There was a lot of false information in Tucker's story beyond the condition of the town of Sidney, which was wildly exaggerated (my quick check of the real estate listings confirmed what the mayor and state senator said). Most of what Tucker said about Singer's involvement was also false, including the claim that Singer "pocketed $90 million". Singer's company is the manager of the funds, and owns only a tiny percentage of them -- most of the profits went to the funds' investors, which include some wealthy individuals, but also a lot of institutional investors like pension funds. And his claim that Singer's business model consists largely of destroying small towns in rural American was also false -- this type of transaction, which ends up causing the closure of a small town's major business, is a tiny part of the Elliott funds' investment activities.
Tucker also made no mention whatsoever of the town's responsibility. As you noted, the people who live there seem to have no idea how to attract major companies to open facilities there. I live in a small midwestern town that does know how to do this, because they've been making a well-organized effort since the 1970s. And I'm pretty sure a big part of the reason the people of Sidney have no idea how, is that they never bothered seriously trying until after the closure of Cabela's was announced. In other words, they just assumed that this company, which was built from scratch by a local family, would provide them with high-paying jobs forever.
Tucker took the concept much further, suggesting that there should be a law to stop companies from selling themselves if it will put people out of work. This is called socialism and it's a horrible thing that destroys freedom first, and then destroys economies, putting a lot more people out of work and making them dependent on an increasingly authoritarian government. Tucker's plan would also mean that any future small-town individual or family that built a very successful business through their own hard work and wise choices, would not really own the business, because they would not have the right to sell it to the highest bidder or to whomever they choose, when they are no longer able or wanting to operate the business themselves. Again, this is called socialism, and it's a horrible and destructive thing.
Tucker also framed the whole situation as a personal indictment of Paul Singer, failing to note that it was the Cabela family that made the decision to sell (Singer was never in a position to force them to sell, and could only exert influence because the sale made economic sense), and that natural changes in the business environment made it inevitable that the company would be sold and merged into a larger company. Smart investors make money by accurately predicting upcoming merger and acquisition transactions, and the financial and securities markets effects of the transactions.
There is no legal basis (nor should there be) to prevent such a transaction from happening. Businesses do not exist to provide jobs; they exist to provide profits to owners/shareholders. When socialist government policies result in businesses being kept operating solely to provide jobs, the businesses cease to become profitable. While socialist government policies may use taxpayer money to prop up such businesses in order to maintain the jobs (and thus buy votes for the socialist politicians), that doesn't change the fact that the businesses have ceased to contribute to the economy (or are contributing much less than if the capital tied up in them was deployed to other, more profitable business activities). This is how socialism destroys economies, and that leads to a lot more unemployed and falsely employed (adding nothing to the economy) people who are completely dependent on government.
If there's a legitimate target for blame in the Sidney/Cabela's matter, besides the complacent townspeople, it's the Cabela family. They were intimately familiar with their business and its long-term prospects, and also intimately familiar with the town's dangerous dependence on this one business. They were certainly aware at least a decade in advance, that their company was very unlikely to continue providing jobs in Sidney. They could have made some effort and small financial investment, to get a business development organization off the ground, so that the townspeople would have some time to get the hang of the process and at least get a couple of small new employers into the town/county, before they were confronted with an emergency situation.
Perhaps the Cabela family did try and just couldn't get the townspeople to make a serious effort. But blaming Paul Singer for Sidney's problems is simply dishonest, and frankly sounded just like a typical socialist political activist trying to drum up popular resentment against "the rich" and convince crowds of angry people that it's ethical and desirable to have government take control of private businesses "for the greater good". If that's what Tucker really believes, then he should be campaigning for Bernie Sanders.
There was a lot of false information in Tucker's story beyond the condition of the town of Sidney, which was wildly exaggerated (my quick check of the real estate listings confirmed what the mayor and state senator said). Most of what Tucker said about Singer's involvement was also false, including the claim that Singer "pocketed $90 million". Singer's company is the manager of the funds, and owns only a tiny percentage of them -- most of the profits went to the funds' investors, which include some wealthy individuals, but also a lot of institutional investors like pension funds. And his claim that Singer's business model consists largely of destroying small towns in rural American was also false -- this type of transaction, which ends up causing the closure of a small town's major business, is a tiny part of the Elliott funds' investment activities.
Tucker also made no mention whatsoever of the town's responsibility. As you noted, the people who live there seem to have no idea how to attract major companies to open facilities there. I live in a small midwestern town that does know how to do this, because they've been making a well-organized effort since the 1970s. And I'm pretty sure a big part of the reason the people of Sidney have no idea how, is that they never bothered seriously trying until after the closure of Cabela's was announced. In other words, they just assumed that this company, which was built from scratch by a local family, would provide them with high-paying jobs forever.
Tucker took the concept much further, suggesting that there should be a law to stop companies from selling themselves if it will put people out of work. This is called socialism and it's a horrible thing that destroys freedom first, and then destroys economies, putting a lot more people out of work and making them dependent on an increasingly authoritarian government. Tucker's plan would also mean that any future small-town individual or family that built a very successful business through their own hard work and wise choices, would not really own the business, because they would not have the right to sell it to the highest bidder or to whomever they choose, when they are no longer able or wanting to operate the business themselves. Again, this is called socialism, and it's a horrible and destructive thing.
Tucker also framed the whole situation as a personal indictment of Paul Singer, failing to note that it was the Cabela family that made the decision to sell (Singer was never in a position to force them to sell, and could only exert influence because the sale made economic sense), and that natural changes in the business environment made it inevitable that the company would be sold and merged into a larger company. Smart investors make money by accurately predicting upcoming merger and acquisition transactions, and the financial and securities markets effects of the transactions.
There is no legal basis (nor should there be) to prevent such a transaction from happening. Businesses do not exist to provide jobs; they exist to provide profits to owners/shareholders. When socialist government policies result in businesses being kept operating solely to provide jobs, the businesses cease to become profitable. While socialist government policies may use taxpayer money to prop up such businesses in order to maintain the jobs (and thus buy votes for the socialist politicians), that doesn't change the fact that the businesses have ceased to contribute to the economy (or are contributing much less than if the capital tied up in them was deployed to other, more profitable business activities). This is how socialism destroys economies, and that leads to a lot more unemployed and falsely employed (adding nothing to the economy) people who are completely dependent on government.
If there's a legitimate target for blame in the Sidney/Cabela's matter, besides the complacent townspeople, it's the Cabela family. They were intimately familiar with their business and its long-term prospects, and also intimately familiar with the town's dangerous dependence on this one business. They were certainly aware at least a decade in advance, that their company was very unlikely to continue providing jobs in Sidney. They could have made some effort and small financial investment, to get a business development organization off the ground, so that the townspeople would have some time to get the hang of the process and at least get a couple of small new employers into the town/county, before they were confronted with an emergency situation.
Perhaps the Cabela family did try and just couldn't get the townspeople to make a serious effort. But blaming Paul Singer for Sidney's problems is simply dishonest, and frankly sounded just like a typical socialist political activist trying to drum up popular resentment against "the rich" and convince crowds of angry people that it's ethical and desirable to have government take control of private businesses "for the greater good". If that's what Tucker really believes, then he should be campaigning for Bernie Sanders.