How much do you think Jeff Bezos will get in the divorce?

I haven’t heard anyone ask that. I’ve only read headlines like How Much Could MacKenzie Bezos Get? and How Much Will Jeff Bezos Lose?

In the Bezos marriage, the partners are equals. Jeff and MacKenzie started the company together. And they worked side by side. When the company was big and they had four kids, MacKenzie took half the load (kids) and Jeff took half the load (work).

Why do people assume Jeff will be doling out money to MacKenzie? The money is as much hers as it is his. Some headlines are simply despicable. NBC ran the headline The settlement between the world’s richest man and his wife. But if he is the world’s richest man, then she is the world’s richest woman. Already. Before the settlement. Because all his money is her money.

Consider what it would be like if NBC ran this headline: The settlement between the world’s richest woman and her husband. It sounds odd, right? Because the power in the sentence is so firmly on MacKenzie’s side. But then we should recognize the first headline as odd, too. The headline NBC ran is bad journalism because it distorts reality.

The language of divorce is about power, and we take power away from all stay-at-home spouses when we talk about MacKenzie like she has no money of her own.

Wired magazine published a great piece about how the famed companies of Silicon Valley are never founded by one, single person. It takes a team of people to do something so grand as Amazon, and MacKenzie was a key part of that team. Years ago, MacKenzie put any doubts about her contribution to rest in a long, meticulous review of a biography of Jeff. She gave the book one star.

MacKenzie has always stood up for her contribution in the marriage. But it’s not so easy for most women. Most women did not work side by side with their spouse to start the most disruptive company in the world.

Most women do their half of the team’s work and get very little credit for it. Because when it comes to spousal partnerships, society talks about the stay-at-home spouse like they are a freeloader, waiting to pick up their check in the divorce.

USA Today describes MacKenzie and Jeff starting Amazon together. But then USA Today frames the marriage this way:

Since then, Bezos became the world’s richest man, supplanting Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates on Forbes’ annual list of the 400 richest Americans three months ago, with his net worth rising to $160 billion, up from $81.5 billion a year ago.

MacKenzie Bezos became a novelist, winning an American Book Award for her 2005 debut novel “The Testing of Luther Albright.” Subsequently, she released the book “Traps” in 2013.

This is not an accurate representation of either Jeff or MacKenzie. One of the most dangerous parts of the USA Today summary is they left out that “since then” Jeff and MacKenzie also became parents. This is very important because it’s the work that MacKenzie did that makes her an equal partner in the marriage and equally as wealthy as Jeff.

So, USA Today should make a correction to give a more accurate description:

Since then, Jeff Bezos and MacKenzie Bezos became parents. At the same time, Jeff was the CEO of Amazon, and MacKenzie became a novelist. They also became the richest couple, supplanting Bill and Melinda Gates. 

It’s unusual for such a high-profile CEO to be married to someone who is their equal. Which is why the language we use to talk about this divorce is so important. Society does not celebrate the contribution stay-at-home partners make to corporate jobs. But huge jobs like CEO of Amazon are actually two-person jobs.

When we automatically assume the stay-at-home spouse is the one with less money, we disparage the contribution of the stay-at-home spouse. Today more and more women choose to stay at home with kids, but only after they spend time in the corporate world, where people get money and accolades and promotions. The transition to parenting is difficult, because there are no awards or promotions. The transition is even more difficult when journalists don’t give women credit for their contributions.

How you talk about the Bezos divorce says a lot about you. We don’t come across divorces like this very often; MacKenzie is a powerhouse. Let’s talk about her that way, because talking about women with power while being respectful of that power teaches us to respect the power inside ourselves.

207 replies
« Older Comments
  1. Applemint
    Applemint says:

    No! Their children are worth more than all that fortune. Its really dangerous to let them stay with other people,will be safer if with the mom or dad. I will put my children first than all that! Dont be silly stupid. The wife her job, husband the his job. Thats why people marry. They both have right on what ever they worked for life!

    Reply
  2. Jenn
    Jenn says:

    If Jeff Bezos is such a CEO genius, how come he didn’t get a pre- or post-nup?

    Look it’s really simple. We have determined as a society that when you merge lives and finances as a legally married couple, then the full wealth is yours as a couple to be split equally in a divorce (in their jurisdiction), unless you sign a contract to the contrary. I agree that headlines should reflect this and this was a great perspective.

    We have no idea who made which decisions when in their marriage and whether it was her sage advice that caused the wealth to grow or what. But we’ve also determined as a society that the way we deal with that is a 50-50 split, done, we don’t have to sort through the last 20 years of your life to try to figure it out at great cost.

    Reply
  3. Ledi Imeraj
    Ledi Imeraj says:

    I agree with the point of view on MacKenzie. However this article aims to support women as equals but yet it seems to fail as it only measures the equality with the potential to make money.

    I am not sure I understand this comment: “It’s unusual for such a high-profile CEO to be married to someone who is their equal.” Equal in what?

    Stay at home moms are a crucial and equal element of the success of a man in leadership. Just as stay at home dads are an equal element of the success of a woman in leadership.

    Reply
  4. Leo
    Leo says:

    This is complete bullshit. They are not equal and everyone knows it. People are only saying it’s equal to promote gender equality and to buy favour from feminist readers. Mackenzie could be replaced by a lot of other women and Jeff will still be Jeff. On the other hand, Jeff CANNOT be replaced by another man, and the two will magically be worth billions. It’s fair to say Mackenzie did her share of work at home, but by no means should be entitled to half of Jeff’s net worth.

    Reply
    • Penelope Trunk
      Penelope Trunk says:

      The misogny in this string of comments is incredible. Most of the people who do not understand why the partners are equal are new to this blog. SonI console myself that they will read about David Dellafield and worry that I’ll show up at their house.

      Leo, lets give Jeff the benefit of doubt that he cares deeply about his kids. Jeff would then understand that in his kids’ eyes having their mother take care of them is more valuable than having Jeff run Amazon.

      Jeff cannot use his money to buy a mother for the kids. That love cannot be bought. So Jeff and MacKenzie have two things that require very special leadership: the company and their kids. I have 100% confidence that the impact of MacKenzie leaving her job would be way more devestating than Jeff leaving his job. Many CEOs have been replaced. A mother’s love can never be replaced.

      Please notice that I have resorted to cliches by the end because this is so obvious, and that’s why the law treats a mother and a CEO equally.

      Penelope

      Reply
    • Penelope Trunk
      Penelope Trunk says:

      Why are we even debating what she should have? Seriously, I have no interest in hearing you go through case law, which you are not doing, to tell us all why you think Washington State law could be more fair a different way. The law is the law because a lot of people who care a lot about law decided it was the most fair given all the alternatives.

      The point here isn’t to discuss if 50/50 is fair. We debated that in the 70s and moved on. The point here is how we talk about society under the current laws. My point is that laws have changed and our language should change with it.

      Leo, you are way too late to be debating the merits of this not-particularly-controversial law. That train is gone. You remind me of King, Senator from Iowa, wanting to debate the merits of white supremacy. There is no more debating that. No one wants to hear from him.

      Penelope

      Reply
      • JJ
        JJ says:

        “The law is the law because a lot of people who care a lot about law decided it was the most fair given all the alternatives.”

        This is a truly naive take on how law is made and why. Or maybe really cynical. I can’t decide.

        And really, ‘the law is settled, move on’? That’s not how the activists thought way back when — they fought, they argued, they never stopped, they tore the existing unjust laws down. It won’t be easy but it got done before, it can be done again.

        Reply
  5. Testing Times
    Testing Times says:

    You are right once again. Women who are good mothers should deserve half of their husband’s wealth. Just as husband and wife who reared a good child deserve half of their fortune in life.
    But what about women who are terrible wives and cost someone’s piece of mind by posting jibberish about their spouse on their social media and micro blogging sites? Surely they should be punished too in the same breath.

    Reply
  6. Anonymous chick
    Anonymous chick says:

    He married a secretary and now she’s rich. I’m a woman, and I think she’s entitled to half the fortune since they didn’t have a prenup, and she’d be entitled to PLENTY even if they had a prenup.

    But let’s not kid ourselves. She didn’t generate $70 billion.

    Reply
    • jessica
      jessica says:

      Ok, let’s follow this train of thought. I’ve been married for 11 years at this point. From a very, very basic level of reality: I could have sabotaged my husband’s career multiple times to prevent his successes. I could have divorced my husband and split assets and hoped we’d eventually sort ourselves out separately. We have a business involved, and there is no chance it would have the same level of attention if I walked away, just as if my husband walked away. It raises a whole new set of division of time and focus. Add in kids, etc.

      This divorce is happening after this family is stable and the business can run without Jeff. The family can’t run without Mackenzie, though. Can it? (hypothetically) What is the outcome of risk involved if she is gone?

      There was nothing stopping Mackenzie from divorcing Jeff in Amazon’s prime (ha) years. Divorce then would hampered his life and Amazon. What if he had split custody? Would he have had the time to dedicate to his genius behind Amazon? What if he never married her, and she never encouraged him to quit a Hedge Fund (!!!) and embark on the Amazon plan as a team? If you really follow the logic of their known decisions, if these two hadn’t met and made the decisions they made on behalf of Amazon and their family the odds of Amazon being what is is today are NIL. It is an anomaly (which is why we are discussing it), it is incredible, it is beyond what most families do, but at the end of it- she is just as valuable to the Amazon success story as Jeff.

      Reply
      • Penelope Trunk
        Penelope Trunk says:

        I really like this comment, Jessica. This is one of those moments when I want to be able to upvote a comment.

        Also, Jessica, your pun might be my favorite ever.
        Penelope

        Reply
    • Jane
      Jane says:

      Does anyone have reading comprehension anymore?

      He married a secretary? He married an Investment Banker
      That’s right. She was an Investment Banker and so was he.

      They started the company TOGETHER.Side by side.

      She ABSOLUTELY generated at least 70 million.

      Reply
  7. DB
    DB says:

    Here’s an interesting question: If Amazon had lost money (instead of making money) and owed the banks $100 billion, would Mackenzie agree to pay 50 billion to the bank (or take on that liability) at the time of divorce?

    Reply
  8. Stacy Rathers
    Stacy Rathers says:

    The children being 50% and the business being 50% is nonsense. Almost every single person in the world raises children, very few people manage a trillion dollar company, comparing the two is completely misleading and you do this in the 1st paragraph, making the rest not worthy of my time to read as the entire article is based on a misconception.

    Reply
  9. Ryan Nolan
    Ryan Nolan says:

    it costs money to file the paperwork to get married to some dipshit spouse in america, dont do that to yourself and you wont ever suffer this problem. She really deserves her fate. Im sure the $70 billion will really be horrible for her to suddenly receive out of no where (it was in jeffs bank account before, not hers)

    Reply
  10. Minami
    Minami says:

    I think the nicest thing about this post is that you picked a really pretty picture of MacKenzie Bezos for this post. It’s a subtle gesture but very sweet – presenting someone else at their best.

    Reply
    • Penelope Trunk
      Penelope Trunk says:

      Thank you so much for noticing! I spent a lot of time choosing a picture that seemed right for this post. Sometimes I think I’m nuts how long I spend on details like that. I’m happy you can tell how important the choice was.

      Penelope

      Reply
  11. Wes
    Wes says:

    Everyone will agree that a good wife and mother are priceless but we all have limited money. With the mindset promoted in this post the next thing you know women will all start demanding billions in divorce because they did no less than Mackenzie. If the husband didn’t make that much he can just go into debt for it since it’s not her fault he’s no Jeff Bezos. Maybe since you think being a wife and mother should be compensated so highly you should foot the bill.

    Reply
    • jessica
      jessica says:

      They sort of do this in the UK: Rely on the system, not the family. It’s just another way to promote classism really.

      There defineltely could be a better way to support split and blended families- no one has perfected it yet. We do have the resources, though. This is where UBI (universal basic income) discussions come into play as the prevailing idea, but yet we need something more compelling and, perhaps, interdependent. This flows into the idea of doing ‘make good work’ that people need to be busy and valued by community regardless of their wealth or resources.

      With the amount of instability the USA can introduce into families’ lives, I find it interesting that the Bezos’ only philanthropic effort is aimed at helping homeless, yet capable, mothers and children.

      See, by his actions he doesn’t even fundamentally agree with the naysayers in this comment section. Otherwise, why is he taking it on himself to support other men’s ex-families financially?

      Reply
  12. Helene Taylor
    Helene Taylor says:

    Amen. I mean A-woman, sister. I had virtually identical thoughts as I read headline after headline about Jeff Bezos having to give away one-half of his wealth. Sadly, as a family law attorney I can attest that so many stay at home Mom’s (and Dads) get the raw end of the deal and criticized in divorces. In my experienced opinion, we need a paradigm shift that views stay-at-home parents as equal contributing partners and “support” and the division of the estate as the equal distribution of partnership assets and ROI. After all, has anyone noted how difficult it is to operate an efficient household and raise kids? It’s hard enough taking care of oneself and a few pets. And, doesn’t a happy home contribute to the business advancements and success of the “working” spouse and society as a whole? Lastly, if the stay at home parent worked in the business too, if only for a short spell, well that’s a no-brainer. Thanks for raising and discussing the issue. Another point to raise/consider is how disappointing and telling it is that the press and even political heads of state are suggesting that the Bezos divorce will be WWIII, which would be ridiculous. Who needs more than $68 billion or even $10 billion for that matter? Divvy it up, give some to the kids, tons to charity, say thanks for the good times and good luck.

    Reply
  13. Peter
    Peter says:

    Dear Ladies,
    I apologize on behalf of the ignorant husbands and others whose views on marital property are disrespectful to their wives and mothers. Thank goodness for the law.
    P. H.

    Reply
  14. Kate
    Kate says:

    A stay-at-home spouse gets half of money after divorce, people said it was right. OK. No idea. So if a businessman husband with a huge debt gets divorce with his stay-at-home wife, will the wife take responsibility for the half of his debt, to be fair? Rewards are share 50/50, bitterness must be 50/50, too because they are side by side. Can’t let the wife always get halfrewards but free of bitterness.

    Reply
  15. Abet Dada
    Abet Dada says:

    As a divorced man – I would agree with this article – and to quote someone “civilization is a team sport – with men and women making up the teams” which is why Feminism is so destructive – as it breaks-down that relationship – sort of like the MSM articles Penelope is being critical of.

    But I am actually disappointed in Jeff Bezos though not surprised. He was always it seems a scumbag – wealthy – but still a scumbag and that book review confirmed it. Also from the movie it seemed clear he WAS a lair AND a cheat. Mackenzie deserves half there is no doubt.

    The new bimbo is more likely to be a Gold-digger or just a con – given she is also an adulteress.

    Thx for the write-up.

    Reply
  16. Chris
    Chris says:

    From the looks of it she was there at the beginning helping his vision. So I concur she deserves a part of the fortune.

    However the law needs an overhaul because there is no accounting for good or bad parent or spouse behavior during the union. These old laws simply addressed the state’s valid concerns that women and children should not be abandoned and the government takes on the cost burden.

    How many times have you heard “I married him for the money” or It’s cheaper to keep her”?

    If someone were the catalyst to the demise of the union there should be penalties. No automatic 50%.

    What incentives do young people really have to get married when most marriages end in divorce and all you hear about splitting half to a potentially undeserving person.

    Reply
  17. Srini
    Srini says:

    Besides shamelessly being a claimant to half his money, now the argument is that its hers? Would that have been the attitude if only she were earning?

    Reply
  18. Tamara C
    Tamara C says:

    Cannot tell you how much I appreciate this. I am gratefully in a happy marriage, one in which I have done small amounts of freelance work from home while raising children for the last 18 years. When we talked marriage and children we agreed before the ring that, for us, the ideal family situation had one parent at home full time until all children graduated high school, to be the-evaluated if needs changed. The person who stayed home should be the person who most wanted to if possible, the person who made the least in the job market if the decision came down to practicality. I really wanted to stay home and my husband’s job paid more. No brainer.

    Since then, he has thanked me profusely for making it possible for him to move up the ladder because there are no inconvenient vacation days when a child is sick and there is no, “Which one of us is taking off work for the orthodontist?” He sat down and figured out one time how much I would earn if he had to pay for all my services: laundry, Uber driver, social secretary, private nurse, etc, etc and it was well over $300K a year. He joked, “I have to let you go. I can no longer afford you.”

    But our culture is so anti-at-home partner, that after all these years, I _still_ feel like I’m spending “his” money when I buy a new pair of pants. That is coming from me, not him. You have changed my thinking. I’m sorry McKenzie and Jeff didn’t work out, but while he was building an empire she was building humans and there’s not much comparison because it is her values that decide whether they are Amazon shoppers. 😉

    I get it, I like it, I needed to hear it. Thanks!

    Reply
  19. jenX
    jenX says:

    Hello, Dear — Just wanted to say I scooted over here from Feedly, where I rarely go anymore and the number 7k is beside this post. I never see numbers like that on Feedly anymore. It correlates to the popularity of the article. You still go it, BABE! =)

    Reply
  20. Eric
    Eric says:

    There is only few people like Jeff Bezos who start companies that change the world and earn billions in the process. There are however countless supportive spouses. To equate spousal support as the same thing as his achievements is ridiculous. That’s the same logic as Marx used about any profits belonging to the workers because the company wouldn’t exist without them. Someone has to do the every day work or the behind the scenes work, whatever it may be, this does not make them as important as the innovator. If it does then please when you watch Clockwork Orange, don’t just credit Kubrick’s use of light, credit the gaffer who held the light pole up physically with his hands, because without him we wouldn’t even be able to see anything.
    I just love the tone of this article, that somehow you’ve discovered some discrepancy in logic and you can’t figure out why this imbalance exists. Talent matters sweetheart, and people give credit where credit is due.

    Reply
  21. Laura
    Laura says:

    I think you make many good points but your ultimate thesis is fanciful that they did the company together. Not to say she didn’t contribute hugely or that she doesn’t deserve half the net worth. But I think he’d have started the company if he’d never met her. Would you want your husband taking credit for actually starting your companies. Would she want Jeff taking credit for actual writing in her book. She’s not amazon and I don’t see why that’s a crime. You’ve always called yourself the breadwinner even when married so there’s a certain hypocrisy here. I don’t find the headlines remotely offensive. If a woman who started a billion dollar company was getting a divorce I guarantee you the headlines would tilt To her. Like if Oprah got married and divorced. In a more equal relationship like jay z and Beyoncé I guarantee it’d be represented like a power couple split. MacKenzie chose to be A mom. It’s grossly unvalued. Why do working women deserve free daycare and sahms who are active parents get zilch. They’re not even being compensated like day care providers! Someone has to raise kids. But being a sahm for a tycoon makes you a support system how necessary I can’t say I don’t know them and neither do you (he could hire an army of helpers but perhaps she’s a rock of irreplaceable emotional support). I actually hope she takes him to the cleaners. I think the affair is vile and the other woman should be ashamed too. Not the sharpest tool in the shed to show erotic messages to a friend.

    Reply
  22. Linda
    Linda says:

    In states with no fault divorce where assets are split 50/50 and a couple has no pre-nup, I’ve never understood why the man is ascribed 100% of the wealth in the first place. Seems like a public company should note he is worth half and she is worth half from the start, regardless of what they both do if that is the real power structure in place.

    Reply
  23. 192.168.0.1
    192.168.0.1 says:

    the power in the sentence is so firmly on MacKenzie’s side. But then we should recognize the first headline as odd, too. The headline NBC ran is bad journalism because it distorts reality.

    Reply
  24. De Que
    De Que says:

    Agreed.
    Also, and unrelated to marriage … most of the earth still conflates the quantity of money with magical attributes on people they don’t in fact have.

    Reply
  25. Douglas Bowker
    Douglas Bowker says:

    As a former full-time stay-at-home Dad I’d like to say that the entire concept of raising children is still very much undervalued. This is despite the fact that everyone I know who didn’t stay home, all admit that they didn’t think they could handle it! But the other thing is, being able to afford one parent to stay home (even if they supplemented with freelance work as I did) is unfortunately almost a luxury today.

    To me the “value” of raising kids is still stuck in pre-20th century thinking, when let’s face it, only about 60% of your kids were going to make it past age 21 anyway (if you were lucky). And since girls were allowed very little education back then, as adults most women were given very few options other than trying to produce as many kids as possible. Never mind the simplistic math in that equation, and all the wasted intellectual capital by such a system.

    But today that is not the case at all! EVERY study out there shows that the first 3-5 years of a child’s life will make the most difference in terms of success later on. And the thing that makes the most difference in those first 3-5 years, aside from a solid pre-school? One-on-one parenting with that child. Talking to, reading to, playing with: which in most cases will be a Mom.

    Stay at home Moms (or Dads) are also an enormous hidden financial advantage for school systems that have a lot of them in their area. A school with a few dozen educated and professional at-home parents that can volunteer their time? That’s like getting thousands of extra dollars in their budget all for free.

    Reply
  26. Dana
    Dana says:

    I appreciate your take on this. It feels like it’s a viewpoint that is often lost in the mainstream narrative. She is a powerhouse. Thank you for posting this.

    Reply
  27. The Wise One
    The Wise One says:

    “In the Bezos marriage, the partners are equals.”
    Total BS. Stopped reading after that.
    Women aren’t capable of what Jeff did and the proof is in the number of billionaire women there are in the world: very VERY few and most of them didn’t become billionaire because of their work but because of heritage.

    Reply
  28. Toby Macmann
    Toby Macmann says:

    The problem is not the money. It’s not money. It’s shares. Without his Amazon shares he is worth probably a 10B or so (he owns 3% of Google). In reality he owns maybe 1B of liquid cash and assets.

    We are talking about control over one of the most successful shops in history

    Reply
  29. Susan Miller
    Susan Miller says:

    Divorce relates to the concept of family, not business. The causes of divorce are rarely equitable – nor are the contributions. When a family is rended, the law tries to facilitate division of the family in its entire constellation of being – every member and asset as one whole entity. Because of the sheer volume of divorce cases there have to be broad principles used to divide all of the aspects of a marriage, including their assets and children. Essentially, a marriage is two people, so the starting point for division would be half, and then go from there based on nuances of the marriage – and the caliber of your attorney and accountant.

    Reply
  30. Blake
    Blake says:

    I hadn’t even thought about it prior to reading this, but what a great point. The spin on this conversation (which should really be given more privacy than it is) definitely disregards the power of beginnings and dedication to family.

    Reply
  31. Laura
    Laura says:

    I think people don’t realize the amount that luck plays into this. Many, many people are talented and smart and work long hours at startups and they go nowhere. He was simply lucky that his effort brought rewards.

    Many people are saying ‘how could she deserve more than other housewives and mothers?’ Well, how can he deserve more money than all these other hardworking entrepreneurs?

    It’s just the luck of the draw.

    Hopefully he puts the same value on giving his kids a quality childhood as the value he puts on his work.

    Reply
  32. Jane
    Jane says:

    Wow.You have clearly never been married or had children, or know what it takes to get a company off the ground.
    The company, THEY started TOGETHER.

    If you were him, . . . your spirit will prevent you from being even 1/100 of Bezos.

    Reply
  33. Robert
    Robert says:

    Oh please, what a silly article. Mackenzie was an English Lit major and a novelist when Jeff met her, and she continued to be a novelist later.

    Jeff on the other hand was a computer scientist and investor when they met which are highly relevant skillsets to what he was about to do.

    Now I don’t doubt she was a loving wife and mother, and I don’t begrudge her getting a large payout, but the fact is she has had one of the most privileged, blessed lives a woman could hope to have.

    She married her smart, successful boss; he became even more successful; and she has got to live an immensely wealthy live with as many servants and nannies as she wanted.

    Pretending she built Amazon is as ludicrous as pretending Jeff wrote her books.

    Reply
  34. Robert
    Robert says:

    In most of the U.S., family court is hell. The “judges” are nothing more than divorce lawyers who are on the paying-the-dues end of their public/private rotation. Often, they are the slower, lazier end of the law talent pool. Would you look forward to having the dearest aspects of your life governed by a greedy, dim-witted sociopath? There is little or no recourse against their arbitrary rulings. They are highly incentivized to drive up costs and spread the money around to the lawyers and expensive “experts” in accounting, family psycology, detectives and more.

    Probably, the Bezos should split the wealth evenly, but they’re stupid-rich, so who really cares? The real big issue is that millions of families, and, more often-than-not, dads, who are getting utterly shafted by family courts.

    Reply
  35. dave rave
    dave rave says:

    Yeah but the thing is, Raising 4 kids and maintaining a household does not directly earn 100 billion dollars.

    Reply
  36. Kevin L.
    Kevin L. says:

    How superior an intellect and business person is Makenzie to JB?
    Part of the settlement, from her end, was an extremely wise bait & switch — she offered portions of future sinking ships — and Bozos and his lawyer(s) literally jumped on it!!!

    “She is giving him all of her interests in The Washington Post and Blue Origin, as well as 75% of her Amazon stock and voting control of her shares…”

    Reply
  37. Sean Crawford
    Sean Crawford says:

    Back in ancient China there were no corporations. There was, however, a proverb:
    Easier to run a kingdom than to run a family.
    (Or maybe their word for ‘run’ is closer to ‘rule’—translation is so finicky)

    Reply
« Older Comments

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *