I agree with you that these kinds of transactions are regrettable and they leave a bad taste in my mouth. At the same time, you haven't convinced me that local governments are making a bad decision by playing this game.

I think perspective is key here. From a broad economic perspective, Amazon is going to build this thing somewhere, and so these kinds of trade-offs seem pointless. Economists likely object because the whole thing is economically inefficient from a broad (national) perspective.

But from the perspective of a local government, that may not be the case. A local government is concerned about the local economy more than the national economy, and so offering these perks makes sense.

Again, I agree that the whole thing is regrettable, and that it probably hurts the economy as a whole. I wish Amazon didn't play these games. But I also think it's worth pushing back against the idea that these local governments are clueless idiots. They may very well be making a good decision from their narrow perspective, and the city that Amazon chooses may very well see a net increase in tax revenue.