<p>The introduction to the <a href="https://fortune.com/fortune500/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Fortune 500</a> states:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>In total, Fortune 500 companies represent two-thirds of the U.S. GDP with $13.7 trillion in revenues.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I checked, and this is indeed the sum of those 500 companies' individual revenues.</p>

<p>However, I'm wondering how meaningful this statistic is. Some of these companies will sell goods to each other (for example Apple to Walmart), so I would expect double-counting of those sales when taking the sum of all individual company revenues.</p>

<p>How should I correctly and soundly interpret an aggregate of individual revenues and use it to assess the combined 'impact' of the companies?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-02-09T14:40:27.383Z
You are correct to point out that some statistics are poorly thought out and may be meaningless. Why interpret aggregate revenue then, why not aggregate profits instead?
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-02-10T14:05:03.220Z
@Giskard Then you might conclude that a huge company doesn't really do anything based on the fact that it breaks even.
Criticize SE actions means ban
<macroeconomics>
How to interpret the sum of company revenues?
Victor Le Pochat
# How to interpret the sum of company revenues?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2020-02-09)

The introduction to the [Fortune 500](https://fortune.com/fortune500/) states:

> In total, Fortune 500 companies represent two-thirds of the U.S. GDP with $13.7 trillion in revenues.

I checked, and this is indeed the sum of those 500 companies' individual revenues.

However, I'm wondering how meaningful this statistic is. Some of these companies will sell goods to each other (for example Apple to Walmart), so I would expect double-counting of those sales when taking the sum of all individual company revenues.

How should I correctly and soundly interpret an aggregate of individual revenues and use it to assess the combined 'impact' of the companies?

**Tags:** macroeconomics
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: You are correct to point out that some statistics are poorly thought out and may be meaningless. Why interpret aggregate revenue then, why not aggregate profits instead?  
> **username_2**: @Giskard Then you might conclude that a huge company doesn't really do anything based on the fact that it breaks even.  

---

## 0 answers

