I’ve had some fun over the years by pointing out that Paul Krugman has butchered numbers when writing about fiscal policy in nations such as France, Estonia, Germany, and the United Kingdom.
So I shouldn’t be surprised that he wants to catch me making an error. But I’m not sure his “gotcha” moment is very persuasive. Here’s some of what he wrote for today’s New York Times.
Gov. Jerry Brown was able to push through a modestly liberal agenda of higher taxes, spending increases and a rise in the minimum wage. California also moved enthusiastically to implement Obamacare. …Needless to say, conservatives predicted doom. …Daniel J. Mitchell of the Cato Institute declared that by voting for Proposition 30, which authorized those tax increases, “the looters and moochers of the Golden State” (yes, they really do think they’re living in an Ayn Rand novel) were committing “economic suicide.”
Kudos to Krugman for having read Atlas Shrugged, or for at least knowing that Rand sometimes referred to to “looters and moochers.” Though I have to subtract points because he thinks I’m a conservative rather than a libertarian.
But what about his characterization of my position? Well, he’s right, though I’m predicting slow-motion suicide. Voting for a tax hike isn’t akin to jumping off the Golden Gate bridge. Instead, by further penalizing success and expanding the burden of government, California is engaging in the economic equivalent of smoking four packs of cigarettes every day instead of three and one-half packs.
Here’s some of what I wrote.
I’m generally reluctant to make predictions, but I feel safe in stating that this measure is going to accelerate California’s economic decline. Some successful taxpayers are going to tunnel under the proverbial Berlin Wall and escape to states with better (or less worse) fiscal policy. And that will mean fewer jobs and lower wages than otherwise would be the case.
Anyhow, Krugman wants readers to think that California is a success rather than a failure because the state now has a budget surplus and there’s been an uptick in job creation.
Here’s more of what he wrote.
There is, I’m sorry to say, no sign of the promised catastrophe. If tax increases are causing a major flight of jobs from California, you can’t see it in the job numbers. Employment is up 3.6 percent in the past 18 months, compared with a national average of 2.8 percent; at this point, California’s share of national employment, which was hit hard by the bursting of the state’s enormous housing bubble, is back to pre-recession levels. …And, yes, the budget is back in surplus. …So what do we learn from the California comeback? Mainly, that you should take anti-government propaganda with large helpings of salt. Tax increases aren’t economic suicide; sometimes they’re a useful way to pay for things we need.
I’m not persuaded, and I definitely don’t think this counts as a “gotcha” moment.
First, I’m a bit surprised that he wants to brag about California’s employment numbers. The Golden State has one of the highest joblessness rates in the nation. Indeed, only four states rank below California.
Second, I don’t particularly care whether the state has a budget surplus. I care about the size of government.
Krugman might respond by saying that the tax hike generated revenues, thus disproving the Laffer Curve, which is something that does matter to supporters of small government.
But the Laffer Curve doesn’t say that all tax hikes lose revenue. Instead, it says that tax rate increases will have a negative impact on taxable income. It’s then an empirical question to figure out if revenues go up a lot, go up a little, stay flat, or decline.
And what matters most of all is the long-run impact. You can rape and pillage upper-income taxpayers in the short run, particularly if a tax hike is retroactive. In the long run, though, people can move, re-organize their finances, and take other steps to reduce their exposure to the greed of the political class.
In other words, people can vote with their feet…and with their money.
And that’s what seems to be happening in California. Take a look at how much income has emigrated from the state since 1992.
Next we have a map showing which states, over time, are gaining taxable income and which states are losing income (and I invite you to look at how zero-income tax states tend to be very green).
The data isn’t population adjusted, so populous states are over-represented, but you’ll still see that California is losing while Texas is winning.
And here is similar data from the Tax Foundation.
So what’s all of this mean?
Well, it means I’m standing by my prediction of slow-motion economic suicide. The state is going to become the France of America…at least if Illinois doesn’t get there first.
California has some natural advantages that make it very desirable. And I suspect that the state’s politicians could get away with above-average taxes simply because certain people will pay some sort of premium to enjoy the climate and geography.
But the number of people willing to pay will shrink as the premium rises.
In other words, this Chuck Asay cartoon may be the most accurate depiction of California’s future. And this Lisa Benson cartoon shows what will happen between now and then.
But I won’t hold my breath waiting for a mea culpa from Krugman.
[…] if you’re Paul Krugman and you already have a very long list of mistakes (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here for a few examples), then why not go for […]
[…] if you’re Paul Krugman and you already have a very long list of mistakes (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here for a few examples), then why not go for […]
[…] if you’re Paul Krugman and you already have a very long list of mistakes (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here for a few examples), […]
[…] if you’re Paul Krugman and you already have a very long list of mistakes (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here for a few examples), then why not go for […]
[…] I was unimpressed by his criticism of my […]
[…] Paul Krugman has tried to defend California, which has made him an easy target. I debunked him earlier this year, and I also linked to a superb Kevin Williamson takedown of Krugman at the bottom of this […]
[…] Paul Krugman has tried to defend California, which has made him an easy target. I debunked him earlier this year, and I also linked to a superb Kevin Williamson takedown of Krugman at the bottom of this […]
[…] Paul Krugman has tried to defend California, which has made him an easy target. I debunked him earlier this year, and I also linked to a superb Kevin Williamson takedown of Krugman at the bottom of this […]
[…] Paul Krugman has tried to defend California, which has made him an easy target. I debunked him earlier this year, and I also linked to a superb Kevin Williamson takedown of Krugman at the bottom of this […]
[…] Paul Krugman has tried to defend California, which has made him an easy target. I debunked him earlier this year, and I also linked to a superb Kevin Williamson takedown of Krugman at the bottom of this […]
[…] Paul Krugman has tried to defend California, which has made him an easy target. I debunked him earlier this year, and I also linked to a superb Kevin Williamson takedown of Krugman at the bottom of this […]
[…] if you’re Paul Krugman and you already have a very long list of mistakes (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here for a few examples), then why not go for […]
[…] because the Prairie State is an even bigger mess. If California is committing “slow motion suicide,” Illinois is opting for the quickest-possible fiscal […]
[…] if you’re Paul Krugman and you already have a very long list of mistakes (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here for a few examples), […]
[…] Paul Krugman has tried to defend California, which has made him an easy target. I debunked him earlier this year, and I also linked to a superb Kevin Williamson takedown of Krugman at the bottom of this […]
[…] because the Prairie State is an even bigger mess. If California is committing “slow motion suicide,” Illinois is opting for the quickest-possible fiscal […]
[…] Paul Krugman has tried to defend California, which has made him an easy target. I debunked him earlier this year, and I also linked to a superb Kevin Williamson takedown of Krugman at the bottom of this […]
[…] Paul Krugman has tried to defend California, which has made him an easy target. I debunked him earlier this year, and I also linked to a superb Kevin Williamson takedown of Krugman at the bottom of this […]
[…] Paul Krugman has tried to defend California, which has made him an easy target. I debunked him earlier this year, and I also linked to a superb Kevin Williamson takedown of Krugman at the bottom of this […]
[…] because the Prairie State is an even bigger mess. If California is committing “slow motion suicide,” Illinois is opting for the quickest-possible fiscal […]
[…] Paul Krugman has tried to defend California, which has made him an easy target. I debunked him earlier this year, and I also linked to a superb Kevin Williamson takedown of Krugman at the bottom of this […]
[…] if you’re Paul Krugman and you already have a very long list of mistakes (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here for a few examples), then why not go for […]
[…] Paul Krugman has tried to defend California, which has made him an easy target. I debunked him earlier this year, and I also linked to a superb Kevin Williamson takedown of Krugman at the bottom of this […]
[…] Paul Krugman has tried to defend California, which has made him an easy target. I debunked him earlier this year, and I also linked to a superb Kevin Williamson takedown of Krugman at the bottom of this […]
[…] Paul Krugman has tried to defend California, which has made him an easy target. I debunked him earlier this year, and I also linked to a superb Kevin Williamson takedown of Krugman at the bottom of this […]
[…] if you’re Paul Krugman and you already have a very long list of mistakes (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here for a few examples), then why not go for […]
[…] if you’re Paul Krugman and you already have a very long list of mistakes (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here for a few examples), then why not go for […]
[…] if you’re Paul Krugman and you already have a very long list of mistakes (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here for a few examples), then why not go for […]
[…] because the Prairie State is an even bigger mess. If California is committing “slow motion suicide,” Illinois is opting for the quickest-possible fiscal […]
[…] Paul Krugman has tried to defend California, which has made him an easy target. I debunked him earlier this year, and I also linked to a superb Kevin Williamson takedown of Krugman at the bottom of this […]
[…] Paul Krugman has tried to defend California, which has made him an easy target. I debunked him earlier this year, and I also linked to a superb Kevin Williamson takedown of Krugman at the bottom of this […]
[…] if you’re Paul Krugman and you already have a very long list of mistakes (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here for a few examples), then why not go for […]
[…] if you’re Paul Krugman and you already have a very long list of mistakes (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here for a few examples), […]
[…] because the Prairie State is an even bigger mess. If California is committing “slow motion suicide,” Illinois is opting for the quickest-possible fiscal […]
[…] because the Prairie State is an even bigger mess. If California is committing “slow motion suicide,” Illinois is opting for the quickest-possible fiscal […]
[…] because the Prairie State is an even bigger mess. If California is committing “slow motion suicide,” Illinois is opting for the quickest-possible fiscal […]
[…] been warning for many years that California is committing “slow-motion suicide.” I discussed the not-so-golden future of the Golden State as part of a longer interview with […]
[…] been warning for many years that California is committing “slow-motion suicide.” I discussed the not-so-golden future of the Golden State as part of a longer interview with […]
[…] Paul Krugman has tried to defend California, which has made him an easy target. I debunked him earlier this year, and I also linked to a superb Kevin Williamson takedown of Krugman at the bottom of this […]
[…] if you’re Paul Krugman and you already have a very long list of mistakes (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here for a few examples), then why not go for […]
[…] Paul Krugman has tried to defend California, which has made him an easy target. I debunked him earlier this year, and I also linked to a superb Kevin Williamson takedown of Krugman at the bottom of this […]
[…] Paul Krugman has tried to defend California, which has made him an easy target. I debunked him earlier this year, and I also linked to a superb Kevin Williamson takedown of Krugman at the bottom of this […]
[…] wrote back in 2012 that California voters opted for “slow-motion economic suicide” by voting to raise the state’s top income tax rate to 13.3 […]
[…] Paul Krugman has tried to defend California, which has made him an easy target. I debunked him earlier this year, and I also linked to a superb Kevin Williamson takedown of Krugman at the bottom of this […]
[…] Paul Krugman has tried to defend California, which has made him an easy target. I debunked him earlier this year, and I also linked to a superb Kevin Williamson takedown of Krugman at the bottom of this […]
[…] Paul Krugman has tried to defend California, which has made him an easy target. I debunked him earlier this year, and I also linked to a superb Kevin Williamson takedown of Krugman at the bottom of this […]
[…] be fair, while it’s very common for Krugman to screw up, he’s not always […]
[…] Paul Krugman has tried to defend California, which has made him an easy target. I debunked him earlier this year, and I also linked to a superb Kevin Williamson takedown of Krugman at the bottom of this […]
[…] could have guessed that California would be the worst state, though I’m not surprised to see New Jersey (the worst place to die) and […]
[…] Paul Krugman has tried to defend California, which has made him an easy target. I debunked him earlier this year, and I also linked to a superb Kevin Williamson takedown of Krugman at the bottom of this […]
[…] Paul Krugman has tried to defend California, which has made him an easy target. I debunked him earlier this year, and I also linked to a superb Kevin Williamson takedown of Krugman at the bottom of this […]
[…] Paul Krugman has tried to defend California, which has made him an easy target. I debunked him earlier this year, and I also linked to a superb Kevin Williamson takedown of Krugman at the bottom of this […]
[…] Paul Krugman attacked me a few years ago for being pessimistic about California. He was wrong then and he’s even more wrong […]
[…] of the main lessons we learn (see here, here, here, here, and here) is that high-earning taxpayers tend to migrate from states with onerous tax burdens and […]
[…] of the main lessons we learn (see here, here, here, here, and here) is that high-earning taxpayers tend to migrate from states with onerous tax burdens and […]
[…] of the main lessons we learn (see here, here, here, here, and here) is that high-earning taxpayers tend to migrate from states with onerous tax burdens and […]
[…] Economic Research Says About Fiscal Austerity and Higher Tax Rates,” by Bob Murphy “Krugman’s “Gotcha” Moment Leaves Something to Be Desired,” by Dan Mitchell “Wanna Bet Some of That Nobel Money?,” by Greg […]
[…] P.S. On another issue, Paul Krugman once again has attacked me for my comments about California. For those interested, here is my response. […]
Thanks for the welcome to “Krugman readers”…you’ll have new ones today, he’s still linking to you to mock and deride.
Your various measures of how badly California is doing are pretty complex for most of us. Krugman is linking to something anybody can follow: how many jobs the place has. That “FRED” graph shows a gain of 800,000 jobs between your original “suicide” post and this “response” post. Another look today shows an additional million jobs added since. I checked the population, and it’s grown by just a quarter million in that time, so, lots more new jobs than people.
Then I tried simple, plain, “economy of california” in the good ‘ol Wikipedia – and the first sentence of the article is that it grew by an impressive 4.1% during 2015, the year after this “response”.
So I decided to skip your complex analysis – sorry. Your point that a policy direction can be long-term foolish even if there’s little short-term effect remains a very good one, but you need to add three points to this claim:
1) An explanation why you didn’t mention this five years ago. You were “reluctant to make predictions” but many of your sentences clearly imply that bad things will happen immediately, particularly that the state will “stay in a fiscal ditch”.
2) A mechanism that explains both the current job gains and your eventual doomsday – what temporary effect is overcoming this great drag on the economy? Your 2014 post is all about how California is in fact doing badly, not well at all, so you really haven’t addressed those job gains. They’re happening in spite of all this out-migration and wealth-loss and so forth. Why?
3) Conversely, why has the opposite effect happened in Kansas? It’s been a few years now since Brownback said his cuts needed more time to work, and they still didn’t, so Krugman is also now crowing about how they’ve “thrown in the towel” and raised taxes. In Kansas, you guys actually got your way for six years. It isn’t Mother Jones crapping on Kansas now; it’s Bloomberg unfavourably comparing Kansas to neighbour state Nebraska.
Maybe its wrong of me to skip your more complex work, but the only real point at issue here (for those of us who don’t live in California or plan to) is whether tax cuts are a “miracle drug” for the economy, as long advertised. There remains little or no proof of that notion.
Oops.. time has told… and guess what? You have been proven wrong; Krugman was right… Your first order of business should be to re-visit Econ. 101… well, perhaps you should take a remedial course on “Understanding How Ideology Warps Appreciation of Facts.”
[…] The column also looks at the jobs data (which will cause special angst for Paul Krugman). […]
[…] The column also looks at the jobs data (which will cause special angst for Paul Krugman). […]
[…] The column also looks at the jobs data (which will cause special angst for Paul Krugman). […]
[…] 2014, he asserted that a supposed “California comeback” in jobs somehow proved my analysis of a tax hike was wrong, yet only four states at the time had a higher unemployment rate than […]
[…] 2014, he asserted that a supposed “California comeback” in jobs somehow proved my analysis of a tax hike was wrong, yet only four states at the time had a higher unemployment rate than […]
[…] fiscal heretic, consider the fact that balanced budget requirements haven’t prevented states like California, Illinois, Connecticut, and New York from adopting bad […]
[…] fiscal heretic, consider the fact that balanced budget requirements haven’t prevented states like California, Illinois, Connecticut, and New York from adopting bad […]
[…] heretic, consider the fact that balanced budget requirements haven’t prevented states like California, Illinois, Connecticut, and New York from adopting bad […]
[…] let’s not forget that Paul Krugman attacked me two years ago for failing to acknowledge the supposed success story of job creation in California. […]
[…] bizarrely claimed that California’s 46th-worst job performance among states somehow was proof that I was wrong […]
[…] enjoyed exposing his disingenuous, sloppy, and dishonest use of data on issues such as Obamanomics, California jobs, American fiscal policy, Greek economics, U.S. and U.K. austerity, German fiscal policy, Estonian […]
[…] enjoyed exposing his disingenuous, sloppy, and dishonest use of data on issues such as Obamanomics, California jobs, American fiscal policy, Greek economics, U.S. and U.K. austerity, German fiscal policy, Estonian […]
[…] year, he asserted that a supposed “California comeback” in jobs somehow proved my analysis of a tax hike was wrong, yet only four states at the time had a higher unemployment rate than […]
[…] year, he asserted that a supposed “California comeback” in jobs somehow proved my analysis of a tax hike was wrong, yet only four states at the time had a higher unemployment rate than […]
[…] to foreign students in America who take classes from Paul Krugman. If these examples (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here) are any indication, they probably […]
[…] Texas, or Singapore), it’s also good to have bad examples (such as France, Italy, California, and […]
[…] absurd mistakes (with Paul Krugman deserving his own special category for sloppiness, as seen here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, […]
[…] has some sort of balanced budget requirement. Yet those rules don’t prevent states like California, Illinois, Connecticut, and New York from adopting bad fiscal […]
[…] If you want additional examples of Krugman’s factual errors, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here,here, here, […]
[…] has tried to defend California’s economic performance, which has made him an easy target. I debunked him earlier this year, and I also linked to a superb Kevin Williamson takedown of Krugman at the bottom of this […]
[…] California and claimed that the Golden State’s job market was strong. But it turns out that California had the 5th-highest unemployment rate in the […]
[…] California and claimed that the Golden State’s job market was strong. But it turns out that California had the 5th-highest unemployment rate in the […]
[…] a tiny little downside to this proposal. Contrary to the fevered assertions of Elizabeth Warren and Paul Krugman, penalizing the rich won’t do anything to help the less […]
[…] if you’re Paul Krugman and you already have a very long list of mistakes (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here for a few examples), then why not go for […]
[…] if you’re Paul Krugman and you already have a very long list of mistakes (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here for a few examples), then why not go for the […]
[…] if you’re Paul Krugman and you already have a very long list of mistakes (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here for a few examples), then why not go for the […]
[…] if you’re Paul Krugman and you already have a very long list of mistakes (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here for a few examples), then why not go for […]
[…] Sur le web. Traduction […]
[…] Krugman’s “Gotcha” Moment Leaves Something to Be Desired […]
Well, I’m not a libertarian in fact the right wing that complains the most against illegal imitation never considers that Texas is number 2. Demograher Steven Murdock has mention that Texas white enrollment has dropped about 500,000 and Hispanics increase by milion. A lot of the state mirgrantion to Texas isn’t middle to upper middle class whites from Orange County. Its more likley lower income Hispanics moving from places like La and Santa Ana in Orange County to San Antonio or one of the oil boom towns. How do I know well Texas last year actaully gain in total more Hispanics than even larger California which means lots of Hispanics are leaving the Golden Stae for cheaper Texas along with the fact that Hispanics in Texas are at 29 years old versus 41 for whites. Texas is not the paradise that Libertarians and right-wing religious Christians think. It is aleady 38 percent Hispanic similar to California and Texas Mexicans have a poverty rate around 24 percent versus about 9 percent for whites. Conservatives and Libertarians are ignoring that even if 500,000 illegal immigrant Mexicans left Texas its going to be more Mexican than white. Murdock states the state will lose about 6,000 in its GNP has it converts from white to Mexican. We have already seen this happen to California and to New Mexico. In fact for Libertarians and conservatives I would pick Utah why, a lot less Hispanics for one thing. Granted, job growth is probably not as fast as Texas but its not going to changed as much in demograhics and its one of the few white Conservative states out there and has a lot less people on the dole than Texas. Texas has lot of welfare in the large cities which have both Mexicans and blacks like Houston and Dallas and the Rio Grande area which is over 90 percent Mexican.Poverty rate Utah 12 percent versus almost 18 percent for Texas and cost of living is not much higher in Utah.
Kansas — The sources that jk nousak dismisses (the Tax Foundation) without researching or understanding had already addressed the infamous “Kansas” gotcha — http://taxfoundation.org/blog/kansas-income-tax-cuts-boom-bust-or-wash
Months before progressives jumped on a snap shot of tax revenues to cherry pick, the Tax Foundation had already warned that their tax reform efforts had failed to broaden the tax base opened an undesirable loophole that would result in lower revenues and undermine real tax reform.
California — If you follow Dan Mitchell to make money trading short-term fluctuations in asset prices or tax revenues, you would do better with the old dart board. (And the same would be true for those who follow PK, unless they trade in hindsight.)
On the other hand, any serious policy student understands that a lot of what Dan Mitchell is saying is directionally correct, but any serious risk manager would cover such bets realizing that CA pols will play games with budget rules, that this is a state where a few professional athletes alone can pay $200+ million in state income taxes (whether they live in CA or not), etc.
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2014/07/athletes-paid-2168-million-in-california-income-taxes-in-2012.html
Those who read PK are not just saying CA can survive in the short term, they are saying CA policies are what would make any state thrive. This is nonesense.
yours is essentially a non-response; quoting what PK says takes a lot of space, plus your sources (maps and things) are way-suspect as is your ‘take away’ from them. One cannot dismiss what is happening in Kansas . . .
It seems to me that the “slow motion suicide” you’ve predicted was supposed to have a time frame measured in a few years based on this quote in the same article:
“The bottom line is that the state will remain in the fiscal ditch and I expect a Greek-style fiscal crisis… But my long-run worry is that Obama may push for a federal bailout.”
If you are worried that Obama is going to bail California out, then you’re talking about a fiscal crisis happening by 2016. I think the chance of that happening is quite slim. It’s time to acknowledge that you may have been quite wrong.
The pernicious effect of lower motivation and thus slower growth will be slow (slow by everyday standards, very fast on a historical timeline) but it’s effect will be deep and irreversible (see Greece, France, really most of Europe) where once everyone depends on everyone else, nobody can let go and aggregate enthusiasm falls way short of what it takes to outcompete the rest of the world i.e. as I keep saying: Decline.
Krugman could have made the same argument for the rise of any socialist, fascist or generally coercively collectivist regime. Little happened in the economic arena… initially. Or he could have said the same thing for about a decade after 2001 when the Federal Reserve kept suppressing interest rates: “See, another rate cut and no housing bubble burst”. Or he could have said the same thing in Detroit for a couple of decades: “See, another concession to the unions, another tax hike, another anti-competitiveness action, another economic activity subjected to collective public management by the electorate, …and Detroit is still doing fine”. So Krugman is not worried about higher taxes and rising collectivism that will bear the fruits of decline in a couple of decades, but is worried that the fantastically capable humans of the 22nd century will have to deal with a world that is 2C warmer. And we know that they will because we know what 22nd century technology and prosperity will look like and we just know that there will be no way to either stop, remedy, or adapt to the modest change.
Actually Krugman proves the counterpoint: If decline were that immediate, the many nations that committed economic suicide would have not done so, as voter-lemmings would have gotten immediate feedback of the suicidal trajectories they were charting.
A more crude analogy is: You slowly sneak into your neighbor’s pants and start squeezing his cojones (happens legally and anonymously and without immediate repercussions in the secrecy of the polling booth) in the hope that he’ll start working for you. After a while, everyone is squeezing everyone else’s cojones and nobody can let go, lest they be left squeezed while having given up their only leverage. The result: Everyone keeps squeezing harder and harder, the occasional voices of the Dan Mitchell’s been drowned in the screams.
…and everyone rides together a 1-2% annual growth trendline into the true middle class, the worldwide average, suffocated by a rising world riding a 4% annual growth trendline. Krugman and his western world voter lemmings will eventually experience the 0g. In countries like Greece, France, Italy the slope is already so steep that stopping has become impossible. Look for movements of the extreme left, then the extreme right to start getting elected in those countries — or perhaps the right first and then the left, the order is irrelevant, they are all cousins that voter-lemmings must give a chance to in a desperate attempt to uphold the impossible dream: That one day, either through persuasion or coercion, citizens will change into social automata and start working enthusiastically for the diluted common good. Actually, …Enthusiastically enough to generate 4% annual growth trendlines and thus stave off systemic structural decline of their nations and absorption of their standard of living into the worldwide average. Keep hoping folks….
“ But the temptation is so strong, the idea so noble. Isn’t it worth an Nth try at yet some different form of coercive collectivism?”
So, if government grows it is bad, regardless. Also, your premise is proven by cartoons. And you do believe people are moochers and looters. And people with money “seem” to be moving. Just what mea culpa are you waiting for?
Also, CA’s health should be evaluated in terms of its unfunded liabilities, which are proportional to the federal government’s, only CA lacks the ability to print money.
Reblogged this on That Mr. G Guy's Blog.