The great man theory is overrated, and this case in particular because many of Newton's discoveries would have been found by his compatriots anyway- Leibniz already invented calculus independently of Newton, Hooke had developed theories of gravity at the same time of Principia Mathematica as well. If not Bezos, you'd be thanking the Waltons or Sol Price. If not Musk, then Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning- the engineers who actually founded Tesla.

> The great man theory is overrated

It is more complex than you are making out. Cultures that denigrate the great men don’t produce as much or innovate as much as those that revere them.

All cultures revere great men, even- perhaps especially- atheistic ones.

Actually they wouldn't have needed Bezos for that. Online shops have been a thing before Amazon existed, and even today Amazon is not the only online shop, it's just the first that comes to the minds of most people. Do you also thank the marketers that made "Kleenex" a common word for paper towels to wipe your nose when you have a cold? Given Amazon's theoretical inexistence, others would have undoubtedly filled that void instantly, just like if Kleenex never existed.

If anyone, thank Tim Berners-Lee for inventing the World Wide Web, without which none of the aforementioned online shops could exist. And last I checked he didn't become a mega-billionaire from that invention.

It's very difficult to discuss something when you dismiss anything you disagree with by claiming that it was driven by envy.

Organizing other people's labor isn't easy though. Have you ever tried to do it? It's very hard and very stressful. When governments have tried, they have tended to fail miserably. So why would anyone undertake this difficult and stressful task without a strong incentive to do so?

I agree in general that workers should get a bigger piece of the pie, but if entrepreneurs and executives aren't providing any value, then why aren't groups of workers getting together en masse and forming their own companies? It seems pretty clear that this "organizer" role is essential and can't be done by just anyone.

Is the reason Bezos gets up every morning because he thinks to himself, "man, if only I have $200 billion instead of my $145 billion"?

Let's be real: Bezos is not "organizing" Amazon so much as he organizes a cabinet of Executives who do the same recursively until some worker does the actual work.

> When governments have tried, they have tended to fail miserably

So the federal government, which must coordinate the efforts of over 2 million employees across a more broad spectrum of activities and labor than Amazon does, doesn't count?

And is the job so hard as to mean hundreds of billions? Or is that just want the market will pay to keep Bezos around? I could understand that part, as it means the market believes Bezos current activities are worth that much. But does that mean he deserves it? I should hardly think those arguments are the same.

"Let's be real: Bezos is not "organizing" Amazon so much as he organizes a cabinet of Executives who do the same recursively until some worker does the actual work."

Organizing a cabinet of executives (who then organize recursively down the hierarchy) is also very difficult and stressful, so I'm not sure what the point is here? Again, it seems clear that this role is necessary and important, otherwise we should see lots of big and successful companies running without CEOs or executives.

"So the federal government, which must coordinate the efforts of over 2 million employees across a more broad spectrum of activities and labor than Amazon does, doesn't count?"

While I don't think anyone would point to the US government as a model of efficiency and innovation, I'll grant that they do organize a lot of labor, but it primarily concerns the responsibilities of governing that we have specifically decided are special cases that the state should take care of (in spite of whatever inefficiencies it may cause). When states have tried to organize labor more generally, in order to do things like extract resources, grow food, build stuff in factories, set prices, etc., it has not gone well in most cases.

"And is the job so hard as to mean hundreds of billions? Or is that just want the market will pay to keep Bezos around? I could understand that part, as it means the market believes Bezos current activities are worth that much. But does that mean he deserves it? I should hardly think those arguments are the same."

What someone "deserves" is subjective. My point is just that it seems we do need to provide entrepreneurs and managers some kind of incentive if we want people to create and manage businesses, since doing so is hard work that requires unique skills. How strong that incentive should be is debatable, but if you have one, there will always be people who put way more energy into pursuing it than others, and so are much wealthier than others.