Because the cities are rivals in a competition for Amazon's HQ, not colleagues who all stand to benefit from a collective bargain. In this case, there will be one winner so the incentive to cooperate is greatly diminished.
But the chosen city would win even more if they were to cooperate. Sure, the cooperation would quickly break down but that is why the federal government should decide on such benefits (basically to ensure companies stay within the country, if that is deemed beneficial) rather than local government. It’s for me mindbaffling how anyone believes HQ2 would bring back billions of USD - even if you include secondary and tertiary effects
Right, but there is always going to be the incentive to defect; if 19 of the cities agree to cooperate, the 20th can just offer slightly more and win the contract.
>But the chosen city would win even more if they were to cooperate.
Right and the 19 losers are cooperating why again?
>Sure, the cooperation would quickly break down
Good job undercutting and highlighting the faults in your own argument. If you can figure it out in two sentences I think there's probably a few people directly involved who this is obvious to. So since cooperation isn't viable in your own estimation, might as well try to win.
>but that is why the federal government should decide on such benefits
Unfortunately that proposition doesn't appeal to everyone, so good luck there.
