on that same vein they can lower taxes for amazon and collect more money by amazon being there. Low taxes with increased production can mean more cash, Trump proved that this year.

Cali can afford to run a high tax model, because of Hollywood and a massive agricultural advantage over any other state. California's success isn't due to it's tax model, if anything it's in spite of it. Some fires are just big enough that u can toss a bucket of water on and all it makes is a sizzle noise.

Chicago is all gooped up about the potential of HQ2 coming nearby. Will never happen with Illinois crumbling economy and horrid taxation policy. The state will most likely be bankrupt in the coming years, and amazon COULD have helped turned the tide. I'm amazed that Chicago made the cut, but i assume that is because of Chicago's fantastic logistics potential.

Oh well.....

Screw Amazon and their pitting one city against another to see who can pony up the most corporate welfare.

This

Why do you have an issue with it? I figure this would be right in line with your libertarian values.

Gov't should strip amazon of it's right to practice capitalism and take over their business practice.

Who would have thought a business wants to make money? Corporate welfare aside, the city who gets that contract will have a huge boost to their local economies - immediate and long term.

Crony capitalism hurts consumers. It should be uprooted and stamped out with antitrust laws.

Not if they end up having to sell their future (tax-wise) in order to do it.



Government picking winners and losers isn't in line with libertarian values.

This post was edited by Surfpunk on Oct 18 2018 11:11am

this isn't really capitalism, it's getting cities to make increasing wagers in a gamble. that being how much can you give up versus how much money will amazon bring in. it's all estimates, and whatever city wins the auction could end up losing money in the deal.

i dont personally have a problem with it, but it's not really capitalism. or at least it's a brand of capitalism that's directly unfair to the population and make a mockery of representative govt. no one voted for a city hall employee thinking they might sell their cities welfare down the drain.

That's on the cities to decide. How low are we willing to go to ensure we get the business while not hurting ourselves financially. I'm not a fan of the states dropping their pants on the tax side of things, but it's just like a company bidding out a job to a bunch of contractors.

It's the contractor's job to put together the numbers and submit what they can do regarding price decrease vs. profit.. The cities are no different.

Call it what you want, but there are a lot of capitalistic principles in this.