Amazon HQ2 Decision - NYC & VA

[B-Man]

Costumer: “I’d like to order 25 pizzas. I have a 10-dollar-off coupon I’d like to use, too.”

 

@AOC: “No, you must pay full menu price! I will not accept your evil coupon.”

 

Costumer: “I’ll just take my business elsewhere.”

 

@AOC: “Hey boss I just saved us $10 can I have a raise?”

 

 

.

[TakeYouToTasker]

3 minutes ago, KD in CA said:

 

Boy, it sure doesn't get any more "progressive" than banning anything that uses 21st century technology!

 

 

 

Ho, ho, you silly peasants!!   Don't you know that a few of you being killed, beaten or robbed every so often is a trifle thing compared with standing up against those who would dare to make life easier, more convenient and more affordable!

 

Cash is freedom is many regards.  

 

I’ll ask you to consider the consequences to individual freedom by eliminating it.

 

This, of course, isn’t to say that I agree with their overall argument.

[RocCityRoller]

Sometimes I think conservatives lack in subtlety.

 

I don't know BigMcD's political stance. Because of social media I don't know the tone of the post. Maybe he was being sarcastic, maybe he was being genuine, or at least appreciated the effort. Everything I posted was based in fact. I can list sources.

 

I'll share an analogy a professor shared with me during an economics class while pursuing my MBA.

 

He said:

"Think of the economy is a pie. As an economist I'm not as concerned as to how the pie is split up, as much as I am concerned with how to make the pie bigger. I know more pie is better for everyone. The bigger the pie, the more people get fed, but you can't take pie from one person to feed another. The pie has to get bigger or people will go hungry."

 

This was my nonthreatening introduction to conservative thought.

 

Over time I realized I don't want everyone getting the same sized piece of pie. Equality of outcome is not as fair as equality of opportunity and effort. With effort comes a bigger piece of pie. I also know you don't give away pie for free to people who didn't help make the pie, especially if the pie is not getting bigger.

 

Giving away equal slices of pie, when the pie does not grow means people go hungry. It is more of a shame for people who helped make the pie go hungry than those who don't. Once the people who helped make the pie are fed others can get a slice if any is left, but they need to learn how to bake. This is only possible over time by continuously making the pie bigger and allowing the new bakers to practice their skill.

 

This may mean that an investment in a new bakery is needed. This may mean the pie stays the same size in the short run, or may only grow slowly at first. But once the bakery is in place more pie is being made, and then more people can be fed.

 

You can't keep slicing the same pie into smaller and smaller pieces and expect people to be happy, or be fed.

 

New York decided it didn't need to 'invest 3billion dollars' in deferred taxes to build a new bakery.

 

Let's think of every dollar as a slice of pie. New York was not paying Amazon 3 billion dollars, that is 3 billion slices of pie! Amazon and New York agreed to not ask Amazon to deliver 3 billion pieces of pie up front, knowing that In the long run Amazon would deliver much more than 3 billion pieces of pie once the bakery was up and running. The pie in the Big Apple would be much bigger long term. Maybe Apple Pie?

 

In the short term the people building the bakery, transit people delivering building materials, and those managing the construction could have had more pie. Over the next 2-5 years farmers, bakers, and managers would have been making even more pie, maybe 500 million pieces of pie maybe 1 billion pieces of pie. By the simple fact a new bakery was being built, more people were going to help make more pie and would get more pie in the long term. Over 5 years the offset would be equal. The deferment would be paid, and Amazon would be making 6-10 billion pieces of pie a year. This would feed everyone involved and then some. Once the loan on the bakery was paid, their would be pie to spare.

 

In the long run, no bakery was made. Those that could have helped build the bakery get no pie, those that could have helped start the baker get no pie. The excess pies that could have been made won't be.

 

Meanwhile New York State continues to make the slice of pie those making pie gets smaller. And the number of people needing pie increases.

Edited February 15, 2019 by RocCityRoller

[TakeYouToTasker]

3 minutes ago, RocCityRoller said:

Sometimes I think conservatives lack in subtlety.

 

I don't know BigMcD's political stance. Because of social media I don't know the tone of the post. Maybe he was being sarcastic, maybe he was being genuine, or at least appreciated the effort. Everything I posted was based in fact. I can list sources.

 

I'll share an analogy a professor shared with me during an economics class while pursuing my MBA.

 

He said:

"Think of the economy is a pie. As an economist I'm not as concerned as to how the pie is split up, as much as I am concerned with how to make the pie bigger. I know more pie is better for everyone. The bigger the pie, the more people get fed, but you can't take pie from one person to feed another. The pie has to get bigger or people will go hungry."

 

This was my nonthreatening introduction to conservative thought.

 

Over time I realized I don't want everyone getting the same sized piece of pie. Equality of outcome is not as fair as equality of opportunity and effort. With effort comes a bigger piece of pie. I also know you don't give away pie for free to people who didn't help make the pie, especially if the pie is not getting bigger.

 

Giving away equal slices of pie, when the pie does not grow means people go hungry. It is more of a shame for people who helped make the pie go hungry than those who don't. Once the people who helped make the pie are fed others can get a slice if any is left, but they need to learn how to bake. This is only possible over time by continuously making the pie bigger and allowing the new bakers to practice their skill.

 

This may mean that an investment in a new bakery is needed. This may mean the pie stays the same size in the short run, or may only grow slowly at first. But once the bakery is in place more pie is being made, and then more people can be fed.

 

You can't keep slicing the same pie into smaller and smaller pieces and expect people to be happy, or be fed.

 

New York decided it didn't need to 'invest 3billion dollars' in deferred taxes to build a new bakery.

 

Let's think of every dollar as a slice of pie. New York was not paying Amazon 3 billion dollars, that is 3 billion slices of pie! Amazon and New York agreed to not ask Amazon to deliver 3 billion pieces of pie up front, knowing that In the long run Amazon would deliver much more than 3 billion pieces of pie once the bakery was up and running. The pie in the Big Apple would be much bigger long term. Maybe Apple Pie?

 

In the short term the people building the bakery, transit people delivering building materials, and those managing the construction could have had more pie. Over the next 2-5 years farmers, bakers, and managers would have been making even more pie, maybe 500 million pieces of pie maybe 1 billion pieces of pie. By the simple fact a new bakery was being built, more people were going to help make more pie and would get more pie in the long term. Over 5 years the offset would be equal. The deferment would be paid, and Amazon would be making 6-10 billion pies slices a year. This would feed everyone involved and then some. Once the loan on the bakery was paid, their would be pie to spare.

 

My only issue with this analogy is it’s base assumption of the aggregation of pie.  (though it’s a massive issue)

 

 

 

[Koko78]

11 minutes ago, RocCityRoller said:

I don't know BigMcD's political stance. Because of social media I don't know the tone of the post. Maybe he was being sarcastic, maybe he was being genuine, or at least appreciated the effort. Everything I posted was based in fact. I can list sources.

 

His political stance is irrelevant. He comes here to act like a douche because he thinks he's a witty troll. The truth is he can't troll worth a crap. He bring absolutely nothing of any value to any discussion, and is ultimately a worthless pile of crap. McDouche is not worth replying to.

 

He also can't accept the fact that Canada can't win the Stanley Cup because their teams suck.

Edited February 15, 2019 by Koko78

[RocCityRoller]

6 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

My only issue with this analogy is it’s base assumption of the aggregation of pie.  (though it’s a massive issue)

 

 

 

Do explain.. I don't want to reply without a full understanding of your point.

 

Use pie if possible

[B-Man]

BOB MCMANUS: With Amazon gone, everyone sees that Emperor Andrew has no clothes.

Emperor Andrew has no clothes — and Amazon noticed.

 

Or perhaps Jeff Bezos was channeling George Bernard Shaw — “I learned long ago never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and the pig likes it” — and decided that, whatever the upside of a major presence in the Big Apple, the cost of doing business here was just too high.

 

Either way, arrivederci Amazon!

 

What’s astonishing is that the digital ­dynamo decided to come to Queens in the first place.

 

Isn’t the bulk of Gov. Cuomo’s economic-development varsity — including his ­as-close-as-a-brother top aide — on its way to prison because of the team’s first-term pocket-lining? Haven’t all of his grand plans flopped spectacularly, one after another and usually mired in scandal?

 

And then there is Mayor de Blasio, a party to the Amazon deal and a fellow who spent most of his first term under investigation for corrupt practices; who has a kindergartener’s attention span; and who nobody takes seriously anyway — to say nothing of trusts.

Why would any self-respecting company want to do business in such an environment?

 

That is, in a culture where a signed, sealed and delivered agreement traditionally is just a starting point for the so-called community-benefits-agreement shakedown — the process where local politicians attempt to squeeze cash and other considerations from good-faith investors.

 

And, sure enough, local pols began circling the deal the instant it was announced — ­piously preaching policy concerns, but clearly on the make for extracurricular advantages. It’s a tradition, don’t you know.

 

Thing is, when you’re one of the world’s most significant economic engines, you don’t have to play by local rules.

 

So Bezos bagged it.

 

 

It’s also a lesson to other pols, in other places in the future, not to get too greedy.

 

 

.

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

5 minutes ago, RocCityRoller said:

Do explain.. I don't want to reply without a full understanding of your point.

 

Use pie if possible

 

You worked with the macro assumption of a single large pie.

 

I’m a micro guy, and further, believe a moral argument requires the understanding that there is no one large single pie, but rather the existence of millions of smaller pies with massive disparity in size.

Edited February 15, 2019 by TakeYouToTasker

[RocCityRoller]

1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

You worked with the macro assumption of a single large pie.

 

I’m a micro guy, and further, believe a moral argument requires the understanding that there is no one large single pie, but rather the existence of millions of smaller pies with massive disparity in size.

 

I am a macro guy. So It tried to use the analogy of a new baker making more pies. NYC has many bakers, but it doesn't hurt to build another bakery, especially if bakers and everyone affiliated could benefit. Not to mention those that benefit from building a new bakery.

 

We agree, there has to be more pie. Not necessarily one big pie. Many small pies help too. That may be better, but when there is a shortage of pie does it matter?

 

This was losing a big pie, at a time New York is complaining about not having enough pie.

 

We can look at a picnic analogy. If 200 people show up and only one baker brought 1 big pie that is a mess. It's the same as 5 people bringing small pies. Ok a few more people got pie, but many are hungry and no one is satisfied. If everyone brought pies of different sizes, I bet everyone gets pie and most would be happy, and choice would be better.

 

We need to bring it to a base level first TYT. You are too far ahead, lets talk pie in general and having pie or not having pie.

[Q-baby!]

I’m guessing a few dudes around here aren’t getting any “pie.”  ?

[RocCityRoller]

2 minutes ago, BigMcD said:

I’m guessing a few dudes around here aren’t getting any “pie.”  ?

 

So the question is since it's cold in Canada, do you prefer big pie or small pie?

 

my girl appreciates the fact I am a 'baker'

Edited February 15, 2019 by RocCityRoller

[Q-baby!]

Just now, RocCityRoller said:

 

So the question is since it's cold in Canada, do you prefer big pie or small pie?

As long as it’s shaved! It’s not that cold! 

[RocCityRoller]

1 minute ago, BigMcD said:

As long as it’s shaved! It’s not that cold! 

 

So we agree on some things and differ on others. You are aok, even if we disagree, because you like 'pie' and the Bills, though pie meant other things.

But hey it's a football board so have some fun.

 

Really look at the numbers I posted previously. It is very plain this was a bad move by NY in the long run for political stature. I live in NY and this was a very bad move.

 

That was the point.

[Q-baby!]

Just now, RocCityRoller said:

 

So we agree on some things and differ on others. You are aok, even if we disagree, because you like 'pie' and the Bills, though pie meant other things.

But hey it's a football board so have some fun.

 

Really look at the numbers I posted previously. It is very plain this was a bad move by NY in the long run for political stature. I live in NY and this was a very bad move.

 

That was the point.

I don’t disagree. 

[Nanker]

A big part of AOC’s objection (and  Lieawatha’s - like she should have anything to say about this local issue outside of her constituency) is the evil gentrification that occurs when something like this happens. The poor indigenous population gets displaced as the new young population moves into the neighborhood. Rents skyrocket and the other people get forced out because they can’t afford to live in their old neighborhoods.

Sounds like the history of America. 

 

Its funny though. The Progs  should love this. In China the central government decided to dam up the Yangtze River  to generate electricity and greatly increase navigation, commerce, and economic development. The displacement of hundreds of millions of peasants was of little consequence. Their young people are all for it. 

[row_33]

4 hours ago, BigMcD said:

I’m guessing a few dudes around here aren’t getting any “pie.”  ?

 

Let alone a million of them

[unbillievable]

[/dev/null]

6 hours ago, RocCityRoller said:

Use pie if possible

 

6 hours ago, RocCityRoller said:

We need to bring it to a base level first TYT. You are too far ahead, lets talk pie in general and having pie or not having pie.

And to how many decimal places

Edited February 15, 2019 by /dev/null

[The_Dude]

https://www.ccn.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-cringeworthy-reaction-to-amazons-hq2-pullout-proves-how-out-of-touch-she-really-is/amp

 

Good article.

 

Also, I’m confused how she’s an Econ major. I do NOT understand economics. I know what has worked in the past from historical studies but I’m not an economics brainiac. Not my field. It hurts my head. That said, tax breaks for $3 billion does not mean there’s an account with said $3 billion for investment elsewhere. There was NEVER $3 billion. How exactly this lady plans on reinvesting the non-existant $3 billion is beyond me. How is she an Econ major? Am I misunderstanding her point?

Edited February 15, 2019 by The_Dude

[Kevbeau]

1 hour ago, The_Dude said:

https://www.ccn.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-cringeworthy-reaction-to-amazons-hq2-pullout-proves-how-out-of-touch-she-really-is/amp

 

Good article.

 

Also, I’m confused how she’s an Econ major. I do NOT understand economics. I know what has worked in the past from historical studies but I’m not an economics brainiac. Not my field. It hurts my head. That said, tax breaks for $3 billion does not mean there’s an account with said $3 billion for investment elsewhere. There was NEVER $3 billion. How exactly this lady plans on reinvesting the non-existant $3 billion is beyond me. How is she an Econ major? Am I misunderstanding her point?

Economists already have the answer. The math is a means to an end. Although in her case, it appears we’re skipping the targeted math part all together.