Question: Is the government giving them money, or tax breaks?

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

We've been dealing with the short end of the corporate welfare stick for many years in Texas. Rick Perry had a taxpayer slush fund that he used to lure companies here.

Fun fact: Per Forbes, the average salary at the VA HQ will be $150K

https://www.forbes.com/sites/amydobson/2018/11/13/amazons-crystal-city-plans-include-average-wage-of-150000-new-virginia-tech-campus-and-more/#275bfc721fa0

Actually, this is exactly what the free market does and is supposed to do. In a market with information (power) asymmetry, the better informed (more powerful) win. That's exactly what's happening. Socialism/communism is the opposite of what you're describing, no?

"Subsidy" is a term very commonly used to refer to tax abatements to companies for purposes of incentivizng job creation. It shouldn't be considered a politically loaded term. Abatement is a commonly used example in econ classes when distinguishing between indirect and direct subsidy.

Edit: ...but I think the real debate isn't so much government vs. corporation. The libertarian argument is that this is the government and a very large corporation teaming up against other companies. E.g. Amazon and the local/state government teaming up in an agreement that's possibly mutually beneficial (they both freely entered the contract), but that establishes a competitive advantage for the company. Picking winners, etc. There's an argument that the government should set its corporate and property tax rates and just fucking keep it. A few years ago I might have said that I didn't mind because Amazon's competitors wear big-boy pants too. But Amazon may be on the verge of establishing something like a monopoly in some markets. Like cloud computing infrastructure or warehouse automation. And these subsidies raise barriers of entry to any chance competitors had left. If I start Trail's Discount Cloud Computing and announce a nationwide competition to accommodate my HQ there might be some coffee splattered over computer screens. Pretty sure I'd pay full rate. Except in certain "enterprise zones" which are a more principled, transparent way of providing tax abatement to incentivize job creation.

The better questions, is the government giving them tax breaks actually making a difference? Would they actually go somewhere else? Would the same development occur if they did?

In the case of Queens, I have seen relatively compelling arguments that either Amazon still would have gone there or that the area would have been fully developed by someone else if they did not.

Not my area of expertise by any stretch, but sometimes I think government entities think any deal is a good deal in these cases.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

i'm not sure if that's correct either. If the information asymmetry is that severe, is it truly a free market? We should just call a spade a spade: this is nothing more than corporate welfare.

also, there's so many different shades of socialism (just like there are different shades of capitalism) that conflating socialism with communism is quite inappropriate



given that Maryland and NJ was each contemplating offering at least $5B, and Amazon took offers giving far less, one'd think that the subsidies per se weren't the main factors.

VA actually offered $500 M, with another $200 M of infrastructure improvement (that the area sorely needs)

What is the real debate? I can understand wanting to discuss Amazon's monopoly power. There's certainly a serious debate to be had there. However, I don't think this particular NYC decision comes down to monopoly power at all. It doesn't matter to NYC if Amazon is #1, #2, or #350 in profitability and market share as long as it plans to employ so many people and rent or build so much office space.

The more immediate issue seems to be Ocasio-Cortez and some others wanting to re-characterize a process we're all familiar with, and present it as a travesty of justice because a rich person was offered tax breaks in exchange for locating a giant HQ in NYC. Most of the spin here revolves around using a word -- subsidy -- that has a much different connotation to it than what actually went down with regards to the whole Amazon HQ affair.

I know with Trump around it seems rather strange for me to call out any other human being for dumbing down or wildly mischaracterizing an issue. But, in fairness to me, there's no shortage of people to point out Trump's antics.

WI is giving Foxconn a better deal than Amazon received.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/...er-lower-paying-jobs


https://www.washingtonpost.com/...m_term=.b0220d90c2f3