement, so the point I was arguing against was the idea that it’s harmless for him to have that wealth as long as it’s all in one bucket.
I mean, how would you feel about someone with the same stake in Amazon, who was chosen as CEO by the board after acquiring the stake, but who had had no role at all in the founding or building of the company?
Yes, probably, but at 2%? Seems a lot less appealing then. I don’t think Warren’s 6% proposal is anything more than an accounting exercise to show there is funding for her MFA proposal.
I don’t think this is true at all. I know you said wealth wasn’t power earlier, but I assumed you didn’t really mean it. If wealth is not power, how do you explain relatively low top marginal income tax rates and favorable tax treatment of capital gains? How do you explain variable treatment of the wealthy in the criminal justice system? Cuz it kinda looks like power.
Because money becomes power when it’s spent. The Kochs were powerful not because of their intrinsic wealth, but because they were willing to spend money to advance their interests.
That said, I had thought Bezos was relatively stingy in his political spending but it turns out he isn’t. So maybe what I should have said is that if Bezos donated most of his wealth to the poor, but remained CEO of Amazon and kept his level of political spending, then he would be equally powerful.
This is just a way of saying that people can use their money to exercise power, right? And, conversely, they can exercise power by threatening to withhold their money. So how is money not power?
You can say it isn’t power if they don’t use it. But an office of power — President, or Senator — is subject to the same argument, i.e. that it’s only power if you use it. And we would never say that holding an office of power isn’t power, would we?
You don’t need to spend money to be powerful, you just need it as an option.
Nuclear weapons aren’t used, but there still powerful. Artillery aimed at Soule isn’t used, but it keeps North Korea kicking.
The same with money. How many lawsuits never happen because of fear of the other sides wealth? How many doors are opened because the potential money is available even if it is never given.
6% was apparently what Warren was suggesting as a wealth tax. And it’s bonkers.
If you drop down to something like 0.5%? That’s DRAMATICALLY more reasonable. That would be far less likely to cause flight, and would still pull in decent revenue.
No, he should have to put back into society some of the earned wealth, because society paid some of the costs to grow that company. Some of that explicitly (roads, education of workers, safety, and so on) and some implicitly (not stopping pollution, monopolistic practices, workers right protections, etc). The bigger the value of the wealth (whether personal or company), the bigger the percentage that should be returned. Whether he chooses to do that by selling some stock and paying money, or to give some of that stock in payment, I don’t care.
I like this summary. I’d add to “their wealth hurts others” the concept that the way they earn the wealth hurts others (as mentioned previously).
C’mon, @Timex, I know you understand what’s being said here, quit trying to deflect it. Inflation isn’t the issue here, power is. The guy (or company) with a gazillion dollars warps the market, regulations, opportunity, political access, etc for everyone else simply by existing. This is also true on a smaller scale for a guy with a million dollars, but in this case scale matters a lot. A million (or ten million) warps things a little. A billion warps a lot, and a hundred billion means that guy can own pretty much any arena where he cares to exert his power.
When you’re a billionare you can do things like reach out your hand and buy the nation’s most valuable and hard hitting newspaper outside of New York. Just sayin’.
I really like the idea of a billionaire buying Fox news. Fire everyone and bring in real journalists. The sound of heads exploding will be beautiful music.
I know this thread is specifically about Bezos and his wealth, but I think this is pertinent since the “Amazon Tax” effort in Seattle comes from much of the same sentiment.
Ya, although when you look at his spending, 99% of his political contributions are all going to the “With Honor PAC”, which is a non-partisan action committee.
But he does that, in tons of ways.
On some level, the existence of Amazon itself provides all kinds of value to society, from the thousands and thousands of jobs it provides, to the valuable services that we all use.
But beyond that stuff which happens simply from running a tremendously successful business, he also contributed $2 billion to start the Bezos Day One Fund, which helps homeless families, and helps improve education in underserved regions.
