• Tavarin@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Because you think the board should take the profits and be billionaires.

    I clearly understand economics better than you, because Loblaws could easily survive years running at a loss given the BILLIONs in profits they currently make annually, and the billions their owners are worth.

    • Aux@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You certainly don’t understand economics… Why do you even argue then?

      • Tavarin@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Clearly you don’t, since you have no concept of how much money billions is.

        • Aux@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s all relative. I know, that can be a hard concept to grasp for some, but billion is not that much when it’s a measly 4%.

          • Tavarin@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You asserted Loblaws would go under from 1 bad year.

            That’s absolutely idiotic, Loblaws could have several bad years and have enough money in the war chest to weather that. Reletivity does not matter when they literally have billions to sustain themselves.

            You’re inability to grasp BILLIONS is astounding. You act like it’s a million dollars.