None bigger than Amazon has stepped in. Your argument is invalid.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeW-Star
Printable View
None bigger than Amazon has stepped in. Your argument is invalid.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeW-Star
You did a spectacular job of completely missing the point in my posts. Bravo.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashBolt
It’s not just as simple as less revenue or no revenue.
Though granted, it would be hard to mitigate that sheer number of jobs from a revenue perspective
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It wasn’t an argument, it was a point. Nothing is invalid. The deal was just scrapped, you have no idea what businesses are doing. It doesn’t have to be one business that steps in either.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashBolt
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Your point is just weak so there wasn't much to respond to. But if you want, I'll highlight them:Quote:
Originally Posted by DeW-Star
1) Of course Virginia offered less incentives.. It's much cheaper to hire talent in Virginia. Those jobs aren't going to be $150k jobs that Amazon said were on average what was to be paid for workers in their NY HQ. When Amazon pays employees $150,000, they do so because they have to offset the tax for the workers. NY charges an insane amount of taxes relative to Virginia. Living expenses are not even comparable. You have a better chance of comparing Virginia to a third world country than to NY. Then we talk about property taxes and all that other fun stuff such as legal fees (higher in NY due to the amount of people being that congested into the area causing any type of disturbance) and you're dealing with a vastly superior market in one of the most expensive locations in NYC.
2) Which other companies? Wall Street isn't called Wall Street for no reason. NYC is known as the Financial Capital of the world because it attracts the best in that field. The reason Sillicon Valley has had a gridlock on many tech talent is because they are in high demand and it's easier for tech companies to hire via from other companies or local talent due to the amount of people specifically getting computer science degrees to work for these tech companies. People in NY aren't studying computer science. If you have noticed, there aren't many great schools for that in NY. Why? Because it doesn't make sense locally. Meanwhile, California has an abundance. Coincidence? Similarly, Amazon coming here would mean talent attracts talent. Companies would follow suit because more people in the tech field would exist around NY locally and academically. It becomes a culture shift. Use the California Gold Rush for reference. You go to where everyone else is and Amazon would most definitely have set precedent. Which businesses are you referring to? Because that's all assumptions.
3) Corporate welfare? This is hardly that example. Used in the wrong context, you can manipulate anything as corporate welfare. Both sides can benefit from this. Amazon wants to take on less risk and the tax incentive would allow them to take less of a burden initially so they can focus more on reinvesting into their business. You also have to define what exactly corporate welfare is in general. Must you know, states were BIDDING for Amazon. They bid because they see the value it can bring (when it is not corruption-based). I'm sure Amazon has lobbyists but that really doesn't apply here. They aren't asking for cash up-front nor are they asking for tax incentives for their wealthy. They are asking for a tax incentive that would allow them to recover their initial investment to construct the building. You know, the building that will cost billions? Forget about just states bidding on Amazon. COUNTRIES are bidding on Amazon. And that's what you seem to forget. It isn't corporate welfare as much as it is a business transaction in which both sides win. It seems you just package any incentive a company gets and call that welfare without realizing that this happens in the real world with individuals, poor or rich. Business is business.
Both your points are assumptions. Amazon coming here was a huge deal and would help NYC. The arguments against it simply does not outweigh the rewards from it. You keep assuming these things. Where are the companies that are coming to NYC from the tech sector? Hoping is different from actual results. Amazon is a huge player and would have attracted other talent, period. Anything of the contrary doesn't help your case here. Assuming other companies will always come at the same magnitude is a lie. It's why this made national headlines. Because Amazon coming into NYC is a HUGE deal. And we blew this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeW-Star
True, but I assume it would be a healthy mix from Amazon, with the additional secondary jobs being mainly localQuote:
Originally Posted by dbroncos78087
Well in a sense yes, but there is a reason Amazon was getting these incentivesQuote:
Originally Posted by DeW-Star
1). No you’re once again wrong (unsurprisingly).Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashBolt
Comparing Crystal City Va is not closer to comparing a third world country than to NY. NoVa has 3 of the 5 wealthiest counties or something along those lines.
The jobs being offered are supposed to be in the relative same range.
If anything, there was more competition for the area leading it to needing to offer less incentives (I.e. google and others as mentioned prior).
2). Your whole point in two are wild assumptions of anything. Who cares that they are tech people. As you’re saying the tech people would be transplants anyways. My point is, and still is that the idea that tax revenue just wouldn’t exist is crazy, the spots where amazon would go will likely be taken by some other companies. You have to make some assumptions as to how much and what the pay for those companies would be. But it’s not something you can isolate as much as you are trying to make it out to be. Even if the net benefit is still to the area (which it likely will be and I never disputed).
3). You are spinning what corporate welfare is. Nothing is being manipulated. It’s corporate welfare plain and simple. We all know how the process works.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Didn't even see the argument, but I love when people do this. I'll put up the wealth on either side of the Potomac against any area in the U.S.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeW-Star
I have not done due diligence on this news report. — I don’t know much about the ITEP — but it would appear that Amazon is paying zero in federal taxes in 2018.
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/am...xes-this-year/
Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure all of this is legal — a situation probably relatively easy to accomplish when it’s your toadies making the laws.
Time to break up some of these monopolies.
Amazon is a monopoly? I'm fine with restricting or eliminating the rate deals Amazon gets from the government, but I don't see how they are a monopoly, particularly when you consider Walmart.com being a direct competitor and hardly a small fish.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crovash
Just assign 1000 government auditors to spend all their time harassing Amazon to make sure they follow every law and pay every penny they owe.
You just don’t get it, do you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Scoots
Amazon doesn’t owe anything. That’s the point. It’s perfectly legal. You can throw a million auditors at them, but there’s nothing to investigate. The laws are on their side because their toadies made the laws in their favor (it’s called the tax cut).
I get that, what I don't get is where they are a monopoly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crovash
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]
They aren't... they're just more innovative than any other company. I don't think he knows what monopoly means.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scoots
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scoots
You are both correct, and I fully retract that part of my statement. Amazon is not a monopoly.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashBolt
Very few people really know what a Monopoly is.
it's a board game from Parker Brothers.Quote:
Originally Posted by dbroncos78087
fun fact, monopoly board games helped with POW in World War II.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...war-ii/266996/
Quote:
How Monopoly Games Helped Allied POWs Escape During World War II
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. :shrug:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/43589...-ryan-saavedra
Quote:
Ocasio-Cortez Doesn't Understand Difference Between Berlin Wall, Border Wall
AOC doesn't understand. I'm not surprised.Quote:
Democratic socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) suggested late last week that she does not understand the difference between the Berlin Wall and President Donald Trump's proposed border wall.
During an Instagram live video on Friday, the freshman congresswoman said that she thought the wall was a "moral abomination. I think it's like the Berlin Wall."
That Ocasio-Cortez thinks the border wall is "like the Berlin Wall" suggests she knows very little about history and concepts of border security. Former senior official at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Matt Mayer explains why comparisons between Trump's wall and the Berlin Wall are nonsensical and insulting for those oppressed in East Germany:
The goal of the Berlin Wall: stop East Germans from escaping to West Germany, as roughly three million did from the end of World War II until the wall was built. It divided Berlin for twenty-eight years. In many ways, the Berlin Wall served as a prison wall for East Germans. At least 139 people died at the Berlin Wall. It is hard to believe it has been gone for nearly as long as it was up.
Too often, Americans use the Berlin Wall in the debate over expanding the wall on our border with Mexico. Not only does this usage cheapen the history of the Berlin Wall, it is a terrible analogy. The goal of America's border wall is to keep people and contraband from illegally coming in to the United States, not to prevent Americans from escaping. Unlike with the Berlin Wall, the use of force on the border is significantly restricted by law, including when engaging with violent and well-armed Mexican drug cartels.
"Let's say you love the wall, let's say you want it, point is, it's wrong to hold people's paychecks hostage for it and if you want your wall so bad, go out and convince the American people because 70% of America thinks this is the dumbest idea ever and it's not my problem that the majority of the American public thinks it's a scam, a sham, a monument to white supremacy," Ocasio-Cortez continued. "It's not my fault, not my fault."
Ocasio-Cortez's assertion that 70% of America thinks that a border wall is "the dumbest idea ever," is factually false. Ocasio-Cortez is most likely referring to a January 2019 report from PEW Research that stated that 70% of Democrats say that a wall "would not have much impact on illegal immigration into the U.S."
During a Sunday interview on Fox News, Senior White House official Stephen Miller debunked the notion that a border wall will do little in terms of stopping drugs that come from Mexico.
"I understand that, but 80 to 90 percent of those drugs, don't come across in unfenced areas, they come from ports of entry," Fox News host Chris Wallace said. "Those are your own Customs and Border Patrol numbers."
"But, Chris, the problem with the statement that you're apprehending 80 to 90 percent of the drugs at the ports of entry, that's like saying, you apprehend most contraband at TSA checkpoints at airports," Miller responded. "You apprehend the contraband there because that's where you have the people. That's where you have the screeners."
"I assure you, if we had people at that same density and screeners at that same density across every single inch and mile of the southern border, you'd have more drugs interdicted in those areas," Miller continued. "You don't know what you don't know and you don't catch what you don't catch. But as a matter of national security, you cannot have uncontrolled, unsecured areas of the border where people can pour in undetected."
Partial transcript of Ocasio-Cortez's Instagram live video:
But this wall man, I can't fund it. I cannot, I cannot, vote for a wall. I can't, I can't do it. I can't do it. And especially for my community back at home it's, it's 50% immigrant and most of us if we're not immigrant we're first-generation. And, and, you know it's not to slight those that that voted YES on the wall because it's actually, sorry — it's not they were not voting for the wall, let me make that very clear, they were not voting for the wall — but what's happening is that the Republicans are creating a hostage situation where they're holding everyone's paychecks unless they get more money for, for, a wall.
These two things should not be tied at all, like no matter how you feel about the wall, you know I think it's a moral abomination. I think it's like the Berlin wall. I think it's like any other wall that is designed to separate human beings and block out people who are running away from humanitarian disaster. It's like one of the I just think it's wrong. But you know what? Let's say you love the wall, let's say you want it, point is, it's wrong to hold people's paychecks hostage for it and if you want your wall so bad, go out and convince the American people because 70% of America thinks this is the dumbest idea ever and it's not my problem that the majority of the American public thinks it's a scam, a sham, a monument to white supremacy. It's not my fault, not my fault. So, if you want a wall, go out and campaign on it, go out try to convince your neighbors of it.
AOC actually believes that a wall is monument to white supremacy. is she aware that there is already a wall in places? like other Democrats and Liberal media they keep talking about this is about immigration in general. it's not. the issue is illegal vs legal. wanting a physical barrier does nothing against legal immigration.
This is ********.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashBolt
Everybody is ****ing rude in the subways and push, whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asians. I have issues with all ethnic groups down there.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Everyone in NY is an *******Quote:
Originally Posted by Sick Of It All
I don't think Amazon technically makes a profit because they reinvest all their money. It's a crazy business model.
Amazon is becoming a monopoly, take the acquisition of Whole Foods for example.
How does the acquisition of Whole Foods lead to a reduction of supply and an increase of price? The number of competitors in a market is absolutely irrelevant to the classification of a monopoly.Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin13697
Competition makes the seller a price taker. Monopoly makes the seller a price maker.
Competition exists both within Amazon (as someone who sells on their platform, I know this is true) and in the greater market.
It would depend on how you would define a monopoly.Quote:
Originally Posted by dbroncos78087
A monopoly refers to a sector or industry dominated by one corporation, firm or entity. Monopolies can be considered an extreme result of free-market capitalism in that absent any restriction or restraints, a single company or group becomes large enough to own all or nearly all of the market (goods, supplies, commodities, infrastructure and assets) for a particular type of product or service.
They already manipulate prices and our tax system, they've done so for years.
Amazon announced it was buying Whole Foods Market for more than $13 billion. About an hour later, Amazon’s stock had risen by about 3 percent, adding $14 billion to its value.
Amazon basically bought the country’s sixth-largest grocery store for free.
I define them as a company or organization that possesses the ability to act as a price maker rather than taker. I don’t know what business units Amazon has the ability to do that with. Are you referring to the Amazon selling business, AWS, or Whole Foods?
The actual number of competitors is irrelevant to whether something is monopolistic or not. Coke and Pepsi make up 99.99% of the soda market share but their business practices are almost wholly competitive.
So they're a duopoly? seems like we're having a discussion on political correctnessQuote:
Originally Posted by dbroncos78087
And some are more rude than others. Considering the majority of that area are Hispanics, my statement still stands.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sick Of It All
Uhm, what? That's not a good example at all. Whole Foods doesn't sell anything other supermarkets don't have access to. You gotta re-read the definition of monopoly because this ain't it. Also, Amazon isn't a monopoly. Just because they dominate nearly all industries does not quantify as a monopoly. It just means they know what they're doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin13697
Yup. You are right. It's why they were operating at a loss and were able to rollover their losses to now. People saying Amazon doesn't pay income taxes are just being misled. They are able to take advantage of deductions that were designed to help businesses grow just like people are allowed a standard or itemized deduction to help offset costs.Quote:
Originally Posted by fingerbang
A monopoly is a kind of structure that exists when one company or supplier produces and sells a product. If there is a monopoly in a single market with no other substitutes, it becomes a “pure monopoly.” When there are multiple sellers in an industry and there are many similar substitutes for the goods being produced, and companies keep some power in the market, then it is called monopolistic competition.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashBolt
Amazon is not a monopoly, they're a monopolist.
As far as I know Amazon doesn't have any monopolistic activities. They are a massive reseller of other people's goods. They compete with ebay, etsy, craigslist, and lot of other businesses that are themselves doing well.Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin13697
I think you are taking Amazon being big to mean they are a monopoly. They are mainly a fulfillment company, but there are several huge competitors in that market too.
An monopolist attempting to create a monopoly. They've only been gigantic over the last couple years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scoots
Feel free to chase Amazon controversies, I don't have all night.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon...t_availability
America’s Monopolies Are Holding Back the Economy
"Large corporations are concentrating control over markets and using their power to raise prices, limit choices for consumers, lower wages for workers, and hold back competition from startups and small businesses. It’s no wonder Americans feel the deck is stacked for those at the top." Hilary Clinton 2015
https://qz.com/529303/hillary-clinto...rs-out-to-dry/
This was actually the message Clinton was running on before Sanders came along. It was based on a substantial and growing body of research that confirms that consolidation is at the root of many of America’s most pressing economic and political problems.
It’s still a load of bull ****.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashBolt
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's your opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sick Of It All
No, Amazon doesn't have exclusive control over anything. You're the one saying they are becoming a monopoly because of their Whole Foods acquisition. There are MANY substitutes to Whole Foods. You are arguing semantics and confusing everyone with junk. They are not a monopoly or trying to be one, period. They are just a company that understood that retail is just one part of their business and that you have to expand your portfolio in all aspects to sustain your business.Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin13697
Me tooQuote:
Originally Posted by FlashBolt
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Lol, what? So Hillary is the expert of what a monopoly is? Surely she didn't try to gain some votes from those who saw Amazon as too powerful, no? You didn't provide any evidence.. just that Hillary said they were so they must be. Now you are trying to deflect by bringing up random stuff.. Amazon is everywhere.. they have a piece in every industry. They are not the only retailer, are they? Is Whole Foods the only supermarket chain? Are Kindle products the only tablets? What about Amazon Echo? Hmmm, Amazon Music, Prime Video, Audiobooks.. all have competitors. Many of them. Just admit it - you forgot what monopoly meant and used it incorrectly.Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin13697
The deal NY entered into with Amazon has nothing to do with monopoly or monopolistic behavior.Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin13697
The Hillary piece isn't about Amazon either. Amazon sells goods for tens of thousands of vendors they are not controlling prices. There are a lot of small businesses running these days using Amazon for fulfillment.
Google is much closer to a monopoly than Amazon is.
Amazon has actually gained market share because they have advertised competitors prices even when they were lower. Amazon has gained huge market share by using membership to provide fast delivery and guaranteed purchase protection EVEN WHEN THEY ARE NOT THE COMPANY SELLING THE PRODUCT. They have a lot of competitors, but they are winning in the margins because they are doing it better, not for less money, and not by controlling markets.
is it offensive to point out Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's stupidity?
is that why no one wants to comment.
https://forums.prosportsdaily.com/sh...9#post32817089
Quote:
Ocasio-Cortez Doesn't Understand Difference Between Berlin Wall, Border Wall
Walmart.com announced a 43% growth in online sales in the last quarter. Clearly Amazon doesn't own the online market.
I have no issue with people not wanting the government to give money to corporations, but the reality is that it is possible for the people to win big even when paying a bonus to get a company to come to an area. Sometimes the people lose (almost always when it comes to sports teams), but quite often the people win.
right. This whole thing from Cortez seems like thisQuote:
Originally Posted by FlashBolt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGn55BRyDSk
I just think this was a stupid push on her part, and cost the city of NY a lot of jobs, and all because Amazon is a big, bad, corporation.