Three refutations of Republican policy voodoo

July 21, 2022 
Today in Michigan we are in the middle of a campaign season where we have a multitude of Republican candidates campaigning to give Gov. Gretchen Whitmer a second term. Ha ha.  I kid. But really. When I hear the candidates on that side speak I can't believe in any of them winning. Still, we'll see. We said the same thing about the 2016 campaign season, although with somewhat less fervor… As anyone knows, predicting the winner of a horse race, isn't common.

But I do want to address some of the voodoo bullshit these Republican candidates harp on far too endlessly.

In particular, three points on economic policy: 

Firstly, I don't think that a favorable business tax and regulatory environment is what brings people to live in a certain area. I think there are other concerns that matter more to people about where they live.

Secondly, I don't think that finding an area where people will have more discretionary income, decides where they will live either. In particular I'm referencing personal income tax regimes in certain areas. And conversely I don't think that people will take the cash over, or in exchange for, a reduction of basic services in an area they want to live in.

Third, I don't think that people want to live in an area because it is frozen into a particular economic "tradition".  To explain, slightly, the very outrageous example of something like this is the situation in certain areas of Europe where only those areas are allowed to produce a certain product. There's, like, some cheeses in France and so on.  It's called an appellation region.  In America we have, of course, Florida oranges, Vidalia onions, and Idaho potatoes, but I do not think that we can reasonably say that people would move to Florida, Georgia, or Idaho simply because those areas can produce those items that can be marketed as Florida oranges, Vidalia onions, or Idaho potatoes.