I wonder why everyone is hating billionaires all of a sudden. Don't they realize they create jobs for people and open stores in new areas for people?
Acting primarily in their own interest, taking far more than they give means that more harm is being done than good.
It's not about hate.
An awful lot of antisemites claim it's not about hate -- it's about Jews acting primarily in their own interest and taking far more than they give. Just because someone has a theory that says a minority group are parasites, and just because he really really believes in his theory, isn't enough to make an accusation not hate speech.
Jeff Bezos made about a billion dollars last year*. He got that because customers gave him 23 billion. They gave him 23 billion because he gave them goods and services that were worth more than 23 billion to them. He was able to keep a billion because his suppliers gave him the goods and services for only 22 billion, because the goods and services were worth less than 22 billion to the suppliers. That means he gave other people stuff worth more than 45 billion to them, and those people gave him stuff worth less than 45 billion to them. Looks to me like he's giving more than he takes.
Of course he does it because it's in his interest to, but so what? It's not as though the millions of people who helped make him a billionaire did it for him because they were feeling charitable toward Jeff Bezos. Those people were also acting in their own interest -- they wanted Amazon products, or they wanted payment for services -- and I don't think you hold that against them.
So explain your mathematics. How do you calculate that Jeff Bezos is taking far more than he gives? How do you figure millions of individual transactions in each of which he gives more than he takes add up to a total in which he takes far more than he gives?
(* Bezos owns roughly 10% of Amazon's roughly ten billion dollar profit. His 100 billion-odd net worth is just paper assets due to Amazon's overblown P/E ratio. It doesn't count as real money because he couldn't sell much of his stock without bursting the bubble.)
Who are they taking from? Jeff Bezos created a company. His wealth is in the growth of the stock of the company that he and his wife created. Who did he take this from? If you want some of his Amazon stock, you are free to buy some. Do you want it at a discount? If you have a retirement portfolio or any index's, you probably have some amazon stock. If you are upset that Amazon is putting your local store out of business, don't shop there. I'd be curious to hear from you as to what Bezos is taking from others?
Consumers paying higher prices than necessary and workers paid far less than they could be paid. Exploitation of both consumers and workers in order to enrich themselves beyond anything that could be called a reasonable reward. Unreasonable for consumers and workers, generous to the nth degree in terms of profit for themselves. It's called greed.
Would you be willing to entertain a hypothetical sci-fi scenario? Let us imagine we lived in a world with no Jeff Bezos, a world where operations like Amazon can be created by a software app, supplied to us for free by benevolent Vulcans. The only thing 600,000 would-be workers and a hundred million would-be buyers need to do to get jobs and get stuff showing up on their doorsteps in Amazon boxes is run the app, and then the app makes all the arrangements and charges nothing for its services. Back in the real-world Amazon pays its workers and other suppliers 220 billion and charges its customers 230 billion, but the hypothetical sci-fi Vulcan software Amazon doesn't do that. It collects no profit. So tell us, how much do you figure the app pays its suppliers and how much do you figure it charges its customers?
Well, maybe it only charges its customers 220 billion. It certainly could afford to charge less since it only has 220 billion in expenses. On the other hand, it could charge them 230 billion, since they're evidently willing to pay that much, so it could afford to pay its workers and other suppliers 230 billion. It could even split the difference and both pay and charge 225 billion, paying the workers more and charging the customers less.
So what's happening with all those possibilities? Well, according to your premises, in the first case workers are paid 10 billion less than they could be paid. That means the consumers are exploiting the workers. In the second case, consumers are paying 10 billion more than necessary. That means the workers are exploiting the consumers. In the third case, workers are paid 5 billion less than they could be paid and consumers are paying 5 billion more than necessary. That means
the consumers are exploiting the workers and the workers are simultaneously exploiting the consumers. So tell us, how much do you think the app ought to price Amazon products, according to DBT morality?
Consumers paying higher prices than necessary is an absurd standard for whether consumers are being exploited. Workers paid far less than they could be paid is an absurd standard for whether workers are being exploited. Your premises imply absurd consequences.
I'm not here to spoon feed you.
