So Amazon turns down NYC -

[nots]

[QUOTE=The Feral Slasher;332955]

so we agree they are extorting money, I guess that is progress. I would just say that if no one ever stands up to this and makes it an issue it will continue forever. Is that a good thing ? Would they move to another city, sure. And that other city would give them lots of money. Does that solve anything ? Is that how our government should work ? Subsidizing Amazon is just stupid and I don't understand why BG or you would argue with me about that, which was pretty much the whole point I was making. I just thought it was odd that BG had no problem at all with the state giving Amazon a huge gift, while pretending it it captilism/free enterprise. But I think it the disagreement was probably tied into AOC and leftists which is fine.

I mean, yes, subsidizing Amazon is stupid, but it’s certainly understandable given the amount of tax revenue they are bringing to your city. It’s also stupid to battle to get them out of your city (with its crumbling infrastructure) once they have selected you. It’s also stupid to have a $700B defense budget or to pour money into social programs with duboius (at best) results or to advocate tearing down our already existing southern border wall. Government makes a lot of stupid decisions IMO....I just don’t think Amazon’s tax break is near the top of the list.

[baldgriff]

No, it's not safe to assume that. So if NY doesn't get these jobs do you think they will disappear ? Is the only reason the jobs are created is because the government subsidy ? I thought you were against that kind of thing.

In this case it is possible that all of the jobs will end up in Virginia and NONE in NY. NY wont get any of the jobs and Amazon has hinted that rather than building 2 business centers they may build just 1. Is it possible that someone else may decide to bring some 25000 50K and up jobs to NYC? Sure, it may happen - I cant say it wont. However, it is unlikely in the foreseeable future.

Why would I be against any business - private, public or governmental - participating in the open market and agreeing upon a trade that both parties feel meets their needs and is equitable and fair? Let see Company X gets 3B off the tax bill and city Y gets 7B and more ongoing, plus draws people to its market area and have them live here, work here, buy groceries here, buy cars here, use public transportation here and make the place generally better for the people. The government would of course have to improve their infrastructure (which is what government should be primarily responsible for).

Seems like a reasonably good business decisions on both parts of the trade. Again I am a pragmatist.

The Federal Government has placed its hands in way more places than it needs to be - It is large government and it continues to grow and try to control more and more. That does not mean a City cant intentionally attempt to grow its population base (and tax base) by making strong business decisions. Actually, I believe we all want our cities to make strong business decisions so that our home values dont decrease but rather increase.

Large population does not mean BIG Government - and it would be up to the population of that city to ensure that the government doesnt do things to over-step their boundaries, which is less likely at the city level.


I would ask you - how does NYC fix its transit system and teacher shortage along with other various issues without the Billions of dollars in revenue that they would collect due to all of the new jobs, business development and increase property tax base?

Im sure Detroit would have been very happy to have a shot at making some kind of business transaction and use the new funds to revitalize their city. However, the owner of the business didnt want to go there and the government couldnt force him to go there - so he tried to make a trade with the governmental agencies in the places he wants to base his business. HE, the owner, is in control of the fate of his business - not the government - and that is free market and that is a very Libertarian concept.

[The Feral Slasher]

so rather than some 25-50 thousand jobs bringing great amounts of business and capital to the area - people rejoice (led by AOC and group) because they "defeated" the big bad greed corporations and didnt give them the 3 billion tax break.

Have fun not working and just keep asking for policies to take money from the rich guy.

So, just as a reminder, this is what started it all. People didn't want the government to give $3 billion dollars to Amazon. Damn those people, what is wrong with them

[The Feral Slasher]

[QUOTE=nots;332952]

It’s almost as if you don’t want to even acknowledge the point I am making and instead want to argue about the definition of Libertarianism. As I said earlier, I consider myself a quasi-Libertarian. That means I don’t fully ascribe to all of its views. Do I need to make that clearer for you?
Yes, they are extorting money. Yes, I find that problematic. Other cities put in bids for the HQ. Some, like Newark, were even more perky than NYC. At the end of the day, Amazon selected NYC, which the overwhelming majority of NYC folks were in favor of. I don’t understand why a Representative would then work to scuttle the deal in defiance of the folks they represent. So now, Amazon will move in to another city and take advantage of their tax breaks. It will still be extortion. It will still be problematic. It will still go against the fiber of Libertarianism. And it will still happen. It’s just that someone else will be the benefit, instead of NYC.
Now try to summon your courage and tell us what you think should have happened

so we agree they are extorting money, I guess that is progress. I would just say that if no one ever stands up to this and makes it an issue it will continue forever. Is that a good thing ? Would they move to another city, sure. And that other city would give them lots of money. Does that solve anything ? Is that how our government should work ? Subsidizing Amazon is just stupid and I don't understand why BG or you would argue with me about that, which was pretty much the whole point I was making. I just thought it was odd that BG had no problem at all with the state giving Amazon a huge gift, while pretending it it captilism/free enterprise. But I think it the disagreement was probably tied into AOC and leftists which is fine.

[nots]

[QUOTE=The Feral Slasher;332943]

I probably will stop, but it's fun for now. Sure, everyone wants them to come in and offer jobs. But the end result is them extorting money from the government. If they are going to create the jobs anyway why would a libertarian support the government subsidizing them ? And if they weren't going to create the jobs without a government subsidy then how is that capitalism/libertarianism ? The end result is huge corporations getting a handout from the government and if you and BG support that fine

It’s almost as if you don’t want to even acknowledge the point I am making and instead want to argue about the definition of Libertarianism. As I said earlier, I consider myself a quasi-Libertarian. That means I don’t fully ascribe to all of its views. Do I need to make that clearer for you?
Yes, they are extorting money. Yes, I find that problematic. Other cities put in bids for the HQ. Some, like Newark, were even more perky than NYC. At the end of the day, Amazon selected NYC, which the overwhelming majority of NYC folks were in favor of. I don’t understand why a Representative would then work to scuttle the deal in defiance of the folks they represent. So now, Amazon will move in to another city and take advantage of their tax breaks. It will still be extortion. It will still be problematic. It will still go against the fiber of Libertarianism. And it will still happen. It’s just that someone else will be the benefit, instead of NYC.
Now try to summon your courage and tell us what you think should have happened

[Sour Masher]

I would just say that it clearly is worth it for a city or region to offer incentives for a massive project like this.
but how much is too much?
I haven't seen a thoughtful analysis of this deal anywhere - has anyone else?

The answer to that depends on the incentives and the need for the business in the region. Also, there is the issue of not giving more than you have to, and as the Virginia offer shows, it isn't just about the tax breaks. That is but one factor, and usually not even one of the biggest ones. For NY, there were giving a huge tax break when they didn't have to do that, and the benefit for moving Amazon into the region wasn't as great as it would be in many places. I'm not saying it wouldn't have been good, but it isn't like that area is hurting for businesses.

[The Feral Slasher]

Capitalism:
an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
https://www.google.com/search?q=defi...hrome&ie=UTF-8

This would seem to be a great example of a transaction controlled by the Private for profit owner - making a business transaction (a trade) with the state. It is controlled by the Private Owner and NOT the State.

The state has to COMPETE in the market for the business of the PRIVATE FOR PROFIT OWNER.....

definitions -- pesky things they are.

This is just the NFL owner wanting a new stadium - just on a larger scale.

lol, getting money from the government to fund jobs is a great example of free enterprise. what part of capitalism involves the state competing in the marketplace for jobs ? Again, i missed that part of economics.

[The Feral Slasher]

Capitalism:
an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
https://www.google.com/search?q=defi...hrome&ie=UTF-8

This would seem to be a great example of a transaction controlled by the Private for profit owner - making a business transaction (a trade) with the state. It is controlled by the Private Owner and NOT the State.

The state has to COMPETE in the market for the business of the PRIVATE FOR PROFIT OWNER.....

definitions -- pesky things they are.

This is just the NFL owner wanting a new stadium - just on a larger scale.

lol, so now libertarians believe in subsidizing the NFL ?

[The Feral Slasher]

Is it safe to assume that you agree with AOC and not having the jobs and all its revenue NOT go to queens and other municipalities. I mean you can take the $3billion dollars and use them to fix your transit system and give teachers a raise... Right?

So please, please, please, explain to me why a libertarian is so deadset on the government giving a private corporation a huge amount of money to create jobs. This seems so much against what capitalists, free market proponents and libertarians profess.

[baldgriff]

Capitalism:
an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
https://www.google.com/search?q=defi...hrome&ie=UTF-8

This would seem to be a great example of a transaction controlled by the Private for profit owner - making a business transaction (a trade) with the state. It is controlled by the Private Owner and NOT the State.

The state has to COMPETE in the market for the business of the PRIVATE FOR PROFIT OWNER.....

definitions -- pesky things they are.

This is just the NFL owner wanting a new stadium - just on a larger scale.

[The Feral Slasher]

Is it safe to assume that you agree with AOC and not having the jobs and all its revenue NOT go to queens and other municipalities. I mean you can take the $3billion dollars and use them to fix your transit system and give teachers a raise... Right?

No, it's not safe to assume that. So if NY doesn't get these jobs do you think they will disappear ? Is the only reason the jobs are created is because the government subsidy ? I thought you were against that kind of thing.

[baldgriff]

Is it safe to assume that you agree with AOC and not having the jobs and all its revenue NOT go to queens and other municipalities. I mean you can take the $3billion dollars and use them to fix your transit system and give teachers a raise... Right?

[The Feral Slasher]

[QUOTE=nots;332940]

I never said I wanted the government to pay $3B (actual money is only $500M). However, if I lived in NYC, I would want them to come there. If I lived in Dallas, I would want them to come there. I don’t understand why Represetatives of a particular district would work so hard to insure they not come to their district after being selected, especially given the overwhelmingly positive numbers JJ posted earlier in this thread.
If it’s so ridiculous arguing with me, you can always stop posting.

I probably will stop, but it's fun for now. Sure, everyone wants them to come in and offer jobs. But the end result is them extorting money from the government. If they are going to create the jobs anyway why would a libertarian support the government subsidizing them ? And if they weren't going to create the jobs without a government subsidy then how is that capitalism/libertarianism ? The end result is huge corporations getting a handout from the government and if you and BG support that fine

[nots]

[QUOTE=The Feral Slasher;332939]

I can multi task, but thanks

All evidence to the contrary

[nots]

[QUOTE=The Feral Slasher;332937]

honestly there is nothing more ridiculous than arguing with libertarians who want the government to pay a corporation $3 billion.

I never said I wanted the government to pay $3B (actual money is only $500M). However, if I lived in NYC, I would want them to come there. If I lived in Dallas, I would want them to come there. I don’t understand why Represetatives of a particular district would work so hard to insure they not come to their district after being selected, especially given the overwhelmingly positive numbers JJ posted earlier in this thread.
If it’s so ridiculous arguing with me, you can always stop posting.