5 ms·

> Please tell me what about this is bad. Opportunity costs? You list several benefits, but benefits don't tell us where a choice ranks in the list of possible

> Please tell me what about this is bad. Opportunity costs? You list several benefits, but benefits don't tell us where a choice ranks in the list of possible alternatives. For example, the alternative where we get all those benefits, but where there weren't any incentives at all, seems strictly better. Why not that? You'd probably protest that it's not realistic. We can't get there in the current system, where powerful companies can play states and municipalities off of each other and require the best incentives before they are willing to make any useful choices. But a lot of us think that system sucks. When the powerful have opportunities to rewrite local policies on the fly, it doesn't feel right. Doesn't matter how many benefits there are. This isn't a new or irrational ideal. Much of the Western canon on governance obsesses about the importance of the rule of law: the idea that the laws should apply to commoners and kings (or powerful companies) equally. It's a principle a lot of people hold very dearly, and are unwilling to sacrifice for a few temporary benefits that we might have been able to achieve anyway, if we just had a better system in place in advance.

linkmotif 8y ago
Do you buy things on Amazon?
- brownbat 8y ago
  Who cares? Amazon is a great company in a lot of ways, not great in some other ways, and none of that has anything to do with my opinions on local governance. Or as Yogi Berra might have put it, this Amazon story isn't really about Amazon anyway.
  - linkmotif 8y ago
    Because the reason you buy things on Amazon is because they get you the best deal and they get you the best deal because they get the best deals. They get the best deal by exploiting workers in American warehouses, exploiting workers in Chinese factories or exploiting the citizens of New York. Either way, exploitation gets you that deal. Those guys who aren’t as effective at exploitation as Amazon? Well, you don’t shop with them, do you? Now if you weren’t a price or convenience-sensitive consumer who didn’t shop on Amazon out of moral conviction, I would at least respect your perspective. But if you shop on Amazon, I’m not sure you get to quote Yogi Berra.
    - Fjolsvith 8y ago
      Well, Yogi also said that if the world was perfect, it wouldn't be. So I keep shopping at Amazon.
    - brownbat 8y ago
      My issue is not with Amazon. This is about the game, not the player. Though now I'm misquoting Ice T too...
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
    - d0gbread 8y ago
      I don't see the show stopping conflict around shopping on Amazon and also pushing for an improved political/market environment. Maybe we'll just be spending more per order... still on Amazon? If exploitation is systematically eliminated, the concept of a deal still exists.
    - ataturk 8y ago
      I have a hard time with the "exploitation" argument. Nobody is forced to work for Amazon, it's not slavery. People who inhabit the economic strata who typically work at Amazon warehouses may very well be exploited in general--because that Amazon warehouse job is just like every other stupid, low-wage gig those people are able to land. I'm sympathetic to that problem, but it's not Amazon in particular that is exploitative here, it's the entire retail industry and the industries who support it. In other words, it doesn't matter where you shop and never has. Even Mom & Pop stores who order inventory from China are part of the mass exploitation of workers. It has been this way since the Industrial Revolution. This is what launched Marx's career and gave us that terrible wetware virus that is Marxism. If we want change, we have to reform government and getting it working for the people and not the monied interests alone. Marxism has failed to accomplish that. We need something far different--maybe just real capitalism with real accountability? Smarter humans who don't fall for the same bs over and over? Just spit balling here. In any event, I hope NY enjoys their Amazon HQ they are paying top dollar for. But it's all just another tax scheme--NYers are taxed to death, then they get a few shiny trinkets in return, and everyone is happy. Tax and spend, tax and spend, until there is nothing left to extract from the peasants who have no rights and no real prospects. It reminds me of how Manhattan island was purchased from the natives (who were total rubes) using a few seashells. This game has been going on for centuries because people are dumb.
- jniedrauer 8y ago
  Would it be fair to ask coal miners in the early 20th century if they shop at the company store? Large retail companies are ubiquitous in our society. It takes a certain degree of socioeconomic privilege to be able to choose not to buy things from them.
  - tekknik 8y ago
    what a horrible excuse. there are plenty of other options to shop at than amazon, in fact you have to go out of your way and wait for your items to buy from amazon. the assertion that one has to be privileged to not buy from amazon is also silly, how many lower status people do you see shopping at amazon. capitalism fails when people don’t exercise their choices and hiding behind excuses like this is why people run around saying capitalism doesn’t work
smsm42 8y ago
> Much of the Western canon on governance obsesses about the importance of the rule of law: the idea that the laws should apply to commoners and kings (or powerful companies) equally. Does it mean that everybody has the same taxes and the same governmental benefits/incentives? For examples, if somebody buys an electric car (in California), they get government subsidy and the benefit of unrestricted use of a carpool lane. I don't get this if I don't buy that car. Should I protest this? How about if I put my money in 401k/IRA, it doesn't get taxed, but if I invest it in my own brokerage account, it does? Isn't it laws not applying equally to all people? You can say - well, the government wants to encourage certain behavior and thus different behaviors have different tax consequences, different benefits and so on. Well, what if the government wants to encourage behavior of commercial mega-corporations investing in specific areas? I personally would gladly give up all encouragement of behaviors in favor of simple, plain and transparent tax system that is not being used as social engineering too. Good luck passing that through the legislature. And if this doesn't happen, targeting specifically Amazon deal makes little sense.
- brownbat 8y ago
  Your analogies are missing the key thing people are actually upset about here: one company got special treatment through private bidding. The class of beneficiaries has only one member. If carpool lanes were built for the exclusive use of Patrick Stewart, widely loved though he may be, as an inducement to live in California, then yes, we would have the same problem. > Good luck passing that through the legislature. Social change is hard, it doesn't mean it's not worth discussing. There has been periodic political interest in fixing this, and some regions have actually opted out: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/09/15/should-we-ban-states-and-cities-from-offering-big-tax-breaks-for-jobs/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/09/15/shoul... I don't think they've nailed the right formulation yet for a broader fix. Definitely a hard problem. But if economists universally oppose some practice, and it's also widely unpopular, it's not the craziest thing to imagine a potential for change. > And if this doesn't happen, targeting specifically Amazon deal makes little sense. I'm not targeting one deal specifically, all of these arrangements bother me. But if that's the incentive that happens to dominate the news it will frame the conversation. If the media blitz was about the breaks Tesla got in Nevada, that would be the backdrop here. Amazon created this media circus with the competition, it gets to be the poster child for the broken system. It's not that big of a hardship, no one is calling for Amazon to be broken up or fined to fix this broader issue.

linkmotif 8y ago

Do you buy things on Amazon?

brownbat 8y ago
Who cares? Amazon is a great company in a lot of ways, not great in some other ways, and none of that has anything to do with my opinions on local governance. Or as Yogi Berra might have put it, this Amazon story isn't really about Amazon anyway.
- linkmotif 8y ago
  Because the reason you buy things on Amazon is because they get you the best deal and they get you the best deal because they get the best deals. They get the best deal by exploiting workers in American warehouses, exploiting workers in Chinese factories or exploiting the citizens of New York. Either way, exploitation gets you that deal. Those guys who aren’t as effective at exploitation as Amazon? Well, you don’t shop with them, do you? Now if you weren’t a price or convenience-sensitive consumer who didn’t shop on Amazon out of moral conviction, I would at least respect your perspective. But if you shop on Amazon, I’m not sure you get to quote Yogi Berra.
  - Fjolsvith 8y ago
    Well, Yogi also said that if the world was perfect, it wouldn't be. So I keep shopping at Amazon.
  - brownbat 8y ago
    My issue is not with Amazon. This is about the game, not the player. Though now I'm misquoting Ice T too...
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - d0gbread 8y ago
    I don't see the show stopping conflict around shopping on Amazon and also pushing for an improved political/market environment. Maybe we'll just be spending more per order... still on Amazon? If exploitation is systematically eliminated, the concept of a deal still exists.
  - ataturk 8y ago
    I have a hard time with the "exploitation" argument. Nobody is forced to work for Amazon, it's not slavery. People who inhabit the economic strata who typically work at Amazon warehouses may very well be exploited in general--because that Amazon warehouse job is just like every other stupid, low-wage gig those people are able to land. I'm sympathetic to that problem, but it's not Amazon in particular that is exploitative here, it's the entire retail industry and the industries who support it. In other words, it doesn't matter where you shop and never has. Even Mom & Pop stores who order inventory from China are part of the mass exploitation of workers. It has been this way since the Industrial Revolution. This is what launched Marx's career and gave us that terrible wetware virus that is Marxism. If we want change, we have to reform government and getting it working for the people and not the monied interests alone. Marxism has failed to accomplish that. We need something far different--maybe just real capitalism with real accountability? Smarter humans who don't fall for the same bs over and over? Just spit balling here. In any event, I hope NY enjoys their Amazon HQ they are paying top dollar for. But it's all just another tax scheme--NYers are taxed to death, then they get a few shiny trinkets in return, and everyone is happy. Tax and spend, tax and spend, until there is nothing left to extract from the peasants who have no rights and no real prospects. It reminds me of how Manhattan island was purchased from the natives (who were total rubes) using a few seashells. This game has been going on for centuries because people are dumb.
jniedrauer 8y ago
Would it be fair to ask coal miners in the early 20th century if they shop at the company store? Large retail companies are ubiquitous in our society. It takes a certain degree of socioeconomic privilege to be able to choose not to buy things from them.
- tekknik 8y ago
  what a horrible excuse. there are plenty of other options to shop at than amazon, in fact you have to go out of your way and wait for your items to buy from amazon. the assertion that one has to be privileged to not buy from amazon is also silly, how many lower status people do you see shopping at amazon. capitalism fails when people don’t exercise their choices and hiding behind excuses like this is why people run around saying capitalism doesn’t work

smsm42 8y ago

> Much of the Western canon on governance obsesses about the importance of the rule of law: the idea that the laws should apply to commoners and kings (or powerful companies) equally. Does it mean that everybody has the same taxes and the same governmental benefits/incentives? For examples, if somebody buys an electric car (in California), they get government subsidy and the benefit of unrestricted use of a carpool lane. I don't get this if I don't buy that car. Should I protest this? How about if I put my money in 401k/IRA, it doesn't get taxed, but if I invest it in my own brokerage account, it does? Isn't it laws not applying equally to all people? You can say - well, the government wants to encourage certain behavior and thus different behaviors have different tax consequences, different benefits and so on. Well, what if the government wants to encourage behavior of commercial mega-corporations investing in specific areas? I personally would gladly give up all encouragement of behaviors in favor of simple, plain and transparent tax system that is not being used as social engineering too. Good luck passing that through the legislature. And if this doesn't happen, targeting specifically Amazon deal makes little sense.

brownbat 8y ago
Your analogies are missing the key thing people are actually upset about here: one company got special treatment through private bidding. The class of beneficiaries has only one member. If carpool lanes were built for the exclusive use of Patrick Stewart, widely loved though he may be, as an inducement to live in California, then yes, we would have the same problem. > Good luck passing that through the legislature. Social change is hard, it doesn't mean it's not worth discussing. There has been periodic political interest in fixing this, and some regions have actually opted out: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/09/15/should-we-ban-states-and-cities-from-offering-big-tax-breaks-for-jobs/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/09/15/shoul... I don't think they've nailed the right formulation yet for a broader fix. Definitely a hard problem. But if economists universally oppose some practice, and it's also widely unpopular, it's not the craziest thing to imagine a potential for change. > And if this doesn't happen, targeting specifically Amazon deal makes little sense. I'm not targeting one deal specifically, all of these arrangements bother me. But if that's the incentive that happens to dominate the news it will frame the conversation. If the media blitz was about the breaks Tesla got in Nevada, that would be the backdrop here. Amazon created this media circus with the competition, it gets to be the poster child for the broken system. It's not that big of a hardship, no one is calling for Amazon to be broken up or fined to fix this broader issue.