Yes, because I don't equate being rich and 'successful' with having a social conscience. If anything I'm more inclined to believe that rich and successful person didn't do it by being a paragon of virtue.
And what exactly do you think Amazon's incentives are?
To the city? Come on now.
Not sure when that changed.
Friedman argued it was good for corporations to be greedy, and corporate America liked that idea.
Their views on people as individual self-interested rational actors are so narrow and simplistic.
(1) http://time.com/4696104/environmental-protection-agency-1970...
There are many people in Seattle who stand to benefit more from having better roads, schools or provision for homeless people. Some of them, shockingly, are not Amazon shareholders or even Amazon customers. Why would they trust Jeff Bezos to help more than even an unusually inept public official with their problems, when providing such services to the people of Seattle without charge is manifestly not in the financial interests of the average Amazon shareholder?
Also, do you think it's interesting how everyone who disagrees with you is downvoted into low-contrast?