This is advertising. It’s not the most worst example, but it’s still fundamentally an ad.
Revenue is absolutely the wrong metric to use. If you had $100 of revenue and $99 in costs, you have only $1 left to pay your fines. Amazon did not earn enough to pay its fines in 1 hour and 50 minutes because most of that that money was used to buy and deliver the products, plus various other expenses. The blog post is misstating the numbers by over an order of magnitude for some of the companies. If you’re going to do it, do it right at least. The profit numbers are just as easy to come by as revenue.
Baselessly ascribing malicious intent is moreso a way to sow distrust and kill off discussion.
And besides, unless local regulations expressly forbid it, the income statements of those companies are after any fines and after any profit reducing measures (e.g. Amazon famously use investment schemes to reduce taxation), they do make the money to cover them in the shorter interval, or even shorter.
It is astonishing to me that, in explaining why “baselessly ascribing malicious intent” is bad you have, in fact, baselessly ascribed the malicious intent of sowing distrust and killing of discussion to the person you are responding to. Incredibly quick hypocrisy turn around there.
Arguably it doesn’t matter if its maliciousness or incompetence, the result is the same.
Amazon doesn’t even pay a dividend. Do you think suppliers are just gifting their products to Amazon? Amazon is a pretty low-margin company on the whole.
Less than 5% is definitely considered low-margin. Apple manages >40% by comparison. Although Amazon’s half a trillion dollars of revenue still turns that into a big pile of cash of course.
Oh no, with Amazon only having a 3,5 % margin (after fines), it would take them all of 48 hours to make up the losses.
The point still stands: the fines are ridiculously low for these companies, and they have no incentive to change based on current fines.
Intentionally misrepresenting facts is not how one should try and make a point though. It just makes people cynical and distrustful.
Baselessly ascribing malicious intent is moreso a way to sow distrust and kill off discussion.
And besides, unless local regulations expressly forbid it, the income statements of those companies are after any fines and after any profit reducing measures (e.g. Amazon famously use investment schemes to reduce taxation), they do make the money to cover them in the shorter interval, or even shorter.
It is astonishing to me that, in explaining why “baselessly ascribing malicious intent” is bad you have, in fact, baselessly ascribed the malicious intent of sowing distrust and killing of discussion to the person you are responding to. Incredibly quick hypocrisy turn around there.
Arguably it doesn’t matter if its maliciousness or incompetence, the result is the same.
The fines are part of their outgoing expenses, though, so at least some of that $99 in your example is going to pay these very fines
deleted by creator
Amazon doesn’t even pay a dividend. Do you think suppliers are just gifting their products to Amazon? Amazon is a pretty low-margin company on the whole.
Have you seen the margin? You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Not OP but just letting people know this kind of data is easily available for public companies: https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AMZN/amazon/operating-margin
Less than 5% is definitely considered low-margin. Apple manages >40% by comparison. Although Amazon’s half a trillion dollars of revenue still turns that into a big pile of cash of course.