It would be perfectly legitimate for federal rules restricting ruinous competitions such as these. There are, in fact, many examples: Minimum wage, or the workplace safety and wage restrictions in trade deals like NAFTA, or very explicit rules against certain subsidies.

Sane jurisdictions that consider the possibility that cooperation may, in very rare and limited circumstances, not the end of humanity are much stricter: the EU limits subsidies to temporary measures only, and also puts limits on bespoke tax deals with individual companies.

Who or what do you think has been ruined by this competition?

disastrous or destructive: a ruinous effect on the environment. • costing far more than can be afforded: the cost of their ransom might be ruinous.

I think it's pretty obvious what's being destroyed: the ability of local jurisdiction to collect tax revenue from large cooperations. Without this little beauty pageant of ugly capitalism, Amazon would still hire the same number of new employees, possibly even in the same locations. Only difference is that a billion $ could be invested in public goods, instead of going Amazon shareholders'.

And it's not a zero-sum game. Perhaps a better proposition from a city makes a more productive Amazon? We're talking about efficient transport and things here, after all.

Your approach is let everyone make things equally as bad and let Amazon pick any of the worst. Amazon's approach is 'what can cities do to help us maximise both our success and yours?'

I think it's positive and constructive.

Repeat a few hundred times in cities around the country and huge sums are being handed over to corporations needlessly.