The writer of the article really couldn't be bothered to look into the details at all and find out the reason behind the discrepancy in valuations? A lot of people are probably curious, it's the whole hook of the headline...
> Business Insider has contacted Apple for comment. The company declined to comment when approached by The Chronicle.
Either the story is balderdash, or Apple knows how bad any explanation will look. It's probably just easier for the reporters to ask a source in the local government.
>> California should exercise their eminent domain powers and purchase it for what it's worth.
> Don’t encourage heavy handedness by the government, instead push for a better system of checks and balances.
That's not heavy handedness, it's calling a hyper-rich entity on its greedy, obvious bullshit. It'd be a welcome lesson to all to all such organizations.
I'd also say such eminent domain actions would be a reasonable part of checks and balances: no one would under-represent the value of their property, at least not as much as Apple has, if they invited that kind of risk.
>That's not heavy handedness, it's calling a hyper-rich entity on its greedy, obvious bullshit.
It's using naked force to humiliate someone doing something that government should impartially respect - making an argument for the court to consider.
>I'd also say such eminent domain actions would be a reasonable part of checks and balances: no one would under-represent the value of their property, at least not as much as Apple has, if they invited that kind of risk.
There's actually a very interesting idea in economics to create social welfare from this line of thinking:
As an accountant, I expect they can report their value differently if they are especially specialised, so they aren't useful for anyone else. No idea how that works with US tax, though.
11 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 37.9 ms ] threadEither the story is balderdash, or Apple knows how bad any explanation will look. It's probably just easier for the reporters to ask a source in the local government.
> Don’t encourage heavy handedness by the government, instead push for a better system of checks and balances.
That's not heavy handedness, it's calling a hyper-rich entity on its greedy, obvious bullshit. It'd be a welcome lesson to all to all such organizations.
I'd also say such eminent domain actions would be a reasonable part of checks and balances: no one would under-represent the value of their property, at least not as much as Apple has, if they invited that kind of risk.
It's using naked force to humiliate someone doing something that government should impartially respect - making an argument for the court to consider.
>I'd also say such eminent domain actions would be a reasonable part of checks and balances: no one would under-represent the value of their property, at least not as much as Apple has, if they invited that kind of risk.
There's actually a very interesting idea in economics to create social welfare from this line of thinking:
http://radicalmarkets.com/chapters/property-is-monopoly/