you make it sound like those numbers are completely comprehensive and without agenda, and that these subsidies are an unmitigated good. but they completely ignore jobs lost, companies shuttered, environmental impacts, and opportunity costs.

you're looking only at inflows and ignoring outflows. no systems dynamicist would take such an analysis seriously. systems have boundaries (by definition), and you must look at all traversals across the boundaries, not just the ones you like.

plus, you ignore the fact that amazon probably would have set up shop in nyc for far fewer, and probably even zero, dollars in subsidies. i.e., the same benefits without redirecting tax dollars to the already rich.

yes to more, savvy economic development; no to corporate giveaways.

EDIT: to your point about actors acting rationally, i would hope a group of business owners who don't get such subsidies put a bill before the people to either hold amazon accountable to promised performance or rescind/restrict the subsidies (or failing that, vote the bums out). the economic development program dollars they used should be directed toward entrepreneurs and small businesses, not mega-corps.