I think the numbers and the philosophy are fascinating. Not just the Amazon deal--all these corporate invitation incentives.

Let's say Boeing decides to move their HQ from Seattle. Should a city like, say, Chicago, offer incentives to land the new HQ? What is the economic loss to Seattle? What is the economic gain to Chicago?

Why should Boeing or Amazon get off from paying taxes, but Bob's Sandwich Shop doesn't? One obvious answer: Bob's Shop doesn't really matter. But what if, say, McDonalds threatens to pull out of Chicago unless they get the same deal as Boeing? Does McDonalds matter? Do they employ enough people? Are they hard enough to replace? How about Walmart?

It intrigues me that municipal bidding has not spread to be leveraged by more corporations. I mean more blatantly leveraged. I mean like Boeing/Amazon-level blatant. Imagine if Carrier turned the tables on Trump. Publicly.

If Chevron threatened to pull all its stations from a city, would any city care? Is there enough competition to fill in the hole?

What do you call a corporation that exists in a space without enough competition to fill in the hole? Should you treat such companies differently? Should you let them not pay taxes? Should you impose monopoly regulation on them? Should you handcuff them? Or roll out the red carpet?

Should you punish any corporation that achieves this status? Or should should encourage the innovations that allow such creations?