A Victory For AOC, Losing 25K Jobs By Getting AMAZON to pull out

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Why should they get a job when AOC wants to pay them even if they are UNWILLING to work (Green New Deal)…...

What makes you think the poor people arr to lazy to work. I know poor people. And they have been working all their lives. With better education, people are able to get jobs. With out its harder. It's not that people are unwilling to work.

 

[mark46]

It tells me that every loophole has political money supporting it. It tells me that those who support large company profits tend to get re-elected. It tells me that people are find with the rich becoming richer, as long as they feel economically secure.

Make no mistake, if the country is in a major recession in November of 2020, Trump will lose, the Democrats will take the House and Senate, and new tax law will be passed. My guess is that restoration of the corporate AMT is high on the priority list for Democrats.

Well it's my concern...

The thing is mark....I've been hearing about these loopholes for some time....at least a couple of decades.

They never get closed. That's despite bipartisan support for closing them. What does that tell you?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Amazon's net profit margins last year were at a decade high of about 4% and are usually closer to 0%. Not sure that's an insane profit. You would have better margins owning a coffee shop. What Amazon has isn't insane profit, but insane scale.

If 4% profit is 11 billion....then yes, insane profits.

No offense but that's a ridiculous argument. If their profit margins were .5% and that .5% was 100 trillion dollars....would you sit here and tell me they're barely scraping by?

They make more in profits than the GDP of some nations.

 

[mark46]

I agree with you.

However, what makes AOC willing to pay those who are unwilling to work?

What makes you think the poor people arr to lazy to work. I know poor people. And they have been working all their lives. With better education, people are able to get jobs. With out its harder. It's not that people are unwilling to work.

 

[mark46]

I humbly suggest that you don;t understand economics.

Apparently, large companies are by their nature wrong, unless they are have low rates of return. Amazon could get yields of 4% from bonds, or from lending out money to real estate folks.

If there were 1000 companies that added together producing amazon's numbers, would the 4% be fore acceptable?
===
You argue that a company that is unprofitable is undesirable because their total revenues are high. This is just poor analysis. To answer you directly, if a company had profit margins of .5% over time, and their profits were in the trillions (the reality may be billions), the executives should be fired. The shareholders would be better off if the managers sold off the business and invested in bonds.

If 4% profit is 11 billion....then yes, insane profits.

No offense but that's a ridiculous argument. If their profit margins were .5% and that .5% was 100 trillion dollars....would you sit here and tell me they're barely scraping by?

They make more in profits than the GDP of some nations.

 

[Yekcidmij]

If 4% profit is 11 billion....then yes, insane profits.

No offense but that's a ridiculous argument. If their profit margins were .5% and that .5% was 100 trillion dollars....would you sit here and tell me they're barely scraping by?

They make more in profits than the GDP of some nations.

Which goes to what I posted - they have insane scale, not insane profits. If they're bringing in $100 trillion, and you asked if that was an insane profit, I would ask how much they spent. If they spent $105 trillion, then no, it's not an insane profit - there would be no profit. I don't think a 4% margin is "insane," though I would say that their scale is insane. And it could be that without that scale, even a paltry 4% margin isn't achievable given their business model. They've spent most of their existence generating no profits at all.

Would i say that they're "barley scraping by?" No. But a 4% margin is hardly a gangbusters profit, which was my only point.

 

[civilwarbuff]

What makes you think the poor people arr to lazy to work.

Please point out where I said that......

 

[Ana the Ist]

It tells me that every loophole has political money supporting it. It tells me that those who support large company profits tend to get re-elected.

It's far worse than that....surely you realize that no matter who is elected, they won't close these loopholes.

Also, let's not call it "political money" because that makes it sound like a political problem. It isn't.

It tells me that people are find with the rich becoming richer, as long as they feel economically secure.

And that's the trend I see changing.

Make no mistake, if the country is in a major recession in November of 2020, Trump will lose, the Democrats will take the House and Senate, and new tax law will be passed. My guess is that restoration of the corporate AMT is high on the priority list for Democrats.

I don't think there's a viable Democrat victory on the horizon regardless of the economy. The party is spilt between the center and the lunatic fringe. It doesn't matter if a centrist gets the nomination or a far left radical....the strategy to defeating them will play out the same either way.

If it's a centrist....they'll be attacked as a corrupt Washington insider. If it's a far left radical, they'll be attacked as a Marxist and worse.

The left is far too fragmented to win...and they seem to only see half of the problem depending on which of the two halves they're from.

I humbly suggest that you don;t understand economics.

I'm always open to suggestions mark...especially when they aren't framed as attacks.

So please, explain....

Apparently, large companies are by their nature wrong, unless they are have low rates of return.

No...without sounding like a fanboy, what Bezos did with his company was quite brilliant. He banked on the long game....instead of banking on each quarter.

Amazon could get yields of 4% from bonds, or from lending out money to real estate folks.

Which would probably be more beneficial for us.

If there were 1000 companies that added together producing amazon's numbers, would the 4% be fore acceptable?
===

It would if they paid taxes on it and had far less influence on the government than Amazon...absolutely.

Realistically, in your scenario, we could lose any of those companies to mismanagement, competition, or even disaster....and the damage to the population would be minimal.

But because Amazon employs so many people and creates such a boon to whatever economy he's in....we're basically paying him for it. The reality is that they need no tax breaks at all....they're an online mall. That's it.

You argue that a company that is unprofitable is undesirable because their total revenues are high.

Where did I argue that???

This is just poor analysis. To answer you directly, if a company had profit margins of .5% over time, and their profits were in the trillions (the reality may be billions), the executives should be fired. The shareholders would be better off if the managers sold off the business and invested in bonds.

Like China?

 

[mark46]

You argued that a company with .5% gross profits were somehow unacceptable because their total profits were huge. This can only happen with huge amounts of revenue. In the real world, a company with a steady stream of .5% profits is a failure. Companies aim for different amount of return , depending on risk. Certainly anything under 10% of gross margin is not acceptable to the owners of the company (the shareholders) unless a company is tech company in the early stages of developing a product line.
=========
The goals for 100 company of $1B each or one company of $100B of revenue is remarkably similar, if they are in similar industries. Companies must make profits that make shareholders more money than the shareholders would make if they invested elsewhere. Otherwise, the shareholder will simply sell their stock and invest elsewhere.
=======
You have argued more than once that "we" would be better off if Amazon did this or that. Is this an argument against large growing companies? against capitalism in general? or against tech companies? Or is there another perspective.

There are some companies who truly care about their effect on society in ways other than their purchasing their "excellent" products. These companies are willing to put non-profit goals higher than profit goals. Sometimes these companies are helped profit-wise by this strategy. Starbucks is such an example, probably Levi also. Such companies might value their employees highly, or the environment.
However, in our capitalist economy, the primary responsibility of a company is to their shareholders (hopefully also to product safety, workplace safety and their employees). it is the responsibility of society to consider societal interests and using regulation an taxes to mold the behavior of companies.

.
Where did I argue that???

 

[mark46]

How will the lunatic fringe of the Republican Party affect the re-election success or failure of Trump?

Sounds like the same problem the GOP has only on the Right.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Which goes to what I posted - they have insane scale, not insane profits. If they're bringing in $100 trillion, and you asked if that was an insane profit, I would ask how much they spent. If they spent $105 trillion, then no, it's not an insane profit - there would be no profit.

I'm not going to respond to this other than to say you either accidentally or intentionally misrepresented my entire argument.

I don't think a 4% margin is "insane," though I would say that their scale is insane. And it could be that without that scale, even a paltry 4% margin isn't achievable given their business model. They've spent most of their existence generating no profits at all.

I looked at their yearly profits. They posted earnings within 4-5 years (I don't remember which quarter) and since then maybe had two years they didn't post earnings....and as far as I can tell, it's because they spent those years expanding at an astronomical rate.

Would i say that they're "barley scraping by?" No. But a 4% margin is hardly a gangbusters profit, which was my only point.

It would be a valid point if their costs were divided only between product/service/wages. Since they spend far more on infrastructure and expansion.....it's a terrible argument.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Oh, I doubt it will necessarily endanger Trump, but certainly centerists will have a tough time supporting Trump, especially if everyone in his inner circle is being carted off to prison or is known as operatives for a hostile foreign power.

I honestly think that Trump will lose his general support by the center Right and the GOP powers-that-be will see to it that he is replaced by someone else. They realize that Trump does more damage to the GOP in the long run than good he does in the short term.

I just meant that the Right is as bifurcated as the Left.

Bifurcated to what? What are the two divisions you're seeing?

I don't see the division you're seeing. I'm not saying there's no dissatisfaction....that's always there. I'm not saying that one can't find any extreme right figures....I'm saying they have no political influence. When I speak to or come across conservatives, one looks much like the other.

Lack of direction or even real leadership isn't even really a problem for the right. All they have to do is give the same message they give every single election. They'll point out the things people are losing....and tell them it's the fault of the left. They need only point out fears and paint their opponents as the cause.

 

[mark46]

I certainly agree.

I think of the far left of the Democratic Party as the DTP (Democratic Tea Party). To be clear, this does not include all progressives. For example, I wouldn't include Booker.

.

I just meant that the Right is as bifurcated as the Left.

 

[mark46]

The Republican Part had two parts until 2015, the establishment folks and the Tea Party. The tea Party backed folks who now seem moderate, including Rubio, Walker, Scott and Haley.

A third section of the Party has been there since the Civil Rights Act. Trump and Bannon brought them together. With the strong help of right wing evangelicals (80%), they took over the party. Congress has supported Trump at almost every turn. With the Senate at risk, McConnell may start to focus more saving the Senate, and less on saving trump.

Bifurcated to what? What are the two divisions you're seeing?

I don't see the division you're seeing. I'm not saying there's no dissatisfaction....that's always there. I'm not saying that one can't find any extreme right figures....I'm saying they have no political influence. When I speak to or come across conservatives, one looks much like the other.

Lack of direction or even real leadership isn't even really a problem for the right. All they have to do is give the same message they give every single election. They'll point out the things people are losing....and tell them it's the fault of the left. They need only point out fears and paint their opponents as the cause.

 

[straykat]

The Republican Part had two parts until 2015, the establishment folks and the Tea Party. The tea Party backed folks who now seem moderate, including Rubio, Walker, Scott and Haley.

Those are all Neocons (or in Walker's case, a Koch appointee). The "astroturf" part of the Tea Party, you could say.

 

[Pommer]

Amazon underestimated the level of skepticism it would receive.
What Amazon got wrong about New York City
Of course, the company might have realized all this sooner, had it not pursued its deal in near-total absence of public input or scrutiny. The company’s insistence that its multibillion-dollar giveaway be negotiated in secrecy insulated it from the criticisms that went viral the instant it was revealed — which illustrates how self-defeating the company’s strategy was in the first the place.

Surely you’re not subtly suggesting that Bezo’s little tiff with Trump-champion David Pecker might have some bearing on NYC “losing out” in the Amazon lottery?
(Cough)

 

[mark46]

Those are all Neocons (or in Walker's case, a Koch appointee). The "astroturf" part of the Tea Party, you could say.

I'm not sure of your point.

I do believe that had 2 of this group been the ticket (I should include Kasick, Reagan budget man), I think that the Republican Party would have won easily against Clinton. For example, Rubio-Kasick or Rubio-Haley would be headed to an easy second term against a far left Democrat. Incumbent have only lost twice since reagan (Bush Sr and Carter). Hillary was hardly the candidate of change that the people wanted, and should have been easily been defeated.

As a street of politics, I am most interested in seeing what the establishment Republicans and the Tea Party Republicans do in the next 10 years. The party was headed to being very, very strong.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It tells me no system is foolproof. Build a better mousetrap, and you'll eventually attract smarter mice.

I think you're missing the big picture.

Elected officials are elected to represent you...and your interests. If, instead, they represent the interests of a very wealthy few....then it no longer matters if you elected them. They don't represent you. They are not your elected officials.

It's hard for me to conclude anything other than the government created for us so long ago has completely failed.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You argued that a company with .5% gross profits were somehow unacceptable *snip*

Where?

 

[straykat]

I'm not sure of your point.

I do believe that had 2 of this group been the ticket (I should include Kasick, Reagan budget man), I think that the Republican Party would have won easily against Clinton. For example, Rubio-Kasick or Rubio-Haley would be headed to an easy second term against a far left Democrat. Incumbent have only lost twice since reagan (Bush Sr and Carter). Hillary was hardly the candidate of change that the people wanted, and should have been easily been defeated.

As a street of politics, I am most interested in seeing what the establishment Republicans and the Tea Party Republicans do in the next 10 years. The party was headed to being very, very strong.

My point is that the Tea Party was a grassroots movement at one point in time, but got co-opted. They're the same "establishment" you tried to differentiate them from. And in the end, it wouldn't matter if Clinton or a Rubio won. You'd get war and more "spreading democracy" either way.