Amazon is up first. It’s amazing that I actually have some agreement with AOC–why should we be subsidizing the dominant firm in the world? This has been interesting and illustrative as some politicians think that how you create good jobs in your area is to bribe a specific firm with special favors. Gov Cuomo and the local authorities made many tax concessions to, hoping to tax the future employees enough to make up for the loss of corporate taxation. But negative reaction to the announcement was evident from the beginning.

“We are witness to a cynical game in which Amazon duped New York into offering unprecedented amounts of tax dollars to one of the wealthiest companies on Earth for a promise of jobs that would represent less than 3% of the jobs typically created in our city over a 10 year period,” state Sen. Michael Gianaris and City Council Member Jimmy Van Bramer said in a joint statement issued after the announcement.

As union activists ramped up their pressure against the move, and populist politicians like AOC railed against the deal, Amazon decided to back off the deal. I’m reminded of Walter Wriston’s adage, that “capital goes where it is welcomed and stays where it is well treated.” In this case, many of the critics of the initial deal said that studies show that companies rarely come to an area because of the tax breaks. Yet what does it mean when the most generous incentives offered to Amazon by any of the states is not enough to get Amazon to keep going? Perhaps New York’s business climate is just so hostile that even bribery is not enough.

It’s not just companies that are fleeing NY, its individuals too. Just a couple of weeks ago we saw Gov Cuomo blaming the Trump tax cuts for his budget shortfall in NY: the limitation on deductability for state and local taxes means that citizens of relatively high tax states like NY would pay higher federal taxes to live in those areas. Surprise, wealthy individuals are exiting NY. But Mr. Cuomo and other high state areas will have a difficult time getting this repealed, since its their top 1% who will bear that burden.

‘The vast majority of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut residents received federal tax cuts because of the changes. Many who have state and local taxes above $10,000 are benefiting from lower federal tax rates, larger child tax credits, the larger standard deduction and the narrowing of the alternative minimum tax. The increases, however, are concentrated among high-income households. That concentration will pose a challenge for blue-state advocates trying to relax or eliminate the $10,000 deduction cap, because they would be seeking exactly the kind of tax cuts for high-income households that the national Democratic Party has argued against. About half the benefits of repealing the cap would go to the top 1% of households, according to the Tax Policy Center.

So what do Bereans think about this? First, there is a big difference between being in favor of free enterprise and being in favor of business. The latter almost always devolves into crony capitalism, which is what the Amazon deal was. So here is my own proverb:

Special favors for special companies are abhorrent, but a wise politician will create a level playing field for any and all who want to compete.

Second, Cuomo’s frustration at New Yorker’s ability to leave is illustrative of precisely why we must have that freedom. Freedom to exit is arguably the most important freedom for citizens against despotic behavior. Its one of the reasons why some politicians want to nationalize and federalize every law–they don’t want competition among the states as it will allow people to vote with their feet. This hits progressive Democrats relatively harder; while their policies are very popular with the energized leftist base, the results are a scourge to those who have to live with them. And they eventually don’t.