Anonymous asked:
I don’t have enough information about these to give a solid answer.
However,
While Singapore developed by inviting in big, multinational corporations, when one company controls a large enough stake in the local economy, you are politically at its mercy, which it can leverage to redirect resources from your citizens to itself.
While the city itself should be built or, more accurately, grown for efficiency and competitiveness, I’m still a bit pissed off that these corporations are city-shopping for lowest tax rates in a race for the bottom. (Yes, I know, that’s what they’re supposed to do, but as far as I’m concerned, corporations only have instrumental value. As they can only exist due to limited liability laws enacted by the state, which are a HUGE concession on the part of society, society has standing to rein them in.)
If a single corporation is going to control most of the trade output of a city, there is one way to ensure that its interests and those of the city are more closely aligned - if the city itself owns a controlling stake in the company, then the limit is based on the competitiveness of your city and the quality of the company’s leadership, rather than extractive tax rate chasing that offloads the costs of running society onto others.
Of course, no American city is actually competent enough to run a state-owned enterprise, nor disciplined enough not to immediately loot it.
