[gph]

Perhaps in this specific case, but what if it was for a company you don't think has a good chance to succeed? Or how about a company you don't agree with ideologically?

Like I said in another comment these types of deals are turning governments into quasi-investors. They put money up front with the intention that decades later it will pay off. What if some of these projects fail before the pay off?

Up to this point these deals have largely paid off. But if this starts becoming the norm, and government leaders start coming under pressure to outbid each other, I fear for what might start transpiring. Elected officials that are looking to score points for the next election are not someone I'd trust making these long-term decisions.

[15characterlimi]

You touched on the part that I don't agree with, it's the picking and choosing of specific companies to favor that doesn't sit well with me.

[ENGNR]

It seems like a pretty safe bet for the state though. $1B not collected in exchange for $100B benefit overall. And a bunch of high tech and manufacturing skills added to the labour pool, which could attract other companies for less concessions in the future.

It doesn't seem as difficult competitively as eg picking stocks on wall st is what I'm trying to say.

[gph]

>It doesn't seem as difficult competitively as eg picking stocks on wall st is what I'm trying to say.

Not yet. But I'm a bit worried about the future. The governors in California and Texas are going to take quite a bit of flack from this. The bidding war for these types of projects is likely to get fiercer. As competition between states increases, the margins will get ever slimmer.