Two groups have historically shown a deep aversion to depoliticized markets. On one side are the ardent Marxists, eager to replace markets with state control and elite-driven planning—where they themselves wield power. On the other side are the titans of “big business”—corporations that exploit political influence and financial clout to manipulate markets in their favor, often at the expense of competitors, consumers, and taxpayers.

The inefficiencies of state-owned enterprises are well-documented: they deliver subpar services, consume vast amounts of capital, destroy jobs, and continuously lobby their political allies for more subsidies. Yet, some of the most egregious examples of corporate welfare come not from the public sector but from private companies wielding political leverage to siphon wealth into their own coffers. Prominent among these are giants like Amazon, Tesla, Starlink, and even professional sports teams.

To maximize their subsidies—and the lucrative compensation packages of their executives—these corporations often pit branches of government against each other or play nations off against one another. Consider Amazon’s recent maneuvering. The tech behemoth heavily promoted a TV series based on The Lord of the Rings—available exclusively to Amazon Prime subscribers, a service priced at $139 per year in the U.S. The project appeared risky, but Amazon has a long history of leveraging political connections to secure taxpayer funding for its ventures.

New Zealand was Amazon’s first target. The company dangled promises of jobs and prosperity contingent on receiving substantial financial incentives. The New Zealand government obliged, handing over $259 million in tax-funded subsidies. But that wasn’t enough. Amazon pressed for an additional 5% through a Screen Production Grant. Government Minister Stuart Nash boasted that such handouts would generate “local jobs and create work for local businesses.”

However, those jobs were short-lived. Amazon soon courted British taxpayers for even more lucrative subsidies and shifted production to the UK, leaving New Zealand workers stranded and unemployed. Despite this, UK Culture Secretary Oliver Dowden celebrated the move, declaring that the series would create “thousands of high-quality jobs all across the UK.” Meanwhile, Nash insisted that New Zealand had no regrets, assuring the BBC that they gave the production “our best shot with government support.”

Amazon Studios’ co-head Vernon Sanders expressed gratitude to “the people and government of New Zealand for their hospitality and dedication,” but not for the millions in cash handed over to one of the world’s wealthiest companies. Subsidies continue to flow into Amazon around the globe, often harming local small businesses that are taxed to subsidize a billionaire worth around $200 billion. Between 2012 and 2022, Amazon reportedly received $4.7 billion in subsidies or special tax breaks unavailable to its competitors.

Vice reported that among the $600 million in tax breaks Amazon received outside the United States were $15.6 million for a warehouse in Leipzig, Germany; $10.44 million for a warehouse in Fife, Scotland; $5.1 million for a warehouse in Asturias, Spain; $1.3 million for a warehouse near Lyon, France; $2.3 million for a call center in Edinburgh, Scotland; approximately $262 million for an Amazon Web Services data center in Montreal, Quebec; and roughly $180 million for a data center in São Paulo, Brazil.

An Amazon spokesperson assured Vice that all these subsidies “help create local jobs.” However, as economist Frédéric Bastiat observed, taxes first delete jobs elsewhere in the economy. The likelihood that these “job creation” schemes will generate more jobs than they destroy is slim. It doesn’t matter whether the currency is dollars, pounds, euros, or rands; what governments give to the corporate elite is first taken from those without political power. The resources used to “create” jobs are often taken from others, resulting in a net loss of employment.

At best, it’s a zero-sum game, but after accounting for the redistribution costs, the amount paid out is usually less than the amount collected.

The market-oriented Hoover Institution favorably cited the center-left Progressive Policy Institute, which noted: “Domestic subsidies cost the U.S. jobs, business formation, and overall growth. Not only do they reduce normal competitive pressures to innovate, but they also place industries not receiving favoured treatment at a disadvantage, by effectively raising their costs of capital and labour relative to subsidized sectors.”

What holds true economically in the U.S. applies equally to New Zealand, the UK, or any other nation.