They almost certainly are. Buzzfeed didn't become synonymous with clickbait by random chance. It literally spun out of a research lab studying the viral spread of online content.
I think my point is that if lots of money is being made, someone is going to have to spend it. You may disagree with how it is spent by Bezos, etc. but I can’t imagine capping net worth so that governments can spend more is the right solution.
In theory, I vote for how my government spends the money it obtains. Bezos isn't accountable for his personal wealth to be spent in the public good (or what I perceive to be the public good). If you assume the government is able to act in good faith on the public interest, then it makes more sense for them to have the money than a single individual only accountable to an extremely small minority of the population as a whole (his board/company)
The idea behind any socialist theory is that "the state" should be acting on the will of "The People" and therefor is better serving them. If it's democratic socialism, you're also able to help put players into "the state" that desire to act on the will of "the People" and remove players who don't. This is all in theory of course. The same way that, in theory, capitalists use their capital to create jobs that require labor which passes wealth to the laboring class. The reality is infinitely more complex.
The point is that democracy is good in that it holds power accountable to the will of people. Giant accumulations of wealth come with power but no accountability. A billion dollars already puts you deep in the new aristocracy, anything beyond that is plainly obscene and should be returned to the will of the people.
You just have to take it to its extreme conclusion. A future with a handful of trillionaires and billions of destitute people entertained by electronics that cost pennies. Is this really the world you want for your kids or grandkids? If we continue to allow the concentration of wealth this is not only a possible reality but a likely one.
Why you think giving what is basically unlimited power to an individual instead of a governing body that at least on paper is accountable to its citizens boggles the mind. Celebrity/Wealth worship has truly gotten out of hand.
That's his point. Bezos doesn't have unlimited power. The government does. Bezos can't go off and just start a war. Bezos can't throw you in prison and keep you there. Bezos can't take a chunk of your paycheck involuntarily.
I think plenty of people would rather see the guy that has a good online store get the money vs. the people dropping bombs on various countries and imprisoning large swaths of our population.
Marketing in particular is probably an issue, 1-2 signups a week probably means eyeballs are simply not getting to his page. If he's already dealing with Facebook he should probably look into an aggressive Facebook ad campaign.
I think its extremely unlikely that there is any actual evolutionary process selecting for less intelligent people, in fact the opposite is probably more likely to be true. I'm not sure you were really sugesting that though.
There is different kinds of intelligence. Like said, it can be smart to not be smart, if you want to survive under a stupid, but powerful regime. Smart in that moment, not so smart now, when it is wise, to understand more, than just be able.to follow simple orders. Robots can do that better.
How does that play out today because it is very lucrative to be smart in today's world. You don't get to work at FAANG or on Wall Street by pretending to be less intelligent than you are. The same applies across many industries like Academia, Healthcare, Law etc. You may have to suppress opinions that go against the grain of the industry you are in but I don't see that as being the same.
An individual employee may do almost anything. But most of them won't decrease spending when given a raise. Some may spend exactly the same as before. The rest will spend more. Do those who spend more outnumber those who spend less? I have no data, but I would be astonished if those who spent less outweighed those who spent more.
That's not a claim that I make, nor one that I think is relevant.
What would I do with more income? Well, I'd probably save some of it, use some of it to pay down debt, and spend some of it. I don't have to be spending 100% of my current income for that to be true.
I'm not really familiar with any either. I'm convinced it could work well though. Especially if it starts as a consultancy and then moves into building things.
It seems like a very poor financial decision to turn down 300k from Google to make 150k + fairy dust money from a Startup. Even if the 300k is lower than what Google ought to be paying.
Lifetime? Not sure what you mean. Given that the vast majority of Startups fail and any equity you were granted would be worthless and even those that do payout are usually just getting you to parity to people who were at a FAANG over the same time frame I fail to see how a Startup would benefit. Even Resume wise, recruiters won't care that you worked at a startup that had a $100M exit but they definitely will if you worked at Google for 5 years.
