The underlying subjects of economics, taxation, business, labor, etc. as we discussed in our Platinum Member meeting yesterday are very pertinent to the Real Estate business.
I read a good portion of this VERY long article but never heard an intelligible point, so I skipped to the end in hopes of reading a cogent summary. Unfortunately, that didn't help either. If I had to venture a guess with a little reading between the lines along with my understanding of the political leanings of the NY Times, I'd say they're saying local, state, and/or the federal goverments should legally limit or restrict tax breaks for companies negotiating for the best deal when they're looking to expand or move. This, of course, is anti-capitalism at its finest. Why shouldn't states and local municipalities have the right to compete by offering whatever tax breaks or other incentives they wish to companies looking to enter their markets? Why shouldn't companies have the freedom to shop around and negotiate for the best deal they can get? Of course, if companies have accepted bailouts from the government (something that should never happen), then questions about their freedoms (that should be effectively impossible since bailouts should be illegal for our government to do) are, in a backwards/twisted/"through the looking glass" way, somewhat more valid. My summary is that free market capitalism will result in the most prosperity for the most people.
If there was a different point made in the article that I missed, please forgive my thickness and explain. BTW, discussion of this topic is very healthy, so I'm glad you posted it, Barry.
Thanks,
Robin
