• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Amazon cancels plans to build New York headquarters

sangha said:
Actually, every advocate of free markets claims it is free of any govt interventions. Every. Single. One.

At least, until now.

Free market - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

This is not meant to be a snarky question. Have you ever read any Adam Smith (outside of the often quoted invisible hand)? Or looked at libertarian party pages?

A lot of people think all the bitching about over-regulation means the opponents want none. The two views often get conflated. The truth is anyone claiming they want a completely unregulated market is no more informed than those that believe communism or socialism will work this time around.
 
Jack Hays said:
Not a problem so long as they are accountable for the results. The problem with Obama era solar subsidies was not that they violated some free market principle, but that they were failed investments.
Click to expand...

My post didn't address whether any of this was a "problem" or not. We were talking about something else, not the merits of a given policy decision.

Of course they both violated 'free market' principles and a minority of them were failed investments, which is what also happens in real life in the private sector. I'm just glad my conservative friends see Solyndra as an exercise in free markets, which I didn't recognize before!
 
JasperL said:
My post didn't address whether any of this was a "problem" or not. We were talking about something else, not the merits of a given policy decision.

Of course they both violated 'free market' principles and a minority of them were failed investments, which is what also happens in real life in the private sector. I'm just glad my conservative friends see Solyndra as an exercise in free markets, which I didn't recognize before!
Click to expand...

You're arguing which is the better brand of buggy whip while your audience gets in their cars to leave.
 
Keridan said:
This is more like the government participating in the free market. They didn't say "you will build here and you will thank us for that privilege." Instead, they negotiated and followed general business practices.

Of course a totally free market is different than what we have. However, as I have said repeatedly, you cannot have a successful market without regulation. There MUST be some body of governing that intercedes to prevent monopolies and practices deceptive enough to hurt the consumers. It's just as bad to have a completely open market as it is to over-regulate.
Click to expand...
Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I am not debating if we have a free market - we don't.

Nor am I debating if govt regulations are good or necessary - they are.

I am contesting your claim that gov't deals like this are a part of a free market economy - they are certainly not

Though free market economics allow for minimal gov't regulation, it doesn't allow for any govt involvement in influencing supply or demand, something this deal is entirely about
 
sangha said:
Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I am not debating if we have a free market - we don't.

Nor am I debating if govt regulations are good or necessary - they are.

I am contesting your claim that gov't deals like this are a part of a free market economy - they are certainly not

Though free market economics allow for minimal gov't regulation, it doesn't allow for any govt involvement in influencing supply or demand, something this deal is entirely about
Click to expand...

So present a better term than free market for what we have? I'm not going to type out partially regulated version of free market every time I want to refer to it. We certainly aren't a communist economy and, at least for now, we don't come close to a socialist economy.

Personally, I much prefer the government try to participate in the practices of businesses than try to control them. Tends to have a much healthier result. Heck, it may not be good for NY in any stretch, but the company had the right to say "this isn't what's best for us and our employees, so we are moving on". The folks who chased away 27 billion in direct revenue and however many billions in indirect revenue look like fools, but at least their screw up only affected one area and not the market in general or anything nationwide. Some other area gets to reap those billions now.
 
Keridan said:
This is not meant to be a snarky question. Have you ever read any Adam Smith (outside of the often quoted invisible hand)? Or looked at libertarian party pages?

A lot of people think all the bitching about over-regulation means the opponents want none. The two views often get conflated. The truth is anyone claiming they want a completely unregulated market is no more informed than those that believe communism or socialism will work this time around.
Click to expand...
I have done both, and Adam Smith was not a free market advocate. He merely used the free market as a theoretical tool to help explain how market forces work.

So while free market theory does allow for minimal gov't regulation, it doesn't allow ANY govt interventions on supply or demand and the whole point of this deal is to increase both within the local and state economy
 
sangha said:
I have done both, and Adam Smith was not a free market advocate. He merely used the free market as a theoretical tool to help explain how market forces work.

So while free market theory does allow for minimal gov't regulation, it doesn't allow ANY govt interventions on supply or demand and the whole point of this deal is to increase both within the local and state economy
Click to expand...

Interventions and participation are two different things.
 
Keridan said:
The $500 mil is no real difference to the discounts. It's a reward for guaranteed income. And we do offer businesses discounts depending on how they practice and what they do with their money. There are many practices I have issue with, but not competing for the best sources of income to an area.
Click to expand...

It's cash, a check. And you assume because a bunch of connected donors GET a tax break that it's not only a good deal for the taxpayers, but the free market working. So if I donate $100,000 to a candidate or the local party and those I supported vote me in a 70% property tax reduction for 10 years, that's also the free market at work. Just so we're clear....

If you saw the difference or had ever worked in the higher end of any business or local government, negotiating for benefits wouldn't be so confusing for you. The government practicing aspects of competitive businesses isn't such a horrible thing. In fact, it's when the government doesn't have to compete that we end up with the most failed programs in the history of the US. That's why any sane person thinks monopolies are always a bad thing. Even Adam Smith didn't think an unregulated market was a good idea. He just realized the value of limiting that regulation and allowing competition to improve products and services.
Click to expand...

I've worked ON THESE PROJECTS, done my part of the projections, been involved on both sides of these deals as a matter of fact. So I know how these things work very well. And what is obvious is that any consultant not a complete incompetent moron can make any of these projections 'work' for the taxpayers. It's obvious why - like I said ANY successful business pays out far more in taxes than it receives in direct benefit, or else we wouldn't have government. We'd have no schools, etc. So of course the projections show the taxpayer wins - if they don't, it a REALLY crap proposal that should probably send people to jail.

Etc. The point is these are exercises that will always, always show they're great for taxpayers. Every single incentive package you can dream up that's not obviously corrupt or that is so obviously terrible that it will fail the low LMMFAO if released to the public will show net gains to the taxpayer. But that's true of new businesses, and existing ones, large and small. If you can't produce a 'study' showing the Feds or your state will win if they pay for your new car (and you make above maybe $100k per year), you're not thinking hard enough.

To be clear also, and I've only made it explicit at least a dozen times on this thread, if I was a legislator in NY I'd probably vote FOR the damn project.

So I get the practicalities. But let's call it what it is - crony capitalism, government picking winners and losers, and justifying these deals on the merits, not pretending that this is an example of free markets. It's just not. If you don't believe me, ask a coal mine owner when Pres. Sanders passes a carbon tax along with wind and energy credits for his competitors. I'd bet my last dollar the consultants will show that "saves" taxpayers $billions over time, produced many thousands more JOBS!, and those projections might even be correct, but it won't comfort the coal company having to compete against wind and solar, and a government that wants him to fail.
 
Keridan said:
This is more like the government participating in the free market. They didn't say "you will build here and you will thank us for that privilege." Instead, they negotiated and followed general business practices.

Of course a totally free market is different than what we have. However, as I have said repeatedly, you cannot have a successful market without regulation. There MUST be some body of governing that intercedes to prevent monopolies and practices deceptive enough to hurt the consumers. It's just as bad to have a completely open market as it is to over-regulate.
Click to expand...

Right, but again you're arguing the merits of a policy, which is where the focus should be. Other people are trying to gaslight the rest of us by calling government handing out $3 billion in incentives to a single competitor as an exercise in 'free markets.'

Let's be honest about it. Amazon can demand and get it because it's big, and the big eat the small, it's the way the world works, and government is just playing the game. If you want to get a similar deal, either be big, or alternatively buy a governor and a sufficient number of legislators to push your crony capitalism deal across the finish line as a favor for you helping them get elected and stay in office. That's how it works. The latter is especially how it works in local governments. It's why big companies give huge sums to political efforts - to buy favors like tax incentives, grants, credits, etc. And it works.
 
Jack Hays said:
You're arguing which is the better brand of buggy whip while your audience gets in their cars to leave.
Click to expand...

No, but I've come to expect that level of intellectual dishonesty from you. I've said several times to you that I'd in fact have voted FOR the f'ing package, so I don't know why you won't acknowledge that. I just don't understand why conservatives feel it necessary to lie about the principle at work, which is this is government picking winners and losers. When Pres. Sanders does it for coal versus wind, they'll decide to invoke the "let the markets decide!!!" approach again, and call government subsidies for coal competitors SOCIALISM!!! And we all hate that unless we're in favor of it in that case, such as when our friends benefit...
 
sangha said:
Actually, the opposition to Amazon represents a rejection is State Socialism. How else but State Socialism can describe the govt picking winners and losers the way they tried to do with this deal?
Click to expand...

That’s state capitalism at work—you have it completely backwards.
 
MauiMan said:
I know lots of people from NYC, and they love it. I went to a job interview in Queens one time—the job was great, but where I would have to move my family was terrible! Turned the offer down.
Click to expand...

There's a lot to love. My favorite aspect of growing up there was meeting people of all sorts of different cultures; it really helped in understanding people and their customs a lot better because it wasn't in an academic context but in actual interaction. Queens is a massive melting pot; the South American contingent is well represented there along with many Europeans and Asians. As for neighborhoods, things have improved but there are always pockets that still retain their old "charm"...hahaha

What I've found is the pace of life in a city like NYC starts taking its toll as the years pass by; that's certainly the case with me and one of the many reasons I moved into NJ. All of the crowded streets and subways start to unnerve you and when you're at a point in your life where the perks of an active social scene in the city don't matter as much, it can make you grumpy.
:)
 
sangha said:
That's why NYC has an economy larger than many red states...because liberals don't like to work
Click to expand...

That poster seems to specialized in pointless one liners. You have to wonder how that poster reconciles that idea when all of the large urban economies lean liberal and generate the amount of revenue they do.
 
ElChupacabra said:
There's a lot to love. My favorite aspect of growing up there was meeting people of all sorts of different cultures; it really helped in understanding people and their customs a lot better because it wasn't in an academic context but in actual interaction. Queens is a massive melting pot; the South American contingent is well represented there along with many Europeans and Asians. As for neighborhoods, things have improved but there are always pockets that still retain their old "charm"...hahaha

What I've found is the pace of life in a city like NYC starts taking its toll as the years pass by; that's certainly the case with me and one of the many reasons I moved into NJ. All of the crowded streets and subways start to unnerve you and when you're at a point in your life where the perks of an active social scene in the city don't matter as much, it can make you grumpy.
:)
Click to expand...


Thank you! I never had such an experience, and I never thought about how truly American it is. My father was an army officer, so I grew up in military bases around the world. It is also a mixture of people, but not as varied as yours. Thanks for giving me a new point of view!
 
JasperL said:
It's cash, a check. And you assume because a bunch of connected donors GET a tax break that it's not only a good deal for the taxpayers, but the free market working. So if I donate $100,000 to a candidate or the local party and those I supported vote me in a 70% property tax reduction for 10 years, that's also the free market at work. Just so we're clear....



I've worked ON THESE PROJECTS, done my part of the projections, been involved on both sides of these deals as a matter of fact. So I know how these things work very well. And what is obvious is that any consultant not a complete incompetent moron can make any of these projections 'work' for the taxpayers. It's obvious why - like I said ANY successful business pays out far more in taxes than it receives in direct benefit, or else we wouldn't have government. We'd have no schools, etc. So of course the projections show the taxpayer wins - if they don't, it a REALLY crap proposal that should probably send people to jail.

Etc. The point is these are exercises that will always, always show they're great for taxpayers. Every single incentive package you can dream up that's not obviously corrupt or that is so obviously terrible that it will fail the low LMMFAO if released to the public will show net gains to the taxpayer. But that's true of new businesses, and existing ones, large and small. If you can't produce a 'study' showing the Feds or your state will win if they pay for your new car (and you make above maybe $100k per year), you're not thinking hard enough.

To be clear also, and I've only made it explicit at least a dozen times on this thread, if I was a legislator in NY I'd probably vote FOR the damn project.

So I get the practicalities. But let's call it what it is - crony capitalism, government picking winners and losers, and justifying these deals on the merits, not pretending that this is an example of free markets. It's just not. If you don't believe me, ask a coal mine owner when Pres. Sanders passes a carbon tax along with wind and energy credits for his competitors. I'd bet my last dollar the consultants will show that "saves" taxpayers $billions over time, produced many thousands more JOBS!, and those projections might even be correct, but it won't comfort the coal company having to compete against wind and solar, and a government that wants him to fail.
Click to expand...

I would like to retract and apologize for my statement about it being confusing for you.

I think we are just debating terms for the most part.

To be clear about one thing, though, it is absolutely crony capitalism and a horrible thing for businesses to be able to donate freely to campaigns and buy government officials. Officials incentivising businesses to bring commerce to an area is not the same thing as officials being bought directly. Somehow our system worked for years without proper restrictions, but we are well past that.
 
JasperL said:
No, but I've come to expect that level of intellectual dishonesty from you. I've said several times to you that I'd in fact have voted FOR the f'ing package, so I don't know why you won't acknowledge that. I just don't understand why conservatives feel it necessary to lie about the principle at work, which is this is government picking winners and losers. When Pres. Sanders does it for coal versus wind, they'll decide to invoke the "let the markets decide!!!" approach again, and call government subsidies for coal competitors SOCIALISM!!! And we all hate that unless we're in favor of it in that case, such as when our friends benefit...
Click to expand...

Sorry, but the dishonesty is your contribution. You keep trying to tag others with some duty to uphold some free market principle. No one has that duty. It's perfectly legitimate to support some government interventions and not others, depending on whether you think the beneficiary is a worthy cause and the assistance will be put to good use.
 
JasperL said:
No it doesn't imply it's illegal at all, and if I wanted to argue that I'd say that. It's like a plan to levy carbon taxes on fossil fuels and shower wind and solar with tax credits. Who knew that was a free market in energy?
Click to expand...
That's not a good comparison.
The Yankees are a private company. But I'm glad having the government as a partner using taxpayer subsidies to help favored companies and punish those out of favor is the new conservative free market regime. Should make it easier for Pres. Sanders to get that Green New Deal in place.
Click to expand...
Again, not right. Doesn't matter if it's a private company or not. it's a negotiation between to sides to make a deal. You are either not able to see that simple fact, or refuse to.
Looks like you really are not going to consider the facts of the matter and just stick with being completely wrong, as you keep comparing apples and oranges to back up your point.
 
Keridan said:
I would like to retract and apologize for my statement about it being confusing for you.

I think we are just debating terms for the most part.
Click to expand...

Thanks and I agree. :peace

To be clear about one thing, though, it is absolutely crony capitalism and a horrible thing for businesses to be able to donate freely to campaigns and buy government officials. Officials incentivising businesses to bring commerce to an area is not the same thing as officials being bought directly. Somehow our system worked for years without proper restrictions, but we are well past that.
Click to expand...

I agree 100% with that but in practice telling the difference is often difficult.

And just from a policy standpoint, the argument made by economists and free market types, and supported by a bunch of studies actually, is what works better are broad efforts to improve the business climate. NYC is a good example - it's a reported nightmare to do business there and the taxes are high, and the regulatory burdens also costly. How many businesses don't locate there or don't expand there or move from the city because of that? We can only guess, and those don't show up in press releases because they can only be estimated. But 25,000 in a one shot big whale deal do, and that's very politically attractive.

Or maybe you make the $3 billion pot more broadly available, or spend it on improving roads, whatever. The studies don't estimate these things so the alternative uses of the money are ignored. I get that they get $0 if we assume Amazon doesn't come and 25,000 jobs are "lost" but that assumes no one else fills that valuable and growing area with new businesses, which is clearly nonsense.

The QOZs are another example - part of TCJA. That's awful policy. When you give a developer a huge tax incentive to build on one side of the street but not the other, of course they'll build where they get incentives, and the studies will show they 'worked' in that sense. What they don't measure is that plot of land next door that didn't get the tax incentives, and sells for less just because of that, or isn't developed at all. In my own area, we bike through a part of town ON THE LAKE that's now part of a QOZ and it's being filled with mansions starting at upper 6 figures into the $2-3 million range. That area is likely to boom, but it would anyway, and just outside the lakefront QOZ won't...
 
JasperL said:
Thanks and I agree. :peace



I agree 100% with that but in practice telling the difference is often difficult.

And just from a policy standpoint, the argument made by economists and free market types, and supported by a bunch of studies actually, is what works better are broad efforts to improve the business climate. NYC is a good example - it's a reported nightmare to do business there and the taxes are high, and the regulatory burdens also costly. How many businesses don't locate there or don't expand there or move from the city because of that? We can only guess, and those don't show up in press releases because they can only be estimated. But 25,000 in a one shot big whale deal do, and that's very politically attractive.

Or maybe you make the $3 billion pot more broadly available, or spend it on improving roads, whatever. The studies don't estimate these things so the alternative uses of the money are ignored. I get that they get $0 if we assume Amazon doesn't come and 25,000 jobs are "lost" but that assumes no one else fills that valuable and growing area with new businesses, which is clearly nonsense.

The QOZs are another example - part of TCJA. That's awful policy. When you give a developer a huge tax incentive to build on one side of the street but not the other, of course they'll build where they get incentives, and the studies will show they 'worked' in that sense. What they don't measure is that plot of land next door that didn't get the tax incentives, and sells for less just because of that, or isn't developed at all. In my own area, we bike through a part of town ON THE LAKE that's now part of a QOZ and it's being filled with mansions starting at upper 6 figures into the $2-3 million range. That area is likely to boom, but it would anyway, and just outside the lakefront QOZ won't...
Click to expand...

Of course the 25k jobs don't just completely disappear, but like you said, getting that all in one shot is a very appealing situation. Ideally the estimated 27 bil over 10 years would be used at least partially for broader appeal. Of course, this is NY we are talking about.

In theory, the two practices should be used in tandem. Broader appeal from things like schools, parks, etc encourage better labor force to move to an area, which lures business. When taking a discount to encourage big catches, the money made should be funneled into those same projects. In my experience, any economic plan that actually moves things forward doesn't fall into just one theoretical policy, it's a matter of taking the best from several different approaches.
 
Anthony60 said:
That's not a good comparison.
Click to expand...

Why not? If my study shows that nationally giving $1 billion in tax credits to solar, and imposing carbon taxes, produces 1 million new jobs, saves 100,000 lives and will generate $10 billion in new tax revenue from all that growth, how is it different?

You won't be able to explain that rationally other than one is perhaps good policy, the other not, or you favor one but not the other. The principle and the mechanism is in fact identical.

I'm not principally opposed to government picking winners and losers, BTW. Nuclear is a good example - without federal subsidies and guarantees, and free transfer of technology, it's likely we'd have no nuclear energy at all, but IMO it's preferable to coal (which is what a bunch of plants near me burn) and should be subsidized, at the expense of coal. Look up the Kingston TN coal ash spill for one reason. Cleaning up that mess likely will end up killing several hundred workers.

Again, not right. Doesn't matter if it's a private company or not. it's a negotiation between to sides to make a deal. You are either not able to see that simple fact, or refuse to.

Looks like you really are not going to consider the facts of the matter and just stick with being completely wrong, as you keep comparing apples and oranges to back up your point.
Click to expand...

I see the facts very clearly which is why I've said now at least a dozen times on this thread I'd likely have voted FOR THE DEAL.

But what's instructive is you're not able to explain why my supposed apples and oranges comparison isn't apples to apples, just with different companies for different goals/reasons. The principle at work and the mechanisms are objectively identical. All I need to justify the Green New Deal is a study showing 1 MILLION new jobs, and $10 BILLION in new federal revenues, and we're there as far as principle goes.
 
Keridan said:
Of course the 25k jobs don't just completely disappear, but like you said, getting that all in one shot is a very appealing situation. Ideally the estimated 27 bil over 10 years would be used at least partially for broader appeal. Of course, this is NY we are talking about.

In theory, the two practices should be used in tandem. Broader appeal from things like schools, parks, etc encourage better labor force to move to an area, which lures business. When taking a discount to encourage big catches, the money made should be funneled into those same projects. In my experience, any economic plan that actually moves things forward doesn't fall into just one theoretical policy, it's a matter of taking the best from several different approaches.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree with all that. But what we're doing now is arguing the policy, and not pretending to defend some principle of 'free markets' for thee but not for me (Amazon).

And the game is what it is. As I've said here and on other threads, if King for a day, I'd just outlaw these one-shot deals entirely. If NYC wants to provide incentives to, say, etailers and make them available to all of them, great. But on a macro scale, they're just races to the bottom and the end result is taxpayers are simply transferring tax dollars in some real way to the shareholders of lucky ducky companies big enough or influential enough to demand them. We'd all be better off as a country if when VW wants to put a plant in Alabama or Tennessee, that it does so based on the general business climate and particulars of those competing sites versus TN's $500 million winning package versus the 'only' $300 million Alabama offered.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom