Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[blake]

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/twt/status/1096169799074398208

interesting point

[blake]

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/twt/status/1096385402200645634

you don't say

[blake]

msnbc on panic mode that AOC is getting trump re-elected

[gimmick]

Well when Junior agrees with you i think this case is closed. When it comes to pedigree of idiots he really is a pure one.

I doubt you can find a single reputable economist that has trouble understanding how these type of tax incentives work. It's not an investment strategy. It does require long term thinking, but that 27 bill wasn't coming tomorrow either. Very literally think these tax incentives as rake. It's the same concept. If you don't understand it, it doesn't mean that those that do are lying.

lol, we're talking about different things again.

for the sake of clarity, i have no position one way or another as to your tax incentive points.

don jr. is saying AOC was factually incorrect in thinking that NY was handing over $3 billion it already had to amazon, as the $3 billion would have come from tax breaks.

AOC believed that ny had the money and was handing it over to amazon. not in a philosophical, down the line kind of way. but in a literal sense.

and as i predicted, democrat presidential candidates are already being forced to comment on her errors.

She doesn't think that. It's just a shortcut. To get that 3bill that doesn't exist now other states need to stop this practice as well and/or NY needs to use those resources (property, labor and shit like that, i don't mean the taxes that would have resulted from the deal) that Amazon deal would have used for other businesses without tax incentives.

You actually can't just look at a single detail to see what's happening. It's a bit more complicated than pyramid schemes, but in a same way you do need look at it from a far to see why it doesn't work.

ps. i did thought about after my last post i should have mentioned that unilaterally getting out this deal NY isn't likely to free close to 3 bill in next 20 years

[blake]

lol, we're talking about different things again.

for the sake of clarity, i have no position one way or another as to your tax incentive points.

don jr. is saying AOC was factually incorrect in thinking that NY was handing over $3 billion it already had to amazon, as the $3 billion would have come from tax breaks.

AOC believed that ny had the money and was handing it over to amazon. not in a philosophical, down the line kind of way. but in a literal sense.

and as i predicted, democrat presidential candidates are already being forced to comment on her errors.

She doesn't think that. It's just a shortcut. To get that 3bill that doesn't exist now other states need to stop this practice as well and/or NY needs to use those resources (property, labor and shit like that, i don't mean the taxes that would have resulted from the deal) that Amazon deal would have used for other businesses without tax incentives.

You actually can't just look at a single detail to see what's happening. It's a bit more complicated than pyramid schemes, but in a same way you do need look at it from a far to see why it doesn't work.

ps. i did thought about after my last post i should have mentioned that unilaterally getting out this deal NY isn't likely to free close to 3 bill in next 20 years

not sure what you meant by "it's just a shortcut." do think that AOC understood that NY didn't have $3 billion sitting around to invest in teachers?

[gimmick]

NY is also much more likely to attract other business without paying tax incentives than something like 230 out of 238 cities. Basically why NY was picked with 3bill nominal fee when other sited offering 9,7bill were turned down.

I think that's roughly Bloomberg's stance. NY doesn't have to offer money anymore for it to be desirable for business. Meaning opportunity cost for resources is actually quite high.

[blake]

NY is also much more likely to attract other business without paying tax incentives than something like 230 out of 238 cities. Basically why NY was picked with 3bill nominal fee when other sited offering 9,7bill were turned down.

I think that's roughly Bloomberg's stance. NY doesn't have to offer money anymore for it to be desirable for business. Meaning opportunity cost for resources is actually quite high.

i don't disagree. one of the reasons amazon was going with ny over other areas that bid a lot more was because it believed it could recruit better people by going to ny.

[gimmick]

She doesn't think that. It's just a shortcut. To get that 3bill that doesn't exist now other states need to stop this practice as well and/or NY needs to use those resources (property, labor and shit like that, i don't mean the taxes that would have resulted from the deal) that Amazon deal would have used for other businesses without tax incentives.

You actually can't just look at a single detail to see what's happening. It's a bit more complicated than pyramid schemes, but in a same way you do need look at it from a far to see why it doesn't work.

ps. i did thought about after my last post i should have mentioned that unilaterally getting out this deal NY isn't likely to free close to 3 bill in next 20 years

not sure what you meant by "it's just a shortcut." do think that AOC understood that NY didn't have $3 billion sitting around to invest in teachers?

Yes. 3bill more in taxes would be the difference if all states would stop competing using tax incentives. Well on average. Different states have made better and worse deals.

[ErickAA]

I am curious if other high profile businesses are going to move out of New York or decide not to move into NY just to not have to deal with the AOC headache. She clearly has a lot of influence on social media, and regardless of whether her criticisms are fair or not, the resources and energy a company would have to expend to deal with her inevitably taking shots at them on social media, is a factor that must be calculated in moving forward. I mean, if it was as simple as working out the $3 billion tax incentive, I am sure something could have been worked out. But I am sure Amazon looked into the future and saw they would continually have to deal with her taking shots at them if they did this expansion into NYC and they decided against it.

[gimmick]

NY is also much more likely to attract other business without paying tax incentives than something like 230 out of 238 cities. Basically why NY was picked with 3bill nominal fee when other sited offering 9,7bill were turned down.

I think that's roughly Bloomberg's stance. NY doesn't have to offer money anymore for it to be desirable for business. Meaning opportunity cost for resources is actually quite high.

i don't disagree. one of the reasons amazon was going with ny over other areas that bid a lot more was because it believed it could recruit better people by going to ny.

Oh yea and i do agree she gives away sound bites that can be used against her way too often. The mention of schools, infrastructure, etc. is based on that those are the most common targets for cuts that are used for paying tax incentives.

[blake]

not sure what you meant by "it's just a shortcut." do think that AOC understood that NY didn't have $3 billion sitting around to invest in teachers?

Yes. 3bill more in taxes would be the difference if all states would stop competing using tax incentives. Well on average. Different states have made better and worse deals.

fair enough. would you agree that if AOC didn't understand that ny couldn't just give the $3 billion to someone else, that would be extremely troubling considering she's a representative of that district, and reflect very poorly on her intelligence?

[blake]

I am curious if other high profile businesses are going to move out of New York or decide not to move into NY just to not have to deal with the AOC headache. She clearly has a lot of influence on social media, and regardless of whether her criticisms are fair or not, the resources and energy a company would have to expend to deal with her inevitably taking shots at them on social media, is a factor that must be calculated in moving forward. I mean, if it was as simple as working out the $3 billion tax incentive, I am sure something could have been worked out. But I am sure Amazon looked into the future and saw they would continually have to deal with her taking shots at them if they did this expansion into NYC and they decided against it.

nate silver had an interesting take where he noted that the people of her district overwhelmingly wanted the amazon deal, but nationally, there was opposition from the far left wing.

this is one of only times in history you will see a politician go against the will of their local constituents in favor of a national group.

i love politicians standing up for what they believe is right, but we'll have to see if these types of moves cost her a re-election.

[gimmick]

She refers to articles like this...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/26/b...?module=inline

...and underlying studies.

With larger companies that do out of state business you're currently at 30% in tax incentives out of total corporate taxes. Some of it does create value, but good amount of it is just this race to the bottom.

[gimmick]

Yes. 3bill more in taxes would be the difference if all states would stop competing using tax incentives. Well on average. Different states have made better and worse deals.

fair enough. would you agree that if AOC didn't understand that ny couldn't just give the $3 billion to someone else, that would be extremely troubling considering she's a representative of that district, and reflect very poorly on her intelligence?

She actually sounds just like typical economists or people in fields that have large abstract or probabilistic element. She uses concrete terms to describe conditional truths. It's kinda something you have to do otherwise you're constantly explaining variables.

Oh and yea it would be bit troubling if she thought what you asked.

[GambleBotsSatire]

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/twt/status/1096169799074398208

interesting point

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/twt/status/1096266012406763521

[blake]

fair enough. would you agree that if AOC didn't understand that ny couldn't just give the $3 billion to someone else, that would be extremely troubling considering she's a representative of that district, and reflect very poorly on her intelligence?

She actually sounds just like typical economists or people in fields that have large abstract or probabilistic element. She uses concrete terms to describe conditional truths. It's kinda something you have to do otherwise you're constantly explaining variables.

did you watch the video i posted where she said this? seriously, go watch that and tell me if she sounds like an economist.

[ErickAA]

I am curious if other high profile businesses are going to move out of New York or decide not to move into NY just to not have to deal with the AOC headache. She clearly has a lot of influence on social media, and regardless of whether her criticisms are fair or not, the resources and energy a company would have to expend to deal with her inevitably taking shots at them on social media, is a factor that must be calculated in moving forward. I mean, if it was as simple as working out the $3 billion tax incentive, I am sure something could have been worked out. But I am sure Amazon looked into the future and saw they would continually have to deal with her taking shots at them if they did this expansion into NYC and they decided against it.

nate silver had an interesting take where he noted that the people of her district overwhelmingly wanted the amazon deal, but nationally, there was opposition from the far left wing.

this is one of only times in history you will see a politician go against the will of their local constituents in favor of a national group.

i love politicians standing up for what they believe is right, but we'll have to see if these types of moves cost her a re-election.

It seems that if the business interests in NY decide she is too big a liability, they could put a lot of pressure on her by reducing the business they do in NYC and insinuating (or even blatantly stating) she is the cause. Her local power base is basically the mob, and this can be very powerful, but if businesses push back she will only be able to fight back by galvanizing her supporters to real revolution, which I am not sure she can.

[gimmick]

She actually sounds just like typical economists or people in fields that have large abstract or probabilistic element. She uses concrete terms to describe conditional truths. It's kinda something you have to do otherwise you're constantly explaining variables.

did you watch the video i posted where she said this? seriously, go watch that and tell me if she sounds like an economist.

Yes she does. For completely unknown reasons she assumes the listeners know something about the subject.

[sonatine]

blake j'adore but you seem to be cherry picking perspectives on this amazon thing despite being offered a wealth of opinions from people with boots on ground that this deal was trash and should never have happened at all.

is 60,000 additional jobs and $24,000,000,000 in additional revenue a perspective? look, if you're telling me those numbers are flawed, then fine. those are the only numbers i've heard.

if you're telling me that new york has a better plan that is even more advantageous to its citizens, ok but i haven't seen it reported.

i'm only going by what i'm reading.

however... i get the argument that the amazon headquarters would have made subway life unbearable or cause similar infrastructure problems, or raised rents (i.e., gentrified the neighborhood).

those are legit bases for objection, if true. i was really only dwelling on the job/tax revenue loss aspect of it as it's all that i've seen reported.

exactly. the financial windfall being described by people who are super emotionally invested in making AOC look country simple is absolutely nothing compared to the infrastructure issues this was going to create.

additionally.

everyone seems to be forgetting that months ago, we were absolutely styling on cities for offering to leap neck first into predatory loan nooses just go have the 'privilege' of amazon 'chose' them for their next city.

new york citys deal was so fucking naive that amazon was like 'lol ok wow, sure im in'.

everyone is acting like amazon just decided on its own to show up and got chased out of town. thats basically delusional.

enough articles have been posted pointing out that the deal was trash, im not even going to bother pointing them out at this point because if it didnt do any good before, its not going to stop this latest round of posting about how 'the left blew it' or the one that im sure will start up in a few hours or the one after that.

because alt-right shithole.

like literally.

[blake]

fair enough. would you agree that if AOC didn't understand that ny couldn't just give the $3 billion to someone else, that would be extremely troubling considering she's a representative of that district, and reflect very poorly on her intelligence?

She actually sounds just like typical economists or people in fields that have large abstract or probabilistic element. She uses concrete terms to describe conditional truths. It's kinda something you have to do otherwise you're constantly explaining variables.

Oh and yea it would be bit troubling if she thought what you asked.

just based on her words, it doesn't appear like she understood what the terms of the amazon deal actually were. nor does it appear that anyone else who saw her (except you i guess) actually believes she knew what she's talking about.

if she really did get it, and was just misconstrued by literally everyone, she needs to issue a public statement, because she's getting absolutely slaughtered in the press and by fellow liberal politicians.

in the morning joe clip i posted on the uber-liberal msnbc, they say she's "dangerous," "does not know what she's talking about" and "will hand the election to trump."

bill de blasio and chuck todd on meet the press note that AOC didn't understand the deal at all.

i could not find anyone in the news that seems to be giving her the benefit of the doubt that you are. it would be interesting to see if there were any.

this is a weapon for trump unless she clarifies this.

did you watch the video i posted where she said this? seriously, go watch that and tell me if she sounds like an economist.

Yes she does. For completely unknown reasons she assumes the listeners know something about the subject.

again, her statement was hammered by literally everyone alive (not an exaggeration, literally every person on the planet), including actual economists like the two whose tweets i posted.