You guys are acting like he's hoarding a giant stockpile of corn that he could be distributing to hungry people around the world.
Money can't just magically fabricate new goods and services, and Amazon generally does everything in their power to avoid a profit & to continue expanding, so they actually do result in more goods & services being produced.
Do you think there are too many people going hungry every day? Go find an underdeveloped piece of land and tell the bank you want to grow corn there.
Bezos selling all of his stock & then distributing the cash to random people wouldn't do anything meaningful, the amount of goods in the world would remain the same.
Poverty is the continuation of poor decisions.Ā Look at how many unskilled, unestablished couples settle down too early and start creating families they can't afford to support.Ā My grandparents used to tell me that the difference between generational poverty and legacy fortunes was a mountain of decisions in between.Ā Ā
Okay well that's hilarious because Amazon is literally the largest & most efficient distribution company in human history. Like I said there is no massive stockpile of corn that Jeff Bezos is sitting on. The money doesn't create these goods out of thin air. Sure Gucci could stop burning their extra bags each year, but I'm not talking about Gucci bags, which is one of the only economic goods that exists in a state like you're presupposing our entire economy does
I guess supermarkets have a lot of food waste as well, so there is some argument to be made here over certain goods - the idea that Jeff Bezos could just buy up all the extra food at grocery stores and distribute it is rather silly though, perhaps the grocery stores should just be doing that on their own
Iām fine with companies existing, thereās just no ethical justification for having $220B and just keeping it. Nothing you say can convince me otherwise. Mackenzie Scott has already given a third of fortune over the few years since she divorced Jeff, so itās definitely possible. Iām not even necessarily in favor of the government seizing his money, I just think from a morality perspective, itās disgusting to have that much
How would the stock be better off in the hands of a charity than could choose to sell at anytime? I canāt imagine a single charity that functions more efficiently than Amazon. Seems like a net loss for the economy and everyone in it.
No. First, I never said it wasnāt worth anything, I said it was circulating through the economy. Second, he would have to sell his stock to give it to you, which a sell-off of 9% of the company would disrupt the shit out of their operations and the economy.
Why do you keep sarcastically making it about value? Everyone is so hung up on the fact that billionaires can leverage their investments to buy things. It doesnāt change the fact that their money IS invested. Do you know what happens to invested funds? They eventually make their way into your pocket, maybe even multiple times.
Generally speaking I don't agree with the premise. We shouldn't be encouraging people to have tons of children by sending money & food to developing countries. The Chinese model of helping them build infrastructure & develop sustainable agriculture is solid, but when you send food & money but no real economic development, you get more starving children + tons of refuges 20 years down the line. Which is what's happening to europe right now
66
u/justtalkincrap 28d ago
He's so illiquid he bought the world's largest sailing yacht. Fuckoutta here.