AOC Flunks Economics 101

[Rustic]

Bullshit. Some of the most notable tech advances in recent memory were cradled by or developed in partnership with govenrment (NSF, NASA etc).

Just a short list: microchips,Internet,GPS, touch screens, Infant formula, barcoding, vacines, carbon fiber, wind energy and so on.

Lol
Who paid for that? Certainly was not the government…

The government dummy, with our taxes slash debt.

You wouldn't give a fucking penny for internet R&D if it was really your money.

The private sector is much better at such things

R&D without a more or less clear way to profit? Not really.

Some companies do it, but they are the exception not the norm. Norm is for companies to adapt and polish existing tech for consumer ends - thats where private market shines.

Like I said the private sector always does it best, there would be no public sector without a private sector

 

[The Purge]

Ocasio-Cortez Finally Explains Her Plan To Regulate Cow Farts

Is she a Republican plant? The more she talks, the more people realize how unattached to real world these Democra Congresscritters are.

New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has finally revealed her grand scheme to regulate cow farts.

The part of her Green new Deal that was ridiculed the most has now been explained by the 29-year-old.

But the thing is, the idea and the reasoning behind it is still ridiculous.

The explanation was made on the premiere of Showtime’s “Desus & Mero,” The New York Post reported.

“And so it’s not to say you get rid of agriculture, it’s not to say we’re gonna force everybody to go vegan or anything crazy like that,” Ocasio-Cortez said.
“But it’s to say, ‘Listen, we gotta address factory farming. Maybe we shouldn’t be eating a hamburger for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Like, let’s keep it real,’” she said.

“But we have to take a look at everything,” she said. “and what we need to realize about climate change is about every choice that we make in our lives, you know?”

(snip)

She also defended her tax idea for the ultra rich that would tax them 70 percent for income above $10 million.

“It really comes down to the question of, ‘Isn’t $10 million enough?’ Like, when does it stop?” ocasio-Cortez said.

(Excerpt) Read more at thefederalistpapers.org ...

 

[AntonToo]

Bullshit. Some of the most notable tech advances in recent memory were cradled by or developed in partnership with govenrment (NSF, NASA etc).

Just a short list: microchips,Internet,GPS, touch screens, Infant formula, barcoding, vacines, carbon fiber, wind energy and so on.

Lol
Who paid for that? Certainly was not the government…

The government dummy, with our taxes slash debt.

You wouldn't give a fucking penny for internet R&D if it was really your money.

The private sector is much better at such things

R&D without a more or less clear way to profit? Not really.

Some companies do it, but they are the exception not the norm. Norm is for companies to adapt and polish existing tech for consumer ends - thats where private market shines.

Like I said the private sector always does it best, there would be no public sector without a private sector

It works both ways and niether would be great without the other.

There is no good bussiness without good governing and there is no good governing without solid private market.

 

[Rustic]

Lol
Who paid for that? Certainly was not the government…

The government dummy, with our taxes slash debt.

You wouldn't give a fucking penny for internet R&D if it was really your money.

The private sector is much better at such things

R&D without a more or less clear way to profit? Not really.

Some companies do it, but they are the exception not the norm. Norm is for companies to adapt and polish existing tech for consumer ends - thats where private market shines.

Like I said the private sector always does it best, there would be no public sector without a private sector

It works both ways and niether would be great without the other.

Capitalism has been around before for any government...

 

[AntonToo]

The government dummy, with our taxes slash debt.

You wouldn't give a fucking penny for internet R&D if it was really your money.

The private sector is much better at such things

R&D without a more or less clear way to profit? Not really.

Some companies do it, but they are the exception not the norm. Norm is for companies to adapt and polish existing tech for consumer ends - thats where private market shines.

Like I said the private sector always does it best, there would be no public sector without a private sector

It works both ways and niether would be great without the other.

Capitalism has been around before for any government...

Maybe somewhere in your eutopian fantasies.

Out here on planet earth there was never a civilizaiton or economy worth a damn without government.

 

[Cellblock2429]

This reminds me of the Standard Oil Trust.

Rockefeller made backdoor deals with the railroads. In the public view, Standard Oil was paying the same freight rates as every other oil company. But in reality, Rockefeller was getting a kickback from the railroad. This meant he was actually paying less for transportation.

This enabled Rockefeller to lower his oil prices below what his competitors could and thus run them out of business.

Amazon was going to receive a massive $3 billion kickback from New York which would put them at a competitive advantage over their smaller competitors.

It's bullshit.

Total. Bullshit.

Amazon is already bullshit. It has been bullshit, and, it is the number one purveyor of the Deep State conspiracy of the fake news and "Russia Collusion" fantasy.

I've already told all my friends and neighbors to boycott them, but, nobody listens.

I am surprised you folks on the left are just now starting to wise up.



You gobble lies that WaPo feeds you like it is the Gospel truth, yet most of it is propaganda is meant to increase the bottom line of Amazon, and the military-industrial-complex, a la the CIA.

Why Amazon's Collaboration With the CIA Is So Ominous -- and Vulnerable | HuffPost





The whole reason it can undercut retail stores, with no shipping costs is because it own nearly a third of web services.

Keyword Research, Competitor Analysis, & Website Ranking | Alexa

For all we know, USMB is using Alexa web services. THEY OWN EVERYTHING, that is how they subsidize consumers products and put everyone out of business. Pretty much the nightmare Walmart was in the nineties.

/——-/ I published and sell about 450 books a month on KDP Amazon.

And? This stops you from having the integrity to say that, "yes" Amazon has predatory business practices? It's practices are monopolistic and you might, in the end, be safer and have a better business if it had some competition?

Or what?


I am sorry I if this information is disturbing.

I know you are a Trump supporter, but your business is helping to destroy him. Glad the information could help.




Personally, I think, along with the many other flaws and oversights the founders had when the wrote they Constitution, not placing a wall between the government and business, (like it guaranteed by not endorsing any particular religion,) IOW, outlawing Dirigisme, was among them. Not outlawing the economic model that is used by fascism is probably the greatest oversight. It is one thing to give corporations the protections of a person, but it was a bridge too far giving them the RIGHTS of a person, this is destroying our society. You know they don't want you to know about something, when the word is not even in the spell checkers. . .

Folks never acknowledge that Hitler and Mussolini admired the economic reforms that FDR made. And BIG government wants to continue to emulate big government Dirigismists, IOW, FDR and the fascists. LIKE THIS IS A GOOD THING?

NO. AMAZON is bad. BIG BANKS AND THE FEDERAL RESERVE ARE BAD. SOCIALISM FOR THE ELITES IS BAD.

You know why no one on the left, and why Bernie and AOC herself can't, OR WON'T, precisely tell you what the difference between socialism and "democratic-socialism" is? Because they don't want to come out and say it. . .

FASCISM.

Dirigisme - Wikipedia

". . . Economic dirigisme has been described as an inherent aspect of fascist economies by Hungarian author, Iván T. Berend in his book An Economic History of Twentieth-Century Europe.[4] However, the Fascist systems created by Benito Mussolini (Italy), António Salazar (Portugal), Francisco Franco (Spain) Emperor Hirohito (Japan), and Adolf Hitler (Germany) are a varied mix of elements from numerous philosophies, including: nationalism, authoritarianism, militarism, corporatism, collectivism, totalitarianism, and anti-communism.[5]

Dirigisme has been brought up as a politico-economic scheme at odds with laissez-faire capitalism in the context of French overseas holdings. Countries such as Lebanon and Syria have been influenced by this motif[6] to varying degrees throughout the post-colonial period.

The economies of the East Asian tigers are sometimes characterised as being "dirigiste" due to the strong role played by the state in development planning and guiding investment.[citation needed]. Dirigisme is also seen in India. The state has complete control and ownership of railways; majority control and stake in banking, insurance, electricity, and oil and gas industries; and has substantial control over telecommunication, port and shipping industries.[7][8][9][10]"


Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez Are Not Socialists — What Are They?
https://www.realclearpolicy.com/art...4YQxU4QAb-WqmVswgNUrnHrA_73AlCeP2McXMTMVOwk2w

". . . .It is unlikely that the rather arcane term “dirigisme” will catch on anytime soon as a description for the set of policies being offered by the so-called socialist wing of the Democratic Party. But it is important to understand those policies are not, in fact, socialist but represent an approach to economic policy that has been adopted, historically, by both far-left progressives and far-right governments, albeit with differing goals in mind. Nor can these policies be defined as capitalist, despite the fact that they maintain the institutional infrastructure of private property.

When it comes to private property, dirigisme separates control of property from its legal title. While legal title to the means of production may remain in private hands, use of that property, particularly when it comes to what and how goods and services are produced, distributed, and paid for, is directed by the state to advance the goals of the state. Upon close examination, it is this principle — dirigisme — and not the outright ownership of the means of production by the state which democratic socialists like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez stand for.. . "

/——-/ Say what?

 

[Cellblock2429]

Not in one year, everything was based on 25 years. Are you totally clueless?

And the infra structure costs to the city?

Those span that 25 years as well

/——/ I thought libs love infrastructure projects

 

[Yarddog]

Marc Thiessen: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is an economic illiterate -- And that's bad news for America

"The left complains that conservatives are "obsessing" over Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Well, there is a reason for that: Ocasio-Cortez is driving the agenda of today's Democratic Party -- and her economic illiteracy is dangerous.

Case in point: Last week, Ocasio-Cortez celebrated the tanking of a deal negotiated by her fellow Democrats in which Amazonpromised to build a new headquarters in Long Island City, New York, right next to her congressional district. Amazon's departure cost the city between 25,000 and 40,000 new jobs. Forget the tech workers whom Amazon would have employed. Gone are all the unionized construction jobs to build the headquarters, as well as thousands of jobs created by all the small businesses -- restaurants, bodegas, dry cleaners and food carts -- that were preparing to open or expand to serve Amazon employees. They are devastated by Amazon's withdrawal.

Ocasio-Cortez was not disturbed at all. "We were subsidizing those jobs," she said. "Frankly, if we were willing to give away $3 billion for this deal, we could invest those $3 billion in our district, ourselves, if we wanted to. We could hire out more teachers. We can fix our subways. We can put a lot of people to work for that amount of money if we wanted to."

No, you can't. Ocasio-Cortez does not seem to realize that New York does not have $3 billion in cash sitting around waiting to be spent on her socialist dreams. The subsidies to Amazon were tax incentives, not cash payouts. It is Amazon's money, which New York agreed to make tax-exempt, so the company would invest it in building its new headquarters, hiring new workers and generating tens of billions in new tax revenue."

You can't fix her Socialist type of 'stupid'.

.

First, nobody who thinks tariffs are a good idea has a leg to stand on criticising anyone else's understanding of economics, and don't even get me started on the trickle down myth.

Second, NYC was gonna give them $3 billion in tax breaks. It would have taken them many decades to recoup that investment if they ever did.

It was a bad deal. You can't buy jobs, just like you can't spend your way outta debt.

Yeah, 3 Billion in tax breaks but NYC would be collecting taxes still that they would otherwise not be collecting.
From Amazon. Now they will be getting none of that money..... thats not a recipe to get out of debt either by chasing away tax revenue.

Like?

Amazon Headquarters?

Don't be deliberately thick.
Taxes they would otherwise be collecting like?

Just off the top, there is payroll tax and a lot of residual sales tax, being the Amazon headquarters, your talking about 6 figure salaries at least..it would bring new people to the city... buying and leasing apts, cars, ..they would be spending their money in the city as well of restaurants, clothing etc... It's called economic growth.
And then there's the little thing with Amazon hiring contractors to do renovations and of course that would be good paying union jobs. 25K jobs is a lot of jobs in a concentrated area it will definately bring payroll to NYC and payroll means money spent... and money spent means taxes for the city..

Not to mention, for many of the people taking on these new jobs at Amazon it is most likely a step up in the quality of life, and for those individuals who were already living in the city, they would have been leaving their old jobs vacant which would then be a step up for someone else to fill. It's called bringing jobs to a city and creating economic growth... Something AOC knows absolutely nothing about. maybe if she worked in a bar across the street from the Amazon Headquarters she would slowly begin to get the concept.

 

[hadit]

Marc Thiessen: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is an economic illiterate -- And that's bad news for America

"The left complains that conservatives are "obsessing" over Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Well, there is a reason for that: Ocasio-Cortez is driving the agenda of today's Democratic Party -- and her economic illiteracy is dangerous.

Case in point: Last week, Ocasio-Cortez celebrated the tanking of a deal negotiated by her fellow Democrats in which Amazonpromised to build a new headquarters in Long Island City, New York, right next to her congressional district. Amazon's departure cost the city between 25,000 and 40,000 new jobs. Forget the tech workers whom Amazon would have employed. Gone are all the unionized construction jobs to build the headquarters, as well as thousands of jobs created by all the small businesses -- restaurants, bodegas, dry cleaners and food carts -- that were preparing to open or expand to serve Amazon employees. They are devastated by Amazon's withdrawal.

Ocasio-Cortez was not disturbed at all. "We were subsidizing those jobs," she said. "Frankly, if we were willing to give away $3 billion for this deal, we could invest those $3 billion in our district, ourselves, if we wanted to. We could hire out more teachers. We can fix our subways. We can put a lot of people to work for that amount of money if we wanted to."

No, you can't. Ocasio-Cortez does not seem to realize that New York does not have $3 billion in cash sitting around waiting to be spent on her socialist dreams. The subsidies to Amazon were tax incentives, not cash payouts. It is Amazon's money, which New York agreed to make tax-exempt, so the company would invest it in building its new headquarters, hiring new workers and generating tens of billions in new tax revenue."

You can't fix her Socialist type of 'stupid'.

.

First, nobody who thinks tariffs are a good idea has a leg to stand on criticising anyone else's understanding of economics, and don't even get me started on the trickle down myth.

Second, NYC was gonna give them $3 billion in tax breaks. It would have taken them many decades to recoup that investment if they ever did.

It was a bad deal. You can't buy jobs, just like you can't spend your way outta debt.

Real world translation: They were going to collect some 3b less in taxes than they otherwise would have while collecting some 24b. Now they'll collect none at all. And then liberals wonder why they're accused of being bad at math.

 

[eeyore]

It never ceases to amaze me how the Left in this nation MUST reflexively defend the abject stupidity of their own.

 

[danielpalos]

This reminds me of the Standard Oil Trust.

Rockefeller made backdoor deals with the railroads. In the public view, Standard Oil was paying the same freight rates as every other oil company. But in reality, Rockefeller was getting a kickback from the railroad. This meant he was actually paying less for transportation.

This enabled Rockefeller to lower his oil prices below what his competitors could and thus run them out of business.

Amazon was going to receive a massive $3 billion kickback from New York which would put them at a competitive advantage over their smaller competitors.

It's bullshit.

Total. Bullshit.

Amazon is already bullshit. It has been bullshit, and, it is the number one purveyor of the Deep State conspiracy of the fake news and "Russia Collusion" fantasy.

I've already told all my friends and neighbors to boycott them, but, nobody listens.

I am surprised you folks on the left are just now starting to wise up.



You gobble lies that WaPo feeds you like it is the Gospel truth, yet most of it is propaganda is meant to increase the bottom line of Amazon, and the military-industrial-complex, a la the CIA.

Why Amazon's Collaboration With the CIA Is So Ominous -- and Vulnerable | HuffPost





The whole reason it can undercut retail stores, with no shipping costs is because it own nearly a third of web services.

Keyword Research, Competitor Analysis, & Website Ranking | Alexa

For all we know, USMB is using Alexa web services. THEY OWN EVERYTHING, that is how they subsidize consumers products and put everyone out of business. Pretty much the nightmare Walmart was in the nineties.

/——-/ I published and sell about 450 books a month on KDP Amazon.

And? This stops you from having the integrity to say that, "yes" Amazon has predatory business practices? It's practices are monopolistic and you might, in the end, be safer and have a better business if it had some competition?

Or what?


I am sorry I if this information is disturbing.

I know you are a Trump supporter, but your business is helping to destroy him. Glad the information could help.




Personally, I think, along with the many other flaws and oversights the founders had when the wrote they Constitution, not placing a wall between the government and business, (like it guaranteed by not endorsing any particular religion,) IOW, outlawing Dirigisme, was among them. Not outlawing the economic model that is used by fascism is probably the greatest oversight. It is one thing to give corporations the protections of a person, but it was a bridge too far giving them the RIGHTS of a person, this is destroying our society. You know they don't want you to know about something, when the word is not even in the spell checkers. . .

Folks never acknowledge that Hitler and Mussolini admired the economic reforms that FDR made. And BIG government wants to continue to emulate big government Dirigismists, IOW, FDR and the fascists. LIKE THIS IS A GOOD THING?

NO. AMAZON is bad. BIG BANKS AND THE FEDERAL RESERVE ARE BAD. SOCIALISM FOR THE ELITES IS BAD.

You know why no one on the left, and why Bernie and AOC herself can't, OR WON'T, precisely tell you what the difference between socialism and "democratic-socialism" is? Because they don't want to come out and say it. . .

FASCISM.

Dirigisme - Wikipedia

". . . Economic dirigisme has been described as an inherent aspect of fascist economies by Hungarian author, Iván T. Berend in his book An Economic History of Twentieth-Century Europe.[4] However, the Fascist systems created by Benito Mussolini (Italy), António Salazar (Portugal), Francisco Franco (Spain) Emperor Hirohito (Japan), and Adolf Hitler (Germany) are a varied mix of elements from numerous philosophies, including: nationalism, authoritarianism, militarism, corporatism, collectivism, totalitarianism, and anti-communism.[5]

Dirigisme has been brought up as a politico-economic scheme at odds with laissez-faire capitalism in the context of French overseas holdings. Countries such as Lebanon and Syria have been influenced by this motif[6] to varying degrees throughout the post-colonial period.

The economies of the East Asian tigers are sometimes characterised as being "dirigiste" due to the strong role played by the state in development planning and guiding investment.[citation needed]. Dirigisme is also seen in India. The state has complete control and ownership of railways; majority control and stake in banking, insurance, electricity, and oil and gas industries; and has substantial control over telecommunication, port and shipping industries.[7][8][9][10]"


Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez Are Not Socialists — What Are They?
https://www.realclearpolicy.com/art...4YQxU4QAb-WqmVswgNUrnHrA_73AlCeP2McXMTMVOwk2w

". . . .It is unlikely that the rather arcane term “dirigisme” will catch on anytime soon as a description for the set of policies being offered by the so-called socialist wing of the Democratic Party. But it is important to understand those policies are not, in fact, socialist but represent an approach to economic policy that has been adopted, historically, by both far-left progressives and far-right governments, albeit with differing goals in mind. Nor can these policies be defined as capitalist, despite the fact that they maintain the institutional infrastructure of private property.

When it comes to private property, dirigisme separates control of property from its legal title. While legal title to the means of production may remain in private hands, use of that property, particularly when it comes to what and how goods and services are produced, distributed, and paid for, is directed by the state to advance the goals of the state. Upon close examination, it is this principle — dirigisme — and not the outright ownership of the means of production by the state which democratic socialists like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez stand for.. . "

the right wing prefers to appeal to ignorance with nothing but repeal.

Government is socialism. We have a command economy; Congress commands fiscal policy and the Fed commands monetary policy.

Appeals to emotion are worthless. We should be trying to understand the the socio-economic dilemmas.

 

[danielpalos]

It never ceases to amaze me how the Left in this nation MUST reflexively defend the abject stupidity of their own.

the right wing still praises the virtues of tax economics in public venues.

 

[eeyore]

It never ceases to amaze me how the Left in this nation MUST reflexively defend the abject stupidity of their own.

the right wing still praises the virtues of tax economics in public venues.

The dichotomy is when is enough enough. One side says we can NEVER spend enough and the the other says we TAX too much.

The truth is that it is a bit of both.

 

[danielpalos]

It never ceases to amaze me how the Left in this nation MUST reflexively defend the abject stupidity of their own.

the right wing still praises the virtues of tax economics in public venues.

The dichotomy is when is enough enough. One side says we can NEVER spend enough and the the other says we TAX too much.

The truth is that it is a bit of both.

our welfare clause is General and we have a Commerce Clause. only lousy Capitalists lose money on public policies.

 

[eeyore]

It never ceases to amaze me how the Left in this nation MUST reflexively defend the abject stupidity of their own.

the right wing still praises the virtues of tax economics in public venues.

The dichotomy is when is enough enough. One side says we can NEVER spend enough and the the other says we TAX too much.

The truth is that it is a bit of both.

our welfare clause is General and we have a Commerce Clause. only lousy Capitalists lose money on public policies.

Nope, that is a weak justification for selfishness. That does not "justify" you getting everything you want.

 

[danielpalos]

It never ceases to amaze me how the Left in this nation MUST reflexively defend the abject stupidity of their own.

the right wing still praises the virtues of tax economics in public venues.

The dichotomy is when is enough enough. One side says we can NEVER spend enough and the the other says we TAX too much.

The truth is that it is a bit of both.

our welfare clause is General and we have a Commerce Clause. only lousy Capitalists lose money on public policies.

Nope, that is a weak justification for selfishness. That does not "justify" you getting everything you want.

we subscribe to capitalism. Congress has the Power to Tax, to solve the problems of our Republic.

 

[eeyore]

It never ceases to amaze me how the Left in this nation MUST reflexively defend the abject stupidity of their own.

the right wing still praises the virtues of tax economics in public venues.

The dichotomy is when is enough enough. One side says we can NEVER spend enough and the the other says we TAX too much.

The truth is that it is a bit of both.

our welfare clause is General and we have a Commerce Clause. only lousy Capitalists lose money on public policies.

Nope, that is a weak justification for selfishness. That does not "justify" you getting everything you want.

we subscribe to capitalism. Congress has the Power to Tax, to solve the problems of our Republic.

So in your opinion Congress should take from everyone else whatever you/they think you should have.

 

[danielpalos]

the right wing still praises the virtues of tax economics in public venues.

The dichotomy is when is enough enough. One side says we can NEVER spend enough and the the other says we TAX too much.

The truth is that it is a bit of both.

our welfare clause is General and we have a Commerce Clause. only lousy Capitalists lose money on public policies.

Nope, that is a weak justification for selfishness. That does not "justify" you getting everything you want.

we subscribe to capitalism. Congress has the Power to Tax, to solve the problems of our Republic.

So in your opinion Congress should take from everyone else whatever you/they think you should have.

Not me; Congress, assembled. We have a representative form of Government.

 

[MisterBeale]

The dichotomy is when is enough enough. One side says we can NEVER spend enough and the the other says we TAX too much.

The truth is that it is a bit of both.

our welfare clause is General and we have a Commerce Clause. only lousy Capitalists lose money on public policies.

Nope, that is a weak justification for selfishness. That does not "justify" you getting everything you want.

we subscribe to capitalism. Congress has the Power to Tax, to solve the problems of our Republic.

So in your opinion Congress should take from everyone else whatever you/they think you should have.

Not me; Congress, assembled. We have a representative form of Government.

But I just got done instructing you how Congress is not REALLY representative.

The only thing it is representative of are the elites that run the entire show.




As long as there is Dirigisme, and corporations are consider persons, and money is speech, with corporations not only having protections of persons, but having rights, CORRUPTION IS LEGAL.



The system will never work, and the socialists will forever be able to brain wash folks into believing laissez faire and capitalism don't work, when in fact, the opposite is true.

Socialism doesn't work and Dirigisme inevitably leads to complete and total wealth & power inequalities.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Marc Thiessen: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is an economic illiterate -- And that's bad news for America

"The left complains that conservatives are "obsessing" over Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Well, there is a reason for that: Ocasio-Cortez is driving the agenda of today's Democratic Party -- and her economic illiteracy is dangerous.

Case in point: Last week, Ocasio-Cortez celebrated the tanking of a deal negotiated by her fellow Democrats in which Amazonpromised to build a new headquarters in Long Island City, New York, right next to her congressional district. Amazon's departure cost the city between 25,000 and 40,000 new jobs. Forget the tech workers whom Amazon would have employed. Gone are all the unionized construction jobs to build the headquarters, as well as thousands of jobs created by all the small businesses -- restaurants, bodegas, dry cleaners and food carts -- that were preparing to open or expand to serve Amazon employees. They are devastated by Amazon's withdrawal.

Ocasio-Cortez was not disturbed at all. "We were subsidizing those jobs," she said. "Frankly, if we were willing to give away $3 billion for this deal, we could invest those $3 billion in our district, ourselves, if we wanted to. We could hire out more teachers. We can fix our subways. We can put a lot of people to work for that amount of money if we wanted to."

No, you can't. Ocasio-Cortez does not seem to realize that New York does not have $3 billion in cash sitting around waiting to be spent on her socialist dreams. The subsidies to Amazon were tax incentives, not cash payouts. It is Amazon's money, which New York agreed to make tax-exempt, so the company would invest it in building its new headquarters, hiring new workers and generating tens of billions in new tax revenue."

You can't fix her Socialist type of 'stupid'.

.

First, nobody who thinks tariffs are a good idea has a leg to stand on criticising anyone else's understanding of economics, and don't even get me started on the trickle down myth.

Second, NYC was gonna give them $3 billion in tax breaks. It would have taken them many decades to recoup that investment if they ever did.

It was a bad deal. You can't buy jobs, just like you can't spend your way outta debt.

Second, NYC was gonna give them $3 billion in tax breaks. It would have taken them many decades to recoup that investment if they ever did.

$3 billion out of how many billions in revenue?

You tell me.

I've heard $24-$27 billion.
How many decades will it take NY to recoup that?

/——/ Recoup what? Geeeze why are you being obtuse? Or are you just trying to give AOC cover for her major screw up?

/——/ Recoup what?

The revenue they scared away by listening to that twit, AOC.