
Jeff Bezos’s Wealth Soars to $171.6B to Top Pre-Divorce Record - BitwiseFool
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-07-01/bezos-s-wealth-soars-to-171-6-billion-to-top-pre-divorce-record
======
brandon272
These discussions are pretty difficult to have as it's clear that many people
have dysfunctional ideas around corporate/brand worship (e.g. "he created such
a great company") as well as success worship.

To what degree Jeff Bezos is benevolent doesn't factor into this for me.
Whether or not Amazon is a great company doesn't factor into this for me. It's
a larger discussion about whether or not it's grotesque for a nation with such
a large number of billionaires to have some of the most serious socioeconomic
issues of any modern, developed nation.

I'd feel more happy and congratulatory toward Bezos' increasing fortune if,
say, homelessness weren't a serious problem in America, and if every child
were guaranteed a decent meal, which seems like it could be accomplished with
a tiny sliver of the overall wealth of America's billionaire class.

~~~
edanm
I don't disagree with the sentiment, other than it seems you're somehow
"blaming" Bezos for this. Why? The States has those socioeconomic issues for
historical and political reasons. They're certainly something people can
change.

But Bezos' wealth, large as it is, is _tiny_ compared to the wealth the
government manages. The government's money is allocated via a democratic
process. There's certainly good cases to be made for fixing a lot of issues -
I just don't think those cases should start with "Bezos is too rich, while
there are people in with serious issues". Better to just focus on the people
with the issues and figure out ways to fix that.

~~~
brandon272
My point really had nothing to do with Bezos in particular. He's one data
point among hundreds of America's billionaires. And their collective wealth is
by no means tiny.

You're right in that the U.S. has socioeconomic issues for political reasons.
But we can't disconnect the billionaire class from our political class.
Billionaires have ridiculous, outsized influence over politicians and
therefore public policy in the United States. And that influence ranges from
crafting tax law that benefits them to modifying rules and regulations that
given their businesses advantage.

When wealthy people have tax law changed in their favor, we could charitably
say that it is "indirectly" pulling money away from social programs that
matter.

------
dlojudice
The bizarre scale of super richs (400 people in US)
[https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-
wealth/](https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/)

~~~
happytoexplain
I rarely make blanket statements: Anybody who sees this and thinks the
downsides of this society are _lesser than_ the downsides of undoing it (both
the direct result of wealth redistribution, as though by a magic wand, and the
indirect results of using the kind of heavy-handed federal regulatory changes
that would be required), is immoral. You are somewhat less unreasonable to
say, "yes, we must change it, but first we must find a way that doesn't
involve gross socialism stuff", and I may reasonably disagree with the
practicality of your position, but to cross the line into, "no, the state of
things is natural and amoral", is monstrous, and such people must be defeated
_at any cost_.

~~~
basch
A logically defensible position against this is: "I trust those 400 people to
do more good, to spread more wealth, to create more value, to create more
jobs, to innovate more, than I trust the government." Its a calculation of
best return on investment, and not just return in a dollar sense. It might be
more efficient for those 400 people to dump all their money into a charity
that redistributes the money, than it is to trust elected officials to
understand how to handle it.

This isnt cash he has in a bank account. It's his money, reinvested into a
conglomerate that builds, delivers, creates, serves.

------
thekyle
I think it's important to remember that most of Jeff Bezos wealth is in Amazon
stock. I say this because it seems like people see $171b and assume Bezos has
that amount of spending power. In reality if Jeff tried to liquidate all of
his Amazon shares into USD it would crash the stock price and he would get
nowhere near the quoted figures.

~~~
therealdrag0
That’s just an artifact of a mass selling event right. If he had instead given
more stock to employees as they worked for him over the years and helped him
build the company, then the wealth would be spread around less unequally. It’s
not just a given that he should be worth this much.

~~~
cyrksoft
They got a salary in return. They did not ‘help him’ build the company. They
were paid to do so. They didn’t take any risk working for a salary. Employees
don’t inherently deserve anything other than a salary. It’s a matter of
incentives

~~~
therealdrag0
It’s not obvious how your final statement relates to the rest of what you
said. Care to elaborate about incentives?

------
HenryKissinger
With that kind of money I would keep a couple billions for myself and slowly
liquidate the rest and give it away. Charities, public schools, research
institutes, universities, the Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders, the Bill and
Melinda Gates Foundation, etc. There's so much work to do.

I'd probably produce movies too, with zero expectations of them turning a
profit, just to experiment with various storytelling ideas I have in mind.

~~~
new2628
So if you were the richest person in the world you'd donate your wealth to the
second richest.. I kid, I kid...

------
trianglem
I would dump all that into cosmetic genetic research so we could all grow
wings some day

~~~
hckr_news
Who says he’s not doing just that? Probably funding anti-aging measures as
well. All for the Ultra wealthy of course..

------
bydo
For reference, this is roughly the same as the GDP of Kansas, or the market
cap of Toyota.

~~~
mxfh
~1/8 of market cap of Amazon, which is reaching almost 1.5 Trillion, that's a
10th of 2019 GDP of China.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_\(nominal\))

------
throwaway77384
How does one create a society that is both free and yet safeguarded against
this kind of egregious, unnecessary and possibly dangerous amassing of wealth
and power in the hands of so very few people?

~~~
TremendousJudge
One way is to get the state to tax the rich, like many first world countries
did in the post-war period. It's hard because the rich get a lot of say in the
government, and they don't want to get their taxes raised.

------
pontus
Crazy. That means that he has $72B _more_ than $100B.

~~~
HenryKissinger
Correction: investors from all over the globe value the shares in Bezos'
possession at 172B.

These investors could also arbitrarily declare these shares as worthless
(theoretically), and Bezos' net worth would crater to only consist of his
leftover cash and physical assets in his possession - real estate, art, cars,
etc.

~~~
rcoveson
That's an irresponsible use of the word "theoretically". What actual theory
would have them do that? You're describing a coordination problem of absurd
proportions and you haven't even proposed a shared motive.

It like saying, "This specific aspect of society could change if a potency-
majority were fully committed to the idea that it should be changed in that
way."

~~~
HenryKissinger
You're absolutely right. I don't try to pretend that it would be possible in
the slightest. Just that stock wealth is a societal, and thus arbitrary,
construct, unlike, say, gold and precious gems, which have intrinsic value
across time, space, and cultures.

~~~
therealdrag0
At some point stock is as intrinsically valuable as gold, when it has legal
support and billions of people buying and selling it. I have no interest in
gold and I never will afaict.

------
hindsightbias
Bezos’ wealth is a function of the Amazon’s stock price. It is a company with
a P/E ratio of 137. That is not normal. He does not set his stock price.

So when people talk about taxation, its taxation based on the general
stockholders speculation. Which seems fair if we think BTC or 401k holders
should be paying taxes on their annual values. Pretty sure most on HN would
want not want that.

So it’s a question of limits, or a line, picked by society on how much
something of arbitrary valuation one can own.

But I’d bet there are many here with >$1M is assets and >50% of the public
would find that outrageous.

As far as AMZN being too big, I’d be fine with breaking it up as the
components would probably be valued more than they are together (remember
Standard Oil). Which would be good for my 401k.

The people have voted on the Walmarts and Amazons of the world. They lost
something for the convenience, and it’s 100% their fault, not Bezos.

~~~
basch
>But I’d bet there are many here with >$1M is assets and >50% of the public
would find that outrageous.

171.6/137 is still $1.2525B. Lets say 15 is a fair P/E ratio, thats almost
$19B. 1900 Million. People with >$1M is assets and >50% of the public still
cant fathom the difference between a million and 10 billion.

And historically, despite having a high P/E ratio, Amazon exceeds growth
expectations.

I don't know who is saying to tax his assets. But the laws, rules, economies
of scale, feedback loops, and anti competitive behaviors that allow one person
to amass that much money should be treated as glitches that need to be
patched.

~~~
hindsightbias
Bezos doesn’t care about his wealth or the valuation anymore than John D.
Rockefeller did. It’s just more paper. He cares about maintaining control of
Amazon and dabbling in his hobbies.

Kneecaping Amazon would result in hundreds of billions in wealth loss spread
across millions of investors.

~~~
basch
If you look at it from the perspective of Amazons own internal wealth being
its own currency, money has a different value in the system and outside it. He
buy things directly with stock, like we would use cash. He can downgrade his
value store from Amazon bucks to USD, but he doesnt have to to spend it.
Knowing how Amazon shares convert to USD is probably less useful than knowing
what you can buy directly with Amazon shares.

------
mchusma
I hope that he does something great with this - like building an open source
medical record system and diagnostic tool that can be used for the global poor
for free.

------
amelius
Standing on the shoulders of giants.

And reaping all the benefits.

------
mhoad
Just a friendly reminder that this isn't normal and that you are responsible
for helping to shape the kind of society that you want to live in.

~~~
danhak
What is the alternative? For people not to own the things they create?

~~~
TremendousJudge
You realize that Bezos didn't built Amazon on his own, right? There are many,
many people who worked for that company (and many of these in this very
forum), and all they got was a monthly salary. They own nothing. We are living
in the alternative. Most of the people who built Amazon don't own anything of
what they created.

~~~
danhak
They were compensated for their labor. That’s how employment works.

~~~
ben_w
In an ideal world, it would be.

He doesn’t seem to like unions, which in principle would ensure his big
powerful corporation was being fair to the labour force.

------
tkeAmarktinClss
Give it a few years and either Amazon won't be worth as much OR this is
hyperinflation and we have bigger problems to worry about.

~~~
maxekman
Like the climate crisis.

------
bryanlarsen
Vladimir Putin's personal net worth was estimated to be between $70B and $200B
in 2018, so it's quite possible that Bezos is not the richest man in the
world.

------
laichzeit0
All that money and he can't cure baldness.

~~~
koolba
Or he realizes that being bald saves a few cycles when taking a shower.

If it's specifically to attract the ladies, I think having $165B and being the
world's richest person would be a larger factor than any mane.

~~~
laichzeit0
Not so sure about that, nothing really compares to having a magnificent
hairline. Take David Bowie, for example. Now imagine he was bald.

------
wlll
I would love to know what goes on in someone's head when they could use their
money to massively improve the lives of millions of poor or un-privileged
people, or even save them from a premature and/or painful death, withough ever
noticing the difference in your quality of life. But they don't.

~~~
legohead
it's not like he has a bank balance of 171b. it's mostly his ownership in
Amazon, which he isn't going to just sell away.

~~~
patall
While that is true, that is true for our entire society. Big projects are
almost never started nowadays by selling somethings else (unless its a direct
replacement). Instead, what usually happens is that you take a bank loan that
is secured by assets, in this case his stock. Or to put it short: pretty much
any bank would give Jeff a 10 bn loan that is tied to his stocks, its simply
not true that there is any problem there.

------
xkuc
People have been trained to justify these capitalists for whom we place on
pedestals, while at the same time disparaging the common worker for some
perceived lack of "merit" and "effort".

As programmers, we encourage open source work with little to no return on the
effort when compared to how these projects are utilized. Amazon is a fantastic
example for how it abuses this effort and the community.

------
barrenko
Society, humans, hell , mammals value others who provide leveraged value to
them in a not linear fashion. Programmers should be able to graps this.

------
benjaminsuch
I really don't like these kind of headlines and honestly I'm not sure why it's
even posted on HN. What is here to discuss?

His wealth comes from his company and to brag about morale, justice and
society usually ends up in fights.

I don't know Jeff, but I'm pretty sure he doesn't care much about money, like
if it's $100B or $172B. From my point of view, money is only a way to make his
visions come true. For me that is Blue Origin.

~~~
tosers4
From watching from afar, it seems that right now he makes sure amazon grows
just to be able to finance Blue Origin from his own pockets.

He is just a man with ambitions, whose "crime" people call out is amazon not
paying profit taxes... With all the taxes from the non cash business amazon
brings, that is the least ethical concern about amazon, specially since most
of time they indeed have no profit as they reinvest.

Now the warehouse conditions is another thing, but hey it's america, those are
spoken about because every its like that but amazon is a big target.

Amazon is a big corp like any other it has a bunch of faults, but to point
Bezos simply evil over it is ridiculous, he does not have full control of
amazon like Zuck has over FB

~~~
therealdrag0
>but hey this is America

I think that’s worth discussing (op asked what there is to discuss). I don’t
think rich people are evil. But I wish we could come up with mechanisms for
them to share their wealth with their employees who helped them build that
wealth.

~~~
benjaminsuch
I know where you are coming from, but that is basically what the salary is
for. We just have the bad situation that not everyone is in a driver seat to
negotiate his salary (or have a choice). I'm not sure how it is in the USA,
but in germany for example, there is minimum wage. I think the society and
politicians are responsible to make sure that employees are treated gracefully
and to establish mechanisms.

~~~
therealdrag0
Ya I am split on the issue myself. The USA has min wage, but it’s pretty low
and it there is more inequality than just that. It just feels like execs get
more than their fair share. Like when the US is compared to Japan, Japanese
execs have less extreme inequality among employees in the same company. I wish
there were ways to incentivize that. No individual human needs to be worth a
billion dollars. And while it’s true that the execs have earned something,
studies show that there is more luck and randomness to their performance than
personality-cults will acknowledge. It’s annoying that they are entitled so
much wealth when studies shows that performance of their companies is much
more Influenced by other factors than that one execs work alone.

------
eloff
That's the power of leverage. Good for him. He is one of the greatest
investors of all time, just only investing in growth of his own company.

I don't think any human needs that kind of wealth, but I also don't begrudge
him of it. He earned it.

The problem with society is not that there are rich people - there always have
been and always will be. It's in fact a sign of a healthy economy. If you have
no inequality, it also means you have no growth or innovation - everyone is
equally poor. Cuba and Soviet Russia tried to be examples of this kind of
society, and few would argue they are desirable models to emulate.

The problem is rather the number of people who can't find steady employment,
earn a livable wage, and take care of the basic necessities of food, shelter,
and health. That does need to be addressed, and the sooner the better.

~~~
TremendousJudge
_He_ earned it? And what about all the people who work and worked at Amazon
and built all of it?

~~~
TbobbyZ
What about them? They signed a contract when choosing to work for Amazon. They
can negotiate their compensation before signing. They can renegotiate after
signing. If they don’t like what Amazon offers, they can go somewhere else.

It boggles my mind how much credit is given to the workers when it was Bezos
who: knew how to hire the right people, started the company, provided the
compensation and benefits, and has taken on the most risk.

~~~
TremendousJudge
First of all, many (most) of the people who work at Amazon are not engineers
or managers in a position to "negotiate", and don't have "somewhere else" to
go to work and get the money they need to eat. They cannot "renegotiate after
signing", which in these situations is something traditionally done via worker
unions, which Bezos has worked very, very hard to disable.

Second, without the workers who, according to you, don't deserve any credit,
Amazon (the entire thing) wouldn't exist. These "right people" Bezos hired
were workers, and hiring them is not what built the company. "Starting a
company" is not exactly hard work. And he didn't personally provide the
compensation and benefits out of his own pocket (besides the first 300K "from
Jeff Bezos and his family" according to Quora), it was always investors'
money, or the money generated by Amazon itself (who was running thanks to
these people being compensated). None of these things are usually talked
about, it's just Bezos and Amazon on the news. Do you really think that "the
workers" are getting too much credit, when they never get none?

~~~
TbobbyZ
In a free market, workers are always in a position to negotiate. They can
always renegotiate.

Is Amazon the only employer in the USA? No. So workers always have somewhere
else to go for work.

The workers credit is the compensation they agreed to when deciding to work
for Amazon. Nothing more, nothing less. There is nothing special about
accepting employment. That’s what the majority of people do.

“It’s just Bezos and Amazon on the news” because Bezos willed Amazon into
existence, a company that brings endless value to millions of people. You are
right, starting a company is not difficult, but creating a company that brings
so much value is.

