So Amazon turns down NYC -

[Judge Jude]

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...ill-aoc-225054

that's a very interesting piece on my Congresswoman.

"The best-known new member of Congress is obviously the ubiquitous and magnetic Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, the unreserved used-to-be bartender and millennial social media savant who has parlayed her outer-borough seat into a vanguard position at the head of a surging left.

But she is not the reason Democrats are wielding a reclaimed wedge of power in the nation’s capital. Sherrill is. If there’s a Venn diagram of how Democrats wrested control of the House from Republicans — women, veterans, flipped districts in more affluent, more educated suburban terrain — smack at the center is Rebecca Michelle Sherrill: former Navy helicopter pilot, former federal prosecutor, mother of four (13, 11, 9 and 6). And even as Ocasio-Cortez and other younger, lefty, louder freshmen garner the limelight, “Mikie,” not “AOC,” is actually more materially the face of the Democrats’ fresh capacity to push legislation and check the agenda of a newly vexed President Donald Trump."

"She raised record money, chased into retirement a powerful local political scion, trounced a host of opponents in the primary and drubbed a conservative state assemblyman in the general. Sherrill did this by campaigning not as a left-leaning incendiary but as a less partisan alternative."

[Sherrill promised not to vote for Pelosi as Speaker if elected, saying it was time for a change. then she didn't vote for her - and still landed plum committee assignments because Pelosi knows she needs the Sherrills.]

[baldgriff]

Glad someone enjoyed it, ha ha. The concern with an uneven playing field was, I thought one of the principles of free market ideology, which is why I can't understand BG's position on all this. AOC's policy position to not offer subsidies is entirely consistent with the Libertarian Party platform.

Below is a link to the Libertarian Party platform, with a couple of pertinent points. Really strange to see BG argue against the points so doggedly.

https://www.lp.org/platform/

2.0 Economic Liberty

Libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic success. A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.

2.8 Marketplace Freedom

Libertarians support free markets. We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of entities based on voluntary association. We oppose all forms of government subsidies and bailouts to business, labor, or any other special interest. Government should not compete with private enterprise.

https://www.lp.org/platform/

So this transaction is different in many ways as the Government appears to be Voluntarily participating in the transaction - rather than overseeing/legislating the transaction. I believe that it is a very significant difference when discussing the trade. I dont view the 3Billion tax credit as anything more than a "bid" for the XXBillions of tax revenues that will be generated long term to the benefit of the city, its people and its infrastructure. Other cities are of course welcome to make a bid for the business also - should they choose to compete for the business.

The life blood of a city and its government is the tax base and multiple transactions that occur within its boundaries. Cities do compete on a large scale to attract people and business to their districts. How do they attract these businesses and people? By continuing to grow the tax base, provide better amenities and opportunities than other cities. There is a competitive market between cities and to play ignorant of that is silly. NYC was able to offer something to compete and draw business to itself that other cities may not have been willing or able to do. Are we complaining about NYC's "unfair advantage" relative to making this offer? That city has to compete in the marketplace to attract jobs. One could make the case that the City Government may be attempting to control or manage trade - but in order for the city to continue to prosper they need to make sure trade continues in their domain rather than the other cities that they are competing with.


So on one hand while I understand that cities have to compete to draw business and can understand using various credits to attract large businesses. I will on the other hand state that I was completely opposed to the Bank Bailouts given by the Federal Government. I dont believe once a business is up and running that it is the job of the government to ensure that a company or number of companies should stay in business. The banks in my example, made a bad business decision related to its investing and lending habits and in my mind - they should have been allowed to fail and let some other entity enter than marketplace - and possibly find a better more efficient way to conduct the business.

[nots]

Pragmatic libertarianism is an oxymoron but here we are.

And a little bit of quasi makes it all ok.

Troll on

[DMT]

Pragmatic libertarianism is an oxymoron but here we are.

And a little bit of quasi makes it all ok.

[The Feral Slasher]

This has been a fun read, thanks guys. A couple of comments.

My concern with the large tax breaks is the fluid, uneven playing field. My city was a finalist in this bizarre competition but its bid (which was a public one) included zero tax incentives. That meant that we weren't seriously going to win, but I'm okay with that. I don't like the idea of every company considering relocating here getting a personalized deal.

And since the original intent of the thread seemed to largely be to take a shot at a politician saying things that had no basis in reality, aren't you guys immune to that kind of thing by now? (maybe we shouldn't be taking what politicians say literally, we should take them figuratively )

Glad someone enjoyed it, ha ha. The concern with an uneven playing field was, I thought one of the principles of free market ideology, which is why I can't understand BG's position on all this. AOC's policy position to not offer subsidies is entirely consistent with the Libertarian Party platform.

Below is a link to the Libertarian Party platform, with a couple of pertinent points. Really strange to see BG argue against the points so doggedly.

https://www.lp.org/platform/

2.0 Economic Liberty

Libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic success. A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.

2.8 Marketplace Freedom

Libertarians support free markets. We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of entities based on voluntary association. We oppose all forms of government subsidies and bailouts to business, labor, or any other special interest. Government should not compete with private enterprise.

https://www.lp.org/platform/

[Teenwolf]

Amazon paid more than $1B in state, local, and international taxes in 2018.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/am...too-2019-02-15

it is true that they paid less than nothing in federal taxes.

meanwhile, I called AOC's idiotic statement idiotic - but not necessarily the rejection of Amazon's bid. I need actual data before reaching a conclusion, as old-fashioned as that is.

I appreciate your position. Here's my take:

AOC has consistently shone a light on the reality of living on poverty wages in NYC, and what the Amazon deal would mean for those living there. Gentrification eliminates affordable housing as a core principle.

As someone who averaged earning under $35K/yr living in Vancouver, being "renovicted" multiple times, seeing my friends all forced out of their apartments for the same BS excuse to get around tenancy rights... I've experienced all of the garbage that AOC talks about, living as part of the servant class for the elites in an ultra rich city and seeing rent increase 300% in a decade on foreign investment property hoarding... you're damn right I care a lot more about what AOC is fighting for than supporting corporate welfare.

Can anybody else here relate to that gentrification paradox? My friend is paying $2100/month for a 1 bedroom apartment so he can see his daughter on weekends and he sleeps on the couch... even the middle class struggle in these monopolized mega cities. Most of my friends live with multiple roommates into their 40's. So yeah, those people with housing insecurity have legitimate cause to protest corporate welfare that would impact the sustainability of living there.

You want to quibble over the comment about spending the $ on public infrastructure as opposed to billionaire helipads?? Fine. But understand what AOC is talking about rather than slamming the slight inaccuracy of the assumption you could spend money on public infrastructure just as easily as you could on corporate handouts. I think her point is a lot more valid than the attack on the specificity of her claim.

[Judge Jude]

Amazon paid more than $1B in state, local, and international taxes in 2018.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/am...too-2019-02-15

it is true that they paid less than nothing in federal taxes.

meanwhile, I called AOC's idiotic statement idiotic - but not necessarily the rejection of Amazon's bid. I need actual data before reaching a conclusion, as old-fashioned as that is.

[Teenwolf]

So to the folks like AOC, who have actually lived in tiny shared overpriced apartments, and earned minimum wage, and have actually experienced the massive struggle of living in a major city... you all call the rejection of Amazon idiotic. Hilarious. Amazon needed NYC more than the inverse. Stop parroting MSM, all of you. They're mad because they're friends with property speculators who just lost a bunch of money, or they invested themselves. You support subsidizing a billionaire's helipad? You support the continuation of crushing the right for workers to unionize, instead favoring brutal and inhumane treatment of workers? You support a monopoly that not only didn't pay taxes on $11 Bn, but actually received hundreds of millions through tax loopholes... receiving more tax breaks? All in the name of supporting increased monopolization, and increased automation, the 2 biggest threats to the job market?
I call that much more idiotic than AOC's claim about investing the money in public infrastructure.

But I definitely don't have the patience of Feral Slasher to jump back into this pit with you all hurling personal attacks while claiming "I just want legitimate discussion". Like 10 pages of pissy-pants personal attacks. What a farce. Have fun, y'all.

Michael Brooks summarizes it all in the video.

[TranaGreg]

This has been a fun read, thanks guys. A couple of comments.

My concern with the large tax breaks is the fluid, uneven playing field. My city was a finalist in this bizarre competition but its bid (which was a public one) included zero tax incentives. That meant that we weren't seriously going to win, but I'm okay with that. I don't like the idea of every company considering relocating here getting a personalized deal.

And since the original intent of the thread seemed to largely be to take a shot at a politician saying things that had no basis in reality, aren't you guys immune to that kind of thing by now? (maybe we shouldn't be taking what politicians say literally, we should take them figuratively )

[onejayhawk]

I read today that 81% of Hispanic folks in that district wanted Amazon there.

That would be normal. They would be supplying a lot of the hourly paid workers.

Probably...because there are winners and losers, and the winners should get more because they deserve more. It's the natural state of things. It's only pragmatic to acknowledge this obvious truth.

The losers are the citizens of NYC. Sobeit.

It's interesting that less than 20 years ago the Democratic Party in NYC would have applauded the Governor on landing Amazon so cheaply. Now the state will lose an estimated 27 $Billion in tax revenue. Well done.

J

[baldgriff]

Does overpopulated NYC really need all this? Or, even the limited and and resources of the area, would Amazon simply be displacing other businesses? Most places would be able to justify bending and breaking all the rules to land Amazon in their area. NYC is one if the few places that don't need to do that. Also, they didn't really need to give all that to get Amazon there. They totally pulled a Yankees, outbidding themselves.

Whether you or I believe they need it - apparently NYC believed they need it - or they would't offer it. Hell even OAC said they could use the 3Billion dollars they were giving to Amazon to fix the train system and pay teachers better. Like NYC actually has 3Billion just laying around in cash unbudgeted.

[Sour Masher]

Well, if this discussion s to shift away from the larger issues of the merits of the deal and the merits of such deals in general, to AOC, then, yeah, maybe there is room for broader agreement there. I will more generously phrase things as this being another example of her ideals out running her knowledge and experience. Also, politically, I think, the is a loss for her. She went against the wishes of a lot of Dems by taking the stance she did.

[Judge Jude]

I think NYC may have outbid themselves, which is why I asked about academic analysis of the deal. not sure.

at the same time, yes AOC seems to be an idiot. This is sort of a tax-increment financing plan, basically - and while the merits are debatable sometimes, saying "hey, let's spend the $3B on something else" as if the 'Amazon money' is in a checking account is Trump-level stupid. when even DJT Jr. understands something better than you do, that's a bad beat.

NJ actually cleaned up on this with the Revel casino project in Atlantic City. they used the lure of future tax credits to get the developer to spend an extra $1 billion+ on construction costs to complete the project in 2012. that's a ton of regional economic development, as thousands of construction workers spend part of their salaries on local businesses.

when the casino went bankrupt in 2014, the developer got zero in tax credits.

nice work if you can get it, NJ!

as for the Amazon plan, that was for Long Island City in Queens, just across from Manhattan. there is/was room to grow there.

one of the controversies is that Amazon didn't want to have to pay union "prevailing wages." so NYS offered I think about a half-billion so Amazon could pay union rates without having that come all out of their pockets, but taxpayers.

[Sour Masher]

Because the 25000 some people that will be employed there will bring new people there that will create needs for other restraunts, markets, dentists, doctors, hospitals, car dealerships, day care providers, insurance providers, barbers, bartenders and so on and so on. Sure you're not getting 25000 new people, but you are raising the earning capability of 25,000 people and the families that come with it. There will be more jobs created in OTHER markets that will either be new or revitalize existing business. Its not just the 25,000 people, its all of the other people associated with it.

I agree that the tax credit to Amazon will likely limit competition in the specific market Amazon is in. However it will bring serious competition in so many other arenas of business which is good for the economic growth of the area.

Does overpopulated NYC really need all this? Or, even the limited and and resources of the area, would Amazon simply be displacing other businesses? Most places would be able to justify bending and breaking all the rules to land Amazon in their area. NYC is one if the few places that don't need to do that. Also, they didn't really need to give all that to get Amazon there. They totally pulled a Yankees, outbidding themselves.

[nots]

Also to be clear -
I am not celebrating Amazon getting the money. I was initially taking a shot at AOC for thinking and selling that NYC actually had 3Billion to give Amazon that should be budgeted otherwise. She's a ton of personality - but she keeps sticking her foot in her mouth.

Also to add - I may not like government giving large corporations the money either - but Im not stupid and realize that the long term benefit may outweigh my frustration that "the rich guy" just got more.

Here’s an article supporting your post:

https://nypost.com/2019/02/17/de-blasio-says-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-didnt-understand-amazon-deal/