I was so angry listening to all those delusional council members who thought that suddenly their town could be silicon valley. Nothing wrong with thinking big, but to reasonably believe that you could start many multi billion dollar tech companies just with one plant is just loony.

It left me at the end of the episode thinking, foxconn came in like a fox and conned everyone involved.

There's a very good Russian film called The Twelve Chairs- an adaptation of a book with the same title.There,the main character, a professional con artist,ends up in a small town, in a middle of nowhere. In a matter of days,he convinces the entire town that because of chess games some of the residents often play,they could turn the town into the world capital of chess.They will host international tournaments, conferences,and etc.The Soviet government will build a rail link directly to Moscow and it will ultimately become a super city in no time. The film is 50 years old,but looks like the today's world hasn't changed that much...

I only know the Mel Brooks version:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Twelve_Chairs_(1970_film)

But reading the wikipedia description of the book, it's the same premise: characters attempting to obtain jewelry hidden in a chair.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Twelve_Chairs

Are you thinking of a different story?

Edit: ah, apparently that's a part of the novel, which if it's in the Mel Brooks film, I don't recall: "bamboozling a village chess club with promises of an international tournament."

It's the same story- I'll need to watch this version to compare the adaptations. The Russian adaptation is unique in a few ways: 1) I'm not sure how,but in times of heavy propaganda and censorship, these films got green light.The concepts they show were absolutely crazy at the time.I never really understood how soviet machine allowed this to be made to start with. 2) The film became an absolute cultural phenomenon that influenced generations. Some of the phrases used by lead characters continue to be used in wider context even today( I.e. "why do you need money? You've got no imagination!) https://youtu.be/P8t2dbJ7YXY (1:44:00 the scene where they arrive to the town of gullibles.There's English subtitles option)

> attempting to obtain jewelry hidden in a chair.

Is also the plot of the infamous eponymous Gaslight.

And yet a small Spanish town in the middle of nowhere was the world capital of chess for many years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linares_International_Chess_To...

Is this the inspiration for the Simpson’s monorail episode?

No, that was the very popular musical, The Music Man, which is a very similar story.

Thank you!

Oh,the monorail! What a great episode. Nowadays they go around offering hyperloop technology to naïve city councillors..

Wow. This story was mind blowing. I don't understand how a small town can borrow against a state's future tax earnings? Why are Wisconsin's taxpayers on the hook for the stupid mistakes of these council members? Also the story doesn't make this clear. How are the incentive payments made to Foxconn? I'm certain that it's not just a direct transfer of tax dollars from the city/state to Foxconn (?).

The statewide officials were in on it too. Blame Scott Walker first and foremost, certainly more than any one individual at the town level.

I can understand the naivete of Americans on the receiving end of this, like Walker or the president of the town for just being lured in by the idea "investment => profit". Foxconn however is obviously much more sophisticated and the story alludes to how manufacturing is cheaper in Asia; so the premise of why they'd invest in a plant here doesn't make much sense. Although it flirts with answering this question I still don't have a clear answer. It sounds like they received tax incentives, which, maybe were incentive enough for production demand that they at some point may have? It just doesn't make sense to me if they weren't planning on actually hiring 13,000 workers, what's the incentive? Tax breaks do you no good if you generate no revenue.

> "I don't understand how a small town can borrow against a state's future tax earnings?"

states are the canonical units of governance in the US. towns/cities have no budget or power on their own. that's all delegated from the state, analogous to allowing VP's access to their company's credit line. since it's (literally) a ward of the state, the responsibility for debts also fall on the state in cases of insolvency of the municipality.

note that state and local muni bonds are the same thing--borrowing against a state's future tax earnings (often at great cost).

Thank you for posting this.

It is unbelievable how dumb and corrupt some local governments are. Especially disturbing how heartless these people can be to their own town folk.

This is like some 3rd world country local government kind of banana republic. Unbelievable.

Corruption works the same everywhere and America isn't an exception. Remember a film with Travolta,where he plays a lawyer trying to get this massive company on a hook for water poisoning. The very people living in the town and drinking the same water were the ones polluting it.Ffs, it's like I go to work, pour poison into a water well just to return home and open a tap to fill up a glass and then pass it on to my children. And all this for probably a few grand more a year.People are cheap

Corruption isn't the same everywhere, and America is an exception in the western world (along with italy).

It is partly caused by the (1) extreme levels of devolution; (2) politicisation of every level of public life (eg., even judges are elected); (3) barriers to removal of elected people from office.

Kind of a perfect storm: elect everything, make being directly elected sacred, and nearly impossible to undo.

In the UK almost everything is appointed, including the prime minister who is not directly elected to the office. The PM is then quite often removed from office, along with the whole class of unelected civil servants whose entire careers are spent working for the government regardless of who is in office.

The huge levels of institutional professionalisation this allows basically makes corruption nearly impossible.

America is not an exception: https://www.transparency.org/cpi2019

> perceived levels of public sector corruption, according to experts and business people.

A major issue in corruption research is this "perception" point -- this method relativizes the definition, at best, and largely renders it useless.

The issue here is that Americans mostly think of corruption in terms of bribes, etc. rather than the "abuse of public trust".

eg., a judge decides to appoint a guardian with a conflict of interest to manage the estate of a elder person -- is that judge corrupt?

In the UK most people would say, "yes". In the US, "no". That while his action may not be the best / moral / right, etc. it's not seen as an abuse of the office -- he has the power to decide and therefore his decision isn't corrupt.

I think this view comes from the written-constitution approach to defining the powers of offices. In the UK many powers are held by convention and only under the assumption that they are being used justly -- an extra legal criterion.

It's very hard to measure corruption due to these issues. Personally I'd say most senior office holders appointed by trump are corrupt -- from the EPA to the FCC, to the consumer protection bureau. I think many people in the UK would agree: these appointees deliberately undermine the operation of these agencies -- and are therefore abusing the public trust.

(some) Americans however would see frustrating good government as a valid way to govern.

Under this "public trust" definition, corruption in america is routine and common place. From Sheriffs, to the police, to municipal and national executives. The trust placed in the office to execute it on behalf of the people is routinely abused.

Distinguish here: congress deciding not to have a CPB (, EPA, etc.) with an executive appointment to execute the mission of the CPB on behalf of the public.

To frustrate the latter is corruption.

One of my favorite episodes. I was so enraged. Outrage sells with me, it seems.

By the way, anyone looking for a little fun follow up, a WordPress crash outed the owner of the A Better Mount Pleasant blog: https://www.wpr.org/sites/default/files/pfc_complaint_-_robe...

Truly a great episode. Definitely recommended by me too.