The Bezos backlash is bigger than Blue Origin’s success
qz.com"My dad got to watch Neil Armstrong walk on the moon.
I get to watch the guy who killed book stores ride a giant dick into space."
Imagine if we taxed the enormous wealth of billionaires and used it for the good of many in society instead of inflating the ego of a single person. Our society is sick and I don't think people will stand for this level of inequality much longer.
World governments spent $35 trillion last year. That's annual spend. Why do people on the internet act like all of our social ails could be resolved if only we could tax Bezos and spend $35.01 trillion instead?
It's seems governments have a budgeting problem, not a funding problem.
Inequality is a strong psychological issue. No amount of correct math and logic can offset that. We're wired to despise those who have more than others, especially when others are struggling and especially when those who have show off.
You can point out objective things like that contemporary billionaires are nothing like super-rich monarchy or noblemen in the past, who literally didn't have to work one day of their lives and could dispose of people around them as they pleased, quite literally. There was no me too, no rape allegations, they just did whatever they pleased with minimal consequences.
You can point out all that, but it's irrelevant. Many humans just don't tolerate "rich entitled jerks who show off". Other humans don't tolerate other kind behaviours; humanity is clearly not a uniform bunch.
I think math can help.
Even if we stole 10B from Bezos and gave it out equally to every US citizen... Its ~$30. Is this life changing for anybody in the US? If so what percent. Most beggars on the street clear more than $30 a day, some make $30 a hour!
So yeah, common core has failed us, and the inability to understand numbers is a problem.
I do this nearly every time somebody is upset somebody else has money. One time it was some Walmart executive. They got some multi million dollar bonus. I did the math, it would have been something like 2.27 a week more for all the employees.
Edit:
But yet we have folks still going around on twitter saying he could give everybody a million (some even a billion) and still have money left over.
> Even if we stole 10B from Bezos and gave it out equally to every US citizen... Its ~$30.
I mean, obviously it's gonna look small if we fixate on Bezos specifically. If we "stole" a flat $1B from every American billionaire and paid it out equally to every US citizen, that stimulus jumps up to $1,996.70. If we "stole" all the money from every billionaire, that'd jump up further to $12,569.61.
We can go further. The top 1% of Americans have a combined net worth of $34.2 trillion. If we "stole" all of that, the resulting stimulus would be a comfy $102,842.28.
> I did the math, it would have been something like 2.27 a week more for all the employees.
$122.58/year could very well make a considerable difference to someone barely scraping by. And again, you're fixating on one Walmart executive; what about the other executives who likely received similar bonuses? VPs? Middle managers?
lol.
If you made the top %1 liquidate all their assets to give to others everything would stop working. You would create more problems than ever.
Somebody would have to buy the assets, and because we are doing away with anybody who would have the sort of money to buy the assets, you would likely deadlock long before you would get 34 trillion out of the system. Like its mind boggling what you said. Where would this money come from? Other 1%ers who would then have to sale their assets?
Folks, Net Worth is not tangible, and even less tangible if you required a mass amount of folks to liquidate. It would simply drive prices down to a point where they were no longer in the 1% and then our economy would simply pop.
Every major system that moves money (this is what we want) would grind to a halt, and the folks you want to steal money for would simply have no job and have no cash flow.
But beyond that, stealing money assets, or even in this case "net worth" is immoral.
Bezos was a nobody driving a Honda Civic, folks just mad he drives a rocket now.
> Somebody would have to buy the assets
Most of those assets fall into two categories:
1. Real estate, which doesn't need to be liquidated to be put under public ownership
2. Corporate shares, which don't need to be liquidated to be put under public ownership
The thought experiment around liquidating that wealth and cutting everyone a check was purely a response to your own hypothetical of liquidating a fraction of one billionaire's wealth and cutting everyone a check. Specifically, it was to point out that your "argument" misses the bigger picture around how much wealth is locked up in the accounts of even just billionaires, let alone millionaires.
> But beyond that, stealing money assets, or even in this case "net worth" is immoral.
Unless the wealthy do it through rent, lobbying, labor exploitation (including union busting), and monopolization, then it's all hunky-dory, right?
That's why I put "steal" in scare quotes. Retaking wealth already stolen from the working class is the precise opposite of theft, yet here you and others are, white-knighting for the poor millionaires.
Something's gotta give, or else the outcome will inevitably be far worse for that 1% than merely having to liquidate their assets.
>But beyond that, stealing money assets, or even in this case "net worth" is immoral.
100% agree, so lets tax the fucker, and all the other fuckers.
> so lets tax the fucker, and all the other fuckers
I'm not a fan of Bezos or the other "fuckers", but how are American billionaires going to pay that tax? They'll have to sell assets to someone not subject to the tax, probably a billionaire from another country.
Do you really imagine anything will get better when most big American businesses are owned by foreign billionaires? Will working conditions in Amazon warehouses improve if Amazon becomes a subsidiary of Alibaba?
> They'll have to sell assets to someone not subject to the tax, probably a billionaire from another country.
Or you could tax the assets themselves, in which case it no longer matters who owns them. And seeing as how certain assets - like land - have inelastic supply (i.e. taxation doesn't affect the price point set by supply v. demand) and can't exactly be moved to offshore accounts, taxing the value of those assets would be far more economically sound than the current emphasis on income and payroll taxes.
If alibaba pays tax then I'm happy with that exchange.
So, you just gave the economy a one-time spending boost while "destroying the billionaires as a class". Let us also say that this action had no effect on purchasing power of the dollar, which is now mostly based on willingness of the rest of the world to trust it. (There are countries where 100 000 units of local currency won't buy you a nice dinner, but the US has never gone down this road, so most Americans just do not take this risk into account when modeling revolutionary changes.)
A year passes. Now what? No more billionaires to fleece, but the population demands some more, because spending windfall money is such a fun. So the next move is to fleece the millionaires...
Already the Ancient Greeks knew quite a lot about populist rule and its consequences. And the 20th century definitely tried it out in much larger dimensions, to much worse outcomes.
I understand what you're saying, but I don't see why it should be an excuse. After all, xenophobia and racism are natural human behaviours as well, (and not just human behaviour) but they shouldn't be tolerated, and we shouldn't promote policies that encourage them.
it's not an excuse; as with xenophobia and racism, these are phenomena which have to be understood and not dismissed. You cannot solve racism by just stating "races don't exist, here's the DNA evidence etc etc" perhaps implying that you're just an ignorant redneck if you don't understand science. Even if said science is solid, some people will not be moved by it because their bias doesn't stem from a misunderstanding of science (or math) but from somewhere deeper, and you don't have to excuse it in order to understanding and use that understanding to counter it.
>humanity is clearly not a uniform bunch
Humanity is not normal, but it is normally distributed!
Assuming the figure is well-sourced, and given the time since the spending occurred, I'd be interested to know where this $35 trillion has ended up (not necessarily just who it directly went to, but where it's parked now and how it got there).
I know that's a tall order, but I think governments should be accountable to how they've invested their citizen's money and how those investments are doing.
Also should be pointed out many countries greatly expanded their deficit as part of Covid measures.
I got the figure off of Wikipedia. They list every nation's government expenditures and the total sum is at the bottom of the table. $35.6 trillion. You're correct that covid stimulus had ballooned this figure, but even in "normal" years, it is still between $25 and $30 trillion which doesn't materially change the thrust of my argument.
I'm not even saying Bezos is appropriately taxed. I don't really care how high his tax bill is, but my main point is that the existence of world hunger and poverty isn't his fault even though many people online blame him for it, and secondly, taxing him at 100% wouldn't seem to solve the problem.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_governm...
I agree w/everything you're saying. I'm questioning the ethics of raising taxes if the extra money gets mismanaged and ends up wasted or doubled back to the wealthiest individuals. The people who would be managing this money are the exact ones whose legislation has created this environment.
Raising the deficit and inflating the currency for blind and reckless cash give-aways (imo), only makes it worse and all the more reprehensible and should have everyone questioning why we're not overthrowing the existing parties by rallying around new ones and collectively agreeing to stop voting Dem or Rep altogether. Because if we traced the government (tax) money spent over the past year to where it is now, I bet we'd see it directly widening the wealth gap no matter the party or rhetoric used while misappropriating it.
Anyway, I think the real solutions (to hunger, education, healthcare, &c) would involve breaking down the issues causing the inequality and really working to solve them one by one in good faith with a common vision. Small groups of people can achieve this. It's unfortunate that the idea of that happening on the scale we're discussing is laughably absurd.
I don't think it's productive to talk about tax. Our economy should be designed in a way that workers capture a good proportion of their work. The problem at the moment is that when there are successful companies, a handful of investors and senior management capture practically all the gains. Amazon is an incredible company, and it's even more incredible that practically no one working at Amazon benefits from that.
Just letting that system persist and then hamfistedly grabbing the gains at the end and redistributing them is difficult for a huge number of reasons including both fairness and regulatory capture.
What you describe is equity distribution. It is a tax, but simply implemented as inherent ownership through citizenship or similar constraints.
I think shared equity is one way of solving that problem, but if you look at other social democracies, regulatory regimes that favour workers and collective action can have similar effects.
I would agree. There is no silver bullet, but various levers that can be actuated in a manner that arrives at the desired socioeconomic equilibrium.
People complain about the the many ways Amazon is crossing moral lines. Instead of asking to tax rich people, how about fixing the inadequacies of the government so that Amazon can't transgress moral lines as often and make as much profit?
Saying "tax the rich" as a fix to a problem shows a lack of critical thought.
>I don't think people will stand for this level of inequality much longer.
At the moment it seems like every government in the world is being held hostage by the obscenely rich, while workers with multiple jobs are struggling to even afford rent.
Please give me some hope and tell me how the change might come about? What signs have you seen out there that things are changing?
Because everything I see is just more and more wealth inequality, expanding year over year. Meanwhile the media, also in the obscenely rich's pocket, reports on these billionaire space assholes as if they've achieved something worthwhile, which is sickening to me.
In the last month it seems that Amazon has incessantly asked my opinion about every product and service I use (e.g. the store, Amazon Music, ...)
My answer is always some variant of "I don't like the way you treat the help"
If you honestly don't like it though you should stop using their services, otherwise the message you are sending is that you care, but not really that much.
I know I'm in the minority, but I stopped shopping with Amazon long ago, closed my audible account, and have slowly been migrating my current workplace off our/their AWS infrastructure.
A handful of people have mentioned this is too much of a hardline stance, but personally I think it's important to take some actions if you truly want to see change in the world.
I really don't understand why people have such a hard time weening themselves off Amazon products.
It's not even like a physical constraint like having to drive a little further to a different store. Just visit a different website it's the bare minimum of effort needed.
It amazes me how Best Buy, Staples and other physical retailers refuse to compete.
For instance you can't buy a quality headset from Plantronics or get a USB NFC reader from either of those firms. Best Buy will sell you a Sony Alpha 7 camera but forget about any lenses other than the kit lens.
Don't get me started about how Dick's Sporting Goods sells mostly men's athletic shirts that will show your nipples which would be fine if I wore a bra but I don't know many men that do. I asked the people there, "Do you want to sell any clothes or do you want to make excuses for why you aren't selling any?"
> I asked the people there, "Do you want to sell any clothes or do you want to make excuses for why you aren't selling any?"
They probably just want to be left alone. They get shipped the stuff someone higher in the chain of command ordered. Why are you bothering the sales staff with things outside their control?
Funny I wrote wegmans supermarket asking if a product packed in type 7 plastic could be packed in 1, 2, or 5 (recyclable) and got a nice reply in 30 min.
Does Amazon really care what answers people give? Would dicks sporting goods? Wegmans at least wants to look as if they care.
Planet fitness once told the NYT that they’d never gotten customer feedback on an issue but they make it so hard to find the form that they obviously don’t want you to use it.
If you're writing to a corporate office, that's different. But the people at an individual store have no real control and can only forward your objections up the line.
I just wrote to Dick's about it.
Ah, sorry. I originally read your message as harassing the poor retail employees (or managers).
It's quite possible that the stuff you're complaining about sells to other people. If so, I can see keeping their customers that purchase happy.
To be frank, it all counts. Avoiding their services is one way, educating the public is another, speaking out is yet another, it all matters.
There is cutting back on their services while still using them. If your sales on the site halve as you complain, that also sends a message.
My prime subscription runs out in April. I have a ways to go before reaching the natural point to not renew it.
Here's what I learned when I cancelled mine: when you cancel, you will still have full use of Prime benefits for the time remaining until the subscription runs out. So if you really want to cancel, there's no reason not to just do it now. You'll still be able to use Prime until April regardless.
In other words, you can cancel the renewal without cancelling the current year
Yes. I have a problem with verbosity, and you said it with much greater clarity and brevity than I managed. Thank you!
I have the same problem. It's far easier to summarize what someone else than to do it yourself.
You're quite welcome!
> If you honestly don't like it though you should stop using their services
Agreed. That's what I did.
What I found amusing is that when I cancelled the services, Amazon (unlike pretty much every other company) didn't ask me to tell them why. It seems that they want to know everything about everybody -- except for why someone would want out.
Of course it is.
Big successes do not erase equally big failures. And the failure here, not on Amazon alone, is far too many Americans not earning enough from their labor the fund continuing to exist reasonably and show up to work.
The problem is so obvious it’s amazing that people even debate what the real problem is . Maybe the government is too far out of touch.
I do not find it that amazing anymore.
Roughly a third of us have few worries. Media, business, a whole lot of news and opinion bolsters that third, the assumption is things are fine.
Like two different worlds.
Yeah, govt is out of touch, but so are many others, all oh whom dominate the national dialog.
> The real shame is that, as Bezos pointed out, hundreds of people worked incredibly hard to design, test, and operate the New Shepard rocket booster and space capsule. Blue Origin has refused multiple requests to interview these engineers and let them share the challenges they surmounted to create this vehicle; no executives joined the crew for a post-flight press conference.
SpaceX very much branded its initial launches as "we are what NASA should have been." Countless appearances and interviews with people who were very clearly "engineers' engineers" excited out of their minds to be working on the project. It was clear that there was overflowing passion given a very "shiny" space to dream, and that was the guiding light. You could disagree with Elon Musk and still admire his ability to build, inspire, and fund such a team. You could see the light in their eyes and want to contribute like them some day.
Blue Origin was very much starting from a disadvantage, not being the first private-industry movers. But - and I think this is critical - they also made an unforced error by insulating the public from the passion their engineers undoubtedly have. It makes it very much the Jeff Bezos Show, which makes the whole venture much more susceptible to public opinion about Bezos personally. His tone-deaf remarks on customers "paying" for the venture dug that hole even deeper.
Setting aside emotion, whoever paves the way for space exploration in the coming decade needs to inspire. I'm going to root for the team that understands what it means to inspire. And that makes it impossible for me to root for Blue Origin.
"Blue Origin was very much starting from a disadvantage, not being the first private-industry movers."
Wasn't BO incorporated in 2000, two years earlier than SpaceX? Whatever delay they incurred is not caused by them entering the field later.
I don't think a single person I know has said anything OTHER than jokes about Bezos and his mission, and how much of a dorky tool he is.
I’m personally rather bored with the hobbies and tastes of these modern tech billionaires like Jeff and Elon. A few years back, there was a total global circumnavigation of the world in a solar powered 2 person airplane based in Switzerland, I forget the project name. This thing did not have to land to charge batteries but could stay aloft indefinitely, albeit at a very floppy wing surface area to weight ratio, and the resulting vulnerability to wind and low speed. Such a project or something that presents and actual investment that only a billionaire could provide are eschewed in favor of juvenile pissing contests like Mr. Branson and Mr. Bezos pursue
SpaceX is a profitable business, especially with StarLink. They essentially got rival satellite operators to buy the rockets they then re-use to launch their payloads. And they managed to underbid everyone in the space launch business for government contracts (Even factoring in R&D costs the Dragon is incredibly cheap).
Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic are just hobbies for the rich, but SpaceX might bring real benefits to "average joes" (just like the GPS system did).
> SpaceX is a profitable business, especially with StarLink.
Starlink isn't profitable yet, and won't be for several more years.
Parts of their business are definitely profitable today, for example the Falcon 9 launch business. Other parts of their business are being pursued in the hope of future profits, but those future profits are some years away.
>juvenile pissing contests like Mr. Branson and Mr. Bezos pursue
This is really all it is, it's rich guys performing for other rich guys while the rest of us fight for scraps. It's sickening to me that so many people defend the honor of rich CEOs like Bezos, Branson, Musk, Gates, etc because they truly think that more money = better than.
Musk might be a weirdo, but SpaceX as a whole is not smoke and mirrors. Falcon rockets and Dragon capsules are a tested, reliable technology developed for reasonable money. When in doubt, compare their development budgets, timetables and flight record to those of the Space Launch System.