284
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 May 2026
284 points (99.7% liked)
History Memes
2972 readers
18 users here now
A place to share history memes!
Rules:
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, assorted bigotry, etc.
-
No fascism (including tankies/red fash), atrocity denial or apologia, etc.
-
Tag NSFW pics as NSFW.
-
Follow all Piefed.social rules.
-
History referenced must be 20+ years old.
-
Avoid posting AI-generated content whenever possible.
Banner courtesy of @setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world
OTHER COMMS IN THE HISTORYVERSE:
- !historyruins@piefed.social
- !historyart@piefed.social
- !historyartifacts@piefed.social
- !historyphotos@piefed.social
- !askhistorians@piefed.social
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
$2.1B a year
$420M a week
I don't think that's 10%.
420M*52 weeks =21,840M =21.84B
Is it not?
How much is that after taxes?
You sure he paid taxes on his illegal coke business?
You're technically correct. The best kind of correct.
I think this is technically more correct:
Which means it's 9.58% rounded down to 2 decimals.
(This is using the common definition of a year and not a "tropical year")
He cumulated the money for more than 52 weeks
But he lost 2.1B every year, so for every 52 week period
Yes, but losing 10% of an asset typically refers to total asset value, not revenue.
We’re not even including losses on the cocaine itself, this is all just about the revenue. He didn’t lose 10% of his business every year.
I read it that he lost a significant part if his cash assets. Revenue is a different concept. In your calculation you made the comparison with revenue.
I compared the size of the two numbers I was given. I didn’t call them equivalent, I didn’t say they described the same thing. I only even used the word revenue after you did, because I was using zero context to compare the numbers (I just like numbers and it popped out to me that it was 10%)- it wasn’t until you said revenue that it occurred to me that he probably would have reinvested much of that money and it wasn’t just profit.
That said, now that I am thinking about it, he didn’t exactly have access to non cash investment or value storage options. I wonder if there was much of a difference between the total money coming in and the total cash coming in.
Yes I know, you divided number one with number two and did the math right. I’m just saying that in the general world of business metrics comparing those numbers is not really a common practice.
Edit. For comparison, you might have a car that loses 5k of its value in a year and you work and get paid 50k a year. Surely that 5k depreciation is 10% of your yearly income, but typically you count that per cent from the value of the car instead.