
You Are Jeff Bezos - hendi_
https://direkris.itch.io/you-are-jeff-bezos
======
stuart78
There is something odd about the complacency implied by the line of thinking
this game seems to represent. Why is it more Jeff Bezos' problem to solve
homelessness than it is each of ours? Does he have a greater moral directive
to do so than us because he has accumulated a great fortune? At what point do
we as a society hold this theoretical Bezos accountable for the choices he
makes?

My point is not that he shouldn't give charitably, but there is something that
seems deeply pessimistic to me about turning to the rich to solve our societal
ills. If the implication is that we should have a more 'fair' tax system, I
can get on board with some version of that straw man, but would rather we as a
society fix our own problems rather than hoping for help from the plutocrats.

Why should we assume that Bezos or any other billionaire would solve these
problems in a way that is actually in society's best interest? Would we wish
that Bezos spend his money differently than the Koch brothers?

We have government to help create solutions for this space, and in my opinion
we should reject the passive acceptance of mediocrity there and instead hold
them accountable for delivering these things. I may not be holding my breath
for this, but that is part of the problem.

~~~
angel_j
The game isn't saying we should ask the rich to solve our problems. The game
implies a system is fucked that allows one person to own a seemingly infinite
sum, and leave others to suffer and die on the street. I think this is a fair
assessment. A system that gives any one liberty to seek the greatest riches,
should also protect those who's fortunes, being a part of the same system, are
much poorer. It is probably a simple exercise to economically model how too
much in one hand prevents enough in another's stomach.

Better than questioning the morality of looking into rich people's bank
accounts, is the question of whether it is ethical for people to accumulate so
much in the first place. There must be a sense of commonwealth, because the
only thing that exists "in a vacuum of society", is nature itself, and that
must in some respect belong to everybody. It would not even amount to "wealth
redistribution" to tax the top 0.01% enough to afford decent housing and
education; it'd be a soft cap.

~~~
slowmovintarget
> Better than questioning the morality of looking into rich people's bank
> accounts, is the question of whether it is ethical for people to accumulate
> so much in the first place.

The economy is not a zero-sum game. Bezos has "accumulated" company stock by
building the freaking company. He didn't stockpile food he took from someone's
mouth. He created value, and got value in trade for it. That is not unethical.

I'm willing to debate whether it is ethical to be uncharitable if you have
great means. But can we please dispense with the notion that merely being
wealthy is wrong?

~~~
angel_j
Nobody said being wealthy is wrong. It was stated the system is unethical that
allows one to die on the street with nothing, and another to possess all,
where enough is available for everybody.

We don't have to take food from somebody's mouth to prevent them from eating.
In an economic system where you must have dollars to find food, you need only
prevent them from getting enough money. And I'm not even saying Jeff Bezos
does this. Nobody does it on purpose. It occurs naturally is our economic
system, so we must determine whether it is ethical.

> The economy is not a zero-sum game...

it's also not a vacuum. The value of the dollars is nothing without a whole
lot of other stuff going on. for instance: a 500B/yr standing military to
protect the interests that keep those dollars valuable; a labor force that has
been turned into a business commodity; the destruction of finite natural
resources; the manipulation of the sovereignty of foreign peoples... it goes
on.

------
negativez
Here's a counter-idea for this game:

You wake in in 1993 with no memories except perfect insider knowledge of how
Amazon was built down to the finest details. You have a full year of lead time
to drink Jeff Bezos' milkshake.

Do you:

1) Spoil all the resources he used so that an unknown entity becomes the main
online merchant instead, with the typical "morals" you'd expect a big company
to have?

2) Build Amazon yourself plus "morals" accepting the real possibility that
those changes to the formula cede your competitive advantage to a less "moral"
unknown entity?

3) Build Amazon exactly as Bezos did, but with the strong belief that after
20+ years of extremely dedicated work on your part you'll still feel like the
rest of the world deserves the payoff more than you do?

4) Find out you're mostly interested in video games and can't be bothered to
change history. Plus, it's really convenient to get those games from Amazon!

~~~
sokoloff
To be perfectly honest, I'd most likely invest in Amazon at the earliest
chance I got and let Bezos build Amazon as he did.

I don't worship Amazon (nor currently own any shares other than via index
funds), but I'm a very happy customer of many of their businesses and think
they've created vastly more good than ill. I'd rather they continue doing what
they're doing.

~~~
Apocryphon
Invest in Amazon and through Machiavellian schemes become majority
shareholder, then force moral imperatives into the corporate culture.

------
jkingsbery
At least one of the items you can spend Jeff Bezos's money on ("End
homelessness in the United States (-$20 billion)") is argumentative, since the
government at different levels has arguably spent a much larger amount than
that already. The only tally I see attempted is from an admittedly small-
government-bias outlet (the Cato Institute, estimating $15 trillion), which
many people seem to believe is inflated. Even if it's off by, say 2 orders of
magnitude, you're still left with the government having spent much more
already.

Which shows two things:

1\. Throwing money at a problem is not enough. 2\. The idea of just taking
rich people's money to fix problems is not enough.

Also, one of the further items ("Fund NASA for a year (-$20 billion)"): Jeff
Bezos is already spending a billion dollars every year to fund a private space
company. I don't know why the assumption is that it's a "vanity" project.

~~~
Apocryphon
You're not wrong. But it sure doesn't hurt!

------
dragontamer
> Jeff Bezos is worth $156 billion? You're using the top tax bracket of 37%
> and paying out $57.72 billion of that.

That's... not how taxes work. We have income taxes in the USA, not wealth
taxes.

I'm not entirely sure what the point of the game is. But after playing through
this far, I am not exactly impressed by this kind of error.

Clearly, there's a political message the author is pushing here. Which isn't
necessarily bad: I liked Capt. Planet damn it. But getting such a trivial fact
like taxes wrong makes me distrust the "game" in its entirety. Now maybe the
game is saying that he wants to push for wealth taxes in the USA. Maybe we can
have that discussion. But... for now... this seems to be pushing assertions
that are very far removed from reality.

------
moolcool
This game implies that Bezos' net worth is all liquid, which it's definitely
not. Owning a large portion of a very large company is very different from
having a fat checking account

~~~
twblalock
When you have billions of dollars in assets you can get a loan for pretty much
any amount. Bezos has no problem with liquidity.

~~~
moolcool
>Bezos has no problem with liquidity

Not for any sensible things he may want, but he certainly would if he were to
do everything OP implies he can do with his wealth

------
j-c-hewitt
Why are my only options to fulfill the insipid political fantasies of a
twitter slacktivist?

------
natalyarostova
Bezos doesn't have billions of dollars in his bank, in cash, waiting to be
spent. He, simply, owns 15% of a company that he started.

Now, it turns out that this is worth a lot of money. But should it really
be... wrong to want to own part of your own company?

------
John_KZ
Entertaining, but I could think of spending sprees with much higher and long-
term impact.

------
ct0
I am Elon Musk

~~~
inawarminister
I would absolutely play Elon simulator.

All the options though... Like calling out Valve [0] or the whole funding
secured saga. Would be too complex?

[0] check twitter.com/elonmusk

------
crispytx
Haters gonna hate.

