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.
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.
With Amazon there has been a long-term strategic plan. Bezos had been operating Amazon at a high level for a quarter of a century and most of his personal wealth is tied up in the stock. Your golden parachute premise doesn't apply in this case. There was a strategic plan, Bezos wasn't counting the seconds waiting on a golden parachute. Amazon is largely commanded by long-serving execs that notoriously take a long-term strategic view, not executives looking to bail out at any moment. Jassy for example has been there since 1997.
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).
Your whole argument is about long term good to Amazon.
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.
That's one company, and the long term you are discussing is for their own benefit, not to the long term benefit the poster was discussing, so you prove my point.
Long term view is something like 1,000 years TO START.
A 20-50 year viewpoint is a baby.
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.