Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[blake]

what does this mean? what are you suggesting new york do here? what do you think AOC is suggesting to do here?

They can offer the same deal to other businesses. Likely with takers. Big or many small companies.

You didn't lose the deal because of AOC. You lost because Amazon tried to bilk more and they found a taker from somewhere else. It's possible this isn't part of Amazons press release.

ok you're trolling me. i know you're not just suggesting new york can create $24,000,000,000 in additional tax revenue out of thin air.

if they could, why haven't they been doing this for decades? why doesn't every state?

[gimmick]

This would be the stupid math part.

Say they offer this magical deal to 10 states. One state wins 60k jobs. Does that mean that 9 states lost 9x60k jobs? By your logic the answer to this is yes. Apparently by offering this deal you lose 480k jobs. You ad the real people part and any additional tears you think is necessary in selling this.

jesus christ gimmick, you're being deliberately argumentative on things you don't even disagree with.

new york (not the US in general) lost out on 60,000+ additional jobs (better?) and $24,000,000,000 in additional tax revenue.

Not at all. By your logic every state that loses the bid loses whatever they offered in relation what they would have gained. NY is just one of those. You can explain why you think NY is special among losers.

[limitles]

what does this mean? what are you suggesting new york do here? what do you think AOC is suggesting to do here?

They can offer the same deal to other businesses. Likely with takers. Big or many small companies.

You didn't lose the deal because of AOC. You lost because Amazon tried to bilk more and they found a taker from somewhere else. It's possible this isn't part of Amazons press release.

always right
when you allow for commerce
manipulation like amazon
you face the consequences
which means a long slow death
or a rather horrific death for
your children

[blake]

jesus christ gimmick, you're being deliberately argumentative on things you don't even disagree with.

new york (not the US in general) lost out on 60,000+ additional jobs (better?) and $24,000,000,000 in additional tax revenue.

Not at all. By your logic every state that loses the bid loses whatever they offered in relation what they would have gained. NY is just one of those. You can explain why you think NY is special among losers.

god you love these word games. i guess that means you agree with my general sentiment. but i'll indulge you

let's say "new york didn't lose 60,000 additional jobs and $24,000,000,000 in tax revenue. however, it could have gained 60,000 jobs and $24,000,000,000 in revenue but now won't."

should we call it a day?

[gimmick]

They can offer the same deal to other businesses. Likely with takers. Big or many small companies.

You didn't lose the deal because of AOC. You lost because Amazon tried to bilk more and they found a taker from somewhere else. It's possible this isn't part of Amazons press release.

ok you're trolling me. i know you're not just suggesting new york can create $24,000,000,000 in additional tax revenue out of thin air.

if they could, why haven't they been doing this for decades? why doesn't every state?

They are doing this and have been doing it for decades. The customers pay the 24bil not the jobs. Labor costs are a fraction of the price of a product. And whoever is the last in the supply chain pays for it. This shouldn't be too revolutionary. For some strange reason you think 5th last in the chain is the one that pays for.

Oh and when you break this in pieces it's subsidizing jobs.

[blake]

can someone other than gimmick explain his point to me, especially if you agree with it?

does anyone on this forum agree with his reasoning?

limitles please don't chime in.

[gimmick]

Not at all. By your logic every state that loses the bid loses whatever they offered in relation what they would have gained. NY is just one of those. You can explain why you think NY is special among losers.

god you love these word games. i guess that means you agree with my general sentiment. but i'll indulge you

let's say "new york didn't lose 60,000 additional jobs and $24,000,000,000 in tax revenue. however, it could have gained 60,000 jobs and $24,000,000,000 in revenue but now won't."

should we call it a day?

Not at all. In this case you would be crying about all the other states losing the jobs NY won. Oh and no i don't agree with the general sentiment.

[blake]

god you love these word games. i guess that means you agree with my general sentiment. but i'll indulge you

let's say "new york didn't lose 60,000 additional jobs and $24,000,000,000 in tax revenue. however, it could have gained 60,000 jobs and $24,000,000,000 in revenue but now won't."

should we call it a day?

Not at all. In this case you would be crying about all the other states losing the jobs NY won. Oh and no i don't agree with the general sentiment.

you disagree with this sentence? "new york didn't lose 60,000 additional jobs and $24,000,000,000 in tax revenue. however, it could have gained 60,000 jobs and $24,000,000,000 in revenue but now won't."

[Tellafriend]

Not at all. In this case you would be crying about all the other states losing the jobs NY won. Oh and no i don't agree with the general sentiment.

you disagree with this sentence? "new york didn't lose 60,000 additional jobs and $24,000,000,000 in tax revenue. however, it could have gained 60,000 jobs and $24,000,000,000 in revenue but now won't."

You are beating your head into a wall.

[gimmick]

You're treating this like a non zero-sum game where every player that loses loses the value of the whole pot. That is the consequence if we say NY lost 60k jobs.

[gimmick]

Not at all. In this case you would be crying about all the other states losing the jobs NY won. Oh and no i don't agree with the general sentiment.

you disagree with this sentence? "new york didn't lose 60,000 additional jobs and $24,000,000,000 in tax revenue. however, it could have gained 60,000 jobs and $24,000,000,000 in revenue but now won't."

Yes i agree with that.

Think of a hand of poker with 10 players. The pot is 60k and 1 player wins. How much did the other 9 lose individually?

You can say that together the other nine lost 60k. That would be the zero-sum. Every one of the 9 could have won 60k.

[blake]

you disagree with this sentence? "new york didn't lose 60,000 additional jobs and $24,000,000,000 in tax revenue. however, it could have gained 60,000 jobs and $24,000,000,000 in revenue but now won't."

Yes i agree with that.

Think of a hand of poker with 10 players. The pot is 60k and 1 player wins. How much did the other 9 lose individually?

You can say that together the other nine lost 60k. That would be the zero-sum. Every one of the 9 could have won 60k.

You’re making a different point than i am. In your hypothetical, one person would have gained $60,000. All I’m saying is New York did not gain the jobs and revenue it could have. Please ignore whether it “lost” jobs and revenue. That is a red herring.

[limitles]

Yes i agree with that.

Think of a hand of poker with 10 players. The pot is 60k and 1 player wins. How much did the other 9 lose individually?

You can say that together the other nine lost 60k. That would be the zero-sum. Every one of the 9 could have won 60k.

You’re making a different point than i am. In your hypothetical, one person would have gained $60,000. All I’m saying is New York did not gain the jobs and revenue it could have. Please ignore whether it “lost” jobs and revenue. That is a red herring.

This is not the end all be all
I would love to know the experience you both have to
bring to the equation....and while we're at it what
formal education can you provide as back-up?

[gimmick]

Yes i agree with that.

Think of a hand of poker with 10 players. The pot is 60k and 1 player wins. How much did the other 9 lose individually?

You can say that together the other nine lost 60k. That would be the zero-sum. Every one of the 9 could have won 60k.

You’re making a different point than i am. In your hypothetical, one person would have gained $60,000. All I’m saying is New York did not gain the jobs and revenue it could have. Please ignore whether it “lost” jobs and revenue. That is a red herring.

Ok we don't have to go with literal meaning of lost. We usually do, but whatever.

I don't know if i need to ask if you agree with your own question now. This one.

"new york didn't lose 60,000 additional jobs and $24,000,000,000 in tax revenue. however, it could have gained 60,000 jobs and $24,000,000,000 in revenue but now won't."

My point is that it isn't a unique offer in it's nature. Saying no to Amazon doesn't mean NY has no way of using tax breaks to attract businesses. That's why it's wrong to say NY "lost" 60k jobs. They might not get as good deals or they might get better deals. I don't know. But i know they can get offers and if they feel like it they can invest in small businesses. Oh and that's how AOC gets her 25k jobs. I think that was the original question.

You can make a case for lost equity. Cost of some other batch of 25k jobs likely isn't precisely 3.4bil (or potential gain), but the source is roughly the same. It just isn't Amazon.

[gimmick]

This ends up working like marketing. Say there's 2 competing products like Coke and Pepsi. Both have a marketing budget. It is paid as a fraction of the cost of product. The customer pays it.

Lets say there are 2 customers (Larry and Harry). They both see the same ads. When Larry buys a Coke he pays for the whole ad campaign not just his part. And the same thing happens when Harry buys a Pepsi. Because of this cross buying in the long term they pay for advertising of both products. It's just collected when either company sells a product.

This is what happens when States try to attract businesses. Tax payers are the customers and they pay for the whole show. Maybe you could say it's like reverse credit card roulette. In credit card roulette in the long run you always pay for your meal. If you keep playing with the same group of people, no one gets a free meal.

The jobs you "win" are equal to jobs you "lost" when some one else "won". This happens when they keep playing with the same group.

[blake]

gimmick, would you say that conceding is something you're capable of doing?

[blake]

You’re making a different point than i am. In your hypothetical, one person would have gained $60,000. All I’m saying is New York did not gain the jobs and revenue it could have. Please ignore whether it “lost” jobs and revenue. That is a red herring.

Ok we don't have to go with literal meaning of lost. We usually do, but whatever.

I don't know if i need to ask if you agree with your own question now. This one.

"new york didn't lose 60,000 additional jobs and $24,000,000,000 in tax revenue. however, it could have gained 60,000 jobs and $24,000,000,000 in revenue but now won't."

My point is that it isn't a unique offer in it's nature. Saying no to Amazon doesn't mean NY has no way of using tax breaks to attract businesses. That's why it's wrong to say NY "lost" 60k jobs. They might not get as good deals or they might get better deals. I don't know. But i know they can get offers and if they feel like it they can invest in small businesses. Oh and that's how AOC gets her 25k jobs. I think that was the original question.

this doesn't make any sense. if new york was capable of snapping its fingers and adding $24 billion in tax revenue and increasing 60,000 jobs without amazon, it already would have.

[GambleBotsSatire]

60,000+ jobs lost because of AOC and AOC alone, not to mention $24,000,000,000 in tax revenue that would have gone to fund government services. real people were hurt because of her.

guys take it easy blake has a bad case of AIDS (Aoc Induced Derangement Syndrome)

but lets always remember that he thinks AOC one month on the job is more powerful than the richest man in the world, the governor of new york and mayor of nyc combined

[limitles]

This ends up working like marketing. Say there's 2 competing products like Coke and Pepsi. Both have a marketing budget. It is paid as a fraction of the cost of product. The customer pays it.

Lets say there are 2 customers (Larry and Harry). They both see the same ads. When Larry buys a Coke he pays for the whole ad campaign not just his part. And the same thing happens when Harry buys a Pepsi. Because of this cross buying in the long term they pay for advertising of both products. It's just collected when either company sells a product.

This is what happens when States try to attract businesses. Tax payers are the customers and they pay for the whole show. Maybe you could say it's like reverse credit card roulette. In credit card roulette in the long run you always pay for your meal. If you keep playing with the same group of people, no one gets a free meal.

The jobs you "win" are equal to jobs you "lost" when some one else "won". This happens when they keep playing with the same group.

Just an opinion...Not hating...but having 50 states who seem to have ultimate powers for this or that
is the foundation of bad foundations.
You can't pull on the same rope from different directions.

[blake]

60,000+ jobs lost because of AOC and AOC alone, not to mention $24,000,000,000 in tax revenue that would have gone to fund government services. real people were hurt because of her.

guys take it easy blake has a bad case of AIDS (Aoc Induced Derangement Syndrome)

but lets always remember that he thinks AOC one month on the job is more powerful than the richest man in the world, the governor of new york and mayor of nyc combined

your tags suck jim