Jeff Bezos is Now Worth 200 Billion

[doodle]

I find it a bit ironic how mountaineer so strongly defends these wealthy oligarchs considering his love of Jesus and how the Bible handles the topic of wealth.

Having wealth is not the problem that is addressed in Scripture. It is when one makes wealth into an idol, i.e. a first commandment issue, another small g god that is revered above the one and only God, as I understand it. Do you interpret differently?

No, but I find it strange that you come out in defense of Bezos so strongly when a large part of his productive workforce qualifies for food stamps and probably has no health insurance. Seems kind of strange that someone who has dedicated their life to Jesus would defend a man who has accumulated 200 billion on the backs of individuals who need government assistance to feed their families....sounds almost as if you defending pharoah.

[Mountaineer]

I find it a bit ironic how mountaineer so strongly defends these wealthy oligarchs considering his love of Jesus and how the Bible handles the topic of wealth.

Having wealth is not the problem that is addressed in Scripture. It is when one makes wealth into an idol, i.e. a first commandment issue, another small g god that is revered above the one and only God, as I understand it. Do you interpret differently?

No, but I find it strange that you come out in defense of Bezos so strongly when a large part of his productive workforce qualifies for food stamps and probably has no health insurance. Seems kind of strange that someone who has dedicated their life to Jesus would defend a man who has accumulated 200 billion on the backs of individuals who need government assistance to feed their families....sounds almost as if you defending pharoah.

Well, all I can say is that an understanding of confessional Lutheran theology might help you; you don't have to agree with it, just know how we interpret Scripture. Kingdom of the left (civil realm) and kingdom of the right and knowing that God is in charge of both. Most confessional Lutherans (as opposed to the CINO liberal Lutherans) are not social justice warriors as some of your writings indicate that you lean toward. We live in a country where the "law of supply and demand" somewhat is important. I have no grudge against Amazon for paying only what is required to get the workers they need; if people can get a better deal elsewhere, I'd encourage them to go for it. I'm a proponent of equal opportunity (not equality of outcome). We are equal in faith in the promises of Christ, not in our status in the kingdom of the left. Although Christians can thrive in all forms of government, I kind of like the government we have and what our Constitution stands for. I'm not a proponent of a welfare state (kingdom of the left issue) but do think the local congregation should support its members who are in need when they don't have families to support them in their times of need (i.e. the widows and orphans discussed in Scripture). What do you stand for?

[doodle]

Would you not classify Jesus as the original social justice warrior? Seems like his stirring the pot pissed of the rich and powerful and that's why he was killed.

[Mountaineer]

Would you not classify Jesus as the original social justice warrior? Seems like his stirring the pot pissed of the rich and powerful and that's why he was killed.

No.

Re. upsetting the rich and powerful, that would be mainly the Roman Caesar; his "tax base" was dwindling because of the many who converted to Christianity and no longer would buy meat that had been sacrificed to idols as an example. Add to that, the Christians refused to worship Caesar as a god. The subsequent persecution and falling of many into apostacy (including many priests) in order to save their temporal heads led to the Donatist heresy of which I believe Cyprian was the 'grandfather' of that movement.

I'm waiting to hear what you stand for, other than "Christian man bad".

[doodle]

Really? I find that surprising...because of the common social justice issues...race, gender, sexual orientation, healthcare, nationality, immigration, education... I have a hard time believing Jesus would side with those in society seeking to maintain the status quo or even put it into reverse ...on the contrary his message was quite radical. I think most so called Christians today would condemn their own prophet should he be interviewed on the evening news. I dislike most Christians today because I find their hypocrisy nauseating. They claim allegiance to Jesus yet live their lives according to beliefs that violate almost everything Jesus stood for. From my experience the best Christians I have met are atheists.

What do I stand for? That's a tough question....probably the truth...in so far as I can understand it.

[Mountaineer]

Really? I find that surprising...because of the common social justice issues...race, gender, sexual orientation, healthcare, nationality, immigration, education... I have a hard time believing Jesus would side with those in society seeking to maintain the status quo or even put it into reverse ...on the contrary his message was quite radical. I think most so called Christians today would condemn their own prophet should he be interviewed on the evening news. I dislike most Christians today because I find their hypocrisy nauseating. They claim allegiance to Jesus yet live their lives according to beliefs that violate almost everything Jesus stood for. From my experience the best Christians I have met are atheists.

What do I stand for? That's a tough question....probably the truth...in so far as I can understand it.

I shall pray for you. And hope that you study up on the Confessional Lutheran Two Kingdoms doctrine; it may help you understand the difference betweey hypocrisy and parodox, unless of course you suffer from CDS. Blessings and best wishes. Hopefully your local drug store has an adequate supply of Pepto-Bismol to help with your nausea and optical rectitis.

[doodle]

Not to steer this too far off topic....Let's take Trump as an example of a person masquerading as a Christian and taking into account his huge Evangelical base. He has repeatedly stated that he favors the old testament punishment of an eye for an eye....and it is quite evident by the way that he mercilessly excoriated his opponents that he believes in it.

Jesus on the other hand criticized the notion of an eye for an eye, and preached a turning of the cheek. How do you square this contradiction? Why do so called Christians who supposedly hold the word of Jesus as the word of God side with the message of a man who openly contradicts their prophet and God?

[doodle]

Really? I find that surprising...because of the common social justice issues...race, gender, sexual orientation, healthcare, nationality, immigration, education... I have a hard time believing Jesus would side with those in society seeking to maintain the status quo or even put it into reverse ...on the contrary his message was quite radical. I think most so called Christians today would condemn their own prophet should he be interviewed on the evening news. I dislike most Christians today because I find their hypocrisy nauseating. They claim allegiance to Jesus yet live their lives according to beliefs that violate almost everything Jesus stood for. From my experience the best Christians I have met are atheists.

What do I stand for? That's a tough question....probably the truth...in so far as I can understand it.

I shall pray for you. And hope that you study up on the Confessional Lutheran Two Kingdoms doctrine; it may help you understand the difference betweey hypocrisy and parodox, unless of course you suffer from CDS. Blessings and best wishes. Hopefully your local drug store has an adequate supply of Pepto-Bismol to help with your nausea and optical rectitis.

Pray for me, lol. I love Christian passive aggressiveness. Because Christ's message is so convoluted and confusing that it requires one to study Lutheran doctrines to understand. Sounds to me like these are mental gymnastic exercises that you put yourself through in order to silence the extreme cognitive dissonance that you must suffer from trying to square your personal beliefs with a contradictory radical message you claim allegiance to.

[doodle]

Ok, Boomer. I actually agree with a fair number of Trump's ideas and policies...it's the implementation and leadership style he displays that is so abysmal. Wrong personality for the job. That matters

[Mountaineer]

Really? I find that surprising...because of the common social justice issues...race, gender, sexual orientation, healthcare, nationality, immigration, education... I have a hard time believing Jesus would side with those in society seeking to maintain the status quo or even put it into reverse ...on the contrary his message was quite radical. I think most so called Christians today would condemn their own prophet should he be interviewed on the evening news. I dislike most Christians today because I find their hypocrisy nauseating. They claim allegiance to Jesus yet live their lives according to beliefs that violate almost everything Jesus stood for. From my experience the best Christians I have met are atheists.

What do I stand for? That's a tough question....probably the truth...in so far as I can understand it.

I shall pray for you. And hope that you study up on the Confessional Lutheran Two Kingdoms doctrine; it may help you understand the difference betweey hypocrisy and parodox, unless of course you suffer from CDS. Blessings and best wishes. Hopefully your local drug store has an adequate supply of Pepto-Bismol to help with your nausea and optical rectitis.

Pray for me, lol. I love Christian passive aggressiveness. Because Christ's message is so convoluted and confusing that it requires one to study Lutheran doctrines to understand. Sounds to me like these are mental gymnastic exercises that you put yourself through in order to silence the extreme cognitive dissonance that you must suffer from trying to square your personal beliefs with a contradictory radical message you claim allegiance to.

I am truly sorry you don’t understand - Ephesians 2:8-10. Romans 10. I hope God opens your ears and your heart. Although life Has much suffering, it can also be filled with peace and comfort. To God be the glory.
https://t.e2ma.net/message/b9i28z/nyu9pg9b

[doodle]

Ok, Boomer. I actually agree with a fair number of Trump's ideas and policies...it's the implementation and leadership style he displays that is so abysmal. Wrong personality for the job. That matters

So you would prefer a demented person who is the captive of the communist left?
Ok, zoomer.

Communist left, hahahaha. That's hyperbolic bitchute BS. There are no communist politicians currently holding office. Even Bernie Sanders is a centrist by most Western industrialized standards and Biden is far closer to center. Now, given a moderate Republican....I'd pick them over Biden at this point. But that's not an available option. Trump is wholy unfit from a personality standpoint to lead this nation. No matter whether I agree with many of his policies, the ends do not justify the means. He is a disgrace to the office and our country.

[flyingpylon]

No matter whether I agree with many of his policies, the ends do not justify the means. He is a disgrace to the office and our country.

In what ways will Trump’s character flaws potentially cause more damage to the country than the policies of his opponents?

There have been a few people on the forum that have said they don’t have too many problems with what the Trump administration has actually done, but they just hate the guy.

I can understand not liking his style, but I can’t understand putting Democrats or Neocons in charge just to spite him. How is that good for anyone?

Of course if you have major (real and unimagined) policy issues already then I can understand how Trump’s style would make you lose your sh*t.

[WiseOne]

Interesting thread, which I feel like is dancing around one simple issue:

Do you want to impose taxes not to assess fairly for common expenses, but as a punitive measure designed to relieve rich people of their wealth to ensure they don't rise too far above a certain (and arbitrary) standard? This is not what America is all about. Ironically, the lure for people immigrating here (legally or not) is precisely that there are fewer restrictions on personal achievement here than in their home countries. If you start limiting personal achievement with measures such as punitive taxes, you risk losing that bit of magic. There's also the question of where such punitive taxes would stop. It won't be applied only to Jeff Bezos. The definition of "rich" is quite fluid, and could technically apply to anyone who doesn't qualify as impoverished. Including everyone on this forum. Take a peek at Bernie Sanders' website, where he defines "rich" as a family earning over $120K. That may be ok for Vermont, but in NYC it's most definitely not.

Ultra-rich people contribute financially to society in ways that go far beyond taxes. There's charitable contributions, the hundreds of thousands of jobs provided by his business (750K in 2018, per an article I just found), and a highly valued service - else Amazon wouldn't still be in business. These are all valuable contributions. Doodle, some of your posts imply that you would like to see Amazon vanish because it's too large a business. What's your plan for dealing with the sudden addition of 750K people to the unemployment rolls? Actually it would be more like > 2 million jobs, because there is a multiplier involved for non-Amazon jobs created to provide various service & support roles.

FWIW I do agree that we need to do a better job of at making the tax treatment of capital gains vs wages more fair. I think the argument for reducing tax on capital gains was to encourage investment, but perhaps that assumption should be revisited. I'd be in favor of, say, abolishing the reduced cap gains rate while increasing Roth IRA contribution amount & income limits. Since Roth IRA contributions are limited to wage income, that would help mitigate the higher tax treatment of wages.

[yankees60]

Interesting thread, which I feel like is dancing around one simple issue:

Do you want to impose taxes not to assess fairly for common expenses, but as a punitive measure designed to relieve rich people of their wealth to ensure they don't rise too far above a certain (and arbitrary) standard? This is not what America is all about. Ironically, the lure for people immigrating here (legally or not) is precisely that there are fewer restrictions on personal achievement here than in their home countries. If you start limiting personal achievement with measures such as punitive taxes, you risk losing that bit of magic. There's also the question of where such punitive taxes would stop. It won't be applied only to Jeff Bezos. The definition of "rich" is quite fluid, and could technically apply to anyone who doesn't qualify as impoverished. Including everyone on this forum. Take a peek at Bernie Sanders' website, where he defines "rich" as a family earning over $120K. That may be ok for Vermont, but in NYC it's most definitely not.

Ultra-rich people contribute financially to society in ways that go far beyond taxes. There's charitable contributions, the hundreds of thousands of jobs provided by his business (750K in 2018, per an article I just found), and a highly valued service - else Amazon wouldn't still be in business. These are all valuable contributions. Doodle, some of your posts imply that you would like to see Amazon vanish because it's too large a business. What's your plan for dealing with the sudden addition of 750K people to the unemployment rolls? Actually it would be more like > 2 million jobs, because there is a multiplier involved for non-Amazon jobs created to provide various service & support roles.

FWIW I do agree that we need to do a better job of at making the tax treatment of capital gains vs wages more fair. I think the argument for reducing tax on capital gains was to encourage investment, but perhaps that assumption should be revisited. I'd be in favor of, say, abolishing the reduced cap gains rate while increasing Roth IRA contribution amount & income limits. Since Roth IRA contributions are limited to wage income, that would help mitigate the higher tax treatment of wages.

Yet conveniently does not define "rich" as owning three homes as he does!

Vinny

[Libertarian666]

Interesting thread, which I feel like is dancing around one simple issue:

Do you want to impose taxes not to assess fairly for common expenses, but as a punitive measure designed to relieve rich people of their wealth to ensure they don't rise too far above a certain (and arbitrary) standard? This is not what America is all about. Ironically, the lure for people immigrating here (legally or not) is precisely that there are fewer restrictions on personal achievement here than in their home countries. If you start limiting personal achievement with measures such as punitive taxes, you risk losing that bit of magic. There's also the question of where such punitive taxes would stop. It won't be applied only to Jeff Bezos. The definition of "rich" is quite fluid, and could technically apply to anyone who doesn't qualify as impoverished. Including everyone on this forum. Take a peek at Bernie Sanders' website, where he defines "rich" as a family earning over $120K. That may be ok for Vermont, but in NYC it's most definitely not.

Ultra-rich people contribute financially to society in ways that go far beyond taxes. There's charitable contributions, the hundreds of thousands of jobs provided by his business (750K in 2018, per an article I just found), and a highly valued service - else Amazon wouldn't still be in business. These are all valuable contributions. Doodle, some of your posts imply that you would like to see Amazon vanish because it's too large a business. What's your plan for dealing with the sudden addition of 750K people to the unemployment rolls? Actually it would be more like > 2 million jobs, because there is a multiplier involved for non-Amazon jobs created to provide various service & support roles.

FWIW I do agree that we need to do a better job of at making the tax treatment of capital gains vs wages more fair. I think the argument for reducing tax on capital gains was to encourage investment, but perhaps that assumption should be revisited. I'd be in favor of, say, abolishing the reduced cap gains rate while increasing Roth IRA contribution amount & income limits. Since Roth IRA contributions are limited to wage income, that would help mitigate the higher tax treatment of wages.

Yet conveniently does not define "rich" as owning three homes as he does!

Vinny

"Progressives" never apply the same rules to themselves as they do to "the little people".

[glennds]

Interesting thread, which I feel like is dancing around one simple issue:

Do you want to impose taxes not to assess fairly for common expenses, but as a punitive measure designed to relieve rich people of their wealth to ensure they don't rise too far above a certain (and arbitrary) standard? This is not what America is all about. Ironically, the lure for people immigrating here (legally or not) is precisely that there are fewer restrictions on personal achievement here than in their home countries. If you start limiting personal achievement with measures such as punitive taxes, you risk losing that bit of magic. There's also the question of where such punitive taxes would stop. It won't be applied only to Jeff Bezos. The definition of "rich" is quite fluid, and could technically apply to anyone who doesn't qualify as impoverished. Including everyone on this forum. Take a peek at Bernie Sanders' website, where he defines "rich" as a family earning over $120K. That may be ok for Vermont, but in NYC it's most definitely not.

Ultra-rich people contribute financially to society in ways that go far beyond taxes. There's charitable contributions, the hundreds of thousands of jobs provided by his business (750K in 2018, per an article I just found), and a highly valued service - else Amazon wouldn't still be in business. These are all valuable contributions. Doodle, some of your posts imply that you would like to see Amazon vanish because it's too large a business. What's your plan for dealing with the sudden addition of 750K people to the unemployment rolls? Actually it would be more like > 2 million jobs, because there is a multiplier involved for non-Amazon jobs created to provide various service & support roles.

FWIW I do agree that we need to do a better job of at making the tax treatment of capital gains vs wages more fair. I think the argument for reducing tax on capital gains was to encourage investment, but perhaps that assumption should be revisited. I'd be in favor of, say, abolishing the reduced cap gains rate while increasing Roth IRA contribution amount & income limits. Since Roth IRA contributions are limited to wage income, that would help mitigate the higher tax treatment of wages.

Fair post. I'm with you that taxes should not be punitive. A successful value creating entrepreneur should not be penalized and it is important to recognize the various direct and indirect ways their economic stimulation helps all of us.

At the same time, I do worry that it becomes difficult for a society to remain stable beyond some point of economic two class polarization of haves and have nots. At the rate we are going, 90% or more of wealth will end up concentrated in a very small % of hands, which is not really what America is all about either.

Right now, Gates, Buffett and Bezos (maybe add a name or two) own as much as the bottom half of all of the US, about 165MM people. Should they be penalized for it? Absolutely not. But should it be a warning flag of a potentially destabilizing trend? I think so.

It's not so much the wealth of a notable person or group of people per se. I think it's more about the society wide trends and ratios of wealth concentration among the broader population. Add to this the levers of power ultra wealthy people and corporations now have in government, and if it creates a situation where laws will favor perpetuation of the status quo, then I think the original vision for a democratic America built on equal access to opportunity is in question.

What I do not know is what the solution is or could be. Do you or anyone else here have any ideas? Or do you think the concern I describe about the trend toward dynastic wealth concentration is unfounded?

BTW - a disclaimer.... Not suggesting we need to move toward a proletariat style of democratic communism by any means. What I seek is a way to ratchet the economic polarization a notch or two. We're talking a shift of shades of grey into a healthy zone, not necessarily radical change.

[pp4me]

Short video by Jordan Peterson on "Why a Very Few Have SOO Much".....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-k_FfS1kHfY

[Libertarian666]

What I do not know is what the solution is or could be. Do you or anyone else here have any ideas? Or do you think the concern I describe about the trend toward dynastic wealth concentration is unfounded?

BTW - a disclaimer.... Not suggesting we need to move toward a proletariat style of democratic communism by any means. What I seek is a way to ratchet the economic polarization a notch or two. We're talking a shift of shades of grey into a healthy zone, not necessarily radical change.

If you are concerned about inequalities, the answer is to get the government off the backs of business.

The more government, the more big businesses are helped and small businesses and entrepreneurs are hindered.

Bezos and the other titans can afford accountants, lawyers, and an army of paper-pushers to handle all the regulations and other interference from the government. Even if you disregard their power to hire lobbyists to influence legislation and regulation, those are a tiny burden on them compared to the immense burden on small businesses and entrepreneurs.

[Mountaineer]

Short video by Jordan Peterson on "Why a Very Few Have SOO Much".....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-k_FfS1kHfY

Don’t go getting mathematical on us! Emotions rule, don’t you know.

[glennds]

What I do not know is what the solution is or could be. Do you or anyone else here have any ideas? Or do you think the concern I describe about the trend toward dynastic wealth concentration is unfounded?

BTW - a disclaimer.... Not suggesting we need to move toward a proletariat style of democratic communism by any means. What I seek is a way to ratchet the economic polarization a notch or two. We're talking a shift of shades of grey into a healthy zone, not necessarily radical change.

If you are concerned about inequalities, the answer is to get the government off the backs of business.

The more government, the more big businesses are helped and small businesses and entrepreneurs are hindered.

Bezos and the other titans can afford accountants, lawyers, and an army of paper-pushers to handle all the regulations and other interference from the government. Even if you disregard their power to hire lobbyists to influence legislation and regulation, those are a tiny burden on them compared to the immense burden on small businesses and entrepreneurs.

Tech, you have me intrigued. Is there any country in modern times that successfully practices the minimalist model of government that you advocate in your posts?

[doodle]

What I do not know is what the solution is or could be. Do you or anyone else here have any ideas? Or do you think the concern I describe about the trend toward dynastic wealth concentration is unfounded?

BTW - a disclaimer.... Not suggesting we need to move toward a proletariat style of democratic communism by any means. What I seek is a way to ratchet the economic polarization a notch or two. We're talking a shift of shades of grey into a healthy zone, not necessarily radical change.

If you are concerned about inequalities, the answer is to get the government off the backs of business.

The more government, the more big businesses are helped and small businesses and entrepreneurs are hindered.

Bezos and the other titans can afford accountants, lawyers, and an army of paper-pushers to handle all the regulations and other interference from the government. Even if you disregard their power to hire lobbyists to influence legislation and regulation, those are a tiny burden on them compared to the immense burden on small businesses and entrepreneurs.

Tech, you have me intrigued. Is there any country in modern times that successfully practices the minimalist model of government that you advocate in your posts?

If you're referring to business regulation in particular, Hong Kong ran along those lines, before they were taken over by the commies.
And you don't need full deregulation to see the results of lessened regulation.
The pre-covid Trump economy was booming partly due to his historic slashing of regulations.

Now if you're referring to minimalist government in general, remember that I'm an anarcho-capitalist, meaning if I could abolish all government immediately by pressing a button, I would do it.

But since I don't have such a button, I have to deal with the existing situation in which there are governments claiming every piece of land in the world. And none of them, no matter how poor, is willing to give up sovereignty on even a small part of their territory even in exchange for a very large sum of money; people have tried and have been refused.

This makes it impossible to establish a non-governmental society even though there are certainly plenty of people who would like to live in such a society.

I can however point to a minimalist government in "modern times", depending on your definition of that term: The US before 1913 (other than during the War Between the States, during which Lincoln pioneered all the big government institutions and practices later used by other US Presidents). The average citizen in those days had no interaction with the federal government, and I suspect he liked it that way. I know I would prefer that the feds stick to those powers explicitly granted to them by the Constitution rather than exceeding those bounds in about 95% of what they do.

How does land ownership work in this anarchocapitalist society? Who keeps me from taking your land absent government enforcement?

[Mark Leavy]

How does land ownership work in this anarchocapitalist society? Who keeps me from taking your land absent government enforcement?

The title insurance company to whom you paid your premium.

I was wondering how you were going to answer that. That was really good. You have to think about it for a bit. But it works. First time I've heard that argument.

[yankees60]

How does land ownership work in this anarchocapitalist society? Who keeps me from taking your land absent government enforcement?

The title insurance company to whom you paid your premium.

I was wondering how you were going to answer that. That was really good. You have to think about it for a bit. But it works. First time I've heard that argument.

What percent reliable is title insurance? Are there any known cases of someone having title insurance who ended up NOT being protected? Can it be one of those cases if the title insurance company did not do their job properly then the limits to their liability is the premium you paid to them?

Vinny

[doodle]

Yes, but enforcement mechanism? Title insurance goons? They going to lock me up in title insurance jail?

[Mark Leavy]

Yes, but enforcement mechanism? Title insurance goons? They going to lock me up in title insurance jail?

That is the part where you have to think about Tech's response.
Title insurance works when they contract with a security / enforcement force.

Don't think Tech wasn't thinking that way. If you missed it, you're a bit slow.
When/if title insurance starts working that way, "jail" won't be an issue.