[rescripting]

She is an outlier in the sense that she is both “new money” and also “old money” (she did the equivalent of inheriting money in her settlement with Bezos).

She was, at one time, a normal person, with normal friends and normal parents. However unlike most other “new money” billionaires she acquired her wealth without the corrupting influence of being a master of the universe business person where everyone in your circle is falling over themselves to gas up your ego.

[smt88]

She wasn’t a passive housewife who inherited money in a divorce. She was an early Amazon investor and helped build the first stage of the company. She’d be a billionaire even without the divorce.

[jambalaya8]

Would she have made money from Amazon had she not married Bezos? Or even from any dotcom?

[smt88]

Would Bezos have made Amazon if he hadn’t married Scott? The answer seems to be no. She was an instrumental early contributor, and she supported him while he lost enormous amounts of money for many years before Amazon became profitable.

[jambalaya8]

Fair enough. I think the most likely scenario is probably neither of them would have become wealthy, or at least nearly as wealthy. So much of success in tech up til the early through even sorta late-90s ('97-'99) was timing and what could pass as luck. And people weren't nearly as vicious. So few people, relatively, were in a position to start online companies back then. I am sure many of us have moments we look back at and just cringe at opportunities we didn't follow through on.

I do wonder who would have been Bezo's alternate (someone would have built something like Amazon). I wonder less who would have been Scott's, at least up until 2003/2005 when she started being known more as a name of her own.

[reinitctxoffset]

Given she was also on the fast track at D.E. Shaw in the mid nineties she was going to be a lot fucking richer than you no matter who she married.

[apparent]

I'm not seeing any evidence that she was an early Amazon investor. Where is that claim from? Of course she was an investor through her marriage, but you claim she'd be a billionaire without the divorce, so presumably you're referring to investment other than through her husband.

[rescripting]

I’m not trying to dismiss the investments she made (both time and money), but more point out that she was not driven by the same corrupting motivations you get with typical billionaires. If she was, she’d have taken her wealth and done more capitalism with it.