A city isn't a business, and shouldn't be run like one. In theory they exist to serve the people, and I don't see why it is any better for people in New York to get a contract than people in any other city.

Yes a city is run to serve its citizens. If they can better serve their citizens by bringing in a major employer then that seems on-mission to me.

Can't really do that because it would be called a "cartel". But otherwise: yes, please!

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.

> restricting ruinous competitions such as these

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

Ruinous is not "the quality of having led to the ruin of a specific entity". Rather, it is defined as follows:

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'.

The cities who bid obviously did a calculation and decided that it was net worth it... otherwise why on earth do you think they did it?

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.

It's death by a thousand cuts. If Amazon really needed to expand their HQ and add 50,000 new jobs, they would do so regardless of any tax incentives. By pitting cities against one another, Amazon privatizes some of the gain that would have otherwise been public.

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