AOC gets what she wants: [NYT] Amazon Pulls Out of Planned New York City Headquarters

I was going to make a similar point earlier about the difference between "corporate welfare" (which obviously is a kind of pejorative putting negative spin on a wide variety of economic phenomena) and incentives.

If I'm a landlord trying to rent a 1000 sq ft apartment, how will I compete with the landlord next door renting a 900 sq ft apartment that includes utilities, heat, off-street parking, and basement storage? I am unwilling to provide the same. Those are incentives. They may motivate a potential renter to lease a smaller space because of the other amenities that will save him/her money and time down the line.

Providing a tenant with off-street parking or a washer/dryer is not "renter welfare." Those are incentives that sweeten the deal. Prospective renters are free to take them or leave them.

NYC provided amazon with incentives. In the end amazon took its marbles and went home. The incentives were not enough to put up with the inconvenience of dealing with NYC's political bullshit. The loss is NYC's, who will now be staring for the next ten or twenty years at that empty space where amazon might have been.

 

but hey, at least AOC got her boyfriend a Congressional email account! so all else being equal it's been a pretty good week for her overall

https://nypost.com/2019/02/15/ocasio-cortezs-boyfriend-granted-house-email-account/

 

more on the corporate welfare vs. incentives theme from Jack Marshall:

The Opposition: The opposition was based on pure anti-corporate ideology posed in the most infantile and realism-free manner, just desserts, perhaps, for a state that has pandered to socialists and a city with a mayor who is one. The anti-Amazon message was as simple as, and simple-minded as, this: It is immoral to give money to rich people and rich corporations. The money should be given to poor people instead. Financial writer Andrew Sorkin tweeted,

“There is a financial literacy epidemic in America. Quick lesson: NYC wasn’t handing cash to Amazon. It was an incentive program based on job creation, producing tax revenue. There isn’t a $3 billion pile of money that can now be spent on subways or education.”

Correct, correct, correct, and correct.

The Left’s conduct in opposing the deal was irresponsible and based on absolutist ethical theory over utilitarianism. But governing is always utilitarian, as is business. This is why ideologies like socialism destroy both.​

https://ethicsalarms.com/2019/02/15/ethics-observations-on-the-amazon-nyc-blow-up/

 

perhaps. but there are other policy ends at stake as well, no? we give American farmers subsidies to continue farming because we think agriculture is important, not just because of the economy but we also think a healthy food supply is important for human flourishing and welfare. In that sense American agriculture is given an "unfair advantage" over other "already-existing or other future businesses" (indeed, agriculture is largely tax-exempt, at least in New York state where farmers pay no sales tax while other businesses do). Is that unfair? you tell me.

Amazon could elect to build its headquarters out in the middle of an Iowa cornfield, but it doesn't in part because of state and federal policies that (fairly or unfairly) keep those cornfields in agricultural production as opposed to high-tech anything else. again, is that fair or unfair? we generally think it all works out in the wash . . . sort of the cost of doing business.

 

I disagree that I have misrepresented anything, I have mostly just been relaying the political fallout from the various opinion leaders who have commented on the situation. I am also fully aware of Michael Gianaris's role in thwarting the deal and have posted numerous links to articles highlighting his role in the affair.

So don't misrepresent me. please.

 

great, have at it

 

awesome

 

related article in the Babylon Bee:

Ocasio-Cortez Declares Victory Over The Modern-Day Equivalent Of Slavery: Jobs
February 15th, 2019


WASHINGTON, D.C.—Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is busy celebrating her victory over the tyrannical Jeff Bezos and the horrible burden his company Amazon had planned to inflict on the people of New York City: 25,000 jobs.

“I thought it was a good thing that Amazon was coming to New York and wanted to give us money,” Ocasio-Cortez told the press. “But then I found out they were going to extort people and only give them the money if they worked for it. Forcing people to work if they want to get paid -- how is that any different from slavery?”

A number of people tried to explain to her how that was different from slavery, but she just stared at them with incomprehension. “No one needs to work,” Ocasio-Cortez continued. “We just need to tax the rich enough and we’ll have enough money for everyone, and no one will need one of those awful jobs that are just as bad as slavery and almost as bad as transphobia. We could also maybe print some money. I have a printer at home.”

Not everyone was as happy about the loss of 25,000 new jobs. “You fool! What have you done?!” New York Governor Andrew Cuomo shouted at Ocasio-Cortez as he ran into her press conference.

“I made us 3 billion dollars!” Ocasio-Cortez explained. “We were going to give Amazon 3 billion dollars in tax breaks, but now we have that money for other things since I chased them away.”

“That’s not how it works!” Cuomo yelled, now openly weeping.

“No, I’m very good with numbers,” Ocasio-Cortez said. She held up a notebook with a few hastily scrawled numbers on it. She pointed to one. “This one is a four.”

Ocasio-Cortez has vowed to chase out even more companies from her district, freeing her constituents from burdensome work and gaining the treasury more money in tax breaks it doesn’t have to pay. Cuomo has vowed to curl into a ball and cry.
​

https://babylonbee.com/news/ocasio-...ver-the-modern-day-equivalent-of-slavery-jobs

 

25,000 "mom and pops" . . . yeah, that's the ticket, that should work. Brilliant.