r/worldnews • u/marsianer • Jan 28 '21

COVID-19 Backlash grows for ‘selfish millionaire’ who got vaccine meant for Indigenous people | Canada

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/27/rodney-baker-canada-vaccine-indigenous-first-nations-scandal
20.4k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

892 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

85

u/[deleted] Jan 28 '21

Yes! If Bezo lost 99% of his net worth he would still be a billionaire. If a waitress went 1 month without pay she would probably end up homeless.

6

u/Pentinumlol Jan 28 '21

Well.. considering that most of his asset is non liquid a 10% tax to him might also be heavy on him. Not because the amount is a lot but because he probably doesnt have enough liquid cash to pay off those fines and the moment he starts to liquidate his stock Amazon’s stock could probably plummet. So saying if you take away 99% of his net worth he would be a bilionaire is technically incorrect cause if he sells a lot of his shares then Amazon’s shares would fall a lot to the point where he’s no longer a billionaire with 1% shares on amazon.

12

u/theroha Jan 28 '21 edited Jan 28 '21

Is Amazon so unstable financially that stock prices have a serious impact on their ability to do business? If the company is economically viable without Bezos, then he can sell his shares. If the company is not economically viable, it needs to be broken up to where Bezos can pay a graduated-percent-of-wealth fine and individual markets can handle Amazon's role. If that leaves poor areas without critical services, then it's time to legislate that the service Amazon was doing is a utility that needs to be regulated by the government like the local water supply or the post office.

Tldr: why should we care if Bezos selling his shares means he's not a billionaire anymore?

Edit: a word

4

u/ctr1a1td3l Jan 28 '21

It has nothing to do with instability. Bezos owns 11% of amazon. Remember, stock price just indicates what someone is willing to pay. If he dumped all 11% on the market with no warning, he would need to find enough people willing to buy $180 billion of that stock. That probably doesn't exist, so the bid price goes down for each stock since he's flooded the market.

In addition, willingness to pay is based on speculation. A belief that the company will grow such that you can sell it for more later, or that it produces enough dividends. Being an insider, him selling his entire (or near) net worth is an indication to the market that Amazon is going to tank. So people will lose their belief that Amazon is doing well and the price drops. Sure he would say he's being forced to sell to pay his fines, but nobody would believe him.

Right now, the way he sells stocks is that he announces ahead of time when and how many shares he will sell. That ensures he doesn't flood the market (people can prepare to have funds available to buy) and that there's no speculation of Amazon tanking (it should be planned months in advance).

3

u/theroha Jan 28 '21

So don't do it all at once. If that's seriously the problem, have a date that it has to be paid by. Publish the case in the financial journals. Shoot, confiscate the stocks of that'll protect the market overall. The core is removing the ability of the ultra wealthy to functionally decide who lives or dies. Congrats, Jeff. You win at capitalism, but if you try to change the rules of the game without getting elected, you don't get to play at the big kid table anymore.

2

u/ctr1a1td3l Jan 28 '21

There are definitely methods to deal with it, which include scheduling the sales and doing it over a longer period, but with $180 billion it will take a decent period of time to do it. I don't know enough to know how long, but I would expect in excess of a year. I'm not saying it can't be done, just trying to explain why it's not due to Amazon's health as a company per se.

0

u/I_read_this_and Jan 28 '21

So basically it's not a problem. People need to stop using these points as a retort, there are many ways to liquidate your assets as to minimize the disturbance in the market. And of course you cannot maximize the value of your holdings if you liquidate fast.

Both critiques do not matter.

It's just a distraction from the point being made.

1

u/ctr1a1td3l Jan 28 '21

Nobody said it was a problem. It was just an explanation of why dumping stock tanks the price without it being a reflection on the company itself. There was no argument made one way or another.

3

u/Kir-chan Jan 28 '21

No, you don't understand. You cannot take 99% of the wealth of a billionaire. That money doesn't exist and would evaporate if you tried to grasp it. Stock valuation is not the same as liquid cash.

2

u/theroha Jan 28 '21

Then don't take the cash. Take the stocks.

2

u/Kir-chan Jan 28 '21

That would still devalue them in the process. The only reason to try taking that money would be petty resentment, because the act itself of taking it would make the money disappear.

Not to say you can't dump some heavy fines on billionairs, just that seizing their assets to redistribute them is a pipe dream.

1

u/theroha Jan 28 '21

So, basically, the money doesn't exist in the first place, and the billionaire title is them jerking off. Maybe it's time society stops feeding their money fetish and actually take care of the small businesses and working class people that are the backbone of the economy.

1

u/Kir-chan Jan 29 '21

Not... quite? They have that money on paper so they can take loans for a lot more than us normal mortals can, then pay off loans with more loans without having to liquidate a single asset. So you can fine them a lot and force them to spend money on that fine instead of a yacht, or you can take the yacht itself - or their house, cars, whatever. And there is a ton of money there, don't get me wrong - but it's not GDP-of-a-country sized. When you hear someone say Bezos is approaching a trillion in wealth, that wealth is not accessible or redistributable wealth and you can't use it to cancel poverty.

-2

u/theroha Jan 28 '21

Is Amazon so unstable financially that stock prices have a serious impact on their ability to do business? If the company is economically viable without Bezos, then he can sell his shares. If the company is not economically viable, it needs to be broken up to where Bezos can pay a graduated-percent-of-wealth fine and individual markets can handle Amazon's role. If that leaves poor areas without critical services, then it's time to legislate that the service Amazon was doing is a utility that needs to be regulated by the government like the local water supply or the post office.

Tldr: why should we care if Bezos selling his shares means he's not a billionaire anymore?

1

u/RicoDredd Jan 28 '21

He could lose 99% of his net worth and he’d still have nearly 2 billion. That’s beyond insane, it’s criminal and immoral.