Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[hack]

The costs don't disappear either. It's not as if, if you give them a tax break, those 25,000 people won't drive on the roads from home to work or take the subway, or send their children to the schools or demand trash pickup or consume other services.

It's amazing the regularity with which people decline to do cost-benefit analysis on things they think they want, and yet know to demand it any time someone proposes things they think they don't want. That is the face of conservatism. I had a guy yesterday afternoon from one of the frothy thinktanks telling me that nobody ever considered the environmental costs of renewable energy, so I asked him if they outweigh the environmental costs of fossil fuels and he said ``What costs?" I asked him about whether hydropower should be considered renewable and he told me the left hates cheap power. He wasn't familiar with Wood Mackenzie. This person has the word ``scholar'' in their job title.

People don't demand cost/benefit analysis, but it's a concept that everybody understands, and should expect out of every basic policy discussion. But I think the country is just too ideological, on both ends, and doesn't connect ideas to reality. Too easy to replace that with labels and smears. Need a balance between being process-oriented and results-oriented.

[iam416]

Cost/benefit analyses are routine. Environmental cost/benefit analysis are mandated for virtually any new construction of significance requiring a federal permit. It's Federal Law. Amazon's HQ2 will presumably, no matter where it's built, require an accounting of environmental costs in the form of an EIS as required by NEPA.

In any event, the Palin-Cortez continues to impress. I'm not sure if the guy at the frothy thinktank is the new face of the Conservative Party, but Palin-Cortez is certainly carrying the flag for the Progressive Socialists.

Finally, I'm not sure how many of the 25,000 folks would have been transplants, but let's say all of them. I'm all for factoring in costs of using roads, schools and other of our vast public benefits when calculating costs of folks who are new to the community. Or country.

[AlabamAlum]

The Amazon deal was essentially the same tax break ANY company can get in relocating to NY. 25,000 tech and admin jobs gone.

And AOC thinks this is a win. Jesus.

[Ghengis Jon]

Clowns to the left of me,
Jokers to the right, here I am,
Stuck in the middle with you

[iam416]

I should also note re Environmental Assessments/Impact Statements that most states have a similar procedure in place to cover gaps in the Federal law. New York does. So, whether Federal or State, Amazon wasn't just going to march in and build HQ2 on Long Island without some sort of environmental assessment or cataloguing of costs.

[hack]

Cost/benefit analyses are not routine. Especially in the tax-policy discussion, where ``benefit analysis'' is ``the cuts will pay for themselves with the new growth they create''. We've been doing this routine a while. We can go check the numbers, which would help you get to a balanced cost-benefit analysis, but many do not. We're a little further ahead on tax-breaks for new stadiums. People know better how to be skeptical of that because they later they can measure what the area looks like around the stadium compared with the revitalization plan that was promised.

Whether the following is good for the country or not, AOC is poitically savvy to be skirting c/b analysis in the GND, and pointing out that JFK didn't ask for it for the moonshot. As a politician, you do not get anything done with a c/b analysis. You get something done by making people want it, getting it on the budget, and then figuring out later how to pay for it. That's the GOP playbook, and Obama used it to get ACA done too. Ideally voters and civil society would demand the c/b analysis for every policy, but we are as a group too ideological to really value what the CBO does, and politicians know how to attack it and devalue the specific process that would constrain their nuttier ideas. It is too easy to sidestep our minds win the debate by appealing to our hearts.

AA, you're correct that offering tax benefits like these are standard. Amazon's looks excessive because of scale. We'll see if this was a win or not, but AOC's not alone in saying that tax incentives don't work. These ideas were once novel, new and widely believed in. The U.S. applied them at home, other countries did in their jurisdictions, and the IMF made them a staple of the advice they give any country willing to listen to them. There are, now, not as many places in which these ideas are still believed, in part because we've done it enough that now there's results to measure. The IMF has in many ways moved on from this economic theory. Others are too. What AOC is doing in trying to move on from this model of economic development is, whether it makes sense to you or not, entirely consistent with a common and current data-driven approach. This is mainstream stuff in most places, including a lot of American cities in the stadiums example I provided.

[Kapture1]

The costs don't disappear either. It's not as if, if you give them a tax break, those 25,000 people won't drive on the roads from home to work or take the subway, or send their children to the schools or demand trash pickup or consume other services.

It's amazing the regularity with which people decline to do cost-benefit analysis on things they think they want, and yet know to demand it any time someone proposes things they think they don't want. That is the face of conservatism. I had a guy yesterday afternoon from one of the frothy thinktanks telling me that nobody ever considered the environmental costs of renewable energy, so I asked him if they outweigh the environmental costs of fossil fuels and he said ``What costs?" I asked him about whether hydropower should be considered renewable and he told me the left hates cheap power. He wasn't familiar with Wood Mackenzie. This person has the word ``scholar'' in their job title.

People don't demand cost/benefit analysis, but it's a concept that everybody understands, and should expect out of every basic policy discussion. But I think the country is just too ideological, on both ends, and doesn't connect ideas to reality. Too easy to replace that with labels and smears. Need a balance between being process-oriented and results-oriented.

those 25000 people will also not engage in local commerce as if they had that 150k job or pay income tax on that money. they won't be buying the car that would have driven on that road. and they will still be sending their kids to those schools, and creating trash, and riding the subway. Your view of economy is really tilted. They did not just throw away 25000 jobs, but also the trickle down of those jobs, the money they would have to spend on other products and services of companies that hire Americans in their local communities. The true economic loss over this will never be accurately measured, but it is more than 25000 jobs, and 27 billion over 25 years. way more.


you speak of cost benefit analysis, but you are missing the benefit and fudging the cost.

[iam416]

The Amazon deal was essentially the same tax break ANY company can get in relocating to NY. 25,000 tech and admin jobs gone.

So, there's certainly an argument to be made against this stuff. Most of the research suggests that directed tax breaks like this don't play a significant role in attracting businesses. They're far more concerned with access to talent, overall regulatory system, overall tax system (I mean, the breaks sunset at some point) and other factors. Amazon, e.g., took far fewer tax "breaks" from NY than was offered by other localities.

There's also National Dictator argument to be made that NYC doesn't need Amazon and that they should be force to locate in cities that reap a higher ROI than NYC. But we ain't into Federal Central Planning. Yet.

And AOC thinks this is a win. Jesus.

I'm serious -- she said NY could use the tax breaks to fund schools and the subway. That is the face of the Progressive Socialists. It's mind-blowing. It's mind-blowing that PDJT is the face of the Rs and Palin-Cortez is the face of the Progressive Socialists. Poor Jon is going to go from ranting about PDJT to ranting about whatever Progressive Socialist wins in 2020. Good times.

[iam416]

Cost/benefit analyses are not routine. Especially in the tax-policy discussion

I can't speak to whether they're routine in tax-policy discussion, whatever that is. I can speak to whether they're routine in large building projects. They are. As we are discussing a large building project, I thought that germane -- for example, the impact of 25,000 additional people.

As for tax policy and politics, Progressive Socialist Spokesperson Palin-Cortez has apparently borrowed from the "cuts will pay for themselves" with "spending will pay for itself with a huge return on investment!"

[iam416]

Governor Cuomo, who is facing quite the revenue shortfall, is not pleased with the juvenile idiocy of the Progressive Socialists: https://www.foxnews.com/tech/cuomo-s...tches-new-york

[iam416]

Finally, I wonder what color the sky is in Progressive Socialists world. I mean, ok -- so you hate business and industry. But, at the same time you're proposing a Green New Deal which requires active Industry participation. I mean, the government ain't going to manufacture and sell solar panels. The government ain't going to manufacture and sell advanced battery technology. The government ain't going to retrofit EVERY BUILDING IN THE US (lmmfao). To the extent renewable energy is actually the goal of the Green New Deal -- and I highly doubt it is -- then you unequivocally need Industry participation and cooperation. You need private capital. You need everything you hate -- I would say ostensibly, but I genuinely believe folks like Palin-Cortez despise high-achievers.

So what the fuck? I mean do you really think Industry is going to come along and save their ass AND do all the union shit, and workers shit and other stuff? C'mon.

[hack]

I can't speak to whether they're routine in tax-policy discussion, whatever that is. I can speak to whether they're routine in large building projects. They are. As we are discussing a large building project, I thought that germane -- for example, the impact of 25,000 additional people.

As for tax policy and politics, Progressive Socialist Spokesperson Palin-Cortez has apparently borrowed from the "cuts will pay for themselves" with "spending will pay for itself with a huge return on investment!"

Agreed. There's always c/b analysis, and of varying qualities. The problem is whether people and pols choose to heed it. Most Ds do. They get caught up thinking they need a REAL answer for ``But how are you going to pay for that?", and are willing to explain in more than a sentence. Rs know to kiss it away in a sentence and no more.

In the recent tax-reform debate there were models out there that showed how ridiculous were the assumptions generated in order to say ``the cuts will pay for themselves''. People didn't care to look. They bought the line. Many of them are the same people that know, when discussing climate change, to say ``forecasting is bullshit because you can play with the assumptions'' do not know to apply that same skepticism to the models relevant in the tax-policy debate.

If everybody looked at the data from the past and the forecasts of the future every time, and didn't let ideology mandate when to do so and when not to, we'd be better off. Even if that they were doing a shit job understanding shit models, that would be an improvement.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Lou Dobbs demands the DOJ launch an investigation into the 'lawless actions' of Chief Justice Roberts.

This is one of the media folks Trump listens to and respects the most

https://crooksandliars.com/2019/02/president-lou-dobbs-orders-investigation

[Kapture1]

nah, first we're finding out if Ginsberg is still alive.

[hack]

Finally, I wonder what color the sky is in Progressive Socialists world. I mean, ok -- so you hate business and industry. But, at the same time you're proposing a Green New Deal which requires active Industry participation. I mean, the government ain't going to manufacture and sell solar panels. The government ain't going to manufacture and sell advanced battery technology. The government ain't going to retrofit EVERY BUILDING IN THE US (lmmfao). To the extent renewable energy is actually the goal of the Green New Deal -- and I highly doubt it is -- then you unequivocally need Industry participation and cooperation. You need private capital. You need everything you hate -- I would say ostensibly, but I genuinely believe folks like Palin-Cortez despise high-achievers.

So what the fuck? I mean do you really think Industry is going to come along and save their ass AND do all the union shit, and workers shit and other stuff? C'mon.

Blue.

There's already private capital, private manufacturers of turbines and panels, private plant developers. Amazon is one of the three biggest corporate buyers of renewables, and you can be damn sure that isn't virtue signalling. Commerce wants renewable energy, and the GND FAQ that was leaked makes clear that the private sector is needed and wanted. The plan sees the government's role as to quicken the pace. It is a publicly-available document.

I don't think it's helpful to speak of the private sector in a hate/love context. Neither are reasonable. Corporations are all driven by the same thing, and we know it's a difficult fit to graft on a secondary goal. They are what they are and should be treated as no more and no less. If the problem is purely a commercial problem, you can rely on them to fix all of the problem. If the problem is contains a challenge of any other type, they can and often should be a part of the solution, but can't be all of it. The only way to solve non-commercial problems using only the tools of commerce is to influence how commerce conducts itself.