Live data from Hacker News

LA Times barred from Disney movies after report on corporate welfare

boingboing.net

21–30 of 222 posts

Re: LA Times barred from Disney movies after report on corporate welfare

#21

So let's assume the people who run Anaheim are not idiots. My question would be did they run the cost analysis of these tax breaks for Disney versus the expected boon to the city from other incomes? If the income from externalities is greater than the actual income would have been from Disney, it seems like it would have been a decent decision. This is of course ignoring political principles of fair taxation.

>This is of course ignoring political principles of fair taxation.

Of course.

Re: LA Times barred from Disney movies after report on corporate welfare

#23

So let's assume the people who run Anaheim are not idiots. My question would be did they run the cost analysis of these tax breaks for Disney versus the expected boon to the city from other incomes? If the income from externalities is greater than the actual income would have been from Disney, it seems like it would have been a decent decision. This is of course ignoring political principles of fair taxation.

Being an "idiot" is not the only or even the most probable reason for making a bad political decision (if this is one). You're committing the common fallacy of oversimplifying by assuming that the principal and the agent are identical, which is never true in government,by definition. Anaheim is not a person who makes its own decisions: there are politicians who make decisions on behalf of the city of Anaheim (and its constituents). Those politicians, as separate entities, have their own incentives. It's entirely rational (and unethical, but not "idiotic") for them to make choices that benefit themselves to the detriment of their constituents. For example, FTA:

> Support for various deals benefiting Disney has come from Anaheim City Council members who have received generous campaign contributions through a byzantine network of political action committees funded by the company

Now I'm not saying that this definitely _is_ bad policy, but your assumption that they must be "idiots" to make the wrong decision for the city isn't a well-founded one. It could easily just be garden variety corruption.

Re: LA Times barred from Disney movies after report on corporate welfare

#24
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's just start selling the role outright. It would be more efficient, most likely lead to the same result, and avoiding the grating, bullshit horserace coverage for a year would make everyone's live better.

This is a funny joke, but empirically not true as of this last election. Hillary massively out spent Trump.

Trump got several billion dollars in free coverage. No one would care about Trump if he was not Trump.

Re: LA Times barred from Disney movies after report on corporate welfare

#25
post #5

> Disney CEO Bob Iger is said to have ordered the retaliatory measure against the LA Times, and is also thought to be considering a 2020 presidential bid, which augurs poorly for his approach to the free press. Wow, I hadn't heard this was a possibility until now. I sure am looking forward to seeing which of the many {m/b}illionaires ends up winning the presidency in 2020! How about we just cut out the middlemen and…

Reminds me of the short lived reign of the emperor who purchased his title. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didius_Julianus

Non-mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didius_Julianus

Re: LA Times barred from Disney movies after report on corporate welfare

#26
post #5

> Disney CEO Bob Iger is said to have ordered the retaliatory measure against the LA Times, and is also thought to be considering a 2020 presidential bid, which augurs poorly for his approach to the free press. Wow, I hadn't heard this was a possibility until now. I sure am looking forward to seeing which of the many {m/b}illionaires ends up winning the presidency in 2020! How about we just cut out the middlemen and…

>Most money offered gets to be president. Didn't seem to work very well for Hillary... (I know this sounds like a cheap shot, but it completely breaks down your argument)

$2B in free media attention helped a bit, I'd imagine. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/upshot/measuring-donald-t...

Re: LA Times barred from Disney movies after report on corporate welfare

#27

So let's assume the people who run Anaheim are not idiots. My question would be did they run the cost analysis of these tax breaks for Disney versus the expected boon to the city from other incomes? If the income from externalities is greater than the actual income would have been from Disney, it seems like it would have been a decent decision. This is of course ignoring political principles of fair taxation.

If it's like any other large suburb, the people who run Anaheim are only there short term as a springboard to bigger offices. If you want to move up in politics, Disney is a great friend with deep pockets. So they probably did the bare minimum of analysis with the goal of giving Disney what they wanted.

Edit: Wanted to add that this is actually a great way to think about people's motivations. Most people are not stupid; so assume a smart person made this seemingly stupid decision. If you do that, you can usually back into their personal motivations, which probably are not aligned with those of the organization they are representing.

Re: LA Times barred from Disney movies after report on corporate welfare

#28
These stories of malfeasance by elected officials, where the representatives act so clearly against their office and the public good, present a conundrum. The campaign contributions even at a national level simply aren’t enough money to incentivize the given level of corruption.

I really want to know: what are the incentives? Are there secret payments?

I remember Alaska Senator Ted Stevens was convicted for receiving porch renovations, and his legislative actions were worth billions to the industry providing gifts in kind. It doesn’t make sense, perhaps we are not discovering the true payments.

Re: LA Times barred from Disney movies after report on corporate welfare

#29
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a funny joke, but empirically not true as of this last election. Hillary massively out spent Trump.

Trump got several billion dollars in free coverage. No one would care about Trump if he was not Trump.

You are correct. He didn't spend a single dollar on television (or radio) advertising (http://fortune.com/2016/08/09/donald-trump-tv-ads-clinton/). He relied on tweets, controversial statements, and third parties for all of his advertising. This was mentioned several times by at least NPR near the end of the 2016 campaign cycle, as I recall.

Re: LA Times barred from Disney movies after report on corporate welfare

#30

So let's assume the people who run Anaheim are not idiots. My question would be did they run the cost analysis of these tax breaks for Disney versus the expected boon to the city from other incomes? If the income from externalities is greater than the actual income would have been from Disney, it seems like it would have been a decent decision. This is of course ignoring political principles of fair taxation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_proble...
Post reply on HN