- un pic tehnic dar arata cum o firma poate sa creasca enorm fara sa aibe profit
- practic strategia lor actuala e sa investeasca cit mai mult astfel incit nu au profit, iar proprietarii firmei, investorii, nu primesc dividende, in schimb le creste valoarea actiunilor pe care le detin
- in acelasi timp intrucit nu are profit Amazon nu plateste nici impozit pe profit asa ca nu contribuie cu nimic la bugetul general american
- si in acelasi timp prin toate inovatiile lor duc la scaderea nevoii de forta de munca, deci la somaj, somaj care ar trebui sa fie platit de statul american, stat care insa nu primeste nimic de la Amazon in impozite
- deci practic Amazon duce la o scadere importanta a fortei de munca, dar nu contribuie cu nimic la sustinerea acesteia
- iar in final Bezos, actionarul principal considera ca venitul garantat ptr toti americanii ar fi ceva bun, dar si mai bun ptr firma lui care nu contribuie cu nimic la bugetul din care s-ar plati acest venit
- in final asa arata progresismul unui rechin capitalist, vorbe frumoase in timp ce altii trebuie sa plateasca ptr tot ce distruge el.
Practic ce fac progresistii cind vin cu ideile astea despre un venit minim garantat este o modalitate de a isi mentine businessul
respectiv businessul lor distruge piata de munca
ceea ce duce la somaj
si astfel puterea de cumparare a populatiei scade
iar aceasta scadere a puterii de cumparare le afecteaza businessul
Amazon nu mai are cui sa vanda fiindca populatia e saraca, nu mai are joburi
iar Amazon nu creeaza joburi ci le elimina
Asa ca prin eliminarea joburilor a micsorat numarul clientilor care pot cumpara.
Si atunci brusc devin filantropi
dar nu pe banii lor proprii
ci pe cei ai statului.
Ai statului la al carui buget general nu contribuie intrucat platesc cat mai putine taxe
Stat care trebuie acum sa ii subventioneze mascat prin redistribuirea a ceea ce este colectat la buget de la alti contribuabili.
Asa ca Amazon nu plateste, dar primeste si arata ca mari filantropisti de fapt folosesc resursele statului ca sa cistige bani.
Practic ce fac progresistii cind vin cu ideile astea despre un venit minim garantat este o modalitate de a isi mentine businessul
respectiv businessul lor distruge piata de munca
ceea ce duce la somaj
si astfel puterea de cumparare a populatiei scade
iar aceasta scadere a puterii de cumparare le afecteaza businessul
Amazon nu mai are cui sa vanda fiindca populatia e saraca, nu mai are joburi
iar Amazon nu creeaza joburi ci le elimina
Asa ca prin eliminarea joburilor a micsorat numarul clientilor care pot cumpara.
Si atunci brusc devin filantropi
dar nu pe banii lor proprii
ci pe cei ai statului.
Ai statului la al carui buget general nu contribuie intrucat platesc cat mai putine taxe
Stat care trebuie acum sa ii subventioneze mascat prin redistribuirea a ceea ce este colectat la buget de la alti contribuabili.
Asa ca Amazon nu plateste, dar primeste si arata ca mari filantropisti de fapt folosesc resursele statului ca sa cistige bani.
For one, Amazon, unlike any other firm its size, has changed the basic compact with financial markets.
It has replaced the expectation for profits with a focus on vision and growth, managing its business to break even while investors bid up its stock price.
This radical approach has provided the company with a staggering advantage in free-flowing capital. Google, Facebook, Wal-Mart and most Fortune 500 companies are saddled with expectations of profits. Many firms would be much more innovative if they were given a license to operate without the nuisance of profitability. Amazon has thus had enormous capital on hand to invest in delivery networks, especially the crucial last link for getting goods to the doorsteps of consumers, without having to worry that they don’t yield immediate profits.
Amazon’s strategy of break-even operations also means that it has virtually no profits to tax. Since 2008, Wal-Mart has paid $64 billion in federal income taxes, while Amazon has paid just $1.4 billion. Yet, while paying low taxes, Amazon has added $220 billion in value to the stock held by its shareholders over the past 24 months—equivalent to the entire market capitalization of Wal-Mart.
Something is deeply amiss when a company can ascend to almost a half trillion dollars in market value—becoming the fifth most valuable firm in the world—without paying any meaningful income tax. Does Amazon really owe so little to support public revenue and public needs? If a giant firm pays less than the average 24% in income taxes that the companies of the S&P 500 pay, it logically means that less-successful firms pay more. In this way, Amazon further adds to the winner-take-all tendencies plaguing our economy.
Because Amazon is more efficient than other retailers, it is able to transact the same amount of business with half the employees. If Amazon continues to grow its business by $20 billion a year, the annual toll of lost jobs for merchants, buyers and cashiers will be in the tens of thousands by my calculations. Disruption in the U.S. labor force is nothing new—we have just never dealt with a company that is so ruthless and single-minded about it.
I recently spoke at a conference the day after Jeff Bezos. During his talk, he made the case for a universal guaranteed income for all Americans. It is tempting to admire his progressive values and concern for the public welfare, but there is a dark implication here too. It appears that the most insightful mind in the business world has given up on the notion that our economy, or his firm, can support that pillar of American identity: a well-paying job.
Amazon has brought us many benefits, but we all must recognize that the rise of the One brings with it much more than free two-day delivery. “Alexa, is this a good thing?”
Niciun comentariu:
Trimiteți un comentariu