6 ms·

this is, in fact, what the article advocates, making it illegal to offer such subsidies and prevent the race to the bottom between jurisdictions.

by cwmma 8y ago

cremp 8y ago
> First, Congress could pass a national law banning this sort of corporate bribery. That doesn't sound like what they were getting at. Sounded to me like they were attacking Amazon because they were playing the field.
- BonesJustice 8y ago
  The ‘bribery’ could be referring to the actions of the public servants: offering ‘bribes’ to corporations to entice them to do something (e.g., building a new HQ or factory in that politician’s jurisdiction).
- jocro 8y ago
  The next paragraph outlined a federal tax of 100 percent on subsidies that don't lead to taxpayer benefit (like infrastructure improvements to accommodate 50k+ new residents). The two also don't have to be mutually exclusive. You can look at what Amazon did and say "That's not a business practice that should be followed," while still saying "State and Local governments shouldn't be allowed to offer funds in this manner."
scarejunba 8y ago
Let me see if I understand this correctly. You want to ban me bidding on something because it raises the price for when you eventually win it. No thank you. Say I'm running a town in Colorado. You think Amazon is going to set up in DC. Well, I want a shot at that. Having an Amazon HQ in my town would be wild. It could reverse economic decline and everyone's life would likely improve with the added dollars to the local economy. I want to bid on that and go all the way up to my break even. What if it makes it more valuable to move here? I want the shot at that. Either you give me the chance to do that or you give me megabucks to not do it. But if you're using the law to compete economically we're probably not correctly using comparative advantage. If it gets net negative for you at some point, don't bid! Why use the law to stop me from bidding?
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  > Why use the law to stop me from bidding? Because the data shows it won't be wild for your town. It won't reverse economic decline, and everyone's lives will not improve. You are being prevented from locking your local governing body into a poor deal (whether because you don't know better as a politician, or because you do know better but don't care, as you'll be out of office by the time it matters [which happens so often it's cliche at this point]). I might be more amiable if you're willing to personally guarantee the financial benefits out of your own wealth, so you have skin in the game (alternatively, the law could require a supermajority of voters support the measure, with a minimum voter turnout requirement). These measures to protect against tragedy of the commons are not new, nor the arguments such as yours against such protections.
  - scarejunba 8y ago
    If your problem is with short-term thinking that is not in alignment with the people on the ground, force referenda and independent third-party evaluations. I might even trust a federal board that stalls poor action. But to fully ban? No thank you.
    - toomuchtodo 8y ago
      Those would be a fair compromise between our positions.
  - tanilama 8y ago
    > It won't reverse economic decline, and everyone's lives will not improve. Then the Seattle city should be in ecstasy now. But I think from the news I read, the locals seem worried, lest happy about it.
  - smsm42 8y ago
    So, if the data shows it'd be bad for the town, why the town is bidding? It may be that town management is incompetent, or corrupt - but then isn't it up to the town population to oust the incompetent management and elect a competent one? Isn't it for the local DA to prosecute corruption? Otherwise one should argue not to mess with the little decisions like Amazon HQ but solve the actual problem - if local government can be incompetent, and we can't afford that, then all local affairs should be managed by the central government (which, as everybody knows, is always the most competent and incorruptible). Limiting local power just in case of one Amazon HQ makes no sense - if the local government being able to make mistakes is the problem, then this problem should be solved by removing this ability. If, however, we do think it's good to allow local governments to govern, then if their decision is to bid for Amazon HQ and they think it's good for their town, why should we interfere and tell them it's not?
conanbatt 8y ago
Prevent the race to the bottom is the mindset of "there should be one single unified government that has all the leverage". I prefer to give leverage to the citizens: let them decide if they want to subsidize amazon or not, as opposed to governors and elected officials that profit disproportionately more.
- jethro_tell 8y ago
  I would agree with that for sure. The big issue here is it's a few people making a decision in secret. You put your offer in a referendum and let the population vote, I'm totally cool with that. Unfortunately, what usually happens is that a dozen people make a deal for a huge population that affects them in a big way.

this is, in fact, what the article advocates, making it illegal to offer such subsidies and prevent the race to the bottom between jurisdictions.

by cwmma 8y ago

this is, in fact, what the article advocates, making it illegal to offer such subsidies and prevent the race to the bottom between jurisdictions.

cremp 8y ago

> First, Congress could pass a national law banning this sort of corporate bribery. That doesn't sound like what they were getting at. Sounded to me like they were attacking Amazon because they were playing the field.

BonesJustice 8y ago
The ‘bribery’ could be referring to the actions of the public servants: offering ‘bribes’ to corporations to entice them to do something (e.g., building a new HQ or factory in that politician’s jurisdiction).
jocro 8y ago
The next paragraph outlined a federal tax of 100 percent on subsidies that don't lead to taxpayer benefit (like infrastructure improvements to accommodate 50k+ new residents). The two also don't have to be mutually exclusive. You can look at what Amazon did and say "That's not a business practice that should be followed," while still saying "State and Local governments shouldn't be allowed to offer funds in this manner."

scarejunba 8y ago

Let me see if I understand this correctly. You want to ban me bidding on something because it raises the price for when you eventually win it. No thank you. Say I'm running a town in Colorado. You think Amazon is going to set up in DC. Well, I want a shot at that. Having an Amazon HQ in my town would be wild. It could reverse economic decline and everyone's life would likely improve with the added dollars to the local economy. I want to bid on that and go all the way up to my break even. What if it makes it more valuable to move here? I want the shot at that. Either you give me the chance to do that or you give me megabucks to not do it. But if you're using the law to compete economically we're probably not correctly using comparative advantage. If it gets net negative for you at some point, don't bid! Why use the law to stop me from bidding?

toomuchtodo 8y ago
> Why use the law to stop me from bidding? Because the data shows it won't be wild for your town. It won't reverse economic decline, and everyone's lives will not improve. You are being prevented from locking your local governing body into a poor deal (whether because you don't know better as a politician, or because you do know better but don't care, as you'll be out of office by the time it matters [which happens so often it's cliche at this point]). I might be more amiable if you're willing to personally guarantee the financial benefits out of your own wealth, so you have skin in the game (alternatively, the law could require a supermajority of voters support the measure, with a minimum voter turnout requirement). These measures to protect against tragedy of the commons are not new, nor the arguments such as yours against such protections.
- scarejunba 8y ago
  If your problem is with short-term thinking that is not in alignment with the people on the ground, force referenda and independent third-party evaluations. I might even trust a federal board that stalls poor action. But to fully ban? No thank you.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    Those would be a fair compromise between our positions.
- tanilama 8y ago
  > It won't reverse economic decline, and everyone's lives will not improve. Then the Seattle city should be in ecstasy now. But I think from the news I read, the locals seem worried, lest happy about it.
- smsm42 8y ago
  So, if the data shows it'd be bad for the town, why the town is bidding? It may be that town management is incompetent, or corrupt - but then isn't it up to the town population to oust the incompetent management and elect a competent one? Isn't it for the local DA to prosecute corruption? Otherwise one should argue not to mess with the little decisions like Amazon HQ but solve the actual problem - if local government can be incompetent, and we can't afford that, then all local affairs should be managed by the central government (which, as everybody knows, is always the most competent and incorruptible). Limiting local power just in case of one Amazon HQ makes no sense - if the local government being able to make mistakes is the problem, then this problem should be solved by removing this ability. If, however, we do think it's good to allow local governments to govern, then if their decision is to bid for Amazon HQ and they think it's good for their town, why should we interfere and tell them it's not?

conanbatt 8y ago

Prevent the race to the bottom is the mindset of "there should be one single unified government that has all the leverage". I prefer to give leverage to the citizens: let them decide if they want to subsidize amazon or not, as opposed to governors and elected officials that profit disproportionately more.

jethro_tell 8y ago
I would agree with that for sure. The big issue here is it's a few people making a decision in secret. You put your offer in a referendum and let the population vote, I'm totally cool with that. Unfortunately, what usually happens is that a dozen people make a deal for a huge population that affects them in a big way.