Jeff Bezos Becomes the Richest Man in Modern History, Topping $150B - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-16/happy-prime-day-jeff-amazon-ceo-s-net-worth-tops-150-billion <comment><USER3> I feel that America is in the midst of a new gilded age; instead of Standard Oil, we have Amazon.

Like the late 1920s, we saw losses in purchasing power of the average American, the collection of wealth among the top 1%, and disruption of our civic spaces as a result. I think the thing that many Americans aren't aware of was just how violent that time in US history was[1].

The US economy isn't just about how comfortable the average US citizen is, it is also a measure of how much cushion there is in our society between us being frustrated looking at a job board and being angry and armed in the streets. The teachers strikes in Oklahoma, Florida, and W. Virginia are showing the rise of Unions (much like in the gilded age as well). Protest and civic engagement must be our response, we should take signs like the wealth of Bezos as a cautionary tale, rather than something to simply marvel at.

[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre)

[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Matewan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Matewan)

[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1920_Alabama_coal_strike](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1920_Alabama_coal_strike)

[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain)

<comment><USER4> Except we actually had a functioning federal government during the last gilded age, so we ended up with things like the Sherman Antitrust Act, and eventually the New Deal.

I doubt we'll be so lucky this time around. Things are about to get absolutely brutal for the 90%.

<comment><USER5> Or the 1%. Something Rich people tend to forget is that the system of law and order we have now prevents armed uprising of the lower classes, which has a history of cropping up during very hard economic times.

Not advocating, and I doubt I'd be one of them holding a pitchfork, but it is something to keep in mind.

<comment><USER6> Back in the day, most people grew up working on a farm/ranch/etc. and actually knew how to use a pitchfork. I'm trying to imagine today's obese generation trying to physically overthrow the government and can't help thinking that it wouldn't go so well.

<comment><USER7> Most Americans have guns. The police has better weapons, but it would be a war of attrition, and I doubt most police would want to go on killing sprees against their fellow countrymen.

Although I doubt it'd reach the point of massive insurrection. That would require a total loss of trust in the government, and I think we're still far from that.

<comment><USER8> How old is the average American gun owner? Are they physically fit?

Merely owning guns is different than possessing the physical ability and training in weapons and tactics to use them effectively, especially versus military or paramilitary forces (National Guard and Border Patrol is a much more likely initial pro-government force than police). Not only are they equipped and trained with the same weapons civilians may have, they also have automatic weapons, nightvision, grenades, armored vehicles, helicopters, tear gas, sonic weapons, fire trucks, and a lot more.

<comment><USER5> In every instance throughout history, the $weapon wielded by the peasant has been vastly inferior to the one wielded by the noble's army, guards, etc. In fact one could argue that the peasantry has never been less outgunned that they are currently, when previous uprisings made do with sticks and rocks, and the heads of the wealthy still rolled in the end.

The fact is that the select few protect themselves with rolls of the sons and daughters of the masses. Sure, plenty of them will turn their weapons on their fellow countrymen for a paycheck, but how many? And for how long?

And especially once those bullets start flying, how useful is the money being paid to those guards? How long before they have all the money they could ever want and no one will sell them food?

In our hyper-connected world, we lose people jobs when they crack a racist joke on twitter. How hard will it be to find the 1%'s executioners?

<comment><USER8> It's hard to be sure exactly what scenario people are picturing when they speculate about this. If you want an example of urban warfare vs. a modern military, check out Iraq about 10 year ago. While it was difficult, for them, guess who won. As far as the rest of the theorizing, we would have to be on common ground about the entire scenario before it's worth speculating about.

For example, I don't know what food you're talking about because in my wild fantasy scenario, all of the freeways have been destroyed and Walmarts and grocery stores are empty. Mass starvation, plague, panic, electricity is off, no communication systems work other than the military. They have seized anything useful. They have tanks etc, which helps a lot. As far as 'who will sell them food'... you're talking about a highly armed military force fighting a civil war? Do you think people are going shopping at Kroger with the other side or something? This isn't the French Revolution. This is 80 years after millions of people died in gas chambers in Europe, right? The next major wars are not going to be very friendly.

<comment><USER9> People can be extremely resilient, especially when their lives are at hand. I don't think you've thought this through. A true civil war where the US military is fighting its own citizens won't be like the Iraq war at all. There is likely to be mass defection of soldiers who are unwilling to fight their own countrymen. Massive civil disobedience where taxpayers stop paying their taxes, farmers defect to the sides that they most recognize with.

Its not a scenario that I really want to think about since its so brutal. But it can happen, and the war is likely to be a prolonged battle.

Not to mention, the unrest in the Motherland will let other rogue forces run amok internationally as they jostle for supremacy over each other. I can't see any of that ending well.

<comment><USER10> That's not the worst scenario.

If the govt or millitary hold so much tech that you end up in a hunger game scenario, and the population is oppressed (but unlike hunger games, the oppression comes in the form of feeble food and entertainment - ala, bread and circus).

The people feel comfortable enough to not want to revolt. Yet, ignores the minority that do get harsher treatment, because doing so puts their own lively hood in jeopardy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Reminds one of a couple of related posts:

> When I worked at Amazon we had to run around the warehouse, bc if our pick > rate fell below a certain number we stopped getting paid. There were bottles > & bins full of piss at odd points, bc you were penalised for toilet breaks. > A co-worker attempted suicide on-site bc of the stress

Source: [https://twitter.com/OwennnThomas/status/1007957414577090560](https://twitter.com/OwennnThomas/status/1007957414577090560)

> Workers at Amazon warehouse in Minnesota say they've suffered exhaustion, > dehydration, injuries while working without air conditioning.

Source: [https://apnews.com/1d62290004b340feac5c359d59b86823](https://apnews.com/1d62290004b340feac5c359d59b86823)

<comment><USER12> You'd think with all that cash Bezos could afford to pay his minions a humane rate.

But he just doesn't care.

<comment><USER13> Aren't their margins like, razor-thin? Obviously at Amazon scale, even razor- thin margins mean huge profits, but that doesn't mean that you have any wiggle room within the profit.

Imagine you have 100 people working for you, and off of each person, you make 10 cents a day. Now imagine you grow your business and you have 1,000,000 people working for you. At 10 cents per person per day, you're now making $100,000 a DAY! You're rich! If you wanted to give back to your employees, just remember that each one produces 10 cents of profit. If you gave them all 10 cents extra per day, it means nothing to any one of them, but your business now makes $0 profit.

<comment><USER14> If your margins are so thin that people are forced to pee in bottles instead of going to the bathroom then your company shouldn't exist.

<comment><USER13> They're not forced to do anything, including work there.

<comment><USER15> Not directly. But since people like Bezos own most of the productive machinery of the world, people really don't have a choice except to work for one of the capital owners. In past times, people were free to work the land for themselves, as the land was held in common. Now somebody owns everything, and those of us who want to eat actually have almost "no choice" but to work for someone else.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Hardly. He's a pauper compared to John D. Rockefeller who died in 1937. At the time of his death his assets equaled 1.5% of America's total economic output.

With a $20T GDP that would be a $300B net worth in today's dollars or around 200% what Bezos is worth.

Don't worry. This second gilded age that we are living in is on track to ensure we have a trillionaire in short order.

<comment><USER17> That is an interesting way to compare wealth between time periods but I'm not sure it's the most valid method.

<comment><USER18> You spoke my mind.

For one, Rockefeller grew rich quickly coz there wasn't as much regulation as compared to what Bezos had to face.

On the other hand, Rockefeller wasn't in the Internet age and Bezos banker on the exponential rise of internet.

I am sure there are many more variables.

<comment><USER19> "For one, Rockefeller grew rich quickly coz there wasn't as much regulation as compared to what Bezos had to face."

Eh, Bezos got rich off of not having to pay state sales taxes while his brick and mortar competitors did.

But AWS makes up for that IMO.

<comment><USER20> Wait what? Makes up for it why? It's not like you couldn't virtualised servers elsewhere.

<comment><USER21> Anyone could have. Amazon did.

<comment><USER20> What about Azure and Google Cloud and a bunch of smaller players? Several did and do, not just Amazon.

<comment><USER21> They followed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> In my opinion, the biggest risk to Bezos' wealth is the same thing that drew me into the service to begin with. In the mid-to-late 2000s it was easy to go to Amazon, search for "thing I want" and blindly purchase the 4.5-5 star item with enough reviews to appear legitimate. I could do this and expect to get a great product _every_ time. Now, I find myself spending an hour screwing with the filters and reading reviews to figure out which listings are noise with fake reviews and which ones are for real. And even then with many products fulfilled by Amazon, you end up having to read reviews to figure out which seller to buy from to get the real item and not a counterfeit.

This combination of fake reviews and counterfeiting is what I think threatens Amazon's position. I don't make many large purchases on Amazon any more as a result of the risk, and those that I do make are fulfilled by the manufacturer so I know what I'm getting is legitimate.

<comment><USER23> Honestly, I fucking hate Amazon. I love going to a store, feeling the product and then deciding if I like the look and feel of a product. And Amazon doesn't even carry good stuff anymore. It's all just junk nowadays, and the useful stuff is often overpriced or out of stock. I want somewhere where I can find unique, good quality brands, and brick&mortar will always be best for that.

<comment><USER24> Honest question: what stores have this quality? I find that other than local or high-end/"boutique" stores (with much higher prices), I do not have the same experience.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> If modern history goes back to the 1900s though, Rockefeller still has Bezos beat by more than double:

"By the time of his death in 1937, estimates place his net worth in the range of US$300 billion to US$400 billion in adjusted dollars for the late 2000s (decade)."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_historical_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_historical_figures)

<comment><USER26> Time for Bezos to endow a university and some libraries?

An earlier major technical university endowed by the richest person of the time is a pretty awesome place... (he says with no bias whatsoever. :-)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Carnegie](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Carnegie)

<comment><USER27> I'd rather see him endow the treasury with the fucking taxes he owes.

<comment><USER28> Why? Government is one of the _least_ effective vehicles for charity.

<comment><USER29> [Citation needed]

<comment><USER30> Assuming you are asking for him to pay US Taxes:

The largest line item (29%) is supporting the least efficient 1st world healthcare system

The second largest item (23%) is supporting blowing up foreigners

The third item (13%) is just paying accrued interest from previous overspending

The fourth item (7.5%) is the first that may be considered humanitarian, unemployment.

The fifth item (6%) is us paying for thr psychological and physical trauma that blowing up foreign nationals causes our own veterans.

[https://www.nationalpriorities.org/interactive- data/taxday/2...](https://www.nationalpriorities.org/interactive- data/taxday/2016/taxespaid/10000/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> > _" Gates would have had a net worth of more than $150 billion if he'd held > onto assets that he's given away, largely to the Bill & Melinda Gates > Foundation."_

Sorry Bezos, you've still got some catching up to do. Lifetime earnings are what really count, even if you give it all away to charity.

<comment><USER32> Why not simply avoid making billions so you don't have to give it all away to assuage your guilt and come out close to neutral?

<comment><USER28> Assuage your guilt?

<comment><USER33> > 1\. To make (something burdensome or painful) less intense or severe: > assuage her grief. See Synonyms at relieve.

> 2\. To satisfy or appease (hunger or thirst, for example).

> 3\. To appease or calm: assuaged his critics.

[https://www.thefreedictionary.com/assuage](https://www.thefreedictionary.com/assuage)

<comment><USER28> I was asking why the GP thinks assuaging guilt is a motivation here.

<comment><USER32> It's pretty well documented that a lot of the lavish philanthropy of gilded age barons like Carnegie and Rockefeller was motivated by their guilt and concern about not being able to thread a camel through a needle. I don't know about the religious motivations of our current crop of billionaires, but presumably a lot of the same motivations are at play, since human nature hasn't changed substantially in the past 100 years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Wow. Since Amazon's IPO in 1997 (21 years ago), that's like earning $227/sec, $13k/min, $817k/hr, $19m/day, 7.2b/year, and, 150b/21 years. To put it differently, you could either hire jeff bezos for a year, or 60k "highly" paid software engineers. He's richer than God. (yes I know these comparisons are useless since it's based on valuation based on a single point in time, but it does give it more perspective)

<comment><USER35> I was like "wait, that doesn't sound right". Nope. Nope it's right, it would average out to $226.49 a second if an even 21 years heh.

<comment><USER36> That's misleading though, because he's had great risk of ruin and lots of smart people have tried (Jet, Azure, etc.) to compete with him but have fallen short.

Compare Amazon to something done by government like the highways. When I order something on Amazon it nearly always arrives exactly on time as expected. Highways are always in a state of disrepair and congestion, and get worse every day.

This is not an example of why Bezos wealth should be used to build highways. Every penny of his wealth was earned by offering services in a competitive market better than the alternatives. With government infrastructure there typically are no alternatives and so nobody cares or expects much.

Bezos is not an enemy of the little guy, he's someone who has made it so much cheaper to build a startup. Remeber the days when the first $200K of fundraising would go straight to Dell for a bunch of bare metal hardware? Contrast that to AWS. He's done the same in many areas of the economy.

<comment><USER35> >That's misleading though

Not really. It's not an actionable metric but it doesn't change the fact he's filthy rich and I wish I could trade net worth with him.

>Bezos is not an enemy of the little guy

Indeed, he's the opposite. I clear international freight through customs for a living... it amazes me how many people/companies import direct to Amazon for FBA selling.

Yeah, Amazon certainly hits you hard with fees if you go FBA and even just using Amazon as a payment method is more expensive than a traditional credit card merchant account (I know it's Chris Bair's most expensive way to be paid by customers for Keto Chow) but Amazon offers all sorts of exposure for enterprising individuals and companies.

As lousy as compensation to employees may or may not be, there is no shortage of people willing to take the rather well-paying jobs (Amazon starts at like 13$ an hour in Indy with minimum wage being 7.25).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> These numbers are not fair and square.

Let's say someone has $100. Cold Cash.

Let's say someone has $100. In xyz Asset.

Comparing both in terms of wealth is not fair and square.

First. They _might_ have different purchasing power. Bezos can't liquidate $150bn of AMZ stock without slippage. If he could, then there must be another party willing to put $150bn of cash. Not many such parties in this world have that kinda cash laying around.

Second. They have different volatilities. $100 in cash is worth roughly $98 by next year. $100 in xyz asset might be $50 or $200.

Third. Holding an asset might have unrealized tax positions. I don't know the fiscal laws of America. But I think bezos will have to pay a significant portion of the liquidated asset since he is going to make profit. If you have $100 in cash, you don't have to pay anything. You already "realized" whatever profit.

But sure Bloomberg and Forbes would like to make headlines. That's their business.

What I'm trying to say is that this number is meaningless. Literally. Some asset management company has $6trillion under their management. That's x40 times more $$ power than bezos. But the bosses of these companies don't get as many headlines. Have you heard of BlackRock?

<comment><USER38> Asset management is not the same as owning the assets so I don't really understand that point. If you were to write up a balance sheet to measure the net worth of an Asset management company, you wouldn't really count other companies assets as their own.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> 33% of that $150B came to him in 2018 alone (he started the year around $100B) and some people still claim that "we're not in a bubble".

<comment><USER40> I don't see how the wealth of one person, who's wealth is mainly shares in probably the most successful company in the US right now, indicates that we are in a bubble.

<comment><USER41> The guy made 100k$ off of each of his workers while abusing them this year alone, it is fucking outrageous.

<comment><USER42> He didn't "make" it off them. This isn't from profit that he just didn't share with his workers, it's just the current market value of his stock holdings.

Which means it's paper wealth. Which means there's no way he could turn any significant fraction of that into USD or any other form of value without obliterating the value.

<comment><USER43> This is a really important point I think many people are missing: >96% of his wealth is tied up in AMZN stock.

[https://www.bloomberg.com/billionaires/profiles/jeffrey-p- be...](https://www.bloomberg.com/billionaires/profiles/jeffrey-p-bezos/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Who really thinks that stock price has anything to do with ownership? Since no one can actually buy Amazon, it's "market" price is purely speculative. In both senses.

<comment><USER45> What are you talking about? A share represents a literal 1/485320000 ownership stake in Amazon and the market price of a share is definitely not speculative as I can go out and easily purchase shares at a given price.

If Walmart or Alibaba or some other sufficiently large enough company wanted to buy Amazon, they absolutely could. And they'd probably pay a premium over Amazon's current market cap!

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> In theory, If you are a CEO, and you knew your stock is in bubble, could you have leverage it and borrow as much as you could for low rate, say $200B or more for 2%, and use that buy whatever business when the bubble burst?

<comment><USER47> Yes, and likely in practice too, but in practice you would probably also run afoul of insider-trading laws.

<comment><USER32> The fiduciary thing to do if you're in this spot is simply to issue equity like it's going out of style: If the market wants to pay you way more than you're worth, take them up on it and stockpile cash for the lean years that are coming. That said, depending on the time horizon of your existing investors, this may not be popular and you may find yourself out of a job.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> OT: I've always wondered, if some multi-billionaire became personally offended by some lesser multi-billionaire and decided to destroy them, what could they do? Assume that they don't want to do anything illegal enough to get themselves into serious trouble.

For example, suppose Bezos decided he really hated Rupert Murdoch ($15B). If Bezos decided he could happily live on a mere $100B, that would leave him $50B for the "Destroy Murdoch" project. Might not be able to actually destroy Murdoch for that, but could probably make his life very annoying.

<comment><USER49> Carl Icahn [sort of] just did this to Bill Ackman: [https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/24/how-carl-icahn-came-to- join-...](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/24/how-carl-icahn-came-to-join- herbalifes-fight-against-bill-ackman.html)

<comment><USER50> Wow, that was so much more dramatic than I realized. These public fights (esp where normal people's jobs are at stake) are almost certainly a bad thing, but they're just fascinating to watch in real time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Adjusted for inflation John D. Rockefeller is still the richest man in modern history. Today his fortune would have equaled 340 Billion dollars. More than twice Jeff Bezos current net worth.

<comment><USER52> It's not inconceivable that Amazon's market cap could double over the next 10 years. They still have a long way to grow and they're involved in so many markets...

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> That's crazy. Let's say the average home price in the U.S. is $200K. If this was cash, he could buy 750,000 houses. There's about 250 million people over 18 in the U.S. so Bezos could buy a house for roughly 1 in every 330 adults in the U.S.

That's just unfathomable.

<comment><USER54> He wouldn't be able to do it because houses dont materialize with the creation or burning of money.

<comment><USER53> I ... I wasn't really suggesting...

<comment><USER55>
       so Bezos could buy a house for roughly 1 in every 330 adults in the U.S.

Looks like you were.

J. Bezos does not have 150 billions baguette and cannot buy 150 billions baguette with what you think his wealth is

<comment><USER53> No, "could" doesn't mean "should". Saying someone "could" do something is speaking in the hypothetical which is most certainly not _suggesting_ they do that something.

<comment><USER55> And what does the GP means then ?

      He wouldn't be able to do it

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Tracking a flagged comment from picsao here:

> _And all his riches couldn 't stop the planets demise from a insane > economical concept, who's crazy ess he took to the next level._

I think this is an interesting point. Has Amazon grown industrial production and shipping and therefore increased net CO2?

Possible counterclaims:

\- more informed purchasing leads to fewer discarded items

\- centralized shipping is more efficient than driving your car to the store

It does seem like in the limit Amazon could have a profoundly positive effect on the net carbon of our products. It doesn't seem like they are optimizing for that right now. Although and optimal strategy there would probably be growth first and then carbon efficiency when the growth levels off.

</comment><comment><USER56> Not to downplay the absurd amount of wealth he has, but it's interesting to look at richest people in history, adjusted for inflation.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_historical_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_historical_figures) [https://www.celebritynetworth.com/articles/entertainment- art...](https://www.celebritynetworth.com/articles/entertainment- articles/25-richest-people-lived-inflation-adjusted/)

Bezos is less than half the wealth of the people at the top of those lists. Puts this into context.

</comment><comment><USER57> What on earth, he just hit $100B like a couple quarters ago. How on earth did his worth go up by 150% in less than a year?

(Edit: up 50%, sorry you are right, I meant 150% of his previous net.)

<comment><USER58> Wouldn't it be +50%? Doesn't seem unreasonable.

<comment><USER59> That's a pretty steep rise in a short time for any asset though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> The scariest part is that he's not done.

<comment><USER61> Why is that scary? Good for him, he has really changed the world, specifically the way retail has evolved in recent years.

<comment><USER60> Concentration of power is never good.

<comment><USER61> Either is jealousy, but its rampant on hacker news and far more destructive

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> Isn't this a bit too coincidental, considering today is Amazon Prime Day (i.e. a boycott/protest of Amazon)?

</comment><comment><USER63> Reminder: Qaddafi was worth $200b[1] at the time of his death, and that was in liquid assets. Not an unsellable position in one speculative stock. Other notable heads of state that probably blow Bezos away: Putin, bin Salman, and probably Xi.

[1] [http://www.businessinsider.com/qaddafi-200-billion- richest-2...](http://www.businessinsider.com/qaddafi-200-billion- richest-2011-10)

</comment><comment><USER64> That is about 300000 Dollar per Amazon Employee (assuming 500000 employees). Maybe it's time to pay Amazon employees some dividends?

</comment><comment><USER65> I'm pretty sure that the man/people behind Satoshi Nakamoto are the richest in modern history.

</comment><comment><USER66> This thread is one of the prime examples of Hacker News being terrible when going off topic. You only have to read three comments to get to the most upvoted person saying the rich are at risk of violent revolution. A few more comments and people are discussing logistics of violent revolution, and whether police are too obese to participate or perhaps they act only in the interest of the 1%.

Are these educated opinions?

<comment><USER67> Your synonymous use of "educated" with "neoliberal" is notable. Those who ignore the views of the workers because they are not articulated in language they find acceptable do so at their own historical peril.

<comment><USER66> I didn't advocate any position besides that violent revolution is improbable. Is the improbability of violent revolution a neoliberal concept? Do I ignore workers when I state that discussions around police obesity are not grounded economic discourse? Is there any universe in which this conversation leads to a reasonable place?

<comment><USER68> >Do I ignore workers when I state that discussions around police obesity are not grounded economic discourse?

Well it's not economic discourse at all, it's political discourse.

>Is there any universe in which this conversation leads to a reasonable place?

You're against the conversation in general? It seems that you think discussion of inequality leads inevitably to the idea that we should engage in violent revolution. If that's the case maybe violent revolution _is_ the most reasonable place.

<comment><USER66> What exactly do you have a problem with? You want discussions of inequality to center around police obesity _more_? Or did you perhaps not know that the order of comments can change?

I am literally pointing out that the top few comments were centered around violent revolution and police obesity. I'm not saying "inevitable slippery slope", I am literally describing the content of the first few comments at the time. If your conclusion from this is that violent revolution is the _most_ reasonable then you just wanted violent revolution in the first place.

And no, this conversation didn't lead to a reasonable place, seeing as you're now here saying that I, because of a _hacker news comment_ , am _justification for violent revolution_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> Vladamir Putin's net worth is estimated to be more than $200B.

</comment><comment><USER70> Capitalism needs an upgrade.

Our current version breaks down in the global internet economy with digital platforms and digital retailers, where simple brands combined with external capital have the ability to turn companies into supermassive black holes for consumer attention. As we know from math, singularities need special care, so we better start thinking about how we could fix the situation.

<comment><USER61> We are now at a point in history where the average human is better off than ever before. Capitalism has pulled more people out of poverty than any other system. If someone who radically changed the world has a ton of wealth, good for them. Jeff Bezos having money has no impact on my ability to succeed, if anything it has positively affected it as he has created so many new jobs

<comment><USER70> True, but it's like saying that MS-DOS doesn't need an upgrade because it allows the average human to work more efficiently than ever before.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> Putin tops him. At these levels the dollar value is not a good measure. Bezos owns shares. If he started selling them their value would quickly drop. Monarchs (Putin) are different. They own things outright, or have such influence that they effectively own things that are legally in other people's names. The Saudi royal house has more wealth under their king's control, although not all in his name.

What is scary is the math when calculated in how many person-years someone like Bezos can buy. Divide his net worth by a reasonable cost for a soldier. Bezos could hire vastly more troops than Henry VII could have in his day.

$150,000,000,000 / $80,000 = 1,875,000 ... he could theoretically field an army large enough to sway any modern conflict. In person-buying potential, his wealth is on par with Genghis Kan or Stalin.

<comment><USER72> can you please cite putin's monarchic ascendancy? i'm having trouble sourcing even the premise of your claim...

<comment><USER73> [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0utzB6oDan0](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0utzB6oDan0)

Re: monarch, the rule of law is the baseline for not being one. And laws don't really apply to Putin. He's able to hold onto the presidency for as long as he wants it, and assassinate whomever he wishes.

<comment><USER74> According to this source [1], dictator not monarch would be the proper term, as the transfer of power for a monarchies is familial, and the transfer of power for a dictator is political/a coup.

Without seeing into the future, everything since 1917 has been the latter.

[1] [https://difference.guru/difference-between-a-monarchy- and-a-...](https://difference.guru/difference-between-a-monarchy-and-a- dictatorship/#Definitions)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER75> Not richer than Putin.

</comment><comment><USER18> "I did rather have a kid without a finger than a resourseless kid" - <USER2> Bezos.

</comment><comment><USER76> This is kind of obscene. Even more so since Bezos shuns the kind of charity work through which other multibillionaires like Gates and Buffet shoulder their noblesse oblige.

<comment><USER77> In fairness to Bezos, did anyone think Gates would turn out like this?

<comment><USER78> The difference between Bezos and Gates reminds me a lot of the difference between Jobs and Gates, in terms of philanthropy.

Gates has been very public about the plans for his wealth since at least the mid 90s, famously saying that his kids would only inherit a few million. He's regularly committed very large amounts of his capital and time to his philanthropic organization since it was started in 95.

I admired him back then, and even more-so now that he's followed through on his commitments and his encouragement for other billionaires to do the same.

I get the impression that he understands that hoarding huge amounts of wealth commits you to using that wealth for the public good more than most other billionaires.

Jobs was never publicly philanthropic (and actually shut down a lot of Apple's internal philanthropic work himself when re-instated as chief), and the best that we've gotten from Bezos so far is the nebulous message that philanthropy is in his future, but not now. Even Zuckerberg is doing better on that front.

Bezos may turn it around and surprise us, but right now we don't really have much data to support that.

<comment><USER21> I think Steve Jobs though, moreso than Gates, drove Apple to produce the kind of products he thought the world needed. Regardless of whether Jobs was delusional on this point, I think it's clear that he put his values ahead of the profitability of the company, and ahead of his own career at Apple. His ouster is evidence of that. He was not protecting the throne.

Gates did. He was no Larry Ellison, but he was a raw competitor. He wanted Microsoft to win. And his vision of what a computer could be was limited to "whatever the best thing Microsoft could come up with is." Jobs didn't care what Apple the company was capable of, he was driven by an external vision of what the world needed and he shaped Apple to match that.

Gates killed a lot of good companies out of sheer competitive ferocity, and we suffered because of it. Computers are _less good_ today because Netscape and Word Perfect and Samba were mercilessly fucked with. And we'll never know how many products were delayed by decades because of the chilling effect Gates deliberately created. I think in a real sense he owes us for that.

Jobs did what he thought was best for computer users. We can debate whether he knew what was best, but I think his approach comes with less karmic debt.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER79> most of it is virtual money... He could be worth $50B tomorrow if his company crashes. Still a lot of money though, but $150B don't mean anything.

It would be interesting to see when/if bitcoin reaches $1 million USD. That Forbes list would get totally disrupted.

<comment><USER80> > _$150B don 't mean anything_

That's the silliest thing I ever heard.

Anyone with more than $50K net worth is or ought to be keeping nearly all of it in investments of some sort, what you're calling "virtual money". It's no more virtual than your 401(k) or Schwab account or home. By your logic, nearly the entire American economy "doesn't mean anything."

<comment><USER79> I think you miss-understood my statement. They calculated $150B based on is 16.4% stakes in Amazon, 100% financial assets (stocks). Yes, you can convert it into real assets at any time, after vesting period, but as the CEO and founder of Amazon, he can't do that. So the point is, he is still considered the richest man on earth at the moment, but he can't still spend $100 billion tomorrow on a gigantic island. So, yeah, $150B doesn't mean anything. It's just a random number.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do you receive USD for work abroad without getting ripped off? - <AUTHOR>

To those that work for a US company (but live elsewhere), how do you get paid, and do you manage to avoid horrible fees? <comment><USER2> We use transferwise for almost all of our international payments. transferwise rocks. We used to use XETrade, but this isn't available to us where we currently live and work. Our bank(s) hate us for using transferwise, and actually try many different ways to stop us from using it (except for making the process cheaper - funny thing, that)

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm curious, are those payments for work you've done for a US company?

I do love what transferwise is doing, thats awesome that the banks are riled up about it :)

<comment><USER2> Yes, and we use it pay companies in the US that we use. Anything that annoys the banks is OK in my book :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I've used Paypal because it was very simple to setup, until I realised how much I was losing, then I setup a bank to bank international wire, which took some time because most account managers I have talked had no idea how to do. It still takes some fees, but a lot less compared to Paypal.

<comment><AUTHOR> Wire transfers always seem to take so long. How long do they take for you?

<comment><USER4> Wire transfers should be instantaneous. ACH transfers take 2-5 days.

<comment><AUTHOR> Even international wire transfers? Eg US to another country.

<comment><USER4> Yes.

<comment><AUTHOR> Wow. When ever I've done cross border wires they take at minumum 1 day.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I've got a business bank account with Chase, and they'll do currency conversions and international transfers, via online banking, with a minimum of fees.

They've also got a credit card (Sapphire Preferred, I believe) that has no currency exchange fees, and has both a chip (useful in Europe) and a magstrip (useful everywhere else).

If you set up a local bank account, keep the FBAR in mind.

</comment><comment><USER6> Some banks—such as Thailand's Bangkok Bank—have a US branch just for receiving transfers. That way, you have a US routing number along with your normal local bank account number, and then can get your US pay despoiled just as if it were going to a US account. Fees tend to be lower than manually wiring money each month.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thats pretty slick.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> You mean bank transfer fees?! You cannot avoid them unless you also have an US bank account which you won't get if you are not living in the US. Private money transfer is pretty cheap with well known services like e.g. Paypal (I'm guessing this is one of the main reasons Paypal exists, easy and cheap).

<comment><USER8> Paypal's cheapness varies by country, here in Costa Rica they only work with one bank who charge 0.5% per transaction with a generous $11 minimum fee.

<comment><AUTHOR> Does PayPal also charge their international fee and currency exchange fee?

[https://www.paypal.com/cr/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_display- xborde...](https://www.paypal.com/cr/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_display-xborder-fees- outside&countries=)

[https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/helpcenter/helphub/article...](https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/helpcenter/helphub/article/?solutionId=FAQ1976&topicID=FEES_US&m=TCI)

<comment><USER8> The bank fees are separate and on top of PayPal's, moving money to/from PayPal can only be done through their website instead of PayPal's and they collect their fees that way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I have a US bank account & use OzForex (you can use USForex as a US citizen). I've also used XE Trade in the past.

Transferwise is awesome (much better UI), but not as good as OZ/USForex or XE in terms of rates.

</comment><comment><USER10> A lot of this is dependent on where you live? Are you billing via a US/International LLC? Or is this a direct contract? do you spend USD in the current country or another currency?

</comment><comment><USER11> At least here in Brazil the best way is to convert the USD to Bitcoins and sell it in the local market, however not every company is willing to do so.

When there is no such option: Wire transfer

<comment><AUTHOR> Is it safe to use Bitcoin?

<comment><USER12> No.

Bitcoin is very volatile, so you could lose or gain unknown amounts during the "transfer" (even if it is within a few minutes).

Additionally unlike a traditional wire transfer you cannot prove that you're transferring it to yourself (it is an anonymous currency by design after all) therefore they could come after you for tax (or worse accuse you of laundering).

Wires are a rip-off. However the costs are knowable and there is a very low risk of any misunderstanding from the big G in either country.

I use a company called XE, and to be frank it is a huge PITA. But at least all money is completely traceable/verifiable (the broker is almost too paranoid about fraud, that's why it is such a pain) and the fees are relatively low. It would be very easy to prove with XE that I sent it to myself.

<comment><AUTHOR> A friend had mentioned XE to me, it looked like a good option. What makes it a PITA? You mentioned broker but I'm not sure exactly what you mean.

<comment><USER13> I also use XE. I think he might be referring to setup. Setting up an account takes a lot of documentation and took a few weeks IIRC. Once it's setup though, things are easy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> TransferWise.

<comment><AUTHOR> I read about them, they sound awesome. Is your employer happy to use them?

<comment><USER14> I just use it to send money to myself internationally.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Is no one here aware of WesternUnion? It's the oldest and largest money transfer company around.

<comment><AUTHOR> [https://transferwise.com/blog/2012-04/send-money-abroad- comp...](https://transferwise.com/blog/2012-04/send-money-abroad-comparison/)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What are your predictions for 2020? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Same shit, different year.</comment>


Durnken Lnauch Avdcie — Huors bferoe Our Frist Luanch - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/design-startups/4b3ade71f679

<comment><USER2> IMHO the best line: "perfect is never possible, and shipped is better than perfect."

<comment><USER3> Sooo... if perfect isn't possible, and shipped is better than perfect, does that mean you never ship?

<comment><USER2> Yes. That's basically the idea... Bonus: If you never ship, you can never fail :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> "Rule #5: Health comes first. Always." Sticking by that. No matter what. ;-)

<comment><AUTHOR> You're always there to make me feel fat when I stop being healthy ;-)</comment></comment>


Why Group Buying Is Leaving Local Businesses Behind - <AUTHOR> http://mashable.com/2011/01/20/group-buying-local-business/

<comment><USER2> I agree with the basic idea - large brands shouldn't have to pay the usual Groupon-style 50% margins, but they probably don't - LivingSocial/Groupon likely offer large brands heavy discounts, like a cross-promotion. And I'm sure Groupon is happy to run custom promotions for large brands.

Anyway, this annoyed me a little:

       2. Brands that need a quick shot of cash can capture that
          demand with a great deal and the right social commerce
          middleware

coming on the heels of this:

       Chris Treadaway is founder and CEO of Lasso, the
       social commerce middleware solution for brands

I don't know of any other companies pitching "social commerce middleware", and nowhere does he define said middleware.

I'd prefer he go ahead and just pitch his solution instead of using this circuitous "large brands should use middleware"-->"what is middleware?"-->"middleware is lasso!".

</comment><comment><USER3> "Group buying"? I don't think I'd call a bunch of individual customers a "group" just because they visited the same site on the same day. I also don't think I'd call the site a "group" because the site didn't buy anything, they just arranged a deal for the individual customers.

"Group buying" would be people coming together as a "group" and buying a LOT of 1 thing, then splitting it up.

If we're going to call Groupon "Group buying", every newspaper in the US (and possibly the world) has been doing it for decades.

<comment><USER4> Whether the term is semantically correct or not, "group buying" is how most people have been referring to those types of sites (either that, or "daily deal site" -- though even that, one could argue, is incorrect, since many of these sites have deals that last more than one day or present more or less than one day or present multiple deals in a day).

Your point is valid, I suppose, but the accepted nomenclature is the accepted nomenclature.

<comment><USER5> It is unfortunately accepted nomenclature, but still off and there exist models that are truly "group buying". This model is quite popular in China. Hundreds of people will show up in front of a big store in China in the morning and demand a 10% across the broad discount or else none of them will go in the store. That's group buying.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This guy is missing the point. Small businesses _have_ to buy exposure because they don't have the capacity to generate it. Big brands that have exposure, fans, advertising, etc don't _need_ Groupon & Co - it's one of many options they have for acquiring new customers.

Also, as Groupon and Living Social do customer acquisition deals where they cover the discount in order to get people to sign up (Groupon has done it too, although I'm not sure I'm allowed to say which deals we did it for), then big brands enter the picture as _audience vendors_ to the deal sites.

So LS pays $10/customer for Amazon's brand equity. The local spa doesn't have brand equity so they buy customers from LS or G for 75% (in practice more like 30-60%) of that customer's bill.

He's also WAAAAYYYYY off when he says local businesses are being left behind. Groupon has done a couple dozen national deals, and while there are more and bigger ones to come, there are some large number, call it 1,000 for round number purposes, deals a day, spread over ~500 cities, almost all of them from local merchants. Amazon was the first national deal I've heard about LS doing so I assume they're about the same.

</comment><comment><USER7> I'm not a group buying user, but I think this article clearly shows the separation between journalist and entrepreneur.

Ignoring the question of if group buying makes sense for large brand, the desire for local businesses to leverage group buying capabilities is a recognizable issue with the explosive growth of the business.

If groupon and livingsocial are no longer filling the need, those companies will adapt, if they need to, or another company will fill their shoes.

This article points to the issue of group buying not working for the consumer. But I question how it really works for the businesses. Good on groupon and LivingSocial for being able to extract the huge $$ from businesses to run deals. I suspect we'll see a drop in the amounts businesses are willing to pay to run a campaign with either of these businesses.

This article doesn't only say that 'local businesses are being left behind', but that 'the consumer is the big loser'. If consumers are truly losing, doesn't that mean the marketers are loosing too? Ergo, the company running the campaign is loosing. It is WAY to early to make these calls on this sort of environment. All 3 parties are still figuring out what works.

<comment><USER8> I think his larger point is that it may not be working for _anyone_ in the future, and that all of this stuff is about to change quite a bit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Group buying has been around for eons starting in China known as tuangou. Although there are lots of new competitors in the space, there is clearly a great deal of pent up demand from local businesses in the marketplace. I doubt that this form of consumer purchasing will die anytime soon.

One should ask themselves why there is so much pent up demand for group buying in the marketplace?

Some critics focus on poor efficacy rates for repeat business from Groupon customers. Others will claim that it is a fad. Still others will argue that the business running a Groupon campaign will not make money from the deal.

But what is the alternative?

The alternative for most businesses is to purchase ads in local print newspapers, create print flyers, and other more traditional means of marketing, which all require upfront costs from the local business. Most small businesses do not use online SEM.

The great advantage with Groupon is there are no upfront costs. (1) Businesses get thousands of impressions from the email marketing campaigns showcasing their deal. (2) If a deal gets executed the business gets guaranteed foot traffic and revenue from customers, which is trackable. (3) There is the potential to acquire a percentage of new customers as repeat customers. All of this with no upfront costs.

The reason I am very optimistic on the continued growth of this model of purchasing is that the market is validating it. You can see this from the explosive revenue growth numbers of group buying companies. And businesses recognize that it is much more cost effective and measurable to launch a Groupon than invest in the alternative.

So the analysis should not be what is the best or perfect solution for local businesses to acquire customers, but what is a marginally better alternative for customer acquisition. Group buying is.

For large businesses, I see a similar value. I would make an educated guess that Gap and Amazon spend a great deal of money on customer acquisition. Thus the group buying economics probably work in their favor. I would have a hard time believing that they lost money on their Groupon campaigns. Even if they broke even, it is a campaign that successfully drove millions of paying customers to their site, broke major headlines, and was great PR for both companies. Just because you are a big company doesn't mean that you do not appreciate this kind of attention.

We are witnessing the nascent stages in the evolution of group buying. Larger companies like Groupon and LivingSocial will build an incredible amount of data to mine for new initiatives like determining their customers' preferences and targeting them for secondary purchases. This is just the beginning.

</comment><comment><USER9> Group buying has been around for eons starting in China known as tuangou. Although there are lots of new competitors in the space, there is clearly a great deal of pent up demand from local businesses in the marketplace. I doubt that this form of consumer purchasing will die anytime soon.

One should ask themselves why there is so much pent up demand for group buying in the marketplace?

Some critics focus on poor efficacy rates for repeat business from Groupon customers. Others will claim that it is a fad. Still others will argue that the business running a Groupon campaign will not make money from the deal.

But what is the alternative?

The alternative for most businesses is to purchase ads in local print newspapers, create print flyers, and other more traditional means of marketing, which all require upfront costs from the local business. Most small businesses do not use online SEM.

The great advantage with Groupon is there are no upfront costs. (1) Businesses get thousands of impressions from the email marketing campaigns showcasing their deal. (2) If a deal gets executed the business gets guaranteed foot traffic and revenue from customers, which is trackable. (3) There is the potential to acquire a percentage of new customers as repeat customers. All of this with no upfront costs.

The reason I am very optimistic on the continued growth of this model of purchasing is that the market is validating it. You can see this from the explosive revenue growth numbers of group buying companies. And businesses recognize that it is much more cost effective and measurable to launch a Groupon than invest in the alternative.

So the analysis should not be what is the best or perfect solution for local businesses to acquire customers, but what is a marginally better alternative for customer acquisition. Group buying is.

For large businesses, I see a similar value. I would make an educated guess that Gap and Amazon spend a great deal of money on customer acquisition. Thus the group buying economics probably work in their favor. I would have a hard time believing that they lost money on their Groupon campaigns. Even if they broke even, it is a campaign that successfully drove millions of paying customers to their site, broke major headlines, and was great PR for both companies. Just because you are a big company doesn't mean that you do not appreciate this kind of attention.

We are witnessing the nascent stages in the evolution of group buying. Larger companies like Groupon and LivingSocial will build an incredible amount of data to mine for new initiatives like determining their customers' preferences and targeting them for secondary purchases. This is just the beginning.

</comment><comment><USER6> "Group buying", etc [Groupon, Living Social, etc] are _marketing expenses_. The best way for any merchant to think about it is that by being featured on a group buying site, they can have a Black Friday. Huge buying potential, lots of customers, a chance to upsell or convert. You get the same benefits and risks as every retailer does the day after Thanksgiving.</comment>


Fake memoirs, factual fictions, and the history of history (2008) - <AUTHOR> http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/03/24/just-the-facts-maam

<comment><USER2> From Lord Chesterfield's letter encouraging his son to study history, a classic little essay on historical relativism, which he calls Pyrrhonism:

 _Nay, I cannot help carrying my Pyrrhonism still further, and extending it often to historical facts themselves, at least to most of the circumstances with which they are related; and every day 's experience confirms me in this historical incredulity. Do we ever hear the most recent fact related exactly in the same way, by the several people who were at the same time eyewitnesses of it? No. One mistakes, another misrepresents, and others warp it a little to their own, turn of mind, or private views. A man who has been concerned in a transaction will not write it fairly; and a man who has not, cannot.

But notwithstanding all this uncertainty, history is not the less necessary to be known, as the best histories are taken for granted, and are the frequent subjects both of conversation and writing. Though I am convinced that Caesar's ghost never appeared to Brutus, yet I should be much ashamed to be ignorant of that fact, as related by the historians of those times. Thus the Pagan theology is universally received as matter for writing and conversation, though believed now by nobody; and we talk of Jupiter, Mars, Apollo, etc., as gods, though we know, that if they ever existed at all, it was only as mere mortal men. This historical Pyrrhonism, then, proves nothing against the study and knowledge of history; which, of all other studies, is the most necessary for a man who is to live in the world. It only points out to us, not to be too decisive and peremptory; and to be cautious how we draw inferences for our own practice from remote facts, partially or ignorantly related; of which we can, at best, but imperfectly guess, and certainly not know the real motives._

[http://books.google.com/books?id=0_4kAAAAMAAJ&dq=do%20we%20e...](http://books.google.com/books?id=0_4kAAAAMAAJ&dq=do%20we%20ever%20hear%20the%20most%20recent%20facts%20related%20exactly%20in%20the%20same%20way&pg=PA274#v=onepage&q&f=false)

or [http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3361/3361-h/3361-h.htm](http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3361/3361-h/3361-h.htm), but you'll have to ctrl+f for the text.</comment>


The Best Annual Tech Startup Events In Europe - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/24/the-best-annual-tech-startup-events-in-europe/ <comment><USER2> Really nice list! How many can you attend?</comment>


Ask HN: What's your favorite spotify playlist for programming? - <AUTHOR>

I'm running out of good music. Any hints for me? <comment><USER2> Ultimate Epic Movie Score - Trust me, feeling epic while coding equals epic²</comment>


Show HN: "serve" your local directory very nicely with go - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/integrii/serve
I got tired of the huge list of static asset server options out there.  Python's built in one, various ruby gems, piles of npm commands... So naturally I added another (the best!) one.
It is written in go, so that helps portability, speed.  It's name is just 'serve'.  No options or flags are required for invoking.  It looks pretty.  It supports hitting Command/Control-c gracefully.
Hopefully this is useful to some people. Feedback welcome!  Thanks! <comment><USER2> This is easier:

      alias serve="python -m SimpleHTTPServer"

and is probably supported by every single *nix like system out there without installing anything.

</comment><comment><USER3> How is this better than woof?

[http://www.home.unix-ag.org/simon/woof.html](http://www.home.unix- ag.org/simon/woof.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> It's not python dependent and it's named something more easily memorable.</comment></comment>