One of these days, I’ll finally get around to writing up a long, comprehensive rant about what populism is, and incidentally, why it’s terrible. But today is not that day.
Today is the day that a populist resistance led by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez succeeded in discouraging Amazon from opening HQ2 in NYC. It’s not Brexit, but it’s a similarly idiotic removal of their own nose to spite their face. Instead of bargaining with Bezos over the magnitude of the incentives, they beat “corporate greed” by preventing thousands of high-paying high-tech jobs from coming to a part of the city that could use them.
Despite these populists claiming to speak for the people, as usual, Amazon’s new office had overwhelming support among New Yorkers. Now the local politicians who chased Bezos out are going to have to face an angry, unforgiving electorate. Perhaps we’ll see some new faces there.
But what’s interesting to me is that Bezos is not only the target of AOC and the rest of the populist left, but of Trump and the rest of the populist right. Of course, Trump despises Bezos because he’s everything Trump isn’t: the self-made richest man in the world, someone who runs businesses that provides a valuable contribution to society, and is respected if not necessarily beloved.
Trump, on the other hand, has lied repeatedly to inflate his wealth—he most likely has less than $3B—and this was inherited, not earned. He got nearly half a billion dollars from daddy (close to $2B when adjusted for inflation), and he did it while criminally evading inheritance tax. If he had taken this fortune and invested it very conservatively, he’d have more money today than he’s gained from a lifetime of grifting. Moreover, he’s despised in America and worldwide. Trump is a loser and Bezos is a winner.
What’s in the news at the time of this writing is the National Enquirer’s attempt to blackmail Bezos with sex texts and dick pics. This is relevant because the Enquirer is not just a purveyor of sleaze, but an arm of the same right-wing propaganda mill that gave us Fox and Breitbart. It actively assisted Trump through a catch-and-kill scheme to cover up one of Trump’s many affairs. The leak came from the Trump-loving brother of Bezos’ mistress and the threat was politically motivated; it was Pecker’s way of apologizing to Trump for flipping on him.
Bezos called their bluff and now they’re in serious trouble, as they’ve violated their non-prosecution agreement with Mueller, much as Manafort violated his plea deal. Frankly, he probably should have called AOC’s bluff, as well, demanding that they offer their own terms for how they would get Amazon HQ2 into NYC. When they refused, it would have been a PR win, but that’s all.
Now, to be clear, Bezos is not a saint. There is room for reasonable people to hold nuanced views and practice selective opposition. But nuance and selectivity are not what populists are known for, and it’s not what we’re seeing here. Instead, both extremes are launching self-destructive attacks for political and personal gain.
So, what does it mean when populists on the left and right alike are opposed to a single person? Well, there’s that old truism about how everything—or at least all meat—tastes like chicken. It’s the same with populism; whether left or right, despite ostensibly being on opposite sides, they have more in common with each other than with the sane middle. Only chicken is delicious and nutritious while populism is idiotic and toxic.
While you are right on a number of things, many meats that taste like chicken, aren’t.
Yes, that’s the point. Populism isn’t a stance, it’s a style. That’s how the far left and far right can both be populist despite having nearly opposite views on some things.
So, you’re saying that it’s fine that Amazon plays cities off against each other, to get billions of dollars in incentives? And it’s OK if Amazon doesn’t try to negotiate with the so-called populists but just sulkily says “I’m taking my ball and leaving”?
[I’m not saying that the “populists” are right, just that you seem to be assuming bad faith on their side and giving Amazon/Bezos a pass.]
Literally every large company does just this, only not quite as publicly. And literally every state bends over backwards to cater to these large companies. I’m not saying it’s good, I’m saying it’s universal.
If AOC wanted to argue that Amazon was demanding excessive concessions for building HQ2 and present a counteroffer, I’d be on her side. Instead, she aimed to score political points while fucking over the people she claims to represent.
That’s populism for you.
I think AOC did say that the concessions to Amazon would be better spent on other things (schools, low-cost housing, whatever). That seems like the opening move of a negotiation, but Amazon chose to leave in a huff. And you chose to interpret that as “populists don’t negotiate.”
Working out the cost/benefits for Amazon HQ2 would be an interesting exercise, especially if you try to factor in things like commuting costs, rises in real estate prices (and the windfall profits to speculators), additional tax revenue. Come to think of it, I’m starting to sound like the NIMBYists in Cupertino. 😉 But the whole thing isn’t easily reduce to sound bites on either side.
That’s not how tax breaks work. NY didn’t have $3B sitting around that they would give to Amazon instead of spending elsewhere.
That money is what would be deducted from the overall taxes collected from Amazon. And, despite this, there’d be a net win because $3B is just a fraction of increased tax revenues made possible by all those jobs. Just multiply 25k by $150k and you get $3.75B per year.
Do the math.
Income taxes go to the federal government and the state, don’t they? (If it’s NYC (dunno about Queens), then the tax is around 3%, so the math would be $110m/year, which would take ~26 years to pay back (not counting accrued interest), and that’s assuming no infrastructure costs to accommodate Amazon.)
Peter, NYC has its own income taxes, and it also receives a share of the state (but not, on the whole, federal) taxes. But the direct taxes don’t even begin to cover the revenue increase. Amazon workers spend money, and this creates jobs all over the city.
Again, the $3B is deducted from tax revenue; it’s not handed to Amazon on a plate. There is no plate; it’s a discount, not a give-away.
Ah yes, encourage the rich by giving them more money while encouraging the poor by taking away from them. I suppose that’s “populism”.
You’ve already admitted that the system is broken (cities competing with each other in give-aways to corporations), but then you’re surprised by the rise of “populism”. And nobody seems to have done a proper cost/benefit calculation.
Does $150k/year count as “rich”? Even in NYC, where the cost of living is extraordinarily high?
You’re trying to cast this in terms of what’s ideal, which is irrelevant.
well said
“David Jay Pecker (born September 24, 1951) is the chairman and CEO of American Media. He is the publisher of National Enquirer, Star, Sun, Weekly World News, Globe, Men’s Fitness, Muscle and Fitness, Flex, Fit Pregnancy, and Shape.”
It seems to me that at a minimum, AOC should have talked to DeBlasio about the cost benefit analysis of the Amazon deal. If nothing else, she would have had a better idea of what to shoot for in a future legislation that could prohibit states using this type of tax avoidance to lure corporations in.
To me populism is more than just idiotic solutions. It’s shortsightedness coupled with an unwillingness to understand the various aspects of a problem like this. There are always serious new problem resulting from knee-jerk populist reactions. Did AOC even consider the loss of jobs in her very own neighborhood or was she just looking for a good sound bite? Are the people in her district not the type who would benefit from such job creation?
Here’s the thing: the only way to stop this sort of race for the bottom is for all the municipalities to stop at once. A mutually binding agreement would suffice, but it would realistically take a federal law.
This would stop corps from creating a bidding war, but it would also get in the way of attempts to revitalize blighted areas through incentives.
As for populism, it comes down to an unwillingness to compromise. Populists don’t think about who gets hurt, they just want things their way. They are unswayed by cost-benefit analysis, much less the realities of give and take.
As AOC later bragged, this wasn’t even about the area she represents. She was just butting in.
I couldn’t stop myself and spewed forth a rant on populism here https://shuttersparks.net/problems-with-populism triggered by your good post.
/p