21–30 of 281 posts
Analyses of the Amazon-NYC story should factor in the probability that the 25,000 promised jobs would never have fully materialized.
Agree with the article. The economists can argue all day about how the equation will work out to be a net profit to NYC regardless of subsidies, but that seems short-sighted. Every decision can not be reduced to a profit/loss question. One company should not have bargaining power over an entire city, and they certainly should not get special economic treatment over others. It points to and perpetuates an unhealthy po…
Agree with the article. The economists can argue all day about how the equation will work out to be a net profit to NYC regardless of subsidies, but that seems short-sighted. Every decision can not be reduced to a profit/loss question. One company should not have bargaining power over an entire city, and they certainly should not get special economic treatment over others. It points to and perpetuates an unhealthy po…
But they do and I don't think there's any escaping that. It's natural.
The problem comes with the various state and local governments wanting to subsidise things like this. They can offer things that perhaps objectively disadvantage the nation but help locally. Of course NY is go bend over backwards to get Amazon HQ2. All those people. All that income tax. And they're allowed to. That's the problem.
I think this is one of the things that the EU does fairly well. "State aid" is furiously complex and often outright illegal because allowing a single country to offer beneficial rate will usually mean the collective EU loses out on tax.
The famous example is Apple getting their corporation tax down to 0.005% in Ireland for putting all their EU business through their Irish books. Apple are allowed to do that. Ireland is not. Ireland were forced by the EU to collect a sensible rate retroactively.
Would it be a bad thing if local or state subsidies over (eg) $500k had to undergo federal scrutiny? If taxes were a little more balanced? It might mean that national planning could be more effective and encourage growth in states that cannot afford to subsidize (eg Louisiana, Mississippi).
I guess it's all for naught if you continue to allow lobbying, but every little helps, right?
Agree with the article. The economists can argue all day about how the equation will work out to be a net profit to NYC regardless of subsidies, but that seems short-sighted. Every decision can not be reduced to a profit/loss question. One company should not have bargaining power over an entire city, and they certainly should not get special economic treatment over others. It points to and perpetuates an unhealthy po…
NY made the offer to Amazon. If citizens of NY don't want their government to be able to bargain with a business or organization on an individual level then they should take that power away from government.
Agree with the article. The economists can argue all day about how the equation will work out to be a net profit to NYC regardless of subsidies, but that seems short-sighted. Every decision can not be reduced to a profit/loss question. One company should not have bargaining power over an entire city, and they certainly should not get special economic treatment over others. It points to and perpetuates an unhealthy po…
Too many debates I read online today assume that the city was going to hand Amazon a $3b check. Some sort of misunderstanding of how taxes/tax subsidies work.
Agree with the article. The economists can argue all day about how the equation will work out to be a net profit to NYC regardless of subsidies, but that seems short-sighted. Every decision can not be reduced to a profit/loss question. One company should not have bargaining power over an entire city, and they certainly should not get special economic treatment over others. It points to and perpetuates an unhealthy po…
> One company should not have bargaining power over an entire city But they do and I don't think there's any escaping that. It's natural. The problem comes with the various state and local governments wanting to subsidise things like this. They can offer things that perhaps objectively disadvantage the nation but help locally. Of course NY is go bend over backwards to get Amazon HQ2. All those people. All that income…
Lots of things are natural but part of the point of civilization and organized society is to control what is natural for the benefit of the population at large.
The Wisconsin Foxconn saga should teach us all to be highly skeptical of the claims that companies make when seeking these types of subsidies: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-02-06/inside-wi... Analyses of the Amazon-NYC story should factor in the probability that the 25,000 promised jobs would never have fully materialized.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Too many debates I read online today assume that the city was going to hand Amazon a $3b check. Some sort of misunderstanding of how taxes/tax subsidies work.
So, what you’re saying is that there’s not currently $3 billion saved that can now be invested in the schools, subways, etc.
I know in the technical sense, calling it Amazons rejection is accurate, but in reality this was a power play of a different kind from the people of the city. While I've not found a consistent stance among people I talked to almost everyone found it at least troubling how Amazon could wield this kind of power. The people who opposed it were vocal and diligent. I'd argue NYC rejected Amazon. More importantly, while ci…
> I'd argue NYC rejected Amazon. Over 60% of NYC residents who had an opinion supported Amazon. Over 70% of Long Island residents supported them. This is a victory for some well organised political activists but to cast it as a victory for NYC is a bit much. At the very least it makes NYC a less likely competitor to the Bay Area. https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2019/02/am... > The Bay Area: NYC is n…
> Over 60% of NYC residents who had an opinion supported Amazon.
If enough of that 60% got up off their asses and did the legwork, the result might have been different. Instead all they had was just an "opinion". Sorry, but that's not enough.
Agree with the article. The economists can argue all day about how the equation will work out to be a net profit to NYC regardless of subsidies, but that seems short-sighted. Every decision can not be reduced to a profit/loss question. One company should not have bargaining power over an entire city, and they certainly should not get special economic treatment over others. It points to and perpetuates an unhealthy po…
Too many debates I read online today assume that the city was going to hand Amazon a $3b check. Some sort of misunderstanding of how taxes/tax subsidies work.