3 ms·
It's a matter of principle. NYC (or any municipality) shouldn't be bending over for massive multinationals. It's a form of corruption, one that's depressingly
by dralley 8y ago
It's a matter of principle. NYC (or any municipality) shouldn't be bending over for massive multinationals. It's a form of corruption, one that's depressingly widespread, and it's a race to the bottom that, from a 30,000 foot view, accomplishes nothing but screwing over the taxpayers and smaller competitors lacking the leverage for these antics, and benefiting the corporations that are already enormous and powerful.
- jas_far 8y agoI can’t believe you have to explain to people why corporatism is a bad thing. It underlies the largest problems in this country, and we should actively be protesting it.
- sneak 8y agoIt’s not corruption to reduce the required nonconsensual payment in your jurisdiction to attract new business. The alternative, as is being demonstrated, is that you simply don’t get that business, and you lose out. x% of $0 is $0.
- dralley 8y ago>to attract new business No. Not "new business". "A" new business. It's a sweetheart deal for one company in particular subsidized by the taxpayers. They're not reducing their citywide tax rate to attract Amazon, they're just giving a handout directly to Amazon. What you're describing is nothing close to the reality. It's the prisoner's dilemma. Cities that participate in this scheme take turns screwing each other over in an attempt to get a minor benefit themselves, but compared to the scenario where nobody played the game to begin with, they all lose.
- kansface 8y agoThis is not a zero sum game.
- dralley 8y agoYou're right - the Prisoner's Dilemma is a negative-sum game.