3 ms·

You're comparing global revenue to a fine in the UK. That's kind of dishonest. In 2021, Amazon's UK profits were £23.2B, or $26.2B - of which $1B is almost 4%.

You're comparing global revenue to a fine in the UK. That's kind of dishonest. In 2021, Amazon's UK profits were £23.2B, or $26.2B - of which $1B is almost 4%. Big difference. To top that off, you're looking at revenue, instead of profit. I completely agree that the fines should be substantially higher, but being dishonest is bad.

brudgers 4y ago
I am not being dishonest at all. Amazon operates globally. The fine is just another cost of doing business for Amazon. From Amazon’s perspective there’s no significance to the fine’s relationship to UK revenue. Because the practice generates revenue globally. To be clear, I don’t have an opinion about the fine or Amazon’s practice because it is not worth having one. (And of course, the practice has been ongoing and the calculation of revenue hit should be amortized over the years since inception and discounted for the time value of money).
- throw10920 4y ago
  > From Amazon’s perspective there’s no significance to the fine’s relationship to UK revenue. This is false. Amazon has the option to stop doing business in the UK, meaning that they lose the revenue, but are not longer to subject to fines from the UK's court system. Amazon very clearly balances the expected costs of doing business in a particular market with the expected benefits. Similarly, Amazon's use of the practice globally means that they are subject to fines from every market that they operate in. Which you did not count. > the practice has been ongoing and the calculation of revenue hit should be amortized over the years since inception and discounted for the time value of money These fines impact Amazon's decision of whether to continue to do the practice today. If the fines start to eclipse their current revenue, it literally does not matter if they'll still have made more money by doing it in the past - they'll cease the activity. Therefore, taking past revenues into account is irrelevant and dishonest.
pbhjpbhj 4y ago
Is that accounting for dodgy accounting? Selling IP rights to themselves, routing digital goods through the Channel Islands, selling through other countries (Luxembourg?)? I don't know exactly what shenanigans they do, just that they do them.

brudgers 4y ago

I am not being dishonest at all. Amazon operates globally. The fine is just another cost of doing business for Amazon. From Amazon’s perspective there’s no significance to the fine’s relationship to UK revenue. Because the practice generates revenue globally. To be clear, I don’t have an opinion about the fine or Amazon’s practice because it is not worth having one. (And of course, the practice has been ongoing and the calculation of revenue hit should be amortized over the years since inception and discounted for the time value of money).

throw10920 4y ago
> From Amazon’s perspective there’s no significance to the fine’s relationship to UK revenue. This is false. Amazon has the option to stop doing business in the UK, meaning that they lose the revenue, but are not longer to subject to fines from the UK's court system. Amazon very clearly balances the expected costs of doing business in a particular market with the expected benefits. Similarly, Amazon's use of the practice globally means that they are subject to fines from every market that they operate in. Which you did not count. > the practice has been ongoing and the calculation of revenue hit should be amortized over the years since inception and discounted for the time value of money These fines impact Amazon's decision of whether to continue to do the practice today. If the fines start to eclipse their current revenue, it literally does not matter if they'll still have made more money by doing it in the past - they'll cease the activity. Therefore, taking past revenues into account is irrelevant and dishonest.

pbhjpbhj 4y ago

Is that accounting for dodgy accounting? Selling IP rights to themselves, routing digital goods through the Channel Islands, selling through other countries (Luxembourg?)? I don't know exactly what shenanigans they do, just that they do them.