6 ms·
> is done by bureaucrats that have no long-term financial stake in the result This is true in many cases (and not in others, such as sports team funding which
by kodablah 8y ago
> is done by bureaucrats that have no long-term financial stake in the result
This is true in many cases (and not in others, such as sports team funding which are often voted on). If we want to have a more nuanced discussion about transparency and direct representation on financial decisions of a certain size (a hot button issue concerning being able to vote on property taxes in my state), that would be reasonable. But it's hard to have these kinds of discussions with pro-tax/anti-company-concession advocates shouting so loudly.
In the meantime, on the scale of politicians with less representation to their constituency, using a federal level mallet is the exact opposite of representative. The city I live in gave large tax breaks and land to companies moving in, seemingly unfairly so compared to existing local companies, but if most of us didn't like the outcome (which most of us do and applaud their appetite for growth/prosperity) we'd have no problem running the mayor and councilmen out of town.
- metalliqaz 8y agoAnd with the mayor run out of town, you'd still be left holding the bill.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- kodablah 8y agoOf course, as I might be with a new road project or any other commitment. As is Amazon even if their CEO is fired. I suppose I don't understand the relevance of pointing out the obvious here. If we're asserting fraud, that is a different discussion, otherwise we live with decisions by decision makers, some beyond their term.