Comment by roenxi | Hacker News Reader

Comment by roenxi | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> ...and we know that inequality is bad for economic growth...

If I look at a list of top billionaires [0] all the American ones are men who are poster children of driving enormous economic growth, and frequently a great deal of social good. Bezos, for example & picking the top, is responsible for rewiring and modernising a big chunk of the worlds logistic systems in a way that was not going to happen if he had been taxed into oblivion.

The problem is the ossification of the upper class; and that is promoted far more by governments bailouts such as seen after the '07 financial crisis, or as will probably surface when people have time to go over what actually happened in the emergency COVID spending. Protecting idiots while they are in charge of the financial system is a much bigger drag on growth than the existence of wealthy people.

Now if we were to talk about stopping those sort of welfare-for-wealthy-people policies then I'm sure we all agree. But taxes are a different policy, they imply we keep going with the welfare and then guess where it landed to try and take it back. I don't buy that the democratic process can handle that level of precision.

Trying to tax billionaires out of existence while the existing ones enjoy a great deal of government support for the financial status quo is exactly the sort of kick-out-the-ladder behaviour the article would lead us to predict for people in quadrant 4 of the article's graph (which is where you're describing them). I'll even go as far as guessing they probably support policies that bring the US into line with Europe - because that is what the article would predict.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World%27s_Billionaires#202...

Bezos is also responsible for creating a new precariat who can only do their jobs by pissing into bottles because they aren't allowed the basic humanity to look after their needs.

If you're going to try to persuade me this is a good thing and not a Hobbesian nightmare, you're not going to succeed.

This isn't just about taxes. This is about humanism vs financial authoritarianism.

It's also about the fact that the world was both more stable and more obviously prosperous when tax rates were much higher.

Economies are supposed to be prosperity factories for everyone to enjoy, and not just billionaire factories for a few extremely privileged individuals whose wealth exists because they've placed unacceptable financial and personal burdens on the people who work for them.

Bezos? The world would not be the poorer or have missed out one bit if he hadn’t created Amazon.

The very success of Amazon is proof that the world is better with it than without it: Amazon did not take out money by force. We, the customers, have made it successful by rewarding it with our business every time it won it in our minds over its competitors. Every extra cent of Amazon profit comes from a happy customer. Happy customers == better world.

In a world full of competition and alternatives, in a world where the low price is far from being the only differentiating factor, Amazon is winning due to innovation, better customer service and choice, massive, almost infinite, choice.

I’ll avoid taking an absolute position on Amazon—socially beneficial or not—but I do take issue with your argument: only by the most stunted measures of “better” is turning a profit sufficient or even necessary to show someone “makes the world better.”

I think the perspective of “happy customers = better world” is a bit sickening. I’ll give benefit of the doubt that if really pressed, that sentiment would be walked back. That sort of quippy line is how crooked politicians and their cronies come into and stay in power, though.

And no, the world isn’t a better place with them unless your definition of world excludes billions of the population.

The world would be better if Amazon were not anticompetitive, and were not extracting what is arguably monopoly rent in several sectors.

The world would be better if Amazon treated its employees fairly, hired enough of them that they didn't have to work themselves to the bone to achieve the desired speed of shipping, and allowed them the basic dignity and freedom every human being deserves.

The world would be better if the money Amazon has made were distributed much more evenly—even if it were only among Amazon's employees.

"This is a great idea, and should be in the world, as it makes it better" is not the same thing as "the person who came up with this idea deserves every cent they ever made."

The good aspects of any given person, company (or other organization—including countries), product, or service do not justify inequalities created by them, oppression perpetrated by them, and generally the negative things they create. The world is not black and white, and we can absolutely say "the convenience Amazon brings to retail is an amazing thing that is a benefit to the world," while also saying "Amazon is a predatory monopoly and monopsony in some areas, and should be better regulated" as well as "Jeff Bezos is a terrible person, and absolutely does not deserve the amount of wealth he has amassed."

That's nonsense. Facebook is also successful and the world would clearly be better off without it.

I don’t agree with this at all.

The “value” was lower cost (and later, convenience). But by hiding the actual cost.

Amazon grew a large customer by cutting corners, like sales tax; not taking monetary responsibility for defective and dangerous items; making IT “easier”, but eventually more expensive.

When that became insufficient, they began stealing small business ideas and making it their own.

In other words, their only path forward is becoming a monopoly. Not innovation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com