3 ms·

I feel like we're focused on the wrong axis. To me it is is less about authoritarian versus non-authoritarian as much as competent versus incompetent. Although

I feel like we're focused on the wrong axis. To me it is is less about authoritarian versus non-authoritarian as much as competent versus incompetent. Although in Wisconsin's case no credits were given to Foxconn (https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/foxconn-not-expected-to-receive-state-tax-credits-over-next-3-years/article_baf42b60-49cb-5816-9e8b-ee7a33ada1e8.html https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/foxconn...), the state did pursue a number of improvements to roads and infrastructure that were not appropriately tied to the agreements with Foxconn. The contract should have clearly required reimbursement (to the state, and by proxy, to affected citizens) if the project were to be canceled. The deal they had forged had bad return on investment and for it to break even would have required an enormous period of time (https://reason.com/2020/10/20/wisconsins-foxconn-boondoggle-looks-worse-than-ever/ https://reason.com/2020/10/20/wisconsins-foxconn-boondoggle-...). Compare this to NYC/NY State's now-cancelled but well structured deal for Amazon, where they stood to make a 9:1 return on investment, with only $505m in capital outlays for the public, and that itself was tied to a minimum $3b investment from Amazon, with projected new revenue of $28 billion for the city and state over 25 years (https://ny.curbed.com/2018/11/16/18098589/amazon-hq2-nyc-queens-long-island-city-explained https://ny.curbed.com/2018/11/16/18098589/amazon-hq2-nyc-que...). NY gets a lot of flak for mismanagement on other fronts (for example transit infrastructure) but they were able to select the right incentives, terms, and conditions to create a highly favorable subsidy deal that wouldn't have left them high and dry if the company changed direction. My conclusion from all this being - it doesn't make sense to demonize either subsidies or eminent domain or whatever else, as much as it does to just demand competence.

rat87 6y ago
We should be extremely critical of the sweetheart corporate giveaways and if the Amazon project had gone forward I'm sure it would have had more then it's share of reality not living up to promises. It's easy for politicians and companies to make nice PR statements about theoretical jobs that will be created but reality frequently doesn't live up to it These sort of subsidizes should be banned. Cities should complete on infrastructure and we'll educated work force not giveaways
- throwawaysea 6y ago
  The Amazon subsidy was entirely based on previously shown results, meaning that Amazon would have only received breaks if they had created jobs in the prior year or had made particular investments already. The city and state would not be making ahead-of-time investments due to how they structured it. I think that's fine and protects the public's interest sufficiently. It's also worth noting that a substantial portion of the Amazon deal was through existing city/state programs like Excelsior, ICAP, and REAP (the article goes over those), which other companies can also try to get qualification for. Personally, I don't think subsidies should be banned, because public agencies must be allowed the freedom to make smart business decisions when the opportunities arise. The one danger I see is that big corporations that can navigate the legal and political landscape may have better access to these deals than a smaller player, which stifles competition. To fix that, my suggestion is that any subsidy deal should also be made available in some smaller scaled-down form to smaller competitors.

rat87 6y ago

We should be extremely critical of the sweetheart corporate giveaways and if the Amazon project had gone forward I'm sure it would have had more then it's share of reality not living up to promises. It's easy for politicians and companies to make nice PR statements about theoretical jobs that will be created but reality frequently doesn't live up to it These sort of subsidizes should be banned. Cities should complete on infrastructure and we'll educated work force not giveaways

throwawaysea 6y ago
The Amazon subsidy was entirely based on previously shown results, meaning that Amazon would have only received breaks if they had created jobs in the prior year or had made particular investments already. The city and state would not be making ahead-of-time investments due to how they structured it. I think that's fine and protects the public's interest sufficiently. It's also worth noting that a substantial portion of the Amazon deal was through existing city/state programs like Excelsior, ICAP, and REAP (the article goes over those), which other companies can also try to get qualification for. Personally, I don't think subsidies should be banned, because public agencies must be allowed the freedom to make smart business decisions when the opportunities arise. The one danger I see is that big corporations that can navigate the legal and political landscape may have better access to these deals than a smaller player, which stifles competition. To fix that, my suggestion is that any subsidy deal should also be made available in some smaller scaled-down form to smaller competitors.