#Bezos Financials

[reviewsduniya]

Jeff Bezos's Net Worth in 2024

Explore Jeff Bezos’s Net Worth in 2024, featuring an in-depth breakdown of his salary—revealing the precise figure that shapes his wealth and also career highlights, income sources, investments, personal life, and prospects. It effectively delves into Jeff Bezos’s background, achievements, and challenges and provides valuable insights into his financial journey.  Gain unparalleled insights into…

[curious-kitchen-witch]

In case you were wondering I am totally chill 100% of the time and definitely don't spend like a quarter of my paycheck on stuff for my craft every couple weeks

[bitcoinversus]

Top 10 Billionaires Gain $64 Billion Following Trump's Election Victory

The re-election of President Donald Trump has impacted the financial standings of the world’s wealthiest individuals. Collectively, the top ten billionaires experienced a remarkable increase in their net worth, totaling $64 billion. Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, emerged as the most substantial beneficiary. His net worth soared by $26.5 billion, reaching approximately $290 billion. This…

[rage-against-the-cistem]

guys i'm conducting a scientific experiment. i wanna know what happens if you send one cent through paypal. i will even write an article to sum up my findings.

try here

[remove-the-stairs-bitch]

.

[lesb0]

It's hard to explain this to financial illiterates but you and me are much, much financially closer to "poor" millionaires than the poorest rich. You need to rewire your brain to understand that the black square and green square are THE SAME CLASS. these people all serve the same ruling class of billionaires and ultra high millionaires.

this is the best visual reference I've ever seen to explain it

billionaires thrive on selling the narrative that everyone else needs to define their wealth into faux micro factions delineating middle from upper, when the difference between $1 and $100,000 is like a penny to them. I know MANY millionaires who have become evicted and hotel homeless multiple times. they are quite literally the working class, and have been forcibly made aware that they aren't so far away from the baristas they used to look down on. But the real rich can buy and sell a home just because they casually needed a place to vacation in for a few months. Billionaires are absolutely terrified that we could ever gain class solidarity, because this thin illusion of "wealth disparity" between thousands and never framing our thinking in millions is exactly what's keeping them in power

(The blue cube goes on for 2 more pages, Bezos' goes for over 100 pages).

Black women who save up for a telfar or get treated to fancy dates on the weekends aren't the ruling class, you are just racist and extremely ignorant about wealth.

We are all literally a giant servant class for 5% of people because that is the ideal function of end stage capitalism. the sooner we can accept this fact, the better.

[seneca-zero]

Games workshop released their end of year financial report. Nothing spectacular or unexpected, but what might be an interesting tidbit, is that they have a time limit till the end of december 2024 to agree on the creative guidelines with amazon or nothing comes from the deal. It sounds probably more dramatic than it is.

But mark my words

The chuds and right wing grifters will probaly be pumping all kind of brain dead takes into the web. That Geedub is standing valiantly against the woke mob or that Jeff Bezos personally wants fem marines or some other crap with some Cavill jerking on top.

I feel it in my bones that these lying culture war tourists will try to make a fuss out of some standard procedure.

[gunsandspaceships]

How rich is Tony Stark?

Throughout his superhero career, Tony's net worth in the MCU has always been between $10 and $20 billion. How much is that? Let's talk about Tony Stark's real financial resources and purchasing power.

The numbers themselves don't tell us anything, so we'll compare. Some real billionaires are much richer than him (Elon Musk - $210 billion, Jeff Bezos - $195 billion, Bill Gates - $129 billion). Huge difference, don't you think?

Let's list Tony's expenses: he founded and funded Damage Control. He covered the cost of the destruction caused not only by the Avengers, but by everyone they fought. He funded scientific projects and charitable foundations. He covered all the Avengers' expenses (compound, equipment, tech, vehicles, quinjets, food, medical and legal services, staff, team members' salaries, etc.). He made Iron Man suits and equipment for himself, Peter, Rhodey, and later Pepper. It takes a LOT of money to cover all of this. And it's all pure expense. He didn't make any profit from it.

Reminder: He's not nearly as rich as Musk, Bezos or Gates. How much can these guys do, buy and finance? Less than you think. Now divide by 10 to get an idea of ​​how much Tony could.

I'll help you: we'll count in Helicarriers. Let's say Tony had $20 billion (that's max). The price of one real aircraft carrier is 13 billion dollars. Helicarriers, even the basic ones (from The Avengers and AoU), are much more advanced (they fly, have retro-reflective panels that cover them entirely, and have a fancy interior with expensive equipment on board). It will cost much more. Let's give it a price tag of $20 billion. That is - Tony could only buy 1 Helicarrier and get $0 in his bank accounts.

Or another example: how much did the Battle of New York cost? Secretary Ross showed us - $88 billion in property damage. Tony would need another $70 billion to cover the cost of this one battle.

BUT let me tell you, his $10-20 billion isn't even real money. It's net worth. He would never have seen that $10-20 billion in cash or been able to use it. Because these are assets: shares and property he had. He would have to sell them, then pay taxes, and only then would he see the actual amount of money he could use. Which is about half of the net worth - $5-10 billion. Thus, his purchasing power would amount to a small insignificant fraction of the Battle of New York, or 0 Helicarriers, or even 0 real-life aircraft carriers. That's it. This is why the Avengers never had their own Helicarrier - Tony COULD NOT AFFORD ONE.

He didn't have unlimited resources. He couldn't buy everything. Stop imagining him as Scrooge McDuck. He had to work several jobs to provide for the team and protect the Earth. Alone. Where were Thor and Black Panther's resources?

Conclusion: no, Tony wasn't that rich. He worked his butt off to be a wallet of Earth's protection, in addition to being its shield. Remember that.

[shelleysmary]

gotta laugh at everyone who has ever said that "~unLiKE tHe pEtEr jACkSoN fILmS~ the trop people don't care about tolkien, don't care about middle-earth, it's a soulless adaptation for the money just because amazon is behind it" because (and i say this while also saying fuck amazon, fuck jeff bezos. it goes without saying - two things can be true at the same time, i can't believe it bears repeating)

how do you think films and television get made?? hate to break it to you, but it's all for the money. new line cinema didn't say "we love tolkien, pj, let's do this for free!" they were literally looking for a franchise hit when they decided to take the films over from miramax - which is exactly what every studio and their mom is trying to do now!!! it's movie business, baby! to say the people behind trop - the actors, the casting directors, the production designers, the vfx artists, the art directors, the armorers, the costume designers, the set decorators, the makeup artists, the ADs, the carpenters, painters, prop-makers, steelworkers, laborers, animal handlers, sound editors, miniature builders, stuntpeople, craftspeople, movement and dialect coaches, trainers, lighting techs, jewelers, etc. - don't care about the story they're telling???? is a wild reach. obviously they work for the showrunners who work for amazon who care the most about making a profit, but so did peter jackson and new line!! wanting your project to be financially and critically successful is not an inherently evil thing, come on guys, are you still buying into the starving artist fallacy 😭

there are tons of little nods to the silmarillion and other parts of the legendarium in the rings of power. yes, there are also changes and goofs, but lotr and the hobbit film trilogies also had their fair share of changes and goofs. i just think that "these people didn't read the books/this is just a money grab/pj & co. cared about the source material while these losers clearly don't" are tired arguments used to justify subjective opinions, not to mention the way it reeks of revisionist history considering the way tolkien purists initially took great issue with deviations made in lotr and especially the hobbit.

it's almost like...the most hated tolkien adaptation is ever the current one.

[hiveswap]

I see that people online can't differentiate between the rich and the financially comfortable, so i propose a new term: Neonobility. Is a guy with a pc a neonoble? You can tell he isn't from the term alone. Is jeff bezos a neonoble? Yes. Go do what you gotta do

[contemplatingoutlander]

JOURNALISTIC CHOICES: Telling the Truth vs. "Bothsidesism"

Ben Raderstorf does a great job in this article discussing the dilemma modern journalism has in covering a lying, dangerous authoritarian like Donald Trump, without "appearing partisan." Raderstorf argues against bothsidesism, and in favor of good journalists just simply telling the truth.

[T]he best way for independent, fact-based media to win back the audiences they’re losing to polarization is to not chase them.... But rather, to double-down on independence, objectivity, and honesty. To report reality as it is and to let the chips fall where they may. To draw a hard distinction between the normal political jockeying of healthy democracy and actions that threaten our system of government.   Back in 2022, in response to questions from reporters about how to discern between those two things, we wrote a report on how experts understand threats to democracy: The Authoritarian Playbook: How reporters can contextualize and cover authoritarian threats as distinct from politics-as-usual. 

"Modern autocrats don't crush journalism — they corrupt it." 

Raderstorf also talks about how 21st century autocrats like Viktor Orbán (who is a role model for Trump) apply pressure in subtle ways to eventually "corrupt" journalism.

These days, many autocrats don’t just smash printing presses, throw reporters in jail, and be done with it. Often they pursue a more nuanced, and more insidious, strategy.   With a combination of intimidation, coercion, and financial manipulation, they slowly corrode the independence and autonomy of the press until it ceases to be a meaningful check on power. The media still exists; it’s just an empty shell, a useful facade.   Put differently, modern autocrats don’t crush journalism — they corrupt it. 

[See more below the cut about the role of "anticipatory obedience" and the changes in leadership at CNN and The Washington Post.]

[edited]

"ANTICIPATORY OBEDIENCE": An Explanation for Why CNN and The Washington Post Changed Their Leadership

Raderstorf mentions how the two journalistic outlets that Trump targeted most vehemently as president are the two that eventually replaced their leadership--and as a result, weakened their journalistic integrity.

In an article this week in the Columbia Journalism Review, my colleagues Ian Bassin... and Maximillian Potter ... dive into several case studies. They connect troubling dots suggesting that Donald Trump deployed the Orbán strategy in his first term to greater effect than many realize. [...] In their piece, Ian and Max explore the two major instances in Trump’s first term when he attempted to wield the powers of the presidency against journalists for coverage he didn’t like. First, by threatening to block a proposed merger between CNN’s parent company, Time Warner, and AT&T. Second, by looking to raise shipping rates on Amazon, whose owner, Jeff Bezos, also owns the Washington Post.  In both cases, Trump mostly failed to carry out his threats. But… it’s also true that both CNN and the Post subsequently went through high-profile leadership shakeups at least partly in response to Trump. For CNN, this was Chris Licht’s short-lived tenure and disastrous efforts to make the network “more neutral.” For the Post, it was Bezos installing a new publisher: “Will Lewis, a former Rupert Murdoch executive who has spent most of his career in right-wing media.” [...] Timothy Snyder writes in On Tyranny that autocratic leaders often succeed simply because the media, business leaders, and civil society look ahead to possible repression and move preemptively towards self-preservation. What he calls “anticipatory obedience."

[fernlessbastard]

ok hot take. we all hate capitalists. I know. I do too. I really, REALLY hate capitalists.

that being said C!Quackity is the definition of a capitalist. like in a fully "I made the money, I deserve it because I took the risks." "its not my fault that some people dont work as hard as I do." "las nevadas is a company, the only government is the corporation which Quackity owns." way.

he is sat RIGHT at the bottom right corner on the political compass, and he is not budging. obviously, thats not to say hes a homophobe or a racist or generally a bigot, but hes very much a land hoarding, greedy, individualistic, profiteer type guy.

him and wilbur have gotten into several arguments about this, as with pretty much all of the ways Quackity runs his goverment, and shots have been FIRED.

I think the main argument from wilbur would be: "was it your fault that you were homeless after you ran from schlatt? do you really belive that youre the only person who has ever needed to run from financial abuse?" and "if it hadn't been for my policies about taking in all we can feed, then you would have starved to death in the woods. according to your philosophy I should have told you to piss off because you wernt profitable."

and then quackity responding with: "you change your ideology like youre a kid playing dressup, dont act like youre better than me because you woke up and decided that being a marxist suited your situation best, you just want something to argue about." and "you only took me in BECAUSE I was profitable. maybe not through labour but you would have used me as a bargaining chip any day of the week."

anyways, they've both been heads of state and both of them are well versed in political science and economics, which leads to both some very fun conversations and some less fun arguments. (wilbur might enjoy it a little)

ok so yes I agree with that take in the context of the smp, but it's also important to point out that minecraft "capitalism" is what those capitalists who want to convince you it's good claim capitalism to be. Food is abundant, shelter has little requirements to be functional, you can literally just dig a little into a hill and you're set, and then make a farm from things you can find anywhere. Anyone can mine, anyone has access to anywhere that isn't already someone's exact base, food is easily accessible and renewable, etc etc.

What Quackity's doing is he's actually providing a luxury service which isn't at all necessary. And Las Nevadas deserves to earn a profit from people using its facilities, cause they've been carefully and deliberately made to provide entertainment. Quackity doesn't have monopoly on food, shelter, land, resources, etc. Anyone could make their own small version of LN if they had the want and time to. So it isn't fair putting cQuackity in the same box as idfk bezos or musk, cause in cQ's case it's deserved, earned, and not a monopoly that causes everyone but him to suffer. Translating that into real life is just simply much more difficult than taking it at face value

As a sidenote I think that while Quackity is like that on the outside, he still wouldn't ignore someone needing help. Like, he's definitely got that built up resentment of "I had to work for all of this so hard, I've gotten through so many hardships. Why should someone else have it easier??" but then when the push comes to shove he's still end up helping, even if just a little bit.

[reasonsforhope]

"A net-zero power system is closer than we think.

New research, published by RMI, indicates that an exponential surge in renewable energy deployment is outpacing the International Energy Agency’s most ambitious net-zero predictions for 2030. 

That’s right: Surging solar, wind, and battery capacity is now in-line with net-zero scenarios. 

“For the first time, we can, with hand on heart, say that we are potentially on the path to net zero,” Kingsmill Bond, Senior Principal at RMI, said. “We need to make sure that we continue to drive change, but there is a path and we are on it.”

And that’s really good news.

Exponential growth in renewable energy has put the global electricity system at a tipping point. What was once seen as a wildly daunting task — transitioning away from fossil fuels — is now happening at a faster pace every year. 

Based on this new research, conducted in partnership with the Bezos Earth Fund, RMI projects that solar and wind will supply over a third of all global electricity by 2030, up from about 12% today, which would surpass recent calls for a tripling of total renewable energy capacity by the end of the decade. 

Global progress in the renewable energy sector

China and Europe have been leading the way in clean energy generation, but the deployment of renewable energy has also been widely distributed across the Middle East and Africa. 

Research from Systems Change Lab shows that eight countries (Uruguay, Denmark, Lithuania, Namibia, Netherlands, Palestine, Jordan, and Chile) have already grown solar and wind power faster than what is needed to limit global warming to 1.5°C, proving that a swift switch to renewable energy is not only feasible — it’s entirely achievable. 

In order to make that switch, globally, wind and solar need to grow from 12% to 41% by 2030. Denmark, Uruguay, and Lithuania have already achieved that increase in the span of eight years.

Meanwhile, Namibia, the Netherlands, Palestine, Jordan, and Chile have grown solar and wind energy at sufficient rates for five years...

The economic impact of climate progress

Not only is this an exciting and unprecedented development for the health of the environment, but this rapid transition to clean energy includes widespread benefits, like jobs growth, more secure supply chains, and reductions in energy price inflation. 

This progress spans both developing and developed countries, all driven to accelerate renewables for a number of different reasons: adopting smart and effective policies, maintaining political commitments, lowering the costs of renewable energy, and improving energy security. 

And with exponential growth of clean energy means sharp declines in prices. This puts fossil fuels at a higher, uncompetitive cost — both financially and figuratively. 

RMI suggests that solar energy is already the cheapest form of electricity in history — and will likely halve in price by 2030, falling as low as $20/MWh in the coming years. This follows previous trends: solar and battery costs have declined 80% between 2012 and 2022, and offshore wind costs are down 73%."

-via Good Good Good, July 12, 2023

Let me repeat that:

For the first time in history, we are on an actual, provably achievable path to net zero emissions

[yippeecahier]

NGL, I come from a place of privilege, given that I am under 25 and have no debt.

I have about $30,000 in assets - just my savings, car, tech, jewelry, and all my worldly goods that could be resold put together, at their current value. If I lost that 30k, which is really just (one) medical emergency away from bankruptcy, I would have to strip everything for the cash. In just cash alone, I'm not even close enough for a downpayment on a starter home, a multi year endeavor.

By comparison, millionaires such as Lady Gaga (130 million) and Keanu Reeves (380 million) are far above me. To be on the same level, I would have to earn and retain in financial or asset form, $129,970,000 or $379,970,000 respectively. Anything I spent on rent, insurance, gas, food, medicine, and other consumables that can't be resold doesn't count towards that net worth total.

That's a lot. But this pales in comparison to billionaires such as Jeff Bezos (117 billion) and Elon Musk (191 billion). I would have to retain $116,999,970,000 and $190,999,970,000 respectively. At my current income of $50k, which is above the median income for people with my level of education, assuming I magically don't need to spend any money on consumables and can just bank it all:

It would take me 2,599 years and 146 days to obtain Lady Gaga's wealth, or almost 26 CENTURIES.

It would take me 7,599 years and 146 days to obtain Keanu Reeve's wealth, or almost 76 CENTURIES.

It would take me 2,339,999 years and 146 days to obtain Jeff Bezo's wealth, or almost 2,340 MILLENIA.

It would take me 3,899,999 years to obtain Elon Musk's wealth. It would take me nearly 3,900 MILLENIA.

Oh, this is after having paid off all my debt and with my existing assets, by the way. For even Lady Gaga, the least wealthy of this list, I would have to work tirelessly from before the Roman Empire was even founded.

But that's just me, a college-educated middle-class American citizen who is both debt and child-free.

It's much more fascinating to compare these to each other.

Lady Gaga makes $25 million a year.

Keanu Reeves makes $40 million a year.

So, if I deduct what these millionaires already have in assets and divide the total of the billionaire's assets by their income to find how many years of just banking money (no consumables):

Lady Gaga would have to bank another $116,870,000,000 to have Jeff Bezo's wealth. Assuming she stops spending on consumables like food or whatever and every penny of her $25 million income goes into future asset wealth, it would still take Lady Gaga 4,674 years and 293 days for her to obtain Bezo's wealth.

Keanu Reeves would have to bank another $190,620,000,000 to achieve Elon Musk's wealth. Again, in a fantasy world where Keanu doesn't have to feed and clothe himself, it would take him 4,765 years and 6 months to obtain Elon Musk's wealth.

The gap between the assets of famous multimillionaires like Lady Gaga and Keanu Reeves (who make MILLIONS every year) and that of famous multi-billionaires is a little less than HALF what it would take me to become as wealthy as Lady Gaga at my income level, which is, again, above the median. I could never achieve that wealth in my entire fucking lifetime, because, even if I assumed my income would go up and actually outpace inflation, I still need to eat and I can only use my body for labor until I'm 80, tops, which is only 56 years of work and nowhere near the thousands.

This sounds very conspiracy-brain, but sometimes I think the United States deliberately undermines math education and the corresponding understanding of how to problem-solve and comprehend magnitude of these kinds of numbers. Because if kids sat down and did the math, they just might realize that there is no way to become this rich on your own hard work.

Sure, you can invest in the stock market - but that's gambling. Most people might be able to hamper the effects of inflation on their asset values with stock investment.

The American dream is a lie.

The middle class is closer to becoming homeless than they are to becoming multimillionaires.

Even multimillionaires are closer to becoming middle class or even homeless than they are to becoming multi-billionaires.

Don't fucking tell me to budget and I'll become a millionaire. It's more likely I'll get hit by lightning or lose it all to medical bills.

If this doesn't radicalize you, I don't know what will.

[a-d-nox]

web of wyrd: program combos and pre-disposition for events/abilities in your lifetime

programs are three numbers (presented in a combo) anywhere in the chart though in any order that indicates you and your soul having signed up to experience something this lifetime. there are more than just the programs i have listed below - just because you don't have these programs in your chart doesn't mean you can't experience these things. and just because you have the program in your chart, doesn't mean you naturally have the ability - it simply mean you are predisposed and have a better chance at experiencing those things - your program could require activation if blocked.

9-6-15: the creative. these people tend to be innovative in their thinking, and their creativity tends to be one of a kind.

examples of who i can think of with this code: stephen king, j.k. rowling, and louis vuitton.

9-20-11: the degenerative. these people often are the glue of the family; each family member tends to look to up to this person.

examples of who i can think of with this code: kris jenner.

5-14-19: the millionaire. these people frequently experience great financial success in this lifetime.

examples of who i can think of with this code: kris jenner, ellen degeneres, and beyoncé.

17-22-5: the academic. these people tend to be extremely intelligent and can also be very analytical - they tend to strip the world down to basic elements or algorithms/numbers.

examples of who i can think of with this code: elon musk and albert einstein.

14-22-8: the greedy. these people tend to fill their own coffers before filling others.

examples of who i can think of with this code: jeff bezos.

7-21-14: the victim. these people are typically bullied/harmed by those around them. people tend to take advantage of their kindness and sensitivity.

examples of who i can think of with this code: kim kardashian.

17-5-6: the beauty. these people may not realize they are naturally gorgeous, but they are externally and internally.

examples of who i can think of with this code: lady gaga and beyoncé.

like what you read? leave a tip and state what post it is for! please use my "suggest a post topic" button if you want to see a specific pac/pile next. if you'd like my input on how i read a specific card or what i like to ask my deck, feel free to use the ask button for that as well.

click here for the masterlist

click here for more web of wyrd related posts

want a personal reading? click here to check out my reading options and prices.

© a-d-nox 2023 all rights reserved

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Keith Edwards at No Lies Detected:

Last Monday morning, I endured the spectacle of MSNBC hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski defending their post-election pilgrimage to Mar-a-Lago, marking their first meeting with Donald Trump in seven years. As they sat there reading from a prepared script, blissfully arrogant and hypocritical, a now-familiar nausea washed over me. It began in late October, when Jeff Bezos — with billions of dollars of business before the federal government — instructed the Washington Post’s publisher to break 36 years of precedent and make no endorsement in the most consequential election of our lives. I felt it again last week when CNN’s Dana Bash bizarrely both-sidesed the somehow unknowable politics of neo-Nazis on the march in Columbus. It was clear to me, as I’m sure it was to you, that Joe and Mika were afraid of what Trump 2.0 would do to them, which Brian Stelter’s CNN later confirmed. (See my YouTube video for my initial reaction).

[...]

Powerful media figures' craven capitulation to government power — before that power is even inaugurated — surely smacks of the preemptive compliance Snyder describes. Since we as Americans have no experience of authoritarian rule, speculating about what comes next is a challenge. To imagine what a returned Trump might do once in power, consider Russia’s experience during Vladimir Putin’s rise:  Four days after Putin’s inauguration as Russia’s president in May 2000, Russian federal tax agents raided the offices of NTV, one of the country’s few independent media outlets. NTV had pitilessly mocked the notoriously thin-skinned Putin; once he got to power, he wasted no time deploying the full force of the Russian federal government against it. Under the guise of financial crimes, NTV’s owner was swiftly arrested, imprisoned, and coerced into selling NTV to a pro-government conglomerate who would replace NTV’s journalists and make it a Kremlin mouthpiece. The following month, Putin summoned Russia’s most powerful business figures to the Kremlin where he made clear their new reality: Stay out of politics, and you all can keep your businesses, your wealth, and your freedom. In one fell swoop, the Russian state had cowed its media elites.

If you’re saying, “Well, that’s Russia and this is the United States,” compare the parallels between our country today and the Russia of 2000. Trump of course is pathetically sensitive to media criticism, and he has repeatedly made plain his intention to continue his weaponization of the federal government against his perceived enemies. Senate Republicans are eager to grant him his loyalist hacks as law enforcement officials (so long as they aren't generationally loathsome accused sexual predators!) who will unleash prosecutions against his enemies. As recently as today, Elon Musk — whose willingness to light money on fire extends from Twitter to Trump-Vance 2024  — has menaced MSNBC with a pro-Trump takeover. Meanwhile, social media and tech moguls fell over themselves to ingratiate themselves with Trump after his victory, having essentially shadowbanned political content prior to it. Trump moreover enters office with advantages Putin did not. He will be the first U.S. president with a media company of his own, which before Trump took a sledgehammer to our norms would have been unthinkable (though it worked out in Italy!). He enjoys the unlimited support of Elon Musk and his wholly owned and radicalized X, as well as of an emerging army of Gen Z podcast bros. Lastly, a rightwing legacy media propaganda machine consisting of Fox News, Newsmax, and OAN stands at the ready. A cinematic universe of Made-in-America state-run media served from your TV to your browser to your phone.

Dear Media: Do Nor Obey In Advance.