It's possible, but it's much, much, much easier for an American company to hold another American company accountable when something like this happens. Instead of having to go through all those hoops, you sue the pants off the manufacturer.
"There were other considerations like the fact we were actually buing it from large reputable company and what happened was that some employees were doing it with no involvement of the company."
I fail to see how that has anything to do with it. The company is responsible for the product, full stop. If they can't stop their employees from tampering with the product, that's entirely their fault.
They did. But you ignored the fact that your original number was the amount raised for several different organizations over a longer period of time. You chose not to mention that, for reasons I think I know.
No, I don't believe it's moving any goalposts. The fact of the matter is, the stadiums are for teams owned by billionaires who could easily build their own stadium, and they get far more in subsidies than the other things you mentioned. $1.3 billion was raised in your article, but it was split between several different things.
That's not true. Many times people use the "asking questions" as a ruse to do just that, and erode support for these people by saying it's their own fault for being exploited.
And, quite frankly, I don't care one iota why they stay; there is exactly zero legitimate reason for them to be treated like that. Bezos should be so ashamed of himself that he would be unwilling to show his face in public.
"So that's $1.3. billion in tax dollars raised specifically to fund the museums and zoo in the largest park of one mid-sized U.S. city."
That's divided amongst 5 public organizations. Not all going to one billionaire.
"That tax raises 35 times the $5 million per year the city pays on the bond for the old Rams stadium"
Stadium for one purpose, for a team owned by a billionaire, who also left town.
The cost to the city was also far more than just $5 million a year; the total amount the city put behind the stadium was $280 million.
"Of course, HuffPo doesn't write any articles about the zoo tax, because literal rams in cages is a more noble use of money than figurative Rams throwing a football, one presumes."
Or maybe it's because NFL teams, with the exception of the Green Bay Packers, are owned by billionaires who could easily afford to build their own stadium.
And I've never seen a zoo threaten to leave town unless the city agreed to pay for a new elephant habitat.
And quite frankly, I honestly do not care if there are other jobs or not. That kind of treatment is completely unacceptable, and there is zero legitimate reason for Amazon to treat them that way.
I've been gathering some inspirations for a personal site. Here are a couple I liked. (Although now that I think about it, these were linked at the end of the article).