So the poster is saying that they believe it was worth it for Amazon to break the law and pay an $888 million fine.
People in boardrooms dont entertain reasoning in good conscience because conscience doesn't come into it - just "Does this make us more money?"
Break the law once, shame on you - pay a fine. Break it twice, well, we might rewrite the law so the fine is enough to actually deter you. Break it three times and shame on us for letting you trade at all.
Amazon's ad business has extraordinary margins and is growing fast. They knew they could afford speed bumps between the starting block and where they plan to end up (one of the world's largest ad networks, reliably printing $30 billion per year in operating income).
This is what this subthread is talking about
>But, of course, the fine isn't a price point for unlawful behaviour but a penalty levied in judgement of the fact that the company violated the social contract. Seeing fines simply as a business cost would be a serious distortion of the way society should function. Could people in boardrooms actually entertain that kind of reasoning in good conscience? I really hope not.
>>People in boardrooms dont entertain reasoning in good conscience because conscience doesn't come into it - just "Does this make us more money?"
>>>Boardroom greed might follow a logical rational but this behaviour isn't reasonable in the long run. Disregard of fairness and civil conduct won't be worth the eventual cost of a society that becomes increasingly opposed to the system itself.
They're talking about societal good.
Long term view is something like 1,000 years TO START. A 20-50 year viewpoint is a baby.
We already see that boards don't care about the long run in the US. Companies chase short term gains at the expense of everything else all the time.
> Disregard of fairness and civil conduct won't be worth the eventual cost of a society that becomes increasingly opposed to the system itself.
This is true but it doesn't matter if the people running things are short sighted and selfish.
IMO the dismay at this idea is coming from those who consider law as part of morality, in which case, it may be immoral to even develop a calculus for ignoring morality when the material returns are good enough.