It has come to my attention, through my networks (heh) that i have supposedly been misinformed. The clarification on the question "how to generate 10x profits TURNOVERS?" is simply that the massive amounts being shared out are well, sales, and can hence total the insane amounts that people are "receiving".

For 15 minutes after I heard this, it kinda worked: multiplier effect allows a single injection of expenditure to create several times the total income due to spending. And they were happy. The problem, however, lies in leakages.

Assuming a multiplier value of 2.72x, the maginal propensity to consume (proportion of each additional dollar of income, or in this case revenue, consumed - in this case, passed on to another subsidiary) works out to be 0.63. Fair enough. It however leads us to ask several questions:

1. Expenditure by a firm goes into raw materials and labor, generally. A set of firms can only grow on themselves by spending on each other in a manner similar to Firm A -> Firm B, Firm B -> Firm C, Firm C .... Are these firms existing in a sort of vertical integration model of infinite length? The main issue in this point is length: the multiplier assumes a sum to infinity, stopping anywhere before infinity only makes the sum of the GP (geometric progression, mind you) less than its expected sum to infinity.

2. Even if these firms exist in a chain of perfect integration on a production process, which of course, is an extenuating assumption, we recall that in Macroeconomics, the multiplier can exist in its full form only because we are examining the expenditure of a single currency - currency that can only be used in one country and nowhere else. In the case of a set of firms, salaries paid out, in addition to costs like Rent and Utilities Bills, are not recirculated - even if recirculation occurs, it would most definitely not be 63% of expenditure. Imagine a typical employee (by which I mean technical personnel, administration assistants etc) receiving her salary: is it possible that all but 37% of her pay is recirculated into buying services from the company? Certainly, HER OWN bills have to be settled, and that constitutes a leakage. In the macroeconomy it really isn't a problem, since all money circulated is still WITHIN the economy - but in this micro macro-economy we're talking about, this isn't the case. So, LEAKAGES cause the multiplier to NOT be at its ideal level.

3. Therefore, if we assume, quite reasonably, that wages paid out are not recirculated in the figure for corporate expenditure, the expenditure of each company towards the next-in-line in this vertically integrated economy-of-scale, so to speak, is then approximately 63% (based on a net return to the company of base revenue + 1.71x base revenue generated that is shared in sales = 2.72x. 2.72 = 1/(1-mpc), theoretical MPC = 1 - 0.367 = 0.633 = 63.3%), equating to a remainder of approximately 37% of revenue in each company paid out to OTHER expenditure - rent, wages, utilities etc (since these cannot be provided by the firm's fellow subsidiaries) - and profits, making it all not that feasible to be turning humongous profits to share. Almost any average company has an annual profit margin of less than 10%, and we don't see them disbursing profits as rebates, especially if they're in dire need of cash for development.

4. Which brings us to the next point. Fact: the company needs money, hence the sale of GPs. Yet, in the shortest time imaginable, money goes back out. First it was profits, then corrected to be read as "turnover". It makes even less sense this way, as much as it is now more mathematically feasible. Imagine NTUC owning the entire production line all the way from the slaughterhouse to the cashier: your purchase of a spring chicken generates several times in terms of total sales, true enough; but they take all of that sales from every single subsidiary, bundle it up and give it back to you, leaving themselves with profits that can barely pay off their taxes. All I can say is: "wtf???"