Cowardice and Sloth Attracts Amazon to New York

Eli,

My favorite part from this story on Amazon's choice of New York as one of its new headquarters:

Gov. Andrew Cuomo defended the deal, arguing that New York has to offer incentives because of its comparatively high taxes. At 6.5 percent, New York’s corporate income-tax rate is only modestly higher than Virginia’s 6 percent, according to the Tax Foundation. But other business and individual taxes are higher in New York.

“It’s not a level playing field to begin with,” Mr. Cuomo said in an interview Tuesday. “All things being equal, if we do nothing, they’re going to Texas.”

If taxes are too high to attract Amazon, I'm guessing they are too high for everyone. And if that's the case I'm not sure why Amazon deserves to be subsidized by everyone else. Usually the response to that question is as inane as Cuomo's.

Kevin Williamson had this take, which I totally agree with

If New York City can only hope to attract a firm like Amazon by essentially bribing (in an entirely legal fashion!) its shareholders, then what does that say about New York City? A New York City with excellent schools, a first-rate mass-transit system, a sensible tax and regulatory environment, and better public sanitation might not have to pay off corporate shareholders — no, that kind of New York City would have the confidence to say: “This is New York. Lots of people want to be here. You’re welcome to join us, and we’ll provide the best municipal services we can, but don’t act like you’re doing us a favor. We were a big deal before you came along, guys.” But fixing the schools and subways is hard work, and doing it economically is even harder. You know what isn’t hard work? Giving somebody else’s money to a third party from whom you want something. That isn’t leadership. It’s cowardice and sloth.

Many (not me) bemoan the partisanship and tribalism of our current politics (I think it's healthy and normal) so many are probably applauding the cowardice and sloth of politicians on both sides that bribe companies to come to their communities rather than engaging in the hard work of government.

Bill

Happy Thanksgiving

Plastic Bags- An Inconvenient Truth

Eli,
Thanks for proving my point about plastic bags. The only argument I've heard goes like the one you implied: Plastic is bad, it ends up in the oceans and kills turtles, which isn't really an argument. It's more like a concatenation of evidence-less assertions.

This from Science Magazine by way of National Geographic,

In 2010, eight million tons of plastic trash ended up in the ocean from coastal countries—far more than the total that has been measured floating on the surface in the ocean's "garbage patches."

From the Earth Policy Institute:

Currently 100 billion plastic bags pass through the hands of U.S. consumers every year—almost one bag per person each day.

A plastic bag weighs 4 grams, let's say 8 for the sake of argument. 8 x 100 billion = 800 billion grams, which is 1.7 billion pounds, which is 850 thousand tonnes, or 10% of total plastics ending up in the ocean IF EVERY SINGLE BAG ENDS UP IN THE OCEAN. Not hardly.

So sure, ban bags. But I think it's moral preening, not a realistic policy.

Bill

There's A Great Furture In Plastics

Bill,

I can't resist. I know you'll forgive me. Here's the critical exchange from that unforgettable scene in the Graduate that has proved so prescient.

Mr. McGuire: I just want to say one word to you. Just one word.

Benjamin: Yes, sir.

Mr. McGuire: Are you listening?

Benjamin: Yes, I am.

Mr. McGuire: Plastics.

Benjamin: Exactly how do you mean?

Mr. McGuire: There's a great future in plastics. Think about it. Will you think about it?

And here is what the future has brought to us


.


Eli

Trump Is Good For Democracy

Bill,


Coming from me, that's a headline that might surprise you. I've resisted the temptation to vent about the current president in our shared forum. To do so might make me feel better, but it would accomplish little else, and would compromise our mission. Besides, others have already done this with far greater elegance, skill, and vitriol  than I.


But I will say this about him. He has energized the electorate in a way that might not have seemed possible a short time ago. I have my hopes for the outcome, but I don't know what will happen today. One thing however is certain. More Americans are going to vote in a midterm election than have done so in a very long time. And that's good for the country


Eli

We Have All Been Here Before and Will Be Again

Eli,

I'll have to take a look at The American Experience: The Eugenics Crusade.

I read a book called "Illiberal Reformers," by Thomas Leonard that explores various aspects of the Progressive movement's involvement in immigration  and eugenics.

Leonard writes:

Hostility to immigrants, like race prejudice, was nothing new in America. As Rogers Smith, Gary Gerstle, Desmond King, and other scholars remind us, American nativism, like American racism and sexism, was not the occasional mild fever. It was a chronic, debilitating illness. [5]

America had a long and ignominious tradition of nativist intolerance, dating to the short—lived Aliens Act of 1798, which empowered the president to arrest or deport any alien deemed dangerous. In the 1840s and 1850s, the Know Nothings of the American Party gained widespread political support by vilifying Irish immigrants fleeing famine and German immigrants fleeing revolution as un—American threats to the nation.

What did change, beginning in the 1880s, was the role of the administrative state in immigration regulation and government’s use of social scientific expertise to investigate and advise on immigration policy.

One of the tools proposed to restrict immigration was the minimum wage law:

A legal minimum wage, applied to immigrants and those already working in America, ensured that only the productive workers were employed. The economically unproductive, those whose labor was worth less than the legal minimum, would be denied entry, or, if already employed, would be idled. For economic reformers who regarded inferior workers as a threat, the minimum wage provided an invaluable service. It identified inferior workers by idling them. So identified, they could be dealt with. The unemployable would be would be removed to institutions, or to celibate labor colonies. The inferior immigrant would be removed back to the old country or to retirement. The woman, as we shall in Chapter 10, would be removed to the home, where she could meet her obligations to family and race.

The whole book is worth a read but it is uncomforatble reading for today's Progressives.

Bill

Carbon dioxide emissions from the U.S. power sector have declined 28% since 2005

Eli,

This from the EIA (US Energy Information Administration)

U.S. electric power sector carbon dioxide emissions (CO2) have declined 28% since 2005 because of slower electricity demand growth and changes in the mix of fuels used to generate electricity. EIA has calculated that CO2 emissions from the electric power sector totaled 1,744 million metric tons (MMmt) in 2017, the lowest level since 1987.

The graph accompanying the story:

The biggest drop is from a less energy intensive economy, then fuel switching: from coal to natural gas. And the technology behind the switch is hydraulic fracturing which results in low natural gas prices relative to coal.

One of the great dilemmas faced by those most worried by global warming is  the best way to address higher carbon emissions  is to  encourage hydraulic fracturing. Gas has half the carbon emissions per BTU as coal. Cheaper, cleaner, less carbon. What's not to like?

In some ways it's like the plastic bag ban. My town is contemplating a plastic bag ban. They admit paper is worse for the environment but justify the ban by hoping consumers will opt for reusable bags. This despite ample evidence consumers do not desire reusable bags. So the bag banners are willing to accept more pollution to satisfy their quixotic war on plastic bags. And those, like Andrew Cuomo, are willing to accept more carbon in order to justify tilting at the fracturing windmill.

It's a shame the party of science ignores the science and rejects the answer to their concerns about carbon.

Bill