Not really. States have the right to do what they want through legislatures that create/pass laws that are deemed justifiable. To eliminate that would allow for eventual monopolies in a pure capitalistic society.
Monopolies are delt with through antitrust laws. Businesses are penalized for violating these laws. (although not much these days anymore, but thatÆs a separate issue) Giving massive financial and tax benefits to a single company is a great way to create and maintain a monopoly, not prevent it, IMO.
Because the smaller businesses gain a benefit from Boeing's presence. Perhaps you haven't been involved in the sale of products to users across the spectrum. Normally, the larger the purchasing power, the lower the price..... just another part of capitalism, and it can apply to the contributors of a state economy as well.
The idea that everyone should be treated the same in an economic society is more one of socialism than capitalism..... just on the other end of the financial equation.
Frank
ôSomeö businesses benefit, but not all and this argument is another case of the ôends justifies the meansö, IMO. Boeing will also consume a tremendous amount of resources that will have to be made up by other tax payers and resources within the community.
Your sourced cost/benefits proposes that there will be a net benefit, but gives no real details, other than they propose that over three decades, Boeing will generate 3 billion in revenue for the 1 billion that was given to them today. But how much of that revenue would already be generated if Boeing never existed? For example, the prior property owners of the land Boeing built on would still have to pay taxes. Current and future employees of Boeing would likely also have other jobs and also pay taxes.
IÆm not prepared to say that BoeingÆs arrival in SC will not be a net benefit to SC. In fact, it probably will be, if SC eventually becomes the primary production plant, replacing all of the plants in Washington State.
But one of the largest overriding principle for conservatives regarding business is that government stay out of business. I donÆt see how anyone could support this deal and be anything less than a socialist who supports government engineered economic systems.
They canÆt have it both ways and not be disingenuous, IMO.
