Looks like it's damages and not a fine. Also, I don't know the Japanese system but lots of jurisdictions don't have a US-style concept of punitive damages. So the sum is probably what it is because it's intended to compensate those particular plaintiffs for demonstrable damages rather than to deter Amazon.
The companies suing Amazon Japan requested damages of approximately 280M JPY, or approximately 2M USD. Of course, this is not a lot of money given Amazon's scale, but the companies tried to recuperate lost profits.
With that said, the discussion on Yahoo News is mostly in agreement with the opinions shared in this thread: given Amazon's scale, a fine of 35M yen is equivalent to no penalty.
As a group they may actually lose money, though they might not realize it. The big thing that nobody factors in is insurance - personal auto insurance policies generally don't cover business use, and if your insurance company finds out you were driving for DoorDash when you rear-ended someone, they won't pay out.
You can get a commercial rider for your policy, but then you won't make any money.
A buddy of mine was trying to make one of those companies his full time job, and it just didn't work out. There are too many hidden costs.
Trump seems inclined to drop charges or pardon people who he feels were unjustly persecuted by the Biden administration. I don't see any way for Bankman-Fried to make that case.
You don't? Just outright lie and fabricate a narrative where he was unjustly persecuted by the Biden administration - the same as the rest of the Trumpists have done. 140 character attention spans love an underdog story, and 140 characters isn't nearly long enough to reiterate things like why we have laws in the first place.
Tesla isn't a hugely profitable company. I suspect what will happen here is they'll get a waiver on the import duties if they promise to move the production to the US over some number of years.
Ironically the result of all the cuts will likely be a reduction in the size of the economy - which can actually lower the tax take too (a portion of the money flowing around the economy comes back in taxes) so the combination of that will likely be an increase in the US's debt to GDP ratio and reduced living standards for most people.
That is not to say that Governments can spend to excess with no consequences of course, but that these indiscriminate cuts are likely going to have the opposite effect as intended.
That's already way too high. People started tipping more because the price of food didn't keep up with wages, but that's just not the case anymore. Restaurant prices in my area have doubled in the last seven years or so, most of that coming in the last three or four years.
One thousand times this. The government punishes those who save. It's going to get worse, too when Social Security is means tested, which, is pretty much inevitable at this point. When that happens you'd have to be an idiot to save for retirement unless you're wealthy enough to take advantage of loopholes rich people put into the tax code.
If that's the point I'll disagree. My 84 year old mother is still climbing the stairs. If we're lucky we'll never need an elevator, though we might like one for the sake of convenience.
I understand. My point was a lot of people live long, fulfilling lives and then drop dead from a heart attack without ever losing mobility. Loss of mobility is not guaranteed, even for people who live very long lives.
reply