This is a fair take.

What you said is not wrong. Each economic lever is a negotiation with sentiments. The government could impose more stringent regulations. I believe it has to with regard to monopoly-busting and possibly doing some salary-policing, but I don’t feel that the system should be thrown out. It has spawned countless innovations by providing the incentive that people can be rewarded handsomely for their creativity and entrepreneurship. If you don’t like corruption, vote it out.

He played the game correctly. The American dream is capitalism. We can improve the rules across industries, but the idea that we should remove the winners is no fun. If you spend years building a business and exposing yourself to calculated risk, you should reap your reward.

He is being defended indirectly. I am defending capitalism. Sure we can make some reforms to improve salaries across industries, but the ultra wealthy serve a purpose too. People are claiming that they sit on their money, but they clearly do reinvest in new entrepreneurial ventures. The more wealthy, the more groundbreaking. It is great that Bezos invested in civilian space tourism. That will only strengthen innovation in the space sector, which is needed. The US space program results in many innovations that we use across other industries today. Elon is revolutionizing tunnel digging and maybe rail transport. Bill Gates is either trying to stave the spread of disease or working on thinning the population depending upon the content you read.

You don’t give him enough credit. He worked extremely hard to make Amazon what it is today. Additionally, he took major risks to his credit where he convinced investors to fund a new form of supply chain. He is reaping the reward of taking entrepreneurial risks and creating something innovative. I don’t know how you can say that Amazon doesn’t help people. Their prices are in-line with the market and no one can touch their shipping costs. Their warehouse jobs are demanding, but they explain that to anyone getting into it. In time, the people will mostly be replaced by robots anyways. The employees want more money, but robots work for free. If anything, we should be very interested in potentially implementing UBI and a VAT on automation per Andrew Yang.

workers don’t have to be paid the minimum possible

Ideally, the market dictates salary in capitalism. This means that a worker can shop themselves around if you are not paying them enough. Where this has broken down a bit is in corporations intentionally and unintentionally colluding on appropriate pay for positions across an industry. The get consulting groups to indicate whether they are in line with industry practices. This can also result in employees getting pay bumps if a company has is having trouble retaining talent. If the government tries to break the organic model by imposing minimum pay rules, then it will hurt small businesses. If it creates a percentage system based upon company profits then you end up having your talent retire early. It is not really a tenable model to keep a business afloat. You would end up with these companies that exist and then go away because the employees have extracted all the wealth they need, so you wouldn’t have prolonged enterprises like Amazon that offer an extremely useful service because their wild success means that it becomes impossible to figure out how to hire people to new positions because the revenue share for one employee would far exceed what other companies could offer, so you have to somehow either find the best person ever for that position or some kind of hereditary system forms. The use-case doesn’t make much sense. If you simply cap the CEO’s salary and say that they are not allowed to make many multiples of standard employees and standard employees cannot make many multiples above the standards for their roles in the industry then maybe that would work, but it seems like an overreach of government.

If I need to pay my employees more because my company is more profitable, then the government is basically telling me that my cost of labor is far more expensive than my smaller competitors. It will result in only small new companies being able to invest in innovation at a large risk and big companies not having the capital to invest in the kind of research and development that only a large venture can do. Amazon spends ~$43B on R&D. If they had to pay tons more to employees, we wouldn’t have things like their streaming devices, content offerings, or warehouse and logistics improvements that allow for packages to arrive same or next day.

Bezos invented a website

He modernized e-commerce logistics through taking a huge risk of setting up last-mile regional warehouses at significant cost then moved from books to everything. He created sophisticated business processes that accounted for demand and seasonality, then had the foresight to take his logistics software platform and even package its components as a service.

I am finding that the people that are starting to rise to the top of my company are backstabbers. It wasn’t always like this, but the company keeps absorbing other companies and some of their cultures are toxic in a passive aggressive way.

I’ll tell you that the teacher was an attorney who worked for a very reputable business consulting firm to help businesses make unsavory decisions. A key takeaway from the class is that you can do anything that you can get away with and if you don’t, your competitors will. They basically said that you need to get away with it in the eyes of the law, but also your customers. They may be the ones forcing you to do the right thing. You also have to do good in the eyes of your employee culture. If your employees don’t like the direction of the company’s values, then that can prove detrimental. So, in many respects, you can be forced by external factors to act an ethical manner.

lol. I’m sticking with the typo.

If I invent a means of production, why can’t I be rewarded for my creation?

I want to have a serious conversation on this if possible. As devil’s advocate, if I want to start a business that helps people, what would I have to do to not run afoul and garner this type of criticism? Are you indicating that I must relinquish my business once it gets too big and that I am only entitled to a certain amount of success? Are you indicating that I must pay my workers far beyond what the free market dictates they are worth? Trying to understand how those are my issues. It would seem to me that these would need to change with far reaching government policies. Those policies in many ways go against capitalist principles when you start to consider having to pay a janitor for a company hundreds of thousands of dollars if the company is successful and employees are paid in revenue share. That makes far less sense than the owner of the company reaping the benefit of their innovation. I would also argue that an entrepreneur will potentially use these earnings more interestingly than a janitor, potentially to start additional businesses that help the public by increasing offerings and jobs.

When I was in business school, one of our lecturers in our ethics class was one of the main consultants that worked the Steam project to create regional price differences and other geofencing. It was a very interesting class. The takeaway is that it can be seen as morally responsible to charge someone is a poorer country less for the same game. It is called price discrimination and it is done in many industries including air travel and pharmaceuticals. Otherwise, you would price an entire market out of a product. In many respects, the richer countries are subsidizing the poorer countries. The argument that the price should be the lowest one on the board anywhere is not realistic because a company needs to generate margins high enough to make the opportunity worthwhile otherwise it is not going to produce the product. In other words, Companies will not make a product if they are going to lose monkey selling it, but they will charge one market more to sell to another market at a loss if there is other intrinsic value like user adoption to create a community. They are selling digital content in this instance, but it still took money to make and money to distribute, so the argument that the product is easy to replicate over and over again is a moot point. Getting some money in a market versus no money is beneficial. If people pirate that games en masse by even just purchasing them VPN at a lower rate hurts the developers. I believe in some piracy under certain circumstances, such as when you truly can’t afford something when you are growing up. It is in the marketers best interest to let kids get hooked at a young age.

Just so you youngsters know, that legend of a person was David Bowie.