Regardless, the gov should not be in the job buying biz. My gawd, they struggle to govern, and that's their job. Pockets are being lined - once again - at the expense of the tax payers.
"Each one of these $150k jobs..." Pardon me, I know this type of reply is frowned upon on HN, but...wanna buy a bridge?
Says you. I think they do a better job buying that biz than many of the other biz's they buy with public funds. If you want to see pockets being lined, look to things that don't have returns on investment or are poorly managed in real corrupt ways (ala many public pension plans). Not comparing dollar spent to dollar spent of tax money compared to benefits makes it clear some are just anti-private-sector.
> "Each one of these $150k jobs..." Pardon me, I know this type of reply is frowned upon on HN, but...wanna buy a bridge?
Are you implying that the average salary to get the incentives isn't going to be 150k/yr as stated their agreement?
Again. The gov created the housing bubble __and__ the student loan bubble. I don't say they should be in the job buying biz. __The Gov__ has said that. Whether you're listening or not is up to you.
More specifically, you should believe based on your examples that they shouldn't be in the money management business. Because they are really bad at it. I can definitely sympathize with those applauding them for taking less as a way to promote growth.
How so? One is within a reasonable scope of governing. That is, most citizens want and expect a reasonable amount of economic stability. The others are outside of scope and simple a tool that politicians use to buy votes. And if that's going to be the case, then the least we can do is be honest about it. Denial doesn't make it any better.
Just because something has persisted doesn't make it right.
The fact is, Amazon (and others) played __our__ elected officials/ representatives against each other __at our collective expense (read: to Amazon's benefit).__
Not only that, __we__ paid to help Amazon find a new HQ location. So now imagine all the communities that did __not__ win.
Finally, imagine is that time and money was not put into a roll of the dice?
This was a __big__ win for Amazon. This was a big win for politicians. As for the taxpayers all across the country and going forward, the true benefits should be questioned. If we dare.
This banking crisis, fraud, education loan bubble is the direct result of 30 years of neoliberal free market policies. Yet instead of owning up to their mistakes in an act of brazen revisionism and fraud they are blaming the government for listening to them, and this is taken seriously. This is ideology.
A govt hijacked to promote special interests is not a government, its a plutocracy.
Um. Wasn't it the gov that committed to policy of more home ownership? It was the leader here. It helped to craft and define the direction once it opened up the dereg gates.
<sidebar>
It's important to note: "Dereg" !== free market. Dereg is a nice word politicians like to toss around, but ultimately, that typically translates into some other set of rules, typically favoring some entity over another.
The gov is VERY fond of taking sides, gaming markets, etc. It might be presented otherwise, but it's still trying to exert unnatural influence.
</sidebar>
And didn't it do the same for making cheap student loans available to more students? Students who weren't really "college material"? Wasn't BHO still championing higher edu __for all__ - because it plays well in the polls - all the while knowing the monster that had been created and still wasn't properly fixed? Yes, such antics are great for buying votes but it ultimately drives up the price.
If the gov (read: votes) is involved - as it was with this Amazon deal - then the market __is__ being manipulated. Anything beyond that is lip stick on the proverbial pig.
Appreciate your clarification.