Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[happyman]

Also, and this is quite old school, but big business used to feel a responsibility. Not every decision was based on the bottom line. Times have changed but I still feel corporations should have ethics.

That's what should be happening, but the world is run by greedy corporations who are harassed by cynical contrary organisations who carve a living out of pointing out the obvious. When we have people too scared to unplug themselves from consumerism citing the economy would suffer therefore their lifestyles would suffer we're starting from a position of failure.
Politicians should be above it but they're not, businesses need to be told what to do as do consumers otherwise we're on a slow boat to killing the planet, the question is will socialism be the vehicle for that transformation when many socialists support globalism/internationalism which in itself is the friend of macro-economics.

 

[Bigga]

AOC called out Amazon, who wanted 'socialism' to the tune of $3Bn in subsidies, who then decided to take their ball home.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Didn't even dialogue with De Blasio about how to resolve the situation.

She pretty much said if you can subsidise a company for that much money, you can find work for the jobless or pay teachers etc., more with that same money!

She's bang on!

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

AOC called out Amazon, who wanted 'socialism' to the tune of $3Bn in subsidies, who then decided to take their ball home.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Didn't even dialogue with De Blasio about how to resolve the situation.

She pretty much said if you can subsidise a company for that much money, you can find work for the jobless or pay teachers etc., more with that same money!

She's bang on!

No, she doesn't understand or doesn't believe in the multiplier effect. That's fine. Amazon does, so do a wide host of other cities, Amazon goes elsewhere. She and her constituents will be happier, Amazon will be happier and the city that gets the jobs and the money will be happier.

And I'm sure that $3B will be immediately channeled into jobs for the jobless and higher teacher pay. She'll make sure of that. Right? Of course not, because solving problems doesn't win elections -- pointing them out by finding tropes to blame them for does. It's far easier than actual work.

 

[bluethrunthru]

I agree with that to an extent. It’s absolutely loopholes, incentives and back hand deals which are the problem. But there isn’t an easy solution in a globalised world. Very hard for the UK to stop big British business from moving their HQ to Monaco or HK, as is the case with Dyson. Unless you have a global tax scheme I’m not sure we’d ever be able to legislate fully against it.

Also, and this is quite old school, but big business used to feel a responsibility. Not every decision was based on the bottom line. Times have changed but I still feel corporations should have ethics.

Big business here doesn't give a shit any more - the link via responsibility to society was broken some time ago. Just think how Tesco ( and many others ) structure their reward and differentials built up from the minimum pay of those at the bottom using it to restrict the rewards of middle managers whilst loading them with more and more responsibility. They have no qualms in paying their lowest paid staff so little that in work poverty is increasing day by day as is the benefits cost to all of us who pay tax. They then sit back and pay dividends to share holders and multi million pound salaries to those at the top and their mates in Govt make speeches about the needs to reduce the benefits bill whilst Tesco et al do their utmost to limit their tax bill that is paying those in work benefits. And until people wise up to this and stop believing the press when they call out one family with a few kids that gets what is perceived to be too much in benefits. They are not the scroungers, they are not the ones bleeding the coffers dry its those at the top that are doing it and turning people in on themselves to fight out over the scraps.

 

[BobKowalski]

No, she doesn't understand or doesn't believe in the multiplier effect. That's fine. Amazon does, so do a wide host of other cities, Amazon goes elsewhere. She and her constituents will be happier, Amazon will be happier and the city that gets the jobs and the money will be happier.

And I'm sure that $3B will be immediately channeled into jobs for the jobless and higher teacher pay. She'll make sure of that. Right? Of course not, because solving problems doesn't win elections -- pointing them out by finding tropes to blame them for does. It's far easier than actual work.

You reckon that Amazon doubling its profits and paying zero Federal tax and then pocketing a further $3 billion in State funds to set up one of its HQ’s in NY isn’t going to get pushback irrespective of any potential benefits? There comes a point when your average resident starts to feel like they are being taken for a ride. It’s like the Foxconn deal in Wisconsin. No one disputes the necessity of attracting business to an area with tax breaks or whatever but come on no one likes having the piss taken.

 

[Bigga]

No, she doesn't understand or doesn't believe in the multiplier effect. That's fine. Amazon does, so do a wide host of other cities, Amazon goes elsewhere. She and her constituents will be happier, Amazon will be happier and the city that gets the jobs and the money will be happier.

And I'm sure that $3B will be immediately channeled into jobs for the jobless and higher teacher pay. She'll make sure of that. Right? Of course not, because solving problems doesn't win elections -- pointing them out by finding tropes to blame them for does. It's far easier than actual work.

You miss the bigger picture.

So, just like 'CityinWashington', when 'Democratic Socialism' is mentioned, you jump on the active word in your mind (like 'socialism').

The bigger picture is that Amazon have paid little or no tax at all and there are so many things that the city needs fixing. I keep hearing the subways are fooked as well as roads, not just the buzzwords of 'teachers' and 'jobless'.

Anand Giriharadas wrote in a tweet

On its own, a promise of jobs is better than no promise of jobs. But that isn't the right question.

The question is why do the wealthiest corporations and people get special welfare to do what so many other small businesses do every day for free -- create jobs and employ people.

He goes on...

If Amazon's sweet deal had happened, what would've stopped every other employer in NYC from asking for a similar deal going forward in order not to leave?

You could've had every bank, pharma giant and ad agency blackmailing the state unless they got a private tax cut, too.

He's absolutely on the money!!

Remember when #45 gave away that massive tax cut and Big Corp said it would help 'trickle down economics'? See how they followed one after the other to enrich themselves by buy back bonds! Laughing all the way on the Gravy Train!

The same would've happened here too in an exploitative act. If Amazon goes to any other state on a similar deal, we'll see what happens.

That one deal could have fooked up New York, imo.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

You miss the bigger picture.

So, just like 'CityinWashington', when 'Democratic Socialism' is mentioned, you jump on the active word in your mind (like 'socialism').

The bigger picture is that Amazon have paid little or no tax at all and there are so many things that the city needs fixing. I keep hearing the subways are fooked as well as roads, not just the buzzwords of 'teachers' and 'jobless'.

Anand Giriharadas wrote in a tweet


He goes on...


He's absolutely on the money!!

Remember when #45 gave away that massive tax cut and Big Corp said it would help 'trickle down economics'? See how they followed one after the other to enrich themselves by buy back bonds! Laughing all the way on the Gravy Train!

The same would've happened here too in an exploitative act. If Amazon goes to any other state on a similar deal, we'll see what happens.

That one deal could have fooked up New York, imo.

Look, I think folks are missing my point.

If AOC had criticized specific points of the loopholes employed, or offered a proposal that would be better for NY, no problem. At all. We can all debate whether this was a good deal or a bad deal.

But she didn't.

She called out Amazon because it's Amazon, Bezos because he's rich, and corporations because they're greedy. Read her tweet. It's as if the inherent nature of being Amazon, rich or a corporation makes you by definition evil, or unwilling/unable to care about others.

These are the very generalizations I'm objecting to. They are counterproductive. This is what Trump does too often -- when it comes to race, and ethnicity, and the media (and plenty of other things).

It makes it absolutely impossible for Amazon to negotiate anything after such criticism. This is why they left without saying goodbye.

Because if the objections center on "you're Amazon", just like "you're Muslim", there IS no compromise.

Judgmental generalizations and tropes suck.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

You miss the bigger picture.

So, just like 'CityinWashington', when 'Democratic Socialism' is mentioned, you jump on the active word in your mind (like 'socialism').

The bigger picture is that Amazon have paid little or no tax at all and there are so many things that the city needs fixing. I keep hearing the subways are fooked as well as roads, not just the buzzwords of 'teachers' and 'jobless'.

Anand Giriharadas wrote in a tweet


He goes on...


He's absolutely on the money!!

Remember when #45 gave away that massive tax cut and Big Corp said it would help 'trickle down economics'? See how they followed one after the other to enrich themselves by buy back bonds! Laughing all the way on the Gravy Train!

The same would've happened here too in an exploitative act. If Amazon goes to any other state on a similar deal, we'll see what happens.

That one deal could have fooked up New York, imo.

And he's not "on the money". Companies could do that now. They DO do that now I'm sure. And where are they going to go? Let's say Boston. Oh, whoops, 40% of their people including some of their best, don't want to go to Boston. So those people ask for more money -- in a full employment economy. Or quit. And moving COSTS MONEY. And it's an incredible hassle and headache. I know -- my company's office in NY is moving five blocks. Oh lord -- it's incredibly costly.

But NYC is expensive, so here's an e.g. Alliance Bernstein, one of my clients based in Manhattan, is moving a bundle of their ops to Nashville to save money -- but not all their best paid, most productive people because they don't want to live in Nashville and there are tons and tons and tons and tons of customers and service providers they've worked with for decades in New York. The ties that bind.

The public companies (who build houses and make products that go in houses) I work with did indeed buy back stock in part with their tax windfalls for the most part, though their stocks got creamed in 2018 so I understand it. Many raised their dividends too. Their shareholders are their bosses. But they also raised wages -- especially for their lowest paid employees. They also gave away more to charity in 2018 than in years past. So generalizing about what they did is wrong, especially when an action is applied across the entire spectrum.

C'mon, people.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

"We're in charge"?? That's what Trump supporters keep saying when one of us doesn't like his policies/behavior. Tone deaf.

 

[happyman]

Anyone who doesn't believe she's a stooge must be deluded.4:58 in is a real brain fart, she couldn't point to Israel on the map yet she's got some bloody strong views about what's going on there.