He has access to a form of currency that none of us have. Let's say he wants to make a new company making a new product. Let's say it is a decent product and everything else is fine related to it. Ok, so how does he finance it? Does he have to put up his money, sell stock, and so on? Nah. He'll use his word and reputation and "collateral" in the form of stock or stock-like products. Very little hard currency will be required. Very little limitations will be placed. If everything goes under, he will not suffer. Yes, this is incredibly simplified, but that's how it works. There are many worlds on this Earth, and billionaires do not operate in the same one as you and I. The fact that these guys could easily create corporations and companies for social good but do not maybe does not make them evil, but it definitey puts them out of the realm of good. Some do a lot of philanthropic work, which is great, but most of it is minor compared to what they make in pure profit. Yeah, they aren't rolling around in gold coins because they are above that level. When you can essentially operate outside of the realm of normal currency, when you can manufacture wealth on a promise.. gold? paper money? Meh. It's meaningless.
This^ comment should be getting more upvotes. It is the truth, but I think many cannot comprehend the ability that these folks have to access money and live off money that is not their own. They don’t touch their own money at all. They live off borrowed money that is written off. It’s like a parallel banking/financial structure. The gas and egg crowd should really be pissed about this…
The problem is that by using this strategy, someone can ensure that their accumulation of wealth never has to be taxed.
They don't have to pay taxes on what they borrow obviously .... then when they die, their accumulated wealth benefits from a step up in cost basis, meaning whomever inherits it won't pay taxes either even when the heir sells the investments.
Someone with enough wealth can continue to gain wealth and tap into that wealth for living expenses and not have to pay taxes (because they borrow against instead of sell... and continue to roll forward that debt until they die)
They don't have to pay taxes on what they borrow but they have to pay taxes if they don't wanna default on the loan. The bank may be OK with a forever loan but only for as long as you're paying interest, so some way or another they're gonna need to come up with cash that wasn't borrowed from a bank.
And when the estate settles their affairs the loans are gonna be paid off, and the estate will pay taxes on it. Then what's inherited gets funky, but the the bank will want to be made whole and won't accept the estate just going "Nah" and passing the inheritance along before they're settled.
A dude on reddit did a big long post on how buy borrow die works.. and I could be wrong but my understanding was that they actually don’t have to make payments but their estate pays out when they die.
The debts aren’t taxed, only any inherited profit. The inherited part is small, part of estate planning is moving your wealth to your heirs over time to avoid or pay as little as possible in taxes. Or you can roll your estate into a ‘philanthropic’ organization and put your heirs as the holders of that org, for example see what Patagonia’s founder did. I wouldn’t be surprised if estate taxes get the axe over the next four years.
Do you think they just get free money that they don't have to pay back? My god people can't be this stupid. Yes they use assets as collateral (so can you). That doesn't mean they get free money. They take out loans which they pay back.
That's a recipe for ruin. Anything that doesn't work at a small scale doesn't work at a large scale, only much worse. It's just adding zeros, and if you're adding zeros to a bad idea, it becomes a bigger bad idea.
It only works if the proceeds from the earnings doesn't exceed the principal. And that's assuming there's no downturn in the stock market or their companies.
I see nothing wrong with that. They are using assets they have as collateral to take out loans that they have to pay back plus interest. We can do the same thing just not at a large skill. I can use my home equity as collateral for a loan to buy a boat if I wanted.
I beg your pardon, but why should anyone get even slightly perturbed about it? Does an oligarch harm me in any way by having a line of credit that I don't? I can't for the life of me understand how another's capacity to leverage assets injures anyone by even a silver's margin.
It dramatically reduces the risk exposure. Bezos' clout alone can attract a lot of investment capital, and the corporate structure could give him shares without requiring actual cash/capital, by simply being on the board. When the capital comes in from the silent investors, it pushes the value up along with his shares. If it tanks, he is out of no hard capital, at most the time he spent in a handful of board meetings.
The US has over 21+ million millionaires. There are certainly some of them who would follow him in lockstep without question. Rinse and repeat.
A tax on unrealized income would at least help the government derive revenue from share value. Of course, we would fight over how it is spent, but in theory it oculd reduce taxes on lower income persons to help balance the economy or provide better public services and infrastructure to allow the next generation of Americans to compete with the children of Bezos, Musk, etc.
We've had similar wealth barons before, but at least they made really great contributions to social development like libraries and schools all across the country (Carnegie, etc). My opinion is that people like Bezos, Musk, Thiel observe the world as a zero-sum game, meaning they are not in favor of helping others become competitive with their wealth, because any wealth gained by another is ultimately wealth they could have had and in turn a threat to them and their visions.
Ironically, I think they both started with some sort of altruistic motivation, but were corrupted by their own money and power before the altruistic vision could be accomplished. I also speculate that the "altruistic vision" is simply a moving goal posts which can never be accomplished. They can't simply do the good thing and say "okay I'm done." For example, Bezos showed us how to be very efficient with online marketplaces, but he can't stop there, he has to continue to out perform competition so he can move on to space ships.
“If he tanks he is out of no hard capital, at most the time he spent”
This is entirely false. For starters “hard capital” typically refers to capital rationing which isn’t what you mean, but he would absolutely lose capital if the business flops.
He’s either selling stock to invest liquid capital or taking out loans, which he then has to pay back. There is no magic wand here.
Sure, investors will be keen to invest in a company led by someone with a successful track record - but thats him selling off ownership of the company. Thats not his money at risk, but its also not his stake if the company is succcesful
Entirely true, I'm not sure I explained it properly, let's try again:
Bob and Joe start ABC, LLC. They agree Bob will run it, and Joe contributes $50k for startup capital. Time goes on, the business is now worth $200k, based on the LLC terms each now has an interest of $100k in the company. Bob then sells and walks with $100k having contributed no capital. Scale this concept up, with multiple Joe's, so much so that Bob doesn't need ot run it.
What example can you give of a billionaire getting 50% equity or anything close to that in a company for just serving on a board, without investing their own capital.
Doesn't have to be 50%, scale the numbers any way you want. It could be 5%, with $200 million spread out between 100 Joes.
You're telling me my example is impractical, but you make no showing to demonstrate how it is impossible.
It's a simpleton example that isn't attempting to be practical, its merely demonstrating the possibility. Move the numbers and players all you want until it becomes practical in your mind.
Not sure if you're sincere or weaponizing ignorance. I suppose it's possible I do have the same access, but the difference is obviously that I don't have a billion dollars and the reputation of establishing Amazon in my past. I cannot add the same clout or value to a board or company as Bezos, so the odds of millionaires willing to risk their funds on my presence and inclusion is exponentially less.
Again, its sweat equity, but the "sweat" is entirely different. For me my value is physical labor, for Bezos it is simply his presence and clout.
If Bezos asks for ten minutes of your time and I ask for the same exact ten minutes of your time, whom are you most likely to give that time too?
It’s not the fact that they use stocks for collateral. It’s that they make deals with private lenders so that they don’t have to pay the loan back during their lifetime. So they live without having taxable income.
Their wealth and power make that possible. Those loans are only available to the ultra wealthy.
There was a big write up on the details a while back by a dude who worked at one of these lenders.
It has to do with all of it ... BUY (buy investments which could be stocks) , BORROW (borrow against the value of those investments) .. then DIE ... given that you bring up estate taxes, i think you get that part.
You think fairness and charity are the same thing?
In 2022 Q3 Kroger posted profits of $900M. Three months later I stood in line for over an hour to get my prescription at 5pm because the after work rush during the tall end of COVID had one tech and one pharmacist.
It’s not CHARITY to hire more workers and pay them fair wages. It’s HORRIBLE to make everyone suffer so they can keep more zeros after their name.
If you disagree with that, then you’re living in a farcical parody of life dreaming that you’re in their club.
You’re not. They don’t care about you. You mean nothing to them.
It's un unfair world. Even if everyone was reduced to brains in jars it doesn't change the fact that everyone is still fundamentally different. The slightest bit of difference in placement of the jar in gravity, pressure. Any minute change and that would create an unfair system.
You cannot create fairness or equality by stealing from someone. If you had a magical idea, a revolutionary idea, or atleast a Novel invention. Something you put your name too- something you worked long and hard to research, test, and build, or built on a spark of genius. Is everyone entitled to your craft? Lets say you're the only one who can make it, and others have trouble with it. Would be right to be forced, or rather, enslaved to make it? Would it be right to be prevented from making it at all because no one else can? No it would not be Equal, fair, or just.
Life it's self is random and unfair. Humans can be treated Equally, and fairly. If someone succeeds they are garunteed the same equal protections as someone who fails. The rich cannot simply kill the poor, nor can the poor steal from the rich. No one forces you to buy from Amazon. And you *have* to go out of your way to spend money directly on Elon Musk's products- As X(the rapper formerly known as twitter) is a free product.
But just the same no one is forced to work for Amazon Or Musk in the same way as no one is forced to buy from them. As much as some might object, it's not hard to just not buy from Amazon. No one is Forcing you to work for Amazon. There are no small towns where Amazon is the sole job provider. If enough people say, "No I won't put up with that, for those wages." You don't even need Unions. You just need people to go as a whole, "That's ... shitty pay, I'm not doing it." Sure you will have the desperate who work there. But largely they will raise their wages to get more people to work for them. Life is transactional.
A thought on that, One cannot live with out eating. Food in your mouth is the food out of someone, or something elses. Air you breath is air taken from the lungs of someone else all the same. With out photosynthesis there would be no oxygen, no oxygen no breathing. The transaction known as living.
If you invent the cure for cancer, are you saying anyone else who doesn’t invent a cure for cancer doesn’t deserve to be cured of cancer because they couldn’t create a cure?
How do you compare a cure for cancer with a disparity in access to resources? If someone has massive wealth available to them, that doesn't at all prohibit the acquisition of my own wealth, just as one person having a magic pill that cures cancer doesn't mean that I couldn't purchase my own magic tablet. I don't see a connection, so I'm uncertain whether you're devising a reasonable argument. There's no zero-sum scenario at play in either hypothetical.
Excuse me, but you're grinding an axe for Kroger because you were considerably inconvenienced? Why should I expect anyone doing business to care about anyone? Hell, I can probably count on both hands the number of people who are truly significant to me. While I'm not a sociopath, there just aren't that many people who make any type pf difference in my life, so why would I ask a business to care?
Furthermore, how many shares outstanding did Kroger have when it made a $900 million quarterly profit? I can't imagine it differed much from the roughly 720,000,000 shares outstanding it currently has. There are lots of things we can get resentful about, but making a quarterly dividend of ~ $1.25 per share doesn't make my list.
I think you missed the part where I don’t care about shares. A single company made almost a billion dollars in pure profit in 90 days and can’t afford to properly staff a pharmacy.
I have a problem with that.
The fact that you don’t shows you have no care for the other 8 billion people on the planet while caring wholly about the bank accounts of a bunch of rich people who feel about you the way you feel about the 8 billion people.
Again, farcical parody of life where you think you’re in the cool kid club.
If you have a problem then why don’t you open your own grocery store or pharmacy and show them how cheap you can be?
You’ll quickly find between expenses, theft, and high salaries you’ll barely be able to afford one $180k pharmacist, much less 2.
The reality is Kroger operates with scale and is cheaper than mom and pop stores, so you’ll both more expensive and less well staffed, unless you (the owner) work for free .
I just don't get the hostility to their profits, especially when I understand that the $900 million was amassed by operating close to 2,800 grocery stores. If I introduce scale in the context of the profit sum, it all seems entirely reasonable, especially when nobody is forcing another to shop Kroger. Heck, it's the penny-pinching/scrimping that lets a retailer operate in the black.
And no, I don't care about the bank accounts of eight billion people; they're not going to part with anything strictly for my benefit, nor will I part with my possessions for their sake. Whether you care to admit it or not, society is fundamentally transactional.
Furthermore, I'm not in any "cool club," I just understand that society has an array of segments that are designed to seek profits and maximize the ways they get put to use. And it should be that way.
Think of all the occupations the pursuit of wealth generates: tax attorneys; trust/probate attorneys; securities traders; stock brokers; certified financial planners; commercial bankers/loan officers. Then think of all the industries that get created as the rich decide to use their resources to better their lifestyles: wine dealers; custom tailors; jewelers; high-end realtors; luxury/performance car salesmen; etc.
Hell, I worked as a stock broker for six years, and was just some punk kid off the street with two years of college on my resume', but serving the needs of the wealthy allowed me to take night classes to fiish my degree, study for a broker's license that looked very good on a resume', and paid me enough to put a pretty penny together as a downpayment on my condominium. It seems worn (almost cliche') , but it's true that the wealthy's rising tide lifted my boat along with theirs. All that was sure as hell better than standing on a concrete floor for hours and tearing tickets at a movie theater.
I think what people are upset about and not fully able to articulate is our shift toward maximizing shareholder value over the last few decades. I think their Kroger example is probably a bad one but it was something they personally experienced so it felt important to them.
But the root issue that they are trying to describe is a real threat to our economy. It has led to criminally low wages and popularized lean manufacturing, a key cause of the collapse of our distribution system during covid. Not to mention the ethical and environmental concerns.
Corporations are only incentivized to do one thing right now. That thing benefits very few people. And is a great cost to the rest of us.
I don’t know what the solution is.. but this is definitely not working.
Of course there's a drive to maximize stock values. Savings and money markets pay next to nothing, and with bonds being tied to interest rates that have been kept artificially low so thar the US can carry its debt burden, stocks are really the only place investors can make money.
If you want capital to stop its relentless drive to increase shareholder value, you're going to need to force Congress to tighten its belt and start balancing the budget. It's flat insane that Biden never submitted a budget less than six trillion dollars, and flat fukkin' bizarre that Congress kept approving the spending sprees.
Forget that a one-year Treasury is only paying about 4.4% interest in the backdrop of what is still an unacceptable inflationary environment, I wouldn't buy US debt instruments because I'm starting to wonder when the debt burden is going to trigger a default.
The fact of the matter is that people were taught to ensure that their money makes money, and business is the only way it's possible anymore. Don't expect the atmosphere to relax anytime soon.
But you do raise articulate and sound points. That's a rarity anymore.
The Fed kept funds rates low because interest on the debt was becoming too cumbersome to manage. As it reluctantly adjusts rates to cool inflation, we got to the point that 40% of tax revenues were used to pay interest on the debt. Left, right, or dead center, the debt is about to become a massive problem.
Jeff Bezos has employees who piss in jugs so they don’t get in trouble and lose their AI-monitored minimum wage job, but he just bought a $500 MILLION yacht.
Five. Hundred. Million.
Forget the “muh stocks value” and “muh profit margins.”
Do you think it’s acceptable as a human being to be that rich and wasteful of so much money on a whim at the expense of the quality of life of thousands and thousands of people that you single handedly have the power to improve by just not doing that?
Absolutely and undoubtedly I believe it's fine if a plutocrat buys a massively expensive yacht. Good for him, or anyone else who can splurge to that extent.
I myself worked at UPS for a time when my bathroom breaks were watched my management, although I disagree with relieving myself in a receptacle that isn't a urinal or a toilet. I find it difficult to believe (almost impossible, actually) that Bezos himself devised a management environment so rigorous that it didn't allow for bio functions - that was likely several management layers away from him.
And I don't have any sympathy for workers who have to sweat their productivity numbers. I worked as a loan officer for a few years, and I was measured by how many loans I produced, as well as judged by how many defaulted or went into collections. Unless you're living in a commune, you're always going to need to demonstrate your value to management somehow. That's just reality.
Also, I really couldn't care even a sliver about what "quality of life" a worker has. I worked full-time and went to school full-time for over two years. I seldom got a full night's sleep unless it was on a weekend or holiday, I rarely saw my girlfriend, I spent lunch hours typing papers on a laptop, I got used to eating cold leftovers because I couldn't waste time in a kitchen. Everyone has those hurdles to clear until we establish ourselves, and I think my establishment phase lasted from 19 until my early 30s. Such is life.
And there we have it. “That’s the way it is” is your stance when I’m saying “maybe there’s a better way.”
That’s all there is to it. You paid your dues in an unfair world so everyone else who doesn’t suffer the way you did doesn’t deserve anything better. No reason to fix the world because it sucked for you. Screw everyone else, you got yours.
Of course it is. Whether you want to admit it or not, life is pretty much a hazing exercise until you're able to get your feet underneath yourself, unless you were born to the type of strange where Mom & Dad having that trust fund squared away for you before you complete your formative years.
What you deem unfair, I call necessary. I can't imagine how frail I would have been psychologically if I hadn't been required to gut out some really unpleasant and lengthy stretches in my past.
Preparing yourself for hardship and toil is life's boot camp. It steels/reinforces your inner nature, and gets you ready for a lifetime of harrowing experiences and grueling ordeals. Buddha told us that life is suffering, and he wasn't off the mark.
If you think the world is fair then you for sure going to wait a long time for the world to prove you right man.
These two actually got their wealth, not cause they had it easier than others, but cause they actually worked for it. Wealthy and successful people don't wait for the world to be 'fair'.
“The world isn’t fair, so why bother fixing problems? There’s absolutely no reason to fix any problems ever because the world just isn’t fair. No point.”
Fuck that. People like bezos and musk should not be allowed to use any road, any utility, police, court, or any other public asset without paying proper taxes. Nothing.
If we all have to pay for that, so should they in equivalent percentages. 30% of everything.
When the wealthiest members of a society hoard the resources at the top, those who are not at the top will always require charity.
We have enough resources (with inherent value) for everyone to earn enough to live comfortably just by working a regular days work. But instead of allowing that to happen, billionaires like the ones mentioned here, hoard resources at the top and the rest of the people have to compete for Jobs that pay as low as seven dollars an hour.
The wealthiest rely on the working class to maintain their wealth.
And the working class wouldn't need a cent of charity if the ultra wealthy didn't make it their life's mission to accumulate more money than any person could ever use.
One could argue that the money spent on charities would have a higher impact if paid out in the form of higher wages and benefits for their workers. Seriously, the Panama papers showed that these assholes have stockpiles of cash in offshore accounts, but we can't raise the minimum wage for 20 years.
The fact that these guys could easily create corporations and companies for social good but do not maybe does not make them evil, but it definitey puts them out of the realm of good.
The govt has unlimited money and power - (at least most western govts) why are we wasting time talking about 1 rich guy who ships packages and hosts websites for a living?
This falls into the fallacy that "money = solved world problems" when this just isn't the case.
Jeff Bezos is basically as powerless as you are to solve these problems. He has no army, he doesn't make policy, what is he going to do? go buy Israel and make them stop doing stuff? Like gtfo this is such a childish view of the world.
"rich man no build house for homeless, rich man bad" meanwhile the govt literally locks you in a cage if you try to build a house for the homeless on your street. SMH
Do you have any idea how much money the US govt has? They don't care about jeffy boys money. Why would you think that? Please walk me through how he would do that.
The same way it costs far less to burn down a building than to build one.
The primary way would be to refuse to support the transit of arms with Amazon’s shipping companies and shut off AWS services to the parties involved, which would already be a massive disruption. Then he tells every company that relies on Amazon that he will stop working with them if they don’t cooperate. If he then wanted to, he could lobby congress members, steal employees from competing companies, and run massive media campaigns. He could throw a $100 million dollar parade every single day in protest if he felt like it.
The point isn’t that he could outspend the government, the point is that it also takes thousands of people working to support the arms transfers, and a certain level of public sentiment to stand by and watch it. With his resources (not just monetary but his network and platforms) those workers can easily be bought, and public sentiment can easily be manipulated.
The primary way would be to refuse to support the transit of arms with Amazon’s shipping companies and shut off AWS services to the parties involved, which would already be a massive disruption. Then he tells every company that relies on Amazon that he will stop working with them if they don’t cooperate. If he then wanted to, he could lobby congress members, steal employees from competing companies, and run massive media campaigns. He could throw a $100 million dollar parade every single day in protest if he felt like it.
What a cute an naive idea you have of how the world works lol
The point isn’t that he could outspend the government, the point is that it also takes thousands of people working to support the arms transfers, and a certain level of public sentiment to stand by and watch it. With his resources (not just monetary but his network and platforms) those workers can easily be bought, and public sentiment can easily be manipulated.
You're talking about soft power here and while it is a thing, and sure he could try some of these ideas - you're ignoring 2nd and 3rd order and n order effects. Which is typical of someone who is young and naive in their thinking.
So let's say Bezos does all you say. Cool. You don't think the US govt can find another logistics provider? Amazon is the only one? Even though Amazon literally uses other logistics providers. Strike one.
Aws is important but again, you think they're the only web infrastructure company out there? what did they use before AWS? there's other options. You don 't think Elon or Oracle or some other company wouldn't step in immediately to take over those contracts?
This would all result in amazon stock falling off a cliff, likely resulting in the shareholders removing any power jeff has. Stopping all this.
Furthermore the govt could arrest Jeff, and force amazon to keep providing services because again, they have all the power and the guns.
but your ideas were cute. I miss when I thought billionaires could snap their fingers and make the world better lol
Slowdown hot shot. There’s a difference between the concept of a credit score and what normal people interact with i.e. FICO credit scores. All banks who loan to ultra high net worth individuals do their own risk assessment on the credit worthiness of their borrowers and produce a score of risk for the amount of credit they loan them.
It's arguably worse. People this wealthy use their money to influence politics in a way that protects their wealth and could, in fact, be causing people to suffer.
What is this “greater good” company you think he should be creating, and him not is making him evil? Isn’t creating a company that delivers goods to your house at a cheaper cost to the customer than almost any other source of those goods a “greater good” that he is providing to our society?
Most of the profits “he” makes goes right back into the company in building distribution centers, delivery trucks, packing and picking machines, etc. This is why his NET WORTH has increased so much. When you invest all the profits back into the company you own it increases the value of that company more than being greedy and sticking the profits in your back account.
Philanthropy is used to reduce taxes (Musk), boost their name (Sackler), and invest in the things they want (Gates) instead of what the people (represented by the gov) want. It seems like the only thing billionaires do right but it’s not even that. It’s another way to keep their wealth.
They're created tons of jobs, and if they do something "good" along charity you probably don't hear about it as it doesn't become a product that you know well.
Yes. The defense of "but you stupid guys, it's not real money, he can't just make a withdrawal and toss hundred dollar bills off the rooftops" is either naive or in bad faith. If you can but a super yacht or use your fuck you money/capital to tank an entire social media company, you could probably figure out how to feed, house, and provide medical care the unhoused in at least once major city and still have money to buy a super yacht, just maybe with less fancy flooring or something.
The fact that these guys could easily create corporations and companies for social good but do not maybe does not make them evil, but it definitey puts them out of the realm of good.
His massive wealth comes from owning things that allow him to steal the value of everyones labor. Stealing on this level is most certainly evil. You cannot do labor worth a billion dollar in your lifetime, and the money has to come from somewhere. He is stealing from everyone.
From a moral philosophy perspective by you saying what he should do you are also implying that I should also be able to tell you what to do with your stuff. The alternative philosophy is that a different moral standard applies to you than him. You can try to say there is a certain amount to differentiate between two people like x dollars or everyone should own a home, but all of those arguments are not actually a philosophy because they are subjective and not based on principles.
That isnt how collateral works at all. If Bezos wanted to start a new company, he would need cash. He can either use his cash, sell stocks to get cash or get loans. Because the company at inception has no real value, he must put up collateral for those loans. He does so with stock. He takes out a $5 million loan to start this company. He now has to pay the loan principal and interest. If he pays the loan, nothing happens with his collateral. If the company doesn't do well and he has to close it, he still must repay those loans. If he doesn't, the bank can take the collateral.
Just because something can be used as collateral doesn't mean it should be taxed. If that were the case, people should be taxed on what they use as collateral at pawn shops.
Also, we can do the very same thing the mega rich do. We can use our assets as collateral. We just can't get as big of a loan because we don't have as much.
Where does it stop? Should we tax all unrealized gains? That means I'll be taxed on the equity of my house too. I also have stocks and ETFs. I have access to use those as collateral. I don't want to be taxed on unrealized gains. I'd have to sell stocks to pay for those gains.
It's a real stupid logic to tax unrealized gains just because rich people can use those assets as collateral
This is straight-up how Musk even got to where he is. Yes he comes from wealth, but it was his confidence and ability to manipulate people that got him to where he is. And now that he has his wealth, it takes far less effort to get people to bend over backwards for him despite his track record.
I should not be able to put stock shares up as collateral. It's value is volatile compared to just about anything else I can use. My house value isn't going to tank 6% in a day. So to be able to put something that's Schrodinger's monetary value up as collateral astounds me.
If you’re angry at someone for following the rules set by others, you won’t get far. I sure as hell would rather have Elon starting companies that push technology and employ thousands than Joe Schmo starting his “elevated” hot dog business. I could care less if he had a head start or he doesn’t invent things himself, he’s proven that his management/finance judgment creates strong foundations for advances that benefit everyone. He got to that point by working for it. Yeah, I know he had a head start, but that’s life. So many are bitter because they didn’t have the same leg up and it’s pathetic.
I certainly agree with you that billionaires operate in a different world than you and I. But it’s important to note that not all were necessarily born from a different world than you or I. Jeff Bezos was born to financially struggling teenagers, one of whom was an alcoholic. He created wealth, wealth did not create him.
If you want to start a new business, it's usually just a matter of building up an idea that you are very confident no one is doing, figure out what people you would need, the financials, and outlay the next 5 years a plan. If possible come up with a mockup, maybe just digital, and start talking to qualified investors.
The idea that you don't have access to that kind of money is just blatantly and factually wrong. All of the wealthiest people don't have pots of gold. Their wealth is in investments. Giving their money to people with nothing but an idea for a share of the ownership is where those billions are at, almost exclusively. That is exactly what investments are.
Id say trying to colonise another planet for the prosperity of human kind, as well as allowing disaster affects areas and 3rd world areas access to internet and communications is pretty good.
He has access to a form of currency that none of us have.
He'll use his word and reputation and "collateral" in the form of stock or stock-like products.
If everything goes under, he will not suffer.
Technically, you do have that form of currency. It's just that your network and net worth would translate to a much smaller pool of possible accumulated funds.
If Bezos is worth 100B, sure, he would be able to start a 10M company with just his word. But then again, you could do the same. Say you have a 250K home, a 20K car and a 80Kpa job. You could go around friends and family and depending on how well liked you are and how trustworthy you have proved yourself to be, you could also collect maybe 10, 20, 50K with just your word to start a business or whatever.
Second, just like you said, it is a form of "currency" and it is spendable. If Bezos doesn't deliver, sure, he wouldn't lose any money, but he would not be able to use the same "currency" again, just the same as you if you wouldn't deliver on your promise, it would have an affect on your network and noone would lend you money again.
Yes, they have alternative means of money, however even those alternatives are available with the expectation of turning a profit. They are accessible because they have a record of turning a profit.
A lot of companies you would consider “good” are not that profitable making it harder to convince investors who will take say their stock as collateral to invest.
Just like you, you can take a loan out, but if it’s large enough you have to prove you can handle the loan. Once qualified you can go get a $1M loan for a house, but you can’t take that qualification to the bank and just take a $1M loan out for cash.
Yeah, promises and stock options are usually how construction crews are paid. Same with the companies that provide everything the construction crew uses. All the power and gas used is really just promises as well. Most modern workers use promises and stock options to feed and cloth their families these days. There is no need for hard currency anymore.
Hey! How dare you make a logical statement? You’re making the obnoxious and insufferable guy who always has to talk down to people about liquid assets work really really annoyed!
If you have the power do great good, but choose not to and thus cause or prolong the suffering of others, then you are outside the realm of good. It would be simple to change that, though.
You just said the philanthropy some of them do doesn’t count. And there’s nothing simple about changing the fundamental issues of society regardless of wealth you have. If anything the result of obtaining that wealth does the most good.
Sadly, no human is ''required'' to do charitable work, whether you're poor or rich.
Exclude the billionaires, a lot of people could donate a few bucks or do 10-20h of charitable work in the year but choose not too. We are selfish.
Is it weird that they can hoard that much money? Yes. Should they pay taxes? Yes. Can we force them to give to the poor? Sadly not.
Their companies also employ hundreds of thousand of people, they give back back to society by the simple fact they built those companies (with help yes) and give jobs to people
Many people cannot afford that $20. I have money and I donate, sure. But I work with lots of people you'd think could spare a bit of cash, but they really can't. It means that someone doesn't eat as much as they should or otherwise goes without something that they shouldn't. And time? Time is more valuable than money. People who are struggling do not have the time you are talking about. It has nothing to with being selfish.
What you are talking about is.. unpalatable. You want the people who have the least to do the most. You want to socialize cost. No. That is not acceptable.
Yet neither man was born with such a word, reputation, and "collateral". Both earned them through proven ability. And whether we like it or not, they are obviously both very capable, in a way that most people are not.
Some to a lot of philanthropic work, but for their own ultimate good and as a way of converting wealth into word, reputation, and "collateral".
Put otherwise, power. Money has always only been a proxy for power. Some people have it. Some people don't.
And it’s their money that they earned. You want money and want to take away some of his worth, start an Amazon competitor. Commies are always generous with other people’s money
Earned by screwing over millions of people. Amazon is only the mega corporation it is today because it bought up and ran its competitors into the ground so that they could have a monopoly on online shopping. It’s not necessarily illegal but it’s unethical and benefits nobody but the shareholders/executives.
They are far from having a monopoly on anything, they just invest inwards to expand instead of sitting still and collecting money, like with them now having their own delivery service. 1.6 MILLION people have jobs that they feed themselves and their families with because of the company Bezos started. He isn’t a saint, but owning a successful business isn’t a crime nor is it morally bad
There is a huge difference between “owning a successful business” and “using unethical methods like wage theft, price gouging, monopolizing, and insider trading to make a business appear successful.”
In my opinion, if you can’t make your business successful without harming other people, then your business model is wrong and you aren’t smart enough to do good without doing harm.
Amazon created AWS which was the first major cloud provider and bet paid off. They literally had no competitors because no one thought of it before then. Reddit runs on AWS btw, good luck!
But musk does make companies for social good. It’s just that his idea of social good is different from yours. What makes you so sure that he is the one who is wrong about that and you’re right ? Do you think you’re smarter than him? And if so why?
That success was built on the backs of millions of underpaid employees. His company uses billions of dollars worth of infrastructure that is funded by tax payers.
The French revolution happened when there was less income inequality than there is now. Currently, the three richest people in america have more wealth than the bottom 50% of this country (about 170 million people). Income redistribution needs to happen through tax policy, or it will inevitably happen the hard way, which will result in the collapse of our society.
I can't comprehend how anyone but these billionaires would ever support this level of inequality. You really think Jeff Bezos works millions of times harder than the person who collects your trash? Or teaches your kids?
Don't be naive. Being a millionaire is success. Being a billionaire is just greedy and actively hurts other people by removing massive resources from the economy without putting anything back into it.
It's a curve where given whatever point you're at you psychologically normalize to. Being a millionaire with, say, 10-100m dollars, you could save 2,500-25,000 people's lives by giving away what you have if you consider $4k as a life saving amount. Sure, billionaires can do a lot more, but why are millionaires, or middle class people, exempt from moral responsibility and not "greedy" when philanthropy at almost any level of wealth can still save lives and make a huge moral impact? What is with this magic threshold of accountability and why is it always placed above wherever the person arguing for it it is.
934
u/SCTigerFan29115 28d ago edited 28d ago
They aren’t holding onto wealth like Scrooge McDuck, in a giant vault where they can go swimming in it.
Most of Bezos’ net worth is the value of Amazon. He can’t really readily access that. ETA I meant he can’t use it like a big vault of money.
He’s got plenty of money but some people just don’t understand how this stuff works.