Spitzer and Weiner Lead in New Poll Because Scandal Brought Name Recognition

[Ed Anger]

Who is in favor of liquidating the hipster infestation in Brooklyn?

[The Minsky Moment]

Who is in favor of liquidating the hipster infestation in Brooklyn?

They are ubiquitous precisely because they can live on 350 square feet of living space, like gay Polish lawyers.
Everyone else is priced out or rich enough for Tribeca.

[Admiral Yi]

This is a sign of how far the political center has moved to the right - that any attempt to suggest that the some part of the vast sums of corporate "business development" subsidies be allocated instead to those in need is rank populism.

Business development is supposed to generate jobs and tax revenues.  Serving dishes of golden goose to those in need sounds very much like short-sighted populism to me.

[DGuller]

From what I've read, his economic policies are populism at its worst. 

This is a sign of how far the political center has moved to the right - that any attempt to suggest that the some part of the vast sums of corporate "business development" subsidies be allocated instead to those in need is rank populism.  DeBlasio's platform is the epitome of blandness - the entire thing could be folded into Bill Clinton's 1992 New Democrat platform and no one could tell the difference.  The Tale of Two Cities slogan is awful and horribly corny but it does capture a real truth about the city.  NYC has become a playground for the superrich, and for the affluent without families.  Everyone else must shoehorn themselves into the outer parts of the outer boroughs and endure public education that remains subpar despite years of targeting by Bloomberg.

I was talking about things like rent control.  Well-meaning, but utterly insane, policy.  I don't remember the details, but when I read the quick summary of positions, pretty much every economic idea of his reeked of the worst liberals have to offer:  well-meaning ideas that have been historically discredited.  Mind you, the other Democrats weren't much better, but he was the worst of the lot.

[Eddie Teach]

They are ubiquitous precisely because they can live on 350 square feet of living space, like gay Polish lawyers.

I didn't get the impression Marty's apartment was that small.

[The Minsky Moment]

This is a sign of how far the political center has moved to the right - that any attempt to suggest that the some part of the vast sums of corporate "business development" subsidies be allocated instead to those in need is rank populism.

Business development is supposed to generate jobs and tax revenues.  Serving dishes of golden goose to those in need sounds very much like short-sighted populism to me.

We agree that jobs are good and serving golden goose to the poor is suboptimal policy.

[Admiral Yi]

So suboptimal, but not quite rank populism? 

[The Minsky Moment]

I think you missed the point.

I could rephrase your statement as:
Providing critical aid to the poor is supposed to improve human captial and prevent child malnutrition.  Serving billions of in sweetheart grants to corporate favorites sounds very much like corruption and corporate welfare to me.

[Admiral Yi]

I think you missed the point.

I could rephrase your statement as:
Providing critical aid to the poor is supposed to improve human captial and prevent child malnutrition.  Serving billions of in sweetheart grants to corporate favorites sounds very much like corruption and corporate welfare to me.

Sure, I'm familiar from my sporadic reading of Mother Jones and The Progressive with the language of the left.  Every handout is an investment and every tax break is cronyism.

[Jacob]

Sure, I'm familiar from my sporadic reading of Mother Jones and The Progressive with the language of the left.  Every handout is an investment and every tax break is cronyism.

Isn't that your argument? That handouts to the rich are "investments" and breaks for the poor is "cronyism"?

[The Minsky Moment]

Surely the Admiral does not really believe that gold-encrusted fowl are actually to be distributed to the roiling proletarian mass?

[Admiral Yi]

Isn't that your argument? That handouts to the rich are "investments" and breaks for the poor is "cronyism"?

Close.  "Business development," when it is working properly, is supposed to be an investment.  It is supposed to lead to increased business activity which generates additional tax revenues for the jurisdiction.  Calling it a handout is total doublespeak.  It completely ignores the fact that the recipient of business development tax breaks and soft loans are putting up their own money to acquire property and to hire your residents.

As with any use of public funds business development has the potential for corruption, conflict of interest, kickbacks, etc.  The intellectual dishonesty of the progressive left is to tar any and all business incentives with the corruption brush regardless of its existence in indvidual cases or not.

Handouts to the poor are not cronyism because presumably this dude proposing them does not personally know JaQuilla in the South Bronx.  Can transfer payments achieve a return on investment?  Concievably.  But the intellectual dishonesty here is to just call it an investment and ignore whether the current payment generates returns or not.

Spending money now to make more money in the future: investment. 

[Caliga]

Serving dishes of golden goose to those in need sounds very much like short-sighted populism to me.

Dude, it's just something you say in order to get votes.  You don't have to actually deliver on promises to the poor, and when they call you out on it in the next campaign cycle, just blame the Republicans.

[The Minsky Moment]

For the free market right, the default assumption should be that "business development" will not work, properly or otherwise.  Any effort by the government to tilt the playing field towards some firms - whether in the form of direct subsidies, tax credits or otherwise - is a distortion of market outcomes.  And because of the advantages of preferential treatment on the one hand, and the disadvantage to competitors who do not receive equivalent benefits, it creates incentives for business to lobby heavily to steer funds in their direction (and thus indirectly to increase the pie of benefits provided).  One can assume perfect honesty and zero corruption by city and state officials and yet still conclude that such a practice is likely to result in wasteful expenditure and market distortion.

[Admiral Yi]

Where did Mother Joans go? 

I agree about the pitfalls; I think I already stated as much.  Disagree that the default assumption should be that BD will not work.  The only thing required for it to work is that the NPV of future tax revenues under the BD regime is greater than that under a BD-free regime.