* Brian Mackey in Illinois Issues magazine…
Rauner insists his proposals — including a gradual roll-back of the income tax hike, restrictions on lawsuits and an expansion of the sales tax to include some services — would spur growth in the number of jobs. [Richard Dye, an economist with the University of Illinois’ Institute of Government and Public Affairs] says it’s possible for tax policy changes to sometimes — “not generally, but sometimes” — have an effect on jobs. But there are many other factors that more directly affect a state’s employment: “the overall economic condition, the capital stock and education level of the state, the national economy, incentives by other states, and so on,” Dye says. “All things that are beyond the governor’s control.”
So why do candidates claim prowess in job creation? “The advantage to the candidate is that most people don’t read the economics literature,” Dye says. “There is this vague association [between] the time a particular politician is in power and what happens to the economy.” Lubotsky amplifies this point, acknowledging that job claims would be useful to candidates for advertising purposes: “They can’t go out and say, ‘You should vote for me, but honestly, what I do won’t have much of an effect.’ ”
He’s right. Few politicians would make such a statement. But a private citizen might.
Back in 2011, years before he declared his candidacy for governor, Rauner participated in a panel discussion at Dartmouth College on the future of the U.S. economy. After nearly an hour, conversation turned to the risky investor behavior that led to the Great Recession and the federal government’s role in regulating financial markets. Another panelist asked Rauner: “We had a giant financial crisis in which the financial sector caused a huge recession that haunts us to this day … shouldn’t we try and fix some of the problems that created the situation?”
Rauner said the government was making things worse. Then — and this is the key moment — he opined on the nature of large economies: “We’re talking about free markets. Markets are cyclical. Get over it. We’re not going to predict it. We’re not going to stop it. We’re not going to control it. That’s what it is.”
Rauner 2011 acknowledged that economic downturns are inevitable and opined that governments can do nothing to control them. Rauner 2014, however, seeks to blame Quinn for not taking the right steps to address Illinois’ economic woes. Rather than telling voters to “get over it,” he’s attempting to harness their anger to propel him into high office.
Discuss.
- North Shore Joe - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 9:23 am:
Boom.
- Bogart - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 9:26 am:
“democracy” is the illusion of control. Get over it.
- Ducky LaMoore - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 9:28 am:
Dude, you’re probably blowing your shot to be governor. Get over it.
- low level - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 9:29 am:
The guy makes Quinn look consistent - and that’s pretty hard to do.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 9:30 am:
=== he (Rauner) opined on the nature of large economies: “We’re talking about free markets. Markets are cyclical. Get over it. We’re not going to predict it. We’re not going to stop it. We’re not going to control it. That’s what it is.”
Rauner 2011 acknowledged that economic downturns are inevitable and opined that governments can do nothing to control them.===
Where o where are the Rauner supports going to be when their heads explode?
To the Post,
Funny thing about saying stuff, people remember it, and you know what, some write it down, and you know what, the hypocrisy comes out, and you know what, very poor amateur hour oppo research on yourself is as damaging as not doing any research on yourself at all…
It’s past Labor Day, it won’t get easier Rauner Crew.
- Ducky LaMoore - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 9:31 am:
I thinked we’ve officially reached the John Kerry level of flip-floppage.
- Shemp - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 9:35 am:
Shocking… said no one ever that paid attention in their gen ed college econ class and politics.
- Not Rich - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 9:42 am:
Brucie and Bill Brady can co author a best seller : How we blew two elections in a Republican wave
- Grandson of Man - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 9:45 am:
“Get over it.”
You lost your house, your job and your savings during the Great Recession? Get over it already!
This guy wants to put state workers in 401(k) type plans, and if the economy crashes again, they should simply get over it. There are plenty of garbage cans in the North Shore and Gold Coast. The residents of those areas throw out better food than state workers regularly eat.
Rauner reminds me of Romney, in a way, when Romney told someone something like homeowners who lose their homes should be renters in them.
- Johnny Utah - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 9:47 am:
There is a huge difference between markets being cyclical in general and the effects of state policy in particular. This post confuses the two concepts.
Markets are cyclical. Downturns have occurred every 4-8 years throughout US history. That doesn’t mean that policy is meaningless.
Quite the contrary: good policies need to be in place for the economy to withstand some of the heavier cyclical down-turns.
- Belle - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 9:50 am:
Rauner seems to be providing material to Quinn for commercials. Maybe this is his way of showing that he’s changed his mind and really doesn’t want to be Gov.
It’s nice to know where he really stands.
- Demoralized - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 9:51 am:
==We’re not going to predict it. We’re not going to stop it. We’re not going to control it. That’s what it is.==
Unless your Bruce Rauner. He can magically make revenue fall from the sky with his economic plans. This statement doesn’t apply to him.
- Demoralized - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 9:53 am:
==This post confuses the two concepts.==
Let the spinning begin . . .
- Demoralized - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 9:54 am:
==opined that governments can do nothing to control them==
Pay attention to Rauner’s comment right there @Johnny. Even the big businessman says governments can’t control what happens.
- Bruce (No not him) - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 9:55 am:
: “We’re talking about free markets. Markets are cyclical. Get over it. We’re not going to predict it. We’re not going to stop it. We’re not going to control it. That’s what it is.”
Government can’t control it, but they can make it worse. But trying to get a politician to do nothing is pretty much impossible.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 9:55 am:
thank goodness the big boys don`t all cash in at the same time and short the market so they can buy low and do it again
- Johnny Utah - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 9:56 am:
Demoralized:
Explain the difference between economic outcomes in mainland China and Hong Kong. Same people, same land.
Do not reference differences in policy, because you have stated a priori that those are meaningless. Both lands have been hit by the same cyclical markets.
Go!
- Demoralized - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 10:00 am:
@Johnny:
I’m not getting into an economic argument with you because you have demonstrated time and again your arrogance about being right about everything with regard to economics. I won’t waste my time.
I will say, however, that this is entirely about Rauner’s comments. That’s it. It’s a political conversation. He talks out of one side of his mouth about being able to make money fall from the sky with his policies while at the same time stating out of the other side of his mouth that the government cannot control the economy. He said it. I didn’t. If you’ve got a problem with the economics of that statement take it up with him.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 10:01 am:
- Johnny Utah -,
Illinois is not China, Hong Kong, Indiana, or Timbuktu.
You can’t spin the quote. Bruce Rauner “owns” it, you should too.
You should read - Johnny Utah -, you learn lots reading quotes.
- Jorge - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 10:02 am:
A Republican not understanding the basic tenets of economic policy. That blew my mind.
- Louis G Atsaves - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 10:02 am:
Oh. Good. Grief! The comment that government made it worse gets blown away or dismissed.
And that proves? Little or nothing. The smoke and mirrors in deflecting blame for the sluggish Illinois economy continues.
- low level - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 10:02 am:
I’m sure the people that attend the churches of the ministers he’s allied with will be happy to know how understanding he is.
- Johnny Utah - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 10:03 am:
China and HK are not the same land (last I checked on a map) and they have different currencies and legal systems. They are practically different countries for economic purposes.
- Nonplussed - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 10:04 am:
Oops, 10:03 was me. I meant to address Johnny Utah but entered his name in the wrong place.
- Johnny Utah - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 10:04 am:
The quote is about the cyclicality of markets. That’s not a concept that is disputed by anyone.
The effect of policy is a totally separate concept.
One concept should not be confused for the other.
That’s like saying “Forrest fires occur once in a while, which is the ultimate determinant of agricultural outcomes. The difference between different farmers who use different tools and methods is meaningless.”
- low level - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 10:08 am:
They did make things worse by not taking action on the fraudulent mortgage loans and not regulating the derivatives created by them Louis. Not the way I think your guy intended.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 10:08 am:
===The effect of policy is a totally separate concept.===
Rauner?
===Get over it===
===We’re not going to control it. That’s what it is.”===
- Johnny Utah -, read. Learn
- Demoralized - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 10:10 am:
@Johnny:
I see. So you can control the economy with policy but you can’t control the cycles of the economy. That’s crystal clear. Pick one. You can or can’t control it. Let us know which one it is.
And I’ll say again, this is about what Rauner said. If you want to engage in a lecture on economic theory take it up with him.
- Johnny Utah - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 10:10 am:
low level:
They also made the system worse by not prosecuting obvious crimes that had been committed throughout the financial system, because the criminals were “too big to fail.”
They also did not allow bankruptcy to occur for the bad actors, for the same reasons. So main street went bankrupt instead.
Now we have a lawless system, far less stable, far more prone to crisis, far more dependent on gov’t aid.
- low level - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 10:15 am:
Ah- good points. Left to the free market, there would have been a depression. Government prevented that from occurring.
Your last sentence, yes. . More regulation in the first place would have helped, and a stronger federal law then we got. Sadly, Mr. Rauner and his party opposed these measures.
- Johnny Utah - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 10:18 am:
low level: There is a depression, depending on where you go. Illinois is -170,000 jobs and -290,000 employed since January 2008. That’s a depression.
Bankruptcy and prosecution for fraud are the best regulators of bad actors. Government intervened to prevent this regulation.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 10:19 am:
I noticed the Baron gave the financial sector a pass on the economic crash.
Apparently, when you get paid either way for shuffling papers, it’s easy to get over it.
- Demoralized - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 10:20 am:
==Rauner 2011 acknowledged that economic downturns are inevitable and opined that governments can do nothing to control them. Rauner 2014, however, seeks to blame Quinn for not taking the right steps to address Illinois’ economic woes.==
This is what this discussion is about. Rauner’s statement. That’s it.
==Get over it==
Not a good tact - to tell people to just get over it. A lot of people have suffered economically during the last several years. Telling them to “get over it” isn’t the best strategy for a guy who is now running for office and who now must eat those words.
- Johnny Utah - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 10:23 am:
Demoralized:
Fact: Downturns are inevitable, and the government can’t prevent them.
Fact: Policies can make economic outcomes better and worse over the short, medium, and long-term.
Both statements are true. There is no contradiction between the two.
- Grandson of Man - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 10:23 am:
I think that what Rauner said in the primary and before he’s scrutinized at the current level better reflects his true beliefs.
“Explain the difference between economic outcomes in mainland China and Hong Kong.”
I’m not sure what you’re getting at, but if you are trying to equate liberalism with communism, you are very incorrect. They are radically different. Talk to some actual socialists and let them tell you of their disdain for “neoliberalism,” in which Democrats make budget cuts and do pension reform.
We can also “explain” the outcomes between stronger American economies, when income taxes were much higher and unionization rates were much higher, and today’s economy, in which the very wealthy are reaping tremendous gains while many others remain stagnant.
That’s another way we can spin things. That’s the beauty of spin. It can be done in many ways.
- Fake Herzog - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 10:25 am:
The guy who wrote this article is ignorant:
“Rauner said the government was making things worse. Then — and this is the key moment — he opined on the nature of large economies: “We’re talking about free markets. Markets are cyclical. Get over it. We’re not going to predict it. We’re not going to stop it. We’re not going to control it. That’s what it is.”
Rauner 2011 acknowledged that economic downturns are inevitable and opined that governments can do nothing to control them. Rauner 2014, however, seeks to blame Quinn for not taking the right steps to address Illinois’ economic woes. Rather than telling voters to “get over it,” he’s attempting to harness their anger to propel him into high office.”
No, Rauner is clearly saying you can’t prevent recessions from happening; but, you can have policies in place that help mitigate their length and/or impact. Low taxes, less regulation, etc. all promote economic stability and long-term growth so when the inevitable recession does hit, it will be shallow and the economy will recover quickly.
- Demoralized - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 10:32 am:
@Johnny:
Except this discussion is about the optics and politics of what he said. This isn’t an economics class. He said you can’t control the free market and now says Pat Quinn’s to blame for all of the state’s economic problems. That is a contradiction and one that should be pointed out by Quinn, though I’m not sure he will do it successfully if the dopey wine ad we saw yesterday on here is any indication of his campaign’s ability to do competent advertising.
- low level - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 10:34 am:
And when he shuts down the state, can someone tell me what impact that will have on IL economy?
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 10:36 am:
- Fake Herzog -
“…We’re not going to stop it. We’re not going to control it. That’s what it is.”
Hmm.
Sounds like it can’t be controlled or stopped according to Rauner. Sorta makes your comment less…valid.
Good try, thou.
- low level - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 10:37 am:
Johnny - those job figures are part of the cyclical nature of the economy, right?
- Johnny Utah - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 10:39 am:
Demoralized:
I don’t care about the optics, or about the two candidates involved. However, you can’t continue saying there is a contradiction here. There is not.
- crazybleedingheart - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 10:40 am:
Nothing, and I mean nothing, says faithful execution of the law like “fraud happens, get over it”
- Gooner - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 10:41 am:
This is meaningless. It shows Quinn is desperate.
OK, but in reality, I don’t think Rauner’s comments then stood up to scrutiny. Government can impact the economy both in the long term and and short. Government spending can push a slow economy and help increase demand. In the long term, better schools create a better workforce.
So I disagree with him. Government does matter.
- Demoralized - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 10:42 am:
@Johnny:
There absolutely is a contradiction between what he said and blaming Quinn for the economy. So, yeah, I’ll keep saying it.
And you don’t care about the optics? This is about two guys running for office. Optics is everything.
You’re trying to shove an economics class into a political issue. That ain’t gonna work.
- Amalia - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 10:44 am:
“a person who takes up an art, activity, or subject merely for amusement, especially in a desultory or superficial way; dabbler.”
Rauner. new synonym for dilettante.
- Demoralized - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 10:45 am:
@Johnny:
I’ll just say I respectfully disagree with your opinion and leave it at that as opposed to having a conversation that continues to go in circles. You say there is no contradiction here. I vehemently disagree as far as the politics of this goes. Rauner can’t say the free market can’t be controlled while at the same time blame Quinn for the economy. That’s what this is about. Nothing more. The economics is irrelevant. People only care about what he said. They aren’t going to care about economic theory. That’s what you fail to get.
- Johnny Utah - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 10:47 am:
Demoralized:
Once again, there is no contradiction. Refer to the above where I stated two facts to prove there is no contradiction. We can have an economic downturn because of cyclical markets. We can have a worse economy than we should because of bad policy. End of discussion.
No, I don’t care about the optics. I’m not going to get frothed up because there is an opportunity to distort reality to pretend there is a contradiction here. That’s what we have a political class for.
- Demoralized - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 10:50 am:
==End of discussion.==
And there’s that arrogance I referred to.
And you clearly have no clue about politics. You’ve got your head so far stuck up the rear end of economic theory that you can’t understand the politics. Fair enough. Not everybody is keen on that aspect of things.
Nobody in the general public wants an economics lecture. This is ALL about the politics of this.
End of story.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 11:07 am:
Johnny Utah’s an old China hand now. What a Renaissance man.
Tell me Johnny, do you think it’s reasonable to compare the macro “outcomes” of one of the great city financial centers of the world (pop. 7 million) and the rest of all of China (pop. 1.4 billion)?
Are you really surprised that a stock broker in Hong Kong lives better than a camel broker in Xianjiang Province?
If it’s all about the “systems,” how do you explain the different “outcomes between Lower Manhattan and the South Bronx? Same people, same land, as you would put it.
Go…
…get your shinebox.
- JS Mill - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 11:11 am:
I love when the “job growers” speak, or in this case have spoken. Every candidate is in favor of “growing jobs”. It is a trite statement. The only way government can “grow jobs” is to hire, of course too many think that is a bad thing.
The rise of the financial sector is crippling our economy due, in large part, to the short-sighted emphasis on stock value. The June Harvard Business Review has an excellent article on the topic. Venture and private equity funds like Rauner’s are a big part of the issue. Government can implement regulations (or repeal them) and laws that help to nurture successful economic environment, but government cannot create unless it has total control of the economy. Taxation is the lightening rod for politicians and the rehotoric is never “taxes are too low!”. Fact is tax rates on income are at historic lows and, taxation does not have a direct link to economic growth. Look at current economic data and you will find high tax and low tax states experiencing nearly equivalent growth.
Rauner’s only claim to fame is as a “business man” his education chops are a joke. He built a profitable firm, that cannot be denied. A job grower? Not so much. Truth teller? Nope. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
- Loop Lady - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 11:29 am:
Institutional investors are fairly insulated in these large swings in the market. Not so true for stae pension systems or small investors…arrogant and insulted much Mr. Brucie?
- Loop Lady - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 11:30 am:
oops insulated, stupid sc…
- Rod - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 11:51 am:
Demoralized is correct people I think are looking for foundational contradictions in Mr. Rauner’s core ideological perspectives and his campaign rhetoric, I think it’s way too complex for the Illinois electorate. Based on current census data only about 30.6 of the adult population of our state has attained a BA degree ( see http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p20-566.pdf ).
The vast bulk of the electorate has never had Econ 101 and has limited understanding of business cycles within market economies. If you ask most Illinois residents what was Joseph Schumpeter famous for, you are as likely to get an answer that he played 2nd base for the white sox as he was an economist that refined our current understanding of business cycles. This is way too esoteric to make any difference in how people are going to vote.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 11:58 am:
The Minimum Wage is Quinn’s Property Tax Freeze.
You live on minimum wage or are concerned about it, then Quinn will ensure that he raises it more than the 25 cents he has so far - he promises!
If you own property in Illinois or are concerned about it, then Rauner will ensure that he freezes it somehow.
Both economic fairytales play to their bases.
- RNUG - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 12:02 pm:
So how soon do we see an ad with an Eagles soundtrack?
- A guy... - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 12:09 pm:
I’m late to this party and I’ve only “scanned” the comments. To the post, markets are cyclical. If you argue that, you just can’t be taken seriously. What is at issue is the artificial impediments that cause them to recover more or less quickly. Illinois is completely encumbered with impediments and dysfunctional economic policy compounded over many years. To the extent it can, government should get out of the way and let those markets do what they’re designed to do. Please don’t miss the caveat “to the extent they can”.
- BuzzFugazi - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 12:19 pm:
I want to see Bruce Rauner debating Himself, especially on the topic of the minimum wage: Eliminate vs. Lower vs. Maybe ok where it is now vs. Raising it with strings attached.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 1:49 pm:
–Illinois is completely encumbered with impediments and dysfunctional economic policy compounded over many years–
Yeah, yeah, yeah, the fact-free talking points.
I guess you agree with Running for Election Bruce rather than Dartmouth Panel Bruce.
- Illiana - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 1:52 pm:
A guy…,
I know it is primarily a federal matter, but I am more concerned by “We’re talking about free markets. Markets are cyclical. Get over it. We’re not going to predict it. We’re not going to stop it. We’re not going to control it. That’s what it is.” While he gets right that economy is cyclical, the fact of the matter is that government regulation (or lack therof) absolutely impacts how deep the downturns get. For several decades, financial regulation successfully prevented downturns in the business cycle from turning into the kind of major downturn that we saw late last decade, so much so that I knew more than a decade ago that too big to fail was going to cause another major downturn like the US had not seen since before WWII. In addition, financial regulation has successfully prevented Canada from experiencing major downturns for 200 years. This country had several depressions before the Great Depression & financial regulation has the ability to prevent future downturns from turning into depressions. Unfortunately, few in Washington have any interest in the financial regulations needed to prevent future depressions & I am very disturbed by Bruce Rauner’s “oh well” attitude toward how deep economic downturns get.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 2:30 pm:
In Bruce Rauner’s defense, I have said that Presidents have negligible short-term influence over the economy, and you can divide that by 100-fold probably for governors.
I have never, however, suggested that those whose lives were destroyed by the second largest financial disaster in our history should suck it up.
In fact, while our economy is cyclical, the disasters in 1929 and 2008 were manmade and preventable.
This is actually a bigger gaffe than the minimum wage in my view. Everyone was impacted by the Great Recession.
- Johnny Utah - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 3:25 pm:
word slinger-
If you are unaware that the state has bad economic policies:
Death tax
Franchise tax
Prohibitive licensing restrictions for low-income occupations
2nd highest property taxes
2nd highest LLC fees in the US
4th highest corporate tax rate in the US
4th most expensive tort liability system in the US
4th highest workers comp costs in the US
9th highest unemployment insurance costs in the US
Forced unionism
Chicago - longest business license wait times of any major city in the US
Regulatory system that put an 11 year old cupcake baker out of business
That took 30 seconds to recount. Let me know if you need additional facts on bad policies.
- Percival - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 3:33 pm:
Blaming Wall St. solely for the Meltdown and saying it was “preventable” is simplistic. The American economy had been living off of a series of bubbles, first tech and then real estate, with the stock market chasing the next 15 minutes of all-time highs despite increasing concern over the fundamentals of the economy (not unlike what the market is doing right now). We now are seeing the “real” economy that underlay it all, the one with far fewer manufacturing jobs, though US manufacturing levels have actually not declined much if at all. Unfortunately, it is an economy where the amazing productivity of the American worker is increasingly losing out to the lower costs and regulation of foreign sites. It calls into question whether the US wage structure and high quality of life can be maintained as it has been. I sure hope so, but clinging to policies, tax structures and regulatory structures that evolved in an age of plenty is not going to help.
American industries practically reinvented their management in the 80s and 90s to meet the challenge of Japan, Inc. back in the day, and we wound up waxing Japanese tails. We are going to have to reinvent ourselves again to meet the new challenges of the new world economy. The challenge is actually greater, as in an age where in many countries the line between “government” and “business” is very fuzzy, a coordinated effort of government, corporate leadership and labor to remove barriers to expansion is vital. So Rauner talking about the minimum wage, or regulations and such is just part of the story. The bigger answers are going to have to be a lot more fundamental, and potentially painful. But he’s way ahead of the Democrats in this state.
- A guy... - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 3:49 pm:
Illiana, Excellent argument on your part. I tried to be careful in my own argument by stating “to the extent the government can….interfere the least”. There are some regs (especially on the Fed level, monetary policy, etc.) and those are usually very carefully insulated away from bureaucratic pressure i.e. Fed Chairman gets 10 year term, etc. The issues with Illinois’ economic policies, corporate incentives, individually legislated deals for individual companies, makes our patchwork of policy…no policy at all. Just a hodgepodge mess. I found your Canada example interesting and provocative and…Canadian. It’s true they’ve spared themselves vast depression periods, but they’ve spared themselves vast prosperity times as well. That’s what I mean by it being…Canadian. Unlike our country, they are a “measure twice, cut once” kind of place. Our national philosophy is different. That said, I truly enjoyed your rebuttal argument. Good show.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 3:51 pm:
===that evolved in an age of plenty===
Oh, come on. There’s massive plenty now. It’s just mainly at the top. I know because I live somewhat near that neighborhood.
- Demoralized - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 4:07 pm:
@Johnny:
That list is your opinion. Nothing more.
- Demoralized - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 4:13 pm:
Sorry. Your opinion that those stats equal bad economic policy. Not the stats themselves.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 4:36 pm:
Gee, Johnny, you’re quite the little list-maker — and all in 30 seconds! I bet you get a gold star.
For extra credit, why don’t you list the 45 states that have smaller annual GDPs than Illinois?
For extra-special credit, list the world metro economies that have larger GDPs than Chicago’s. There are three.
Should be a snap for a whiz kid like you. Mom and Dad will be so proud.
Now, is Illinois one of the largest economies in the United States, and Chicago one of the largest in the world, because of state and local public policy? By your tunnel-visioned logic, I guess you’d have to say “yes.”
- Johnny Utah - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 4:49 pm:
wordslinger,
The facts listed are directly relevant to your rejection of “fact free talking points.” Either you want facts or you don’t want facts. Either way, grow up and decide.
And the answer is “yes”, for much of Illinois history the state had very good policy, which helped the state leverage natural advantages.
The state has been in a relative decline for about 30-40 years, and it’s arguably accelerated in the last decade or so.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 5:10 pm:
You’re so right, Johnny.
It was the sound public policies and effective leadership of Len Small and Big Bill Thompson that had the state booming in the 20s, for example.
- JS Mill - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 6:10 pm:
@Wordslinger- You forgot to share an international economic comparison- Illinois has the 16th largest economy in the WORLD. Kudos on the rest of your list!
- Percival - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 6:16 pm:
====Oh, come on. There’s massive plenty now. It’s just mainly at the top. I know because I live somewhat near that neighborhood.====
OK, fair point. How about “increased global competition”? It’s more along the lines of what I mean. Just bad phrasing. I meant a land where we were just fine and not having to worry much about foreign competition, with the Japanese and Koreans making sub-standard products and the Chinese exporting little to none. Those days are long gone.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 6:19 pm:
– And the answer is “yes”, for much of Illinois history the state had very good policy, which helped the state leverage natural advantages.==
Johnny, for most of Illinois history, public policy was a freakin’ mess because of the anachronistic 1870 constitution.
Can you imagine what a mess it was that you could actually get politicians and the public to adopt and entirely new constitution in 1970? Can you imagine all the interests that had to come together for that to happen?
But you have a story and you’re sticking to it, I get it.
- low level - Thursday, Sep 4, 14 @ 6:26 pm:
Johnny Utah-
I’m still waiting for a response on how the IL economy will be impacted when Rauner shuts down the state?