The difficulty with the left’s position is ultimately that it reduces the motivation to innovate across a financial system. Bezos accrued his massive wealth by setting up a company that functions well in competitive markets — theoretically Amazon could be owned by the state (communism) but I would argue that the state would never be in a position to create and/or sustain something like Amazon. If it did, it would be rife with corruption. See the USSR for examples of this.

Instead, the left should be pushing the centre ground for an effective tax system, workers protection and decent wages and pensions and socialised health care — create a system that fairly rewards both innovative entrepreneurship and looks after workers. This could not be more pressing at the cusp of the AI revoltion. I would argue that the absence of such a system plus personal guilt is what creates philanthropy — and I suspect this is fuelled by individual feeling about Bezos. I don’t remember the same level of hatred fired at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for example.

Attacking an individual for attempting to resolve a systemic problem through philanthropy seems counter productive — Bezos probably should do more to protect his workers, but a drop in share price will see him lambasted as a CEO. In this instance, philanthropic giving is better than nothing.

Great article, very engaging.