[openasocket]

I genuinely don't get it. I just don't understand how billionaires think.

Everyone knows why he bought the Washington Post: it was for clout and prestige. Just like how the titans of industry built opera houses and libraries in centuries past. You aren't buying it to make a profit. You take care of something valued by society, and you win some respect from society. Conversely, if you burn that thing to the ground, society will hate you.

So why is the profitability of the Washington Post such a concern all of a sudden? Sure, they lost $100M in 2024, but Bezos didn't buy the Post to make money! And it's not like money is tight. Bezos is worth over $250B; in the last few days alone the jump in AMZN stock increased his net worth by over $5B. If he were to hand that $5B over to the Washington Post, they could keep on losing money at that rate for another half of a century! The article makes this exact point in the last few paragraphs.

If Bezos was genuinely concerned about alienating Trump or whatever, why not just sell the Post? Why try to undermine it like this? You are pissing off the people who like the Post, and I don't think the people who hate the Post are really going to care.

[groundzeros2015]

100M burns seems a little excessive?

[UncleMeat]

Bezos could burn this amount every year for 2,500 years before exhausting his current wealth.

[eudamoniac]

What is your point? I could burn $400 in my fireplace every year for 2,500 years before exhausting my current wealth. That doesn't mean it's not stupid.

[groundzeros2015]

Is he going to login to etrade to market sell 100 mil of Amazon stock every year? 20% cap gains and then whatever additional tax the gross amount incurs? That will also lower the price.

I’m just saying this is kind of an absurd amount for a mediocre newspaper with ok reach.

[UncleMeat]

Why not? 100m is two days of AMZN trading volume.

The idea that billionaires are not actually billionaires because they cannot possibly sell their shares is not real.

[groundzeros2015]

I didn’t say he’s not a billionaire. I said it’s ridiculous to lose 100m/yr on a newspaper. and yes 100m sell order would be impactful.

[UncleMeat]

"Losing" or "spending?"

In principle, Bezos could be in this because he values journalism and wants to promote it. There is no reason why this couldn't be a patronage system where one of the richest people in the world spends their money on something good for society.

[kgwxd]

Never attribute to vanity that which is adequately explained by despotism.

[Afforess]

Power + Control >> Money.

That’s it.

[ativzzz]

> I just don't understand how billionaires think.

What he's really buying is power. Even your example of opera houses vs libraries accomplishes two different goals.

Opera houses are places for elites to gather and experience "culture". It means is you own a club for other rich people and create a form of soft power by controlling who gets invited to and can hang out at your club - and maybe put on some shows that everyone can buy tickets to as your "philanthropic contribution to society"

A library is more of a common use. At least in the modern day. Maybe 100 years ago libraries were similar to opera houses - mostly frequented by elite/educated and created a club for them to hang out at. Similar to donating to universities. But they're free for the public, so I'd argue this is quite a boon to common society.

But buying a media company is straight power. You are buying influence over how the public receives information. This is why Musk bought twitter. This is why Murdoch bought Fox news. This is why a billionaire conglomerate forced TikTok to sell itself to them. At this point, more money provides diminishing returns on power, so they buy influence in other ways.

[gowld]

It wasn't for clout and prestige. It was to protect Amazon and Blue Origin from news critical coverage and from policy advocacy for regulations.