Badly.
2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
Does seem a bit messy.
Won't let me embed that.
@Red-Jeff It was me. And seems like both of you are falling for the classic Donald, whereby he says something and immediately you believe it without ever checking, because in this case its what you want to hear.
But here we go: Amazon declared a Profit before tax (PBT) of US$ 1.57 billion in 2015, and provisioned income taxes of US$ 950 million. Break out your calculators and you'll find that that is a rate of 60.6%. The year before Amazon recorded a loss of 111 million and still provisioned 167 million in income taxes. Its not that Amazon is generous or anything, its just that when your profits come out close to zero (Amazon's are relative to the size of its $100b+ in sales) some subsidiaries might owe tax that doesn't get offset by losses in others.
Also, estimates of Amazon's share of US online retail are ~30%. So not a yuuuge anti-trust problem, that's not a level of concentration the FTC usually worries about.
Its just surreal for me to hear a charlatan like Donald Trump slight an actual entrepreneur like Jeff Bezos, and then there's an audience to lap it up. Its not like Bezos has an inherited fortune like the Walton family, the Koch brothers, or His Donaldness. He was just a bright guy with an idea and a lot of drive. Like Bill Gates, Sergey Brin, Larry Page, Larry Ellison or any other millionaire/billionaire technology entrepreneur that has managed to create and deliver a product or service used by millions. If their success is not desirable, we might as well pass a law against private technological innovation.
Bezos needs the WaPo to drive his success today as much as he needed it when he came up with his business plan in 1994. But if you prefer, you can always just take the Donald's word for it.
But here we go: Amazon declared a Profit before tax (PBT) of US$ 1.57 billion in 2015, and provisioned income taxes of US$ 950 million. Break out your calculators and you'll find that that is a rate of 60.6%. The year before Amazon recorded a loss of 111 million and still provisioned 167 million in income taxes. Its not that Amazon is generous or anything, its just that when your profits come out close to zero (Amazon's are relative to the size of its $100b+ in sales) some subsidiaries might owe tax that doesn't get offset by losses in others.
Also, estimates of Amazon's share of US online retail are ~30%. So not a yuuuge anti-trust problem, that's not a level of concentration the FTC usually worries about.
Its just surreal for me to hear a charlatan like Donald Trump slight an actual entrepreneur like Jeff Bezos, and then there's an audience to lap it up. Its not like Bezos has an inherited fortune like the Walton family, the Koch brothers, or His Donaldness. He was just a bright guy with an idea and a lot of drive. Like Bill Gates, Sergey Brin, Larry Page, Larry Ellison or any other millionaire/billionaire technology entrepreneur that has managed to create and deliver a product or service used by millions. If their success is not desirable, we might as well pass a law against private technological innovation.
Bezos needs the WaPo to drive his success today as much as he needed it when he came up with his business plan in 1994. But if you prefer, you can always just take the Donald's word for it.
Christ, we're back with the Jeff Bezos/WaPo/pro-Hillary schtick are we. 
On a more interesting note, Trump is going to have a hard time with not releasing his taxes. He's clearly lying through his teeth about the audit not allowing him to release them (there is no law or rule saying people being audited can't release their taxes) and it looks like we're in for dueling accusations between Trump's taxes and Hillary's Goldman speeches.
On a more interesting note, Trump is going to have a hard time with not releasing his taxes. He's clearly lying through his teeth about the audit not allowing him to release them (there is no law or rule saying people being audited can't release their taxes) and it looks like we're in for dueling accusations between Trump's taxes and Hillary's Goldman speeches.
Hillary can only use this if she releases her Goldman speeches. You would imagine Trump will fight back by bringing up Hillary's Goldman transcripts should her campaign go after his tax returns.
I'm not taking Trump at his word and I'm not commenting on the anti trust allegations, as you say Trump is an idiot and is not a very good businessman BUT he is correct when stating that WaPo has an agenda set by it's owner. It is exceedingly obvious that WaPo is VERY pro Clinton. Did a quick search through articles and there is not much real criticism or analysis of Clinton. Clinton is the candidate that would most benefit Bezos and it is obvious that his media outlet is backing her at least partially because of that. That's not to say there isn't a portion of writers that genuinely agree with some of her policies but the lack of criticism regarding Clinton is just as bad as the Bernie Bros defending everything Sanders does or says.
Sorry you went to all that trouble to write that post regarding a point I didn't make
I was only commenting on the slant of the media.Didn't the Washington Post have this same editorial line since before Bezos took over? The Washington Post is as establishment as it gets. Its model is to work the DC sources better than any of its non-DC competitors. Or at least that's my impression of it, Bezos ownership or not.
Christ, we're back with the Jeff Bezos/WaPo/pro-Hillary schtick are we.
On a more interesting note, Trump is going to have a hard time with not releasing his taxes. He's clearly lying through his teeth about the audit not allowing him to release them (there is no law or rule saying people being audited can't release their taxes) and it looks like we're in for dueling accusations between Trump's taxes and Hillary's Goldman speeches.
Because the only media outlet that is extremely biased and works to support it's owners idealogy and chosen politicans is Fox right?
Could be a situation where WaPo already fit his ideology and he bought it and allowed it to continue in the same vein, sure. Still is a fairly biased outlet and as you say heavily entrenched within the establishment as is Clinton.
Fox is quite obvious, the others being mentioned are little more than conspiracy theory conjecture being flogged by those with an ideological axe to grind.
You don't think that Bezos' ideological leanings have any affect on the company he owns?
Well, yes. That I'll agree with. But its more likely ideological, than the prior claim that its a public relations / propaganda outlet to defend Amazon from regulation, and therefore his fortune. My whole point initially was that Amazon is a business not particularly threatened by regulation, not doing Apple's aggressive tax scheme, etc. So it made little sense for it to have a propaganda arm.
Can billionaires be quite influent in our society? Yes. Do some of it do it just to defend their standing? Yep. Do some of them do it just out of a sense of grandeur/ego/fetish or even service? I think so. Michael Bloomberg comes to mind. Anyone is free to think he was a good/bad/terrible Mayor, but I don't think it helped his company sell any additional Terminal subscriptions.
I bet Bezos loves a good old fashioned double Irish with a Dutch sandwich 
Tasty shit.
Tasty shit.@Red-Jeff
WaPo and NYT are papers of the liberal establishment. I think Chomsky had a great line: it is these papers that decide how far "civilised" or mainstream discourse can go. I don't think Bezos goes to the newsroom and orders them about stories to cover (Roger Ailes does at Fox). But bias is inevitable and being in DC surrounded by the political establishment reinforces that bias - hence the confounded reactions to Bernie and Trump, and the many instances when Hillary's positives are taken as "obvious"
WaPo and NYT are papers of the liberal establishment. I think Chomsky had a great line: it is these papers that decide how far "civilised" or mainstream discourse can go. I don't think Bezos goes to the newsroom and orders them about stories to cover (Roger Ailes does at Fox). But bias is inevitable and being in DC surrounded by the political establishment reinforces that bias - hence the confounded reactions to Bernie and Trump, and the many instances when Hillary's positives are taken as "obvious"
I absolutely don't. If there was any whiff of a problem he would get crucified in the press for it, as opposed to this tepid drip from conspiracy buffs.
I bet Bezos loves a good old fashioned double Irish with a Dutch sandwich
Maybe, when his company starts posting actual profits. Might not work given the different business profile vs. Apple and Google (they have to buy a huge variety of goods from vendors). Who knows? Probably a tax lawyer.
Cash flow isn't so bad also, I noticed. They get to claim a large depreciation charge, which counts as a cost towards profits but isn't an actual cash expense (you might know this, but preferred to make it clear)
The point of the original comment was not to go to any Bezos/Wapo/pro-Hillary schtick or god forbid, to question the standard entrepreneur cock-down-throat Republican position you´ve perfectly illustrated . . . rather to point out that the actual Republican candidate the GOP has elected in overwhelming fashion, who now is slowly consolidating the party support, is actually spouting such attacks against what is so fundamental to modern Republican core beliefs.
This is crazy. What the feck is going on with this party? This is the man Sean Hannity or Paul Ryan is cleaving to????
Maybe, when his company starts posting actual profits. Might not work given the different business profile vs. Apple and Google (they have to buy a huge variety of goods from vendors). Who knows? Probably a tax lawyer.
Cash flow isn't so bad also, I noticed. They get to claim a large depreciation charge, which counts as a cost towards profits but isn't an actual cash expense (you might know this, but preferred to make it clear)
it is well known, that he abused the tax system in Europe via Luxenburg at least till 2015. Maybe I misunderstood some of the comments earlier. I am too lazy to look it up.
We are back to the 'WaPo is shilling' now?
Sandersnistas have no problem inundating this thread with Huffpo blog posts, Usuncut, salon, jacobin. But yes, it's the so-called 'shillz' who are obviously biased.
Sandersnistas have no problem inundating this thread with Huffpo blog posts, Usuncut, salon, jacobin. But yes, it's the so-called 'shillz' who are obviously biased.
Agree with everything you're saying and I don't think he needs WaPo to protect his fortune but it definitely doesn't hurt to be able to influence policy and perception to the extent him and other elites can. Wasn't commenting on him as a businessman but on the relationship between the rich, media outlets, and politicians, sorry if I didn't make that clear. I don't take Trump at his word regarding much but he is right when he says the system is rigged and the influence that the rich have on the system is greater than it should be.
Nobby, get over your fellatio fixation man!
I've always found the association of conservatism and liberal economics a bit weird at its core. Maybe it was indeed fragile, and that's the gap Trump's exploited. Its a very very weird cycle, and I'm starting to get worried.
We are back to the 'WaPo is shilling' now?
Sandersnistas have no problem inundating this thread with Huffpo blog posts, Usuncut, salon, jacobin. But yes, it's the so-called 'shillz' who are obviously biased.
Apart from HuffPo (which has it's fair share of pro-Hillary pieces too), none of the others have shady owners or major advertisers to please.
The problem is not with the declared bias of writers (or entire sources). It is the cover of impartiality which hides the bias. One of the most revealing moments came to me on 538:
Julia Azari is the only Bernie supporter there (she's public about her support). Post almost every election night, Enten (whom I'm not sure has declared his support for Clinton) says that Bernie is finished. She says that he still has some hope.
If bias can infest data journalism, nothing is safe.
Fair enough but where do we draw the line between unavoidable bias and intentional or heavy bias that is taking away from the actual issues that are being reported on or should be reported on? In my opinion WaPo has crossed that line and are dabbling in the realm of cheerleading and have left the realm of quality journalism. Obviously that is in regards to their coverage of Clinton.
Does being condescending make you feel better about yourself? It's funny that you dislike Maher but like him you can't resist the urget to be condescending
Last edited:
I wasn't - just making an obvious point. If there were more to this, it would all over the place as opposed to on the fringes.
I found the Reuters article and gave it a browse. I can't argue any of the allegations, since my understanding of corporate tax doesn't go beyond what's required not to be a total fool. It is still a weird situation, for a company who's annual effective tax rates read back: 61%, 315%, 46%, 107%, 32%, and then in 2010 they had 23% tax rate. Not quite the poster child for tax "evasion".
Maybe its VAT they're skimming... dunno.
I saw the story about 20 negative headlines in 24 hours and it was quite shocking. WaPo isn't part of my regular reading though, I read the Guardian and skim NYT. (and then Indian newspapers) So I can't say for sure.
Again, it's possible that there just happens to be a collection of Clinton supporters in the newsroom. The economic profile would probably be right, and the WaPo-liberal focus on identity politics over class politics is perfect for Clinton.
Last edited:
They have a targeted audience they must pander to. What sparked this discussion before is the notion of a mainstream media blackout towards Sanders, which has already been debunked.
I don't need opinion pieces to 'open my eyes', so I've never inflicted them on people on this thread. It just weird that Bernie fans have no trouble denigrating established, respected journalists but at the same time eat up everything anti-Hillary from their outlet of choice, then accusing those who don't share that opinion of being 'shill'. Still, this place is not as bad as Reddit, where Breitbart and the Blaze are taken as Gospel now.
Re:538. Enten is a nerd. If you follow his Twitter, and I'm fairly sure you do, he's just dismissing Sanders to wind up the Bernie Bros abusing his feeds. Nate copped less flak due to his respectability, and he's also more mature, yet did occasionally become snarky towards the same crowd. I wouldn't take it as 'bias infiltrating data journalism'.
I disagree, it's much more subtle than Fox news but there is definitely a heavy bias at WaPo and I wouldn't be at all surprised if it came from the top.
Jacobin is not an impartial source of news - it is very openly a magazine dedicated to spreading socialism in the US. The NYT is the "paper of record".
I believed they all were. So openly allowing your political leanings to show in a data-driven website is revealing about how deep bias can go.
Find me some mainstream sources and we can talk about it. It seems that much of this is being driven by jilted Bernie fans or various conservatives, both with an axe to grind with Hillary.
That seems a bit coincidental to me but could be.
Reading through WaPo articles on Hillary was obvious enough for me, feel free to do the same.
Except it doesn't.
You seem to have mistaken their commentary with their actual data reporting. The election night commentary is just that, commentary. It's their opinions on their livefeed. Point to me one instance where they've skewed the data or their model to favor Clinton or any other candidate?
Re: Jacobin etc... NYT is so pro-Hillary that Maureen Dowd has been blasting her for years uncounted. NYT is the 'paper of record' that in their quest for 'scoop' ended up becoming the propaganda arm of the Bush administration in the lead up to Iraq. I have no trouble believing that journalistic integrity is a hard commodity to go by nowadays, but it's by and large the product of a media and society driven by sensationalism, not some nefarious behind the scene manipulation, so the notion of 'establishment blacking out Bernie' doesn't wash. Every outlets write/report what they think their audience want, irrespective of their pedigree.
Edit: should have excluded Fox
I read their articles from time to time. Haven't noticed anything out of the ordinary.
Fair enough, I'll leave you to it.
Please read my replied to @Red-Jeff
Being part of the establishment means those dubious pro-Dubya scoops.
- Status