It seems unlikely he is actually the richest. Historically many individuals have amassed pretty fabulous amounts of wealth. From some of the history I have read, Marcus Licinius Crassus or Lorenzo de' Medici seem to have had substantially more purchasing power, at least relative to the times they lived in.
For example, I do not see Bezos building anything I would compare to cathedrals.
There's also the fact that historically, wealth was based on gold, land or other tangible things. Bezo's fortune exists on paper and in computers. Those ancient wealthy people were far more wealthy in actual things.
Ya some of it can be. But Bezos can never get that full amount he's 'worth' in tangible real wealth. Where as you literally had to have mountains of treasure and gold or some kingdoms to be that rich in the past.
Would you count US dollar bills as tangible real wealth? Because dollar bills are just as intangible as liquid securities. It has value because we've agreed it has value.
Though to be fair, the article claims Bezos is 'the richest man in history'. Not 'the richest man in their cultural sphere in history' or 'the richest man in their continent in history'.
bezos has the worlds information on a device in his pocket. he can go to the grocery store and buy 1000s of different affordable items. yeah, hes the richest.
It's very difficult to compare wealth across different times in human history, but even in modern(ish) times, Rockefeller was much wealthier by many reasonable measures - his assets equaled 1.5% of America's economic output, and had an estimated net worth of more than $300 billion in modern dollars.
Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlodonnell/2014/07/11/the-roc...
It's interesting to see how much Amazon can keep going. Bezos seems like the kind of person who can delegate responsibility extremely effectively -- is there a limit to this or will Amazon start being hobbled by it's own weight.
I'd wager Amazon could keep growing for a long while. The worldwide market for e-commerce is nowhere near saturation point and the business model is by definition a recurring one. In addition, there are many adjacent markets to conquer.
But on e-commerce you have large regional players already. Japan, Korea?, India?, China, and probably Indonesia too. I find it hard to believe that Amazon will be able to conquer all or any of these. Saturation in what way? Total amount of goods purchased online increasing gradually over the years? As for for adjacent markets, ok fair enough -- but will they win in everything they try? I don't really think so -- and the more they take on the more Amazon as a whole will be strained.
Who leads Japan? Rakuten? They were first movers but Amazon has made huge share gains there in the last 10 years and they're in the common vernacular now. They outmaneuvered the publisher coalition and are now the only real e reader player in town. If there's a factor blocking Amazon from dominance there, it's the continued strength of brick and mortar powered by the high standard of service and support provided by those stores as well as strong infrastructure that prevents Amazon from developing competitive advantages with.
Yes I was referring to Rakuten -- there are a few more minor players. I'm working off limited data here -- so forgive me for using heuristic estimates. But yes, what are the odds of overcoming that advantage in your opinion? Japan is a odd case and extremely difficult to penetrate for outsiders, that level of insulation doesn't weight the odds in Amazon's favor or anybody else's coming in from the outside.
27 comments
[ 4.7 ms ] story [ 64.8 ms ] threadFor example, I do not see Bezos building anything I would compare to cathedrals.
No, I'd say the majority of the things the wealthy build now are less self-aggrandizing and more useful.
1: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/world-history/meet-...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(P...
Rich as they may be, western europe was still a small fraction of the world's wealth.
I don't know. 105B$ can buy you a lot of concrete.
https://cdn.geekwire.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/20170504...
It's interesting to see how much Amazon can keep going. Bezos seems like the kind of person who can delegate responsibility extremely effectively -- is there a limit to this or will Amazon start being hobbled by it's own weight.
About $17 billion (in 2016, sure, but probably hasn't gotten anywhere close to Bezos since; also, not even the richest member of the royal family.)
(Not sure what's standard practice for sharing images on HN.. or is that not done?)