> laundered trillions of dollars > 400m dollar fine > isnt even .01% of what they made ...why even use numbers, a concept literally defined to quantify thing

> laundered trillions of dollars > 400m dollar fine > isnt even .01% of what they made ...why even use numbers, a concept literally defined to quantify things, if you're just going to use utterly incorrect ones? HSBC did not launder trillions of dollars over a decade, that figure is three orders of magnitude too high. HSBC is being fined $1.9B, not $400M.[1] HSBC also did not earn 19 trillion dollars over the course of a decade, which is what would make $1.9B your 0.01% figure. Even a $400M fine would still constitute earnings of $4 trillion. Not only are your numbers incorrect factually speaking, their relationships with each other are entirely out of whack for measuring HSBC's profit, even in an absurd hypothetical scenario in which HSBC did launder trillions of dollars. _________________________________________ 1. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-07-02/hsbc-judge-approves-1-9b-drug-money-laundering-accord https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-07-02/hsbc-judg...