131–140 of 163 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about the 4% of the global turnover of a company as mentioned in https://gdpr-info.eu/issues/fines-penalties/ ?
If it were effective, we wouldn't all endure daily GDPR violations. But we do.
If we convert the metric to net income | Alphabet | 4 days 20 hrs 6 mins | | Amazon | 1 day 12 hrs 58 mins | | Apple | 0 day 18 hrs 14 mnins | | Meta | 18 days 17 hrs 19 mins | | Microsoft | 0 day 9 hrs 4 mins | Total: 26 days 5 hrs 40 mins
> Total: 26 days 5 hrs 40 mins What's the significance of adding up together the rows? Time passes simultaneously for all these companies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In what situations does a Capex hit the income statement? I thought only depreciation or amortization would hit profitability.
A merger, all cash, could work. Or a stock buy-back. Or all kinds of shennenigans. Within limits so, at a certain point it becomes fraud.
I guess the EPS line would be impacted in a stock buy back, and that is on the income statement.
I know companies play games with good will write-downs in the years after a merger.
The only way to tackle this is to put leadership in prison. If that is not possible give them the oligarch experience; frozen assets, interpol warrant, etc. It makes no sense that breaking the law gives milder consequences just as long as your crime is transnational and very extensive in scope.
So the real goal is to have Congress create a law that states that if a CEO is not a fiduciary of the employees (in contrast to an fiduciary of investors) they should be jailed
Seems like that would be a good law
Investors - despite the claims from fund managers - aren’t moving countries to avoid this stuff because the actual LPs are American institutional 401k and Funds which theoretically are employees.
So a law requiring corporate management to prioritize labor over capital would I think actually make a good impact.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
violating users privacy and acting as a hostile monopoly is ballparks different than receiving a ticket
The basic idea is the same so.
The only way to tackle this is to put leadership in prison. If that is not possible give them the oligarch experience; frozen assets, interpol warrant, etc. It makes no sense that breaking the law gives milder consequences just as long as your crime is transnational and very extensive in scope.
> The only way to tackle this is to put leadership in prison. This is not the kind of democracy I want to live in. I'd much, much rather see a grassroots movement pushing to once again return to the marketplace of ideas, where for each "category" you have a host of apps competing against each other, not just one or two. As a society, we should learn to hone the oscillatory nature of the complex system that is a tech…
IMHO, what we need to return to is "free (provider choice) and competitive (provider price) access to the market."
E.g. what the internet and web originally were, which begat the current tech giants (including the modern versions of Microsoft and Apple) by allowing them to circumvent existing gatekeepers.
Which, critically, means removing the requirement to pay a tithe of your success (or attempt) to anyone.
Because that's where big tech is currently financially entrenched -- to be on our platforms (i.e. any used platform), you have to pay us.
Which leads to tails-you-lose-heads-I-win scenarios, which strategically block any future challenger from emerging, because they're sacrificing so much of their profit to existing gatekeepers.
The EU got their regulatory targets correct -- either you can be a gatekeeper, controlling access to a large number of users, and abide by heavy limitations on your ability to tax companies that go through you; or you can not be in a gatekeeper position and compete fully.
But you don't get to be a gatekeeper and do anything you want.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not higher fines? % of profit that increases each time?
because they will make you (the end user) pay the bill by increasing prices?
The concept of a corporation is fundamentally unjust. It doesn't make sense that there are entities which have more rights than people. If I do a crime, I go to jail. If a corporation does a crime, they only need to pay a small fine. Not to mention that they have many thousands of people working for them doing crimes on their behalf for which are never caught and never punished. Just the scale of a corporation, makes…
> The concept of a corporation is fundamentally unjust. No it is not. The benefits of the current system are enormous, incomprehensibly enormous. The quality of life enjoyed by the average person even in developing countries would have been unimaginable by many measures to people living just a few centuries ago. All the little first world boys whining on social media are perfectly happy to have clean water to drink,…
Sure. What are the drawbacks? Where are the opportunities for improvement?
Also, you provided a list of things we enjoy today that you're presumably attributing to capitalism. But clean water and roads are usually provided by governments, and electricity and garbage collection (in the US) are generally in a weird liminal space where it's usually corporations but they're heavily regulated (and there's usually some political corruption at the interface between the corporations and the regulators). Our modern food distribution system is a marvel, but it depends on the exploitation of a poorly paid underclass of often undocumented migrant workers to do much of the farm labor. And video games are nice, although some corporations are trying to turn video games into weird casinos (see: lootboxes).
Claiming that the status quo is great and critics are being merely self-interested is deliberately turning a blind eye to the many drawbacks, flaws, and areas that can be improved with the current system. "We have clean water now; DO YOU HATE CLEAN WATER?!" is a disingenuous, bad faith argument. It's the "We should improve society somewhat" comic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The basic idea is the same so.
just with the slightly difference of violating the park space of a single vehicle vs. violating the personal data of millions if not billions of users... quasi equal!
Case in point: income based speeding tickets in Scandinavia vs. fixed amounts elsewhere (I favor the former, as things stand I don't care about the, for me, negligible amounts for 10 km/h speeding every once in a while, which is rather unfair, as I know a lot of people who cannot ignore the existing speeding fines in Germany).
Edit: Regarding corporate fines, authorities should be a lot more aggressive claiming those. E.g. payable immediately after first trial, put in escrow until appeal. And change accointing laws so the fine in escrow cannot be shown in cash balances and has to be taken into account for profit and loss.
from the article: > As of seven days and three hours into 2024, they had already earned enough revenue to pay it all off. revenue is not the same as profit. this is basic stuff. from the same article: > Still, revenue is a more accurate depiction of a company’s size and profitability. it seems like this is rookie hour. then we look at the author's previous posts: https://proton.me/blog/big-tech-ipef With new trade de…