3 ms·

Your analogies are missing the key thing people are actually upset about here: one company got special treatment through private bidding. The class of beneficia

Your analogies are missing the key thing people are actually upset about here: one company got special treatment through private bidding. The class of beneficiaries has only one member. If carpool lanes were built for the exclusive use of Patrick Stewart, widely loved though he may be, as an inducement to live in California, then yes, we would have the same problem. > Good luck passing that through the legislature. Social change is hard, it doesn't mean it's not worth discussing. There has been periodic political interest in fixing this, and some regions have actually opted out: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/09/15/should-we-ban-states-and-cities-from-offering-big-tax-breaks-for-jobs/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/09/15/shoul... I don't think they've nailed the right formulation yet for a broader fix. Definitely a hard problem. But if economists universally oppose some practice, and it's also widely unpopular, it's not the craziest thing to imagine a potential for change. > And if this doesn't happen, targeting specifically Amazon deal makes little sense. I'm not targeting one deal specifically, all of these arrangements bother me. But if that's the incentive that happens to dominate the news it will frame the conversation. If the media blitz was about the breaks Tesla got in Nevada, that would be the backdrop here. Amazon created this media circus with the competition, it gets to be the poster child for the broken system. It's not that big of a hardship, no one is calling for Amazon to be broken up or fined to fix this broader issue.

smsm42 8y ago
> The class of beneficiaries has only one member. That's not true - a lot of companies get such kind of deals, all the time. Some even mentioned in this thread. > If carpool lanes were built for the exclusive use of Patrick Stewart, widely loved though he may be, as an inducement to live in California If Patrick Steward would bring California several billions in income by living there, then maybe giving him private lane would be a good deal. > Social change is hard, it doesn't mean it's not worth discussing. It's worth discussing, but nobody would listen to a proposal for reducing government economic meddling. Everybody love to pile on Amazon and such, but when they go to vote, they ask politicians "bring us jobs". How do you think that would look like? It looks like this - politicians hustle so they can say they brought jobs. In the next election the New York mayor - if Amazon thing works out - would say to his opponent "ok, I brought X thousands of jobs and Y billions of income to New York, here's the list of deals I arranged. What did you do for New York?". And the electorate would listen and support that. So how could they not do it? > But if that's the incentive that happens to dominate the news it will frame the conversation. That's the problem. The government meddling happens all the time, but we only discuss it in "outrage of the day" format. But in this format it can never be fixed. Even if somehow enough people become outraged that the deal falls through - Amazon has a long line of mayors willing to do the same. And vast majority of people outside of the "outrage of the day" format think that's exactly what the government is supposed to do. So what's the point of being outraged here? Nothing would change, because that's what people want!
- smsm42 8y ago
  Here's one example: https://reason.com/blog/2018/11/20/californians-are-paying-more-in-taxes-so https://reason.com/blog/2018/11/20/californians-are-paying-m...

smsm42 8y ago

> The class of beneficiaries has only one member. That's not true - a lot of companies get such kind of deals, all the time. Some even mentioned in this thread. > If carpool lanes were built for the exclusive use of Patrick Stewart, widely loved though he may be, as an inducement to live in California If Patrick Steward would bring California several billions in income by living there, then maybe giving him private lane would be a good deal. > Social change is hard, it doesn't mean it's not worth discussing. It's worth discussing, but nobody would listen to a proposal for reducing government economic meddling. Everybody love to pile on Amazon and such, but when they go to vote, they ask politicians "bring us jobs". How do you think that would look like? It looks like this - politicians hustle so they can say they brought jobs. In the next election the New York mayor - if Amazon thing works out - would say to his opponent "ok, I brought X thousands of jobs and Y billions of income to New York, here's the list of deals I arranged. What did you do for New York?". And the electorate would listen and support that. So how could they not do it? > But if that's the incentive that happens to dominate the news it will frame the conversation. That's the problem. The government meddling happens all the time, but we only discuss it in "outrage of the day" format. But in this format it can never be fixed. Even if somehow enough people become outraged that the deal falls through - Amazon has a long line of mayors willing to do the same. And vast majority of people outside of the "outrage of the day" format think that's exactly what the government is supposed to do. So what's the point of being outraged here? Nothing would change, because that's what people want!

smsm42 8y ago
Here's one example: https://reason.com/blog/2018/11/20/californians-are-paying-more-in-taxes-so https://reason.com/blog/2018/11/20/californians-are-paying-m...