6 ms·

There was someone like this as well... a man who had a bookstore and invested all of their profit into expansion so when expansion was scaled back, they could e

There was someone like this as well... a man who had a bookstore and invested all of their profit into expansion so when expansion was scaled back, they could easily report massive profits.

alephnan 5y ago
Are you suggesting it is the Prime customers or the investors who are being scammed ? I don’t think it’s fair to compare a growth company to this: > There was just one major problem... Crazy Eddie had been lying about its numbers since its inception
sleepdreamy 5y ago
Amazon is notorious for aggressively re-investing their profits which is why they're as massive as they are. They are constantly trying 30 different things at once. "You must spend money to make it", this adage is true since the very inception of monetary value. Not sure this is a great comparison.
throwawaycities 5y ago
I heard about this, apparently the owner also devised a scheme that paid his employees so poorly he was able to get the federal government to subsidize his workers food using programs originally designed for the unemployed and disabled persons. To perfect his fraud he expanded his book store to include groceries so that he could profit on the government subsidies directly by having his employees buy their food from him.
- m463 5y ago
  I wonder if his exit strategy involves escaping not only prosecution, but gravity itself.
- datavirtue 5y ago
  Genius! Innovation to be lauded and copied! Whoever thought of this should be rewarded with more property and increased control over their employees and regulators.
- mturmon 5y ago
  This same owner encouraged customers to avoid paying state sales tax on their purchases -- and then, when the state of California wanted to collect the tax, threatened to divest his company of all California workers. And then dragged his feet for years with threats and obfuscation to delay implementation.
  - kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
    Montgomery Ward and Sears Roebuck were enabling the interstate sales tax bypass 100 years earlier. Nobody cared because the constitution was respected then.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  The overlap between people on government food assistance and buying a significant fraction of their groceries at Whole Foods is probably not very high...
  - ev1 5y ago
    Fresh/Go, not WF
  - throwawaycities 5y ago
    Unfortunately because of lobbying efforts the public doesn’t have access to that data, that’s right tax payers aren’t entitled to know where taxpayer funds are being spent. There are FOIA requests and subsequent lawsuits to get the information and you can see the industry argument for yourself, but these businesses feel they would be stigmatized if the public knew how much they made from taxpayer funded programs and they feel they would be at a disadvantage with landlords in negotiating rent if they knew how much they received from these programs. They also double dip and both Amazon and Whole Foods accept SNAP benefits/EBT, after a 20% discount, I’m sure it’s a significant amount, after they are the largest employer of SNAP beneficiaries in many states.
    - sokoloff 5y ago
      I don’t think SNAP/WIC recipients should have any less right to privacy around their grocery purchases than you or I do. I trust that the SNAP/WIC administration can/do monitor purchases for fraud, but beyond that internal use, I do not believe that data should be released in any form that could possibly be linked to an individual purchaser (which would include links to their employer). If you and I have that privacy, benefits recipients should as well.
      - throwawaycities 5y ago
        > I don’t think SNAP/WIC recipients should have any less right to privacy around their grocery purchases than you or I do. That is great if you want to protect the privacy of the businesses, but businesses disclosing the total they make from these programs has nothing to do with privacy of individuals. If Amazon and Whole Foods had to disclose they made $1B each from SNAP last year, there is clearly no privacy concerns linked to individuals involved. There is absolutely no information of the individuals involved. Not even the industry has attempted to make privacy arguments, which again are publicly available if you wanted to learn about it and are limited to concerns of being “stigmatized” if the public learns how much the businesses make from these programs and fear that disclosures would hurt negotiations with landlords.
kube-system 5y ago
With the slight difference that “investment activities” is a line on a cash flow statement, and “embezzlement activities” usually is not.
gmiller123456 5y ago
That's not really at all like the scam Crazy Eddie was doing. Reinvesting is perfectly legal, and so common any investor knows to look at revenue (and many other things), not just profits. In fact, I'd bet most investors would prefer profits be reinvested rather than paid out to investors, as the increase in the share price usually dwarfs the payout.
Mikeb85 5y ago
Except expanding the business itself is a perfectly valid way to use the business' profits. Amazon used 100% legal accounting measures.

There was someone like this as well... a man who had a bookstore and invested all of their profit into expansion so when expansion was scaled back, they could easily report massive profits.

alephnan 5y ago

Are you suggesting it is the Prime customers or the investors who are being scammed ? I don’t think it’s fair to compare a growth company to this: > There was just one major problem... Crazy Eddie had been lying about its numbers since its inception

sleepdreamy 5y ago

Amazon is notorious for aggressively re-investing their profits which is why they're as massive as they are. They are constantly trying 30 different things at once. "You must spend money to make it", this adage is true since the very inception of monetary value. Not sure this is a great comparison.

throwawaycities 5y ago

I heard about this, apparently the owner also devised a scheme that paid his employees so poorly he was able to get the federal government to subsidize his workers food using programs originally designed for the unemployed and disabled persons. To perfect his fraud he expanded his book store to include groceries so that he could profit on the government subsidies directly by having his employees buy their food from him.

m463 5y ago
I wonder if his exit strategy involves escaping not only prosecution, but gravity itself.
datavirtue 5y ago
Genius! Innovation to be lauded and copied! Whoever thought of this should be rewarded with more property and increased control over their employees and regulators.
mturmon 5y ago
This same owner encouraged customers to avoid paying state sales tax on their purchases -- and then, when the state of California wanted to collect the tax, threatened to divest his company of all California workers. And then dragged his feet for years with threats and obfuscation to delay implementation.
- kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
  Montgomery Ward and Sears Roebuck were enabling the interstate sales tax bypass 100 years earlier. Nobody cared because the constitution was respected then.
sokoloff 5y ago
The overlap between people on government food assistance and buying a significant fraction of their groceries at Whole Foods is probably not very high...
- ev1 5y ago
  Fresh/Go, not WF
- throwawaycities 5y ago
  Unfortunately because of lobbying efforts the public doesn’t have access to that data, that’s right tax payers aren’t entitled to know where taxpayer funds are being spent. There are FOIA requests and subsequent lawsuits to get the information and you can see the industry argument for yourself, but these businesses feel they would be stigmatized if the public knew how much they made from taxpayer funded programs and they feel they would be at a disadvantage with landlords in negotiating rent if they knew how much they received from these programs. They also double dip and both Amazon and Whole Foods accept SNAP benefits/EBT, after a 20% discount, I’m sure it’s a significant amount, after they are the largest employer of SNAP beneficiaries in many states.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    I don’t think SNAP/WIC recipients should have any less right to privacy around their grocery purchases than you or I do. I trust that the SNAP/WIC administration can/do monitor purchases for fraud, but beyond that internal use, I do not believe that data should be released in any form that could possibly be linked to an individual purchaser (which would include links to their employer). If you and I have that privacy, benefits recipients should as well.
    - throwawaycities 5y ago
      > I don’t think SNAP/WIC recipients should have any less right to privacy around their grocery purchases than you or I do. That is great if you want to protect the privacy of the businesses, but businesses disclosing the total they make from these programs has nothing to do with privacy of individuals. If Amazon and Whole Foods had to disclose they made $1B each from SNAP last year, there is clearly no privacy concerns linked to individuals involved. There is absolutely no information of the individuals involved. Not even the industry has attempted to make privacy arguments, which again are publicly available if you wanted to learn about it and are limited to concerns of being “stigmatized” if the public learns how much the businesses make from these programs and fear that disclosures would hurt negotiations with landlords.

kube-system 5y ago

With the slight difference that “investment activities” is a line on a cash flow statement, and “embezzlement activities” usually is not.

gmiller123456 5y ago

That's not really at all like the scam Crazy Eddie was doing. Reinvesting is perfectly legal, and so common any investor knows to look at revenue (and many other things), not just profits. In fact, I'd bet most investors would prefer profits be reinvested rather than paid out to investors, as the increase in the share price usually dwarfs the payout.

Mikeb85 5y ago

Except expanding the business itself is a perfectly valid way to use the business' profits. Amazon used 100% legal accounting measures.