Amazon cancels plans to build New York headquarters

[Keridan]

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.

I understand your point. Even agree to a point. However, states and cities should be in competition. Otherwise government is one big monopoly. This is how they can do it under current laws and market rules.

Anyway, we understand each other and I doubt we are going to get much closer to agreement. I'll be happy to follow up if you want to get more into it, but have to work and feed kids for a few. Thanks for the discussion!

 

[JasperL]

I understand your point. Even agree to a point. However, states and cities should be in competition. Otherwise government is one big monopoly. This is how they can do it under current laws and market rules.

Anyway, we understand each other and I doubt we are going to get much closer to agreement. I'll be happy to follow up if you want to get more into it, but have to work and feed kids for a few. Thanks for the discussion!

I always enjoy cordial debate. eace

So I'll just note that locations ARE in a very real and important competition without those deals, because the siting of (e.g.) VW's assembly plant that went to Chattanooga instead of Alabama would depend on property tax rates, sales, income, infrastructure, schools, roads and all the rest that makes Tennessee competitive or not versus Alabama, instead of the $1 billion or so we've spent on incentives for VW since 2007. In fact I think, and this is broadly shared by economists, that the healthy competition between states and cities is more robust when, say, Tennessee can't make up the shortfall of its generally inferior business and operating climate (just an example - not making a claim...) with a $billion incentive package.

A good example was a big employer in Tennessee that relocated across the state line because that state offered an incredible one-shot incentive deal - poofed their income taxes for 10 years or something. From the perspective of both states, it's nothing but a transfer or tax dollars to that company's shareholders. That state (and I can't be specific because I'm not sure what part of this is public knowledge) didn't win the business because of better business conditions overall but because the company got offered favors by government. Better in a macro sense if our border states and TN compete on the merits.

Might even be better for the company long term because if they decide based on incentives, they're picking a potentially sub-optimal location but betting that that the incentives more than offset the business costs of locating in that inferior location - the lost revenue from a worse labor pool, bad infrastructure, the execs they can't lure there, or maybe they can't find subs to do that part of their work because they're turned off by the bad environment, or they have to travel to get that work done competently.

 

[Anthony60]

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 are talking about an entire industry that the government is subsidizing for political reasons. I'm talking about two parties in a market, negotiating a deal. Couldn't more dissimilar.

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.

Just did.

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.

No, another poor example. We as a country decided to develop nuclear power. The government needed to be involved to get that going. Again, completely dissimilar from the Amazon story.

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.

For or against it, not really germane to the argument.

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.

The Green Deal? How much further from the point are you going to go?

 

[JasperL]

You are talking about an entire industry that the government is subsidizing for political reasons.

LOL, it's only "political reasons" because you don't agree. You want to bet there is a study showing those subsidies create 10s of thousands of new jobs, more federal revenue, save lives so lower costs, so were great deals for the taxpayer? And the principle doesn't change with 10 firms or 50 firms or 1 firm - it's taxpayers subsidizing the cost of one competitor or group, and to the detriment of competitors who aren't lucky duckies.

I'm talking about two parties in a market, negotiating a deal. Couldn't more dissimilar.

In a way when only ONE firm or very small group (see, bank bailouts of 2008-2009), the more the deal violates the principle of a 'free market' because other direct competitors in the same industry (as AMZN in this case) do NOT have a government partner. In NY, only AMZN got the $3 billion. Google announced a major NYC expansion, new HQ building, 8,000 new jobs, no subsidies.

I don't think I'll change your mind, but if you're interested, try to find any economist who justifies these deals as exercises in 'free market' capitalism. They're just not, by definition.

 

[Anthony60]

LOL, it's only "political reasons" because you don't agree. You want to bet there is a study showing those subsidies create 10s of thousands of new jobs, more federal revenue, save lives so lower costs, so were great deals for the taxpayer? And the principle doesn't change with 10 firms or 50 firms or 1 firm - it's taxpayers subsidizing the cost of one competitor or group, and to the detriment of competitors who aren't lucky duckies.



In a way when only ONE firm or very small group (see, bank bailouts of 2008-2009), the more the deal violates the principle of a 'free market' because other direct competitors in the same industry (as AMZN in this case) do NOT have a government partner. In NY, only AMZN got the $3 billion. Google announced a major NYC expansion, new HQ building, 8,000 new jobs, no subsidies.

I don't think I'll change your mind, but if you're interested, try to find any economist who justifies these deals as exercises in 'free market' capitalism. They're just not, by definition.

Well, you've wandered far afield from the discussion, talking about government partners and a non existent $3 billion, as if there was a crate full of cash ready to be delivered to Amazon. You've been listening to A-oc too much.

You don't seem to realize what you said about Google. If Google has already decided to build in NYC, why would they offer anything? There's no reason to. Amazon, on the other hand, was looking at several location, not set on NYC. Hence, the offer. As I said before, it's simple negotiation. Both sides want something.

 

[JasperL]

Well, you've wandered far afield from the discussion, talking about government partners and a non existent $3 billion, as if there was a crate full of cash ready to be delivered to Amazon. You've been listening to A-oc too much.

It was the total incentive package, meaning savings or grants (which totaled $500 million) not available to other competitors. It doesn't matter if I cut your tax bill by $10 or give you $10, you're better off by $10. If the government cuts a check for $10, or lowers your tax bill by $10, they're equally worse off by $10.

You don't seem to realize what you said about Google. If Google has already decided to build in NYC, why would they offer anything? There's no reason to. Amazon, on the other hand, was looking at several location, not set on NYC. Hence, the offer. As I said before, it's simple negotiation. Both sides want something.

I'll just end it with this. The GOP has become the puppets of the Fortune 500 and the donor class, and they like to call themselves "conservative" who believe in "Free markets" and so to avoid the cognitive dissonance associated with embracing 'free markets' and crony capitalism or the state picking winners and losers, whatever you want to call it (which is what the Fortune 500 and large private firms pay good money to legislators at all levels to get), we have to justify the latter as an exercise in 'free markets.' That's it.

It's much easier to just admit that the state of NY and NYC are lining the pockets of AMZN shareholders with $3 billion in taxpayer money, and debate the issue on the merits of this case - is that a good deal for the city and state? If it is, fine. I'm not an ideologue, so I absolutely favor government in very limited cases for very limited reasons putting its massive hand on the scale in favor of certain industries, and against others.

That's the problem with AOC in this case - she's an ideologue who doesn't want NYC to subsidize one of the biggest companies on the planet, run by one of the richest men on the planet. If offends her notion of fairness and justice, because we're playing a corrupt at its core game where the rich get richer because of taxpayer largesse, political favoritism, or just might makes right. I agree with her on principle, as did "conservatives" and "free market" advocates until politics got in the way. But in this case, making Jeff Bezos a few more $billion to add to his pile of $135 billion is probably a good DEAL for the city and state, and ideology purity should take a back seat to practical realities in this world.

 

[American]

That's why NYC has an economy larger than many red states...because liberals don't like to work

That's because people up there use to work. But remember, that Wall St is your enemy, you lefties keep saying it. But you won't throw them out. Guess the MONEY is too good. :lol:

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

NYC has 4.6 MILLION jobs. Last year alone it created 71,000 NEW jobs.

25,000 jobs is a lot to many cities, to NYC it's a rounding error.

I can see the pros with this Amazon deal, but I can also see the cons. But the fact is NYC really didn't need it, especially bending over to the tune of $3 bil..

 

[Anthony60]

It was the total incentive package, meaning savings or grants (which totaled $500 million) not available to other competitors. It doesn't matter if I cut your tax bill by $10 or give you $10, you're better off by $10. If the government cuts a check for $10, or lowers your tax bill by $10, they're equally worse off by $10.

You are dealing in absolutes, that's not what this deal was. You have to consider what is coming back.

I'll just end it with this. The GOP has become the puppets of the Fortune 500 and the donor class...

If you don't think that the Democrats are doing the same thing, you're fooling yourself.

That's the problem with AOC in this case - she's an ideologue who doesn't want NYC to subsidize...

She exposed herself as being terribly uninformed for an elected official. She thought there was a $3 billion pile of cash they were giving Amazon. Utterly stupid. She has cost those people money and jobs with her incompetence.

 

[JasperL]

You are dealing in absolutes, that's not what this deal was. You have to consider what is coming back.

I have considered it many times, which is why I've told YOU that I'd have supported this.

If you don't think that the Democrats are doing the same thing, you're fooling yourself.

It's a really dishonest tactic to clip my point to remove the point and address a straw man. So here's the comment again in full. You can address or not if you want:

The GOP has become the puppets of the Fortune 500 and the donor class, and they like to call themselves "conservative" who believe in "Free markets" and so to avoid the cognitive dissonance associated with embracing 'free markets' and crony capitalism or the state picking winners and losers, whatever you want to call it (which is what the Fortune 500 and large private firms pay good money to legislators at all levels to get), we have to justify the latter as an exercise in 'free markets.' That's it.

She exposed herself as being terribly uninformed for an elected official. She thought there was a $3 billion pile of cash they were giving Amazon. Utterly stupid. She has cost those people money and jobs with her incompetence.

She is uninformed, but why lie about her causing the deal to collapse. If you've read the thread you know that's false. She had nothing to do with it collapsing. You'll have to look at people with actual power in NYC and NYS politics for that, and AOC isn't one of them.

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

She is uninformed, but why lie about her causing the deal to collapse. If you've read the thread you know that's false. She had nothing to do with it collapsing. You'll have to look at people with actual power in NYC and NYS politics for that, and AOC isn't one of them.

That she had nothing to do with killing this deal has been pointed out here probably about 20 times. But Conservatives only believe what they want to believe, and hear what they want to hear.

Which is why they are so easily lead about by their noses by Fox, Limbaugh and the rest of the con media.

 

[Jack Hays]

She is uninformed, but why lie about her causing the deal to collapse. If you've read the thread you know that's false. She had nothing to do with it collapsing. You'll have to look at people with actual power in NYC and NYS politics for that, and AOC isn't one of them.

That she had nothing to do with killing this deal has been pointed out here probably about 20 times. But Conservatives only believe what they want to believe, and hear what they want to hear.

Which is why they are so easily lead about by their noses by Fox, Limbaugh and the rest of the con media.

You guys are missing the point. Nothing matters less than what she really did or didn't do. With her ubiquitous and eager social media presence she has made herself a political symbol. Just as quarterbacks get too much praise or blame, AOC will get too much praise or blame over Amazon. That's just politics, and remember: this site is DebatePolitics, not DebateHistory.

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

You guys are missing the point. Nothing matters less than what she really did or didn't do. With her ubiquitous and eager social media presence she has made herself a political symbol. Just as quarterbacks get too much praise or blame, AOC will get too much praise or blame over Amazon. That's just politics, and remember: this site is DebatePolitics, not DebateHistory.

I'm not missing the point. I understand that. And I understand how easy target she's making for herself. But that doesn't mean I have to ignore what really happened.

The fact is, she had little to do with killing this deal. I understand how much ammo she gives the Con media, and because many of the Con medias followers are so easily fooled, she will be blamed by the Con media. And their followers will believe them..

I'm just putting the facts out there, she had little to do with this deal.

 

[Jack Hays]

I'm not missing the point. I understand that. And I understand how easy target she's making for herself. But that doesn't mean I have to ignore what really happened.

The fact is, she had little to do with killing this deal. I understand how much ammo she gives the Con media, and because many of the Con medias followers are so easily fooled, she will be blamed by the Con media. And their followers will believe them..

I'm just putting the facts out there, she had little to do with this deal.

Fair enough.

 

[JasperL]

You guys are missing the point. Nothing matters less than what she really did or didn't do. With her ubiquitous and eager social media presence she has made herself a political symbol. Just as quarterbacks get too much praise or blame, AOC will get too much praise or blame over Amazon. That's just politics, and remember: this site is DebatePolitics, not DebateHistory.

You've pointed out you don't care about facts, just who to blame, about 10 times now. It's nonsense, and I don't know why you keep jumping into conversations to make this point.

If you want to say 2+2=5 because a bunch of idiots and liars say it's 5, you can say it, but it's BS. And when some idiot or liar says it's 5, we on this debate site can legitimately call them out for being an idiot/ignorant or a liar.

If the discussion was about why so many idiots and liars are believed by gullible people, then we can talk about that, but in this case someone asserted AOC caused the deal to collapse, and so was stating a falsehood, a lie, an untruth, and it's legitimate to point that out.

 

[sangha]

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.

What we have is the same thing most developed countries have - it's called a mixed economy. Some parts are more capitalistic and some more socialistic. And the balance between the two is decided through a democratic process which makes that consistent with Democratic Socialism.

I won't list examples of capitalist enterprises as you seem to already know of many but I will give examples of the many socialist ones because you seem to minimize how pervasive their presence is in the US.

First we SS, a govt controlled retirement system that closely resembles the defined benefit plans many capitalist entities offer

We have roads, trains, airports, buses, bridges, etc that are almost all owned and operated by the government

We have a public school system, owned and operated by the government

And those are just a few examples of things that are completely owned and controlled by govt. In addition to those, there are numerous things that are controlled, through regulation and law, by the government in different degrees.

As a Democratic Socialist, I have no problem with govt involvement in the economy. However, the devil is in the details. Each proposal should be evaluated for its merits. In this case, that was done, and the people, through their elected representatives, found this deal lacking

 

[Jack Hays]

You're pointed out you don't care about facts, just who to blame, about 10 times now. It's nonsense.

If you want to say 2+2=5 because a bunch of idiots and liars say it's 5, you can say it, but it's BS. And when some idiot or liar says it's 5, we on this debate site can legitimately call them out for being an idiot or a liar.

If the discussion was about why so many idiots and liars are believed by people, then we can talk about that, but in this case someone asserted AOC caused the deal to collapse, and so was stating a falsehood, a lie, an untruth, and it's legitimate to point that out.

I don't have a dog in the fight, so I don't care about facts or blame. My only interest is in the political dynamics, and those are fascinating. AOC is unafraid, which is why she is both attractive and dangerous -- to herself and others. By her own doing she has drawn to herself an outsize perception of her role in the Amazon kerfuffle. The question is whether she will be Dolores Ibarruri, "La Pasionaria," or Joan of Arc. One was ultimately victorious and widely honored, the other was burned at the stake.

 

[sangha]

Interventions and participation are two different things.

Not in economic terms wrt supply and demand. Both affect them equally.

 

[sangha]

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.

While the deal would certainly bring in a lot of tax revenue to the city and state, there's also costs associated with their presence. And some of these costs are difficult to quantify such as costs associated with increased congestion, pollution, noise, etc

 

[Keridan]

What we have is the same thing most developed countries have - it's called a mixed economy. Some parts are more capitalistic and some more socialistic. And the balance between the two is decided through a democratic process which makes that consistent with Democratic Socialism.

I won't list examples of capitalist enterprises as you seem to already know of many but I will give examples of the many socialist ones because you seem to minimize how pervasive their presence is in the US.

First we SS, a govt controlled retirement system that closely resembles the defined benefit plans many capitalist entities offer

We have roads, trains, airports, buses, bridges, etc that are almost all owned and operated by the government

We have a public school system, owned and operated by the government

And those are just a few examples of things that are completely owned and controlled by govt. In addition to those, there are numerous things that are controlled, through regulation and law, by the government in different degrees.

As a Democratic Socialist, I have no problem with govt involvement in the economy. However, the devil is in the details. Each proposal should be evaluated for its merits. In this case, that was done, and the people, through their elected representatives, found this deal lacking

I'm well aware that several infrastructure items could be stretched to be called socialist as they are produced by government. Transportation can be, but isn't always managed by government, but actually often makes money outside of taxation. SS and Dept. Of Education are pretty much pure government beginning to end, which is why SS is on the verge of bankruptcy and DOE costs us more and more every year to produce worse and worse results.

Anyway, you are right that it's a mixed economy. Still, we lean farther to free market by a good stretch than to socialist. As a libertarian, I'm a huge fan of that I feel it is more descriptive to use free market, especially in a forum where folks are fully aware nothing is pure out there.

Anyway, the majority of the local population did actually want Amazon there. Roughly 70% by most posted polls. Very few were actively against it. Heck, mayor de blasio and the congresswoman in that district were huge fans of all that money and commerce coming in. The deal was tanked by the minority. On top of that, the loss was celebrated. That's really what my problem is.

 

[sangha]

That's because people up there use to work. But remember, that Wall St is your enemy, you lefties keep saying it. But you won't throw them out. Guess the MONEY is too good. [emoji38]

Yes, NYers hate Wall Street. That's why they elected one of it's leading members to be Mayor.

Twice

 

[JasperL]

I don't have a dog in the fight, so I don't care about facts or blame. My only interest is in the political dynamics, and those are fascinating. AOC is unafraid, which is why she is both attractive and dangerous -- to herself and others. By her own doing she has drawn to herself an outsize perception of her role in the Amazon kerfuffle. The question is whether she will be Dolores Ibarruri, "La Pasionaria," or Joan of Arc. One was ultimately victorious and widely honored, the other was burned at the stake.

What does that have to do with the apparent illegitimacy of pointing out falsehoods in a political debate? Or, how does allowing people to assert falsehoods as fact without challenge somehow foster productive political debate?

Even if the 'debate' was about AOC and her role in this deal, part of that productive debate would appropriately start with the acknowledgment that she was NOT responsible, then discuss why she is being blamed despite playing no substantive role in the collapse.

 

[sangha]

I'm well aware that several infrastructure items could be stretched to be called socialist as they are produced by government. Transportation can be, but isn't always managed by government, but actually often makes money outside of taxation. SS and Dept. Of Education are pretty much pure government beginning to end, which is why SS is on the verge of bankruptcy and DOE costs us more and more every year to produce worse and worse results.

Anyway, you are right that it's a mixed economy. Still, we lean farther to free market by a good stretch than to socialist. As a libertarian, I'm a huge fan of that I feel it is more descriptive to use free market, especially in a forum where folks are fully aware nothing is pure out there.

Anyway, the majority of the local population did actually want Amazon there. Roughly 70% by most posted polls. Very few were actively against it. Heck, mayor de blasio and the congresswoman in that district were huge fans of all that money and commerce coming in. The deal was tanked by the minority. On top of that, the loss was celebrated. That's really what my problem is.

When something is produced by the government, there's no need to stretch to call it Socialism. That's exactly what Socialism is - government control or ownership of the means of production.

As a Democratic Socialist, I am comfortable with a mixture of public and private enterprises. As far as public support for this deal, there was widespread outrage over some of the details, such as the private helicopter port for Amazon and their anti-union actions, so it was reasonable for NY politicians to try and get a better deal

 

[Keridan]

When something is produced by the government, there's no need to stretch to call it Socialism. That's exactly what Socialism is - government control or ownership of the means of production.

As a Democratic Socialist, I am comfortable with a mixture of public and private enterprises. As far as public support for this deal, there was widespread outrage over some of the details, such as the private helicopter port for Amazon and their anti-union actions, so it was reasonable for NY politicians to try and get a better deal

I didn't reply to all your replies only because I think we are largely down to semantics. I've enjoyed the discussion, but I think the thread past the point where any minds get changed and I am just wandering through today. Hope you won't be offended if I let it drop.

Thanks for the debate!

 

[Jack Hays]

What does that have to do with the apparent illegitimacy of pointing out falsehoods in a political debate? Or, how does allowing people to assert falsehoods as fact without challenge somehow foster productive political debate?

Even if the 'debate' was about AOC and her role in this deal, part of that productive debate would appropriately start with the acknowledgment that she was NOT responsible, then discuss why she is being blamed despite playing no substantive role in the collapse.

Please continue to point out falsehoods when you think you see them. That of course is your right and is worthy activity. And of course unchallenged falsehoods don't foster productive debate, political or otherwise. Please carry on.

That said, please understand that I find none of that interesting, so I won't be worrying about truth or falsehood. Nor do I think any participant in politics is obliged to seek "productive" debate. Their interest is in "effective" debate (that is, helpful to their cause). I'm here for that theater, which I do find interesting.