Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Does Bezos have the ability to operate Amazon as is all through his mental/physical abilities? If not then why does the entire input of his employee base become his? Ownership of capital (that is impossible and never practiced) does not equate production.
If actual roles of Supply and demand were followed these for profit business models would all fail. Their number 1 objective is to distort the markets through marketing and product placement/access to supply chains.
Furthermore, production is handled by the workers, not the one who distributes the wealth.
You need profit or capital to keep the thing going. If there was no hope of profit no company would ever be started . Businesses shouldn’t be run like charities .
Does Bezos have the ability to operate Amazon as is all through his mental/physical abilities? If not then why does the entire input of his employee base become his? Ownership of capital (that is impossible and never practiced) does not equate production.
It doesn’t all belong to him . If you invest in an index fund you own stock in Amazon even though you don’t realize it .
There are many shareholders in Amazon so the statement that he owns the whole thing isn’t true .
Almost every company gives up equity in the early days in exchange for capital to build the business .
Bezos came up with the whole thing and took the risk to start it so it makes sense he should benefit economically from the success . Without Bezos there would be no Amazon .
The goal of a society should never be to amass the most control for each individual (as that creates excess consumerism, abuse of labor, and authoritarian control).
Why are you thinking it's "control?" One can buy from Amazon, or not. One can work for Amazon, or not. There is no "control." Only free choice.
Why are you thinking it's "control?" One can buy from Amazon, or not. One can work for Amazon, or not. There is no "control." Only free choice.
Yeah exactly . I still haven’t heard a story about someone forced to buy or work for Amazon.
One good thing about a diverse and capitalist society is there are many choices of where to work and where to buy products and services from .
Bezos succeeded because he has delivered what people want in a very efficient manner .
I don’t agree with him politically and I don’t like the articles in the newspaper he owns ( Washington Post)
But he’s a business genius and revolutionary .
I’m sure working with him is tough and demanding but it was the same for those that worked under Steve Jobs and others .
Why are you thinking it's "control?" One can buy from Amazon, or not. One can work for Amazon, or not. There is no "control." Only free choice.
The comment I was responding to (I believe) was discussing the greatness of successful capitalists like Bezos being an example that we may one day all wish to achieve.
I stated that that goal is neither sustainable nor desired, and explained why.
I wasn’t speaking of the consumer when it comes to control, I was speaking of the owner of the capital.
It doesn’t all belong to him . If you invest in an index fund you own stock in Amazon even though you don’t realize it .
There are many shareholders in Amazon so the statement that he owns the whole thing isn’t true .
Almost every company gives up equity in the early days in exchange for capital to build the business .
Bezos came up with the whole thing and took the risk to start it so it makes sense he should benefit economically from the success . Without Bezos there would be no Amazon .
The principle remains, ownership of capital does not equate to production. Furthermore Bezos is credited with the input of his company and the distribution of the wealth others produce. The concept of management and investors controlling the output of others is similar to authoritarian control in the political realm, only this exists in the economic realm.
Wrong, right off the bat. People do in fact own and control personal property, for example, among other things.
Only by consent and acknowledgment of the law (the state). In pretty much every example the world over, from Brazil to France, private owners (different from personal ownership) enforce their control over capital that is not under their direct influence via state violence (as private and state power are united by nature to retain their control over the society and not allow individual independence and freedom).
If an owner controls a patch of land on the other side of the country, land he never visits, then by the laws of nature, he has no control over it. But through contemporary means (documentation that claims it as his) if anyone wanted to settle their freely to live, state police would come in and bash their skulls.
Private ownership is the means by which totalitarianism retains its existence.
The comment I was responding to (I believe) was discussing the greatness of successful capitalists like Bezos being an example that we may one day all wish to achieve.
I stated that that goal is neither sustainable nor desired, and explained why.
I wasn’t speaking of the consumer when it comes to control, I was speaking of the owner of the capital.
What makes you believe Bezos isn't also a consumer?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
