4 ms·
That's a lot of what-ifs with the assumption of corruption. There is no fundamental reason why companies and the government can't cooperate for mutual benefit.
by scottcodie 5y ago
That's a lot of what-ifs with the assumption of corruption. There is no fundamental reason why companies and the government can't cooperate for mutual benefit.
- eigenman 5y agoThere’s plenty of precedent for corruption with respect to tax incentives, see, e.g., what Foxconn did in Wisconsin: https://www.theverge.com/21507966/foxconn-empty-factories-wisconsin-jobs-loophole-trump https://www.theverge.com/21507966/foxconn-empty-factories-wi... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_in_Wisconsin?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_in_Wisconsin?wprov=sft...
- scottcodie 5y agoI'm sorry, am I missing some sort of evidence of corruption for the Samsung plant? Is that a serious accusation?
- aspenmayer 5y agoEvidence of corruption in Samsung itself is not hard to find. Absence of evidence of corruption in this specific case is not evidence of corruption’s absence. I remain skeptical of the terms of the deal either way.
- bradknowles 5y agoEvidence of corruption in ERCOT is not hard to find. It would be much harder to find evidence of fair dealing from ERCOT.
- dnautics 5y agoeven if it's corrupt, although it's rare, sometimes corruption does serve the public interest, even if by total accident of competence.
- aspenmayer 5y agoCorruption as a least-bad alternative is not much of an endorsement, and likely isn’t a good investment of public expenditures.