Economics is not called "the dismal science" for nothing. Nor do jokes like the following come out of nowhere.
*"Economics is the only field in which two people can get a Nobel Prize for saying exactly the opposite thing."
*"An economist is a trained professional paid to guess wrong about the economy."
*"Economics is the painful elaboration of the obvious."
OK, so now that I've bashed the profession in which I worked for 17 years (as an international energy markets economist), I should clarify that I find economics to be at least as edifying as any other social science. Is that a backhanded compliment? I don't know, maybe we should get two economists together and see how many answers we get (my guess: 3 or 4, with a median of 3.5 and a standard deviation of...oh, forget it).
By now, you're probably thinking, "is there any point to this diary?" Well, actually, I'm attempting to write a serious diary about a serious subject: does Virginia crush Maryland in its economic ranking, does Maryland crush Virginia, or is neither the case? Let's look at the evidence.
1. According to a new study by a bunch of right wingers -- including Arthur Laffer of the appropriately named "Laffer curve" and former "Club for Growth" president Stephen Moore -- states with low taxes and low spending (e.g., Virginia) are...wait for it...better than states with higher taxes and higher spending (e.g., Maryland). Shocking conclusion by the right wingers, eh? On those criteria, according to Laffer and Moore, Virginia crushes Maryland.
2. In contrast, Baltimore Sun's business columnist, Jay Hancock, pours through the numbers and finds that Maryland beats Virginia in poverty rates (Maryland's is lower), sprawl and pollution (Virginia is worse in both areas), education levels (Maryland's are higher), business creation (ditto), household income (ditto), homeownership (ditto), venture-capital investment (ditto), and broadband access (ditto). On these criteria, Hancock concludes that Maryland actually crushes Virginia. He even rubs it in by mentioning Virginia's lack of professional sports teams. Ouch, now THAT is below the belt!
Is this all a case of "lies, damned lies...and statistics?" Is Virginia really not the best place in the nation to start a business, raise a family, etc. -- as we've been told so many times at campaign rallies? Or, is it simply that comparing two divergent states like Virginia and Maryland is an apples and oranges waste of time?
Having worked as an economist for 17 years, I come down squarely on...both sides of that question. Part of me cynically believes that people are simply going to look at what they want to look at and then conclude exactly what they set out to conclude. In the case of the trickle-down, supply-side, "Laffer curve," taxes-and-government-are-the-root-of-all-evil-and-should be-drowned-in-the-bathtub conservative ideologues (that would be Laffer/Moore), the by-definition conclusion is that lower taxes/lower services are better than the alternative. Big surprise, I know. Of course, given their track record, if these people told us it was winter, we'd have to conclude that it was summer -- no matter what the thermometer said.
On the other hand, part of me feels that if a particular states ranks higher than another state on one measure or the other, that tells us something. For instance, if poverty rates (or illiteracy rates, or whatever) are really high in...oh, let's just go ahead and use Alabama as an example...doesn't that mean something? Also, if we consistently find a correlation between certain indices (e.g., high poverty rates, really bad services) and really low taxes, shouldn't we start to conclude that there's a statistical relationship there? Same thing if we find a relationship between moderate taxes and better services?
Now, back to our specific question: does Virginia tends towards the lower taxes/lower services combination while Maryland leans towards the opposite? Amazingly, Laffer/Moore and Hancock agree that the answer to this question is "yes." Where Laffer/Moore and Hancock disagree -- strongly -- is in which combination they prefer.
Thus, Laffer/Moore prefer lower taxes/worse services Virginia, while Hancock prefers higher taxes/better services Maryland. Since most of us live in Virginia, that must mean we agree with Laffer/Moore, right? Or, would we all just prefer to pay no taxes and get awesome services for free? Yeah! No taxes and free services, sounds great!
Except, of course, that's not the way it works outside of magic dust fairy spaghetti monster land (or maybe the Wall Street Journal editorial board). Here on planet Earth, we have to make that difficult thing called CHOICES. So, what choices are we going to make, my fellow Virginians? This is not a hypothetical question, as we decide whether we want better health care, pre-kindergarten education for all Virginia 4 year olds, an escape from gridlock, a healthy Chesapeake Bay, a sharp reduction in our greenhouse gas emissions, and much more. The main question isn't whether or not we want these things, the main question is how much we're willing to pay for them. Such is life on planet Earth.
This bears repeating. The might moneymaking acumen of Virginia comes from Washington, DC, and especially the Department of Defense. It's Big Brother Government's tit.
Otherwise, the rest of (or western) Virginia, Kentucky and West Virginia, share the same characteristics - even fewer businesses, poorer schools, more dangerous roads, worst healthcare, and poverty, poverty, poverty. Do the economists brag about the free dental clinics in places like Wise County where hundreds of people come annually for help?
The funny thing is that Virginia has been anti-government from the very beginning, and even today, representatives like Bill Howell contend his constitutients have never complained to him about bad roads. They prefer 3 hour commutes to a 10-cent increase in gas taxes. Permit me, Virginia, but everyone with eyes to see and a brain to think knows that the old expression "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch" is true.
Maryland does tax more but look at the results! Better roads, schools, and health coverage, better pay for the civil work force - police, fireman, teachers, etc. Maryland even has an Adequate Public Facilities Law. But Virginia, mired in the ancient order of anti-government continues to play the Earl Long theme "Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that other fellow behind the tree."
Wait a minute. And the moneymaking acumen of Maryland has nothing to do with the Federal tit? The geographically concentrated wealth of Montgomery and Howard Counties owe nothing to their proximity to Washington, DC? Because I've spent a good chunk of my life in Maryland, and there's not a whole lot of difference between Hagerstown and anywhere in western Virginia; or Tidewater Maryland and the Northern Neck; or Montgomery and Fairfax, for that matter. And proximity to Baltimore sure hasn't turned Harford and Carroll into economic juggernauts.
I think the point that Lowell was making, unless I completely misread this post, is that you have to start with a bias in order to reach any sort of conclusion on this issue. Maryland is a small state burdened with a number of struggling urban areas. Virginia is a big state with a number of struggling rural areas. Maryland has fantastic schools if you cherry pick the jurisdictions. So does Virginia. Maryland has some of the richest counties in the country, if you cherry pick the jurisdictions. So does Virginia.
What does any of this prove? It's a meaningless game.
As to the other "statistics" from the Sun article, at least one of the 9 categories is based upon "growth" percentages as opposed to absolute percentages (i.e., home ownership is based upon one year's growth rate as opposed to the absolute ownership rate).
Also, the business creation category was limited to just start-up companies, which would greatly affect the results. Those old businesses in Md. are not creating many new jobs. So that takes care of 2 of the 9 categories.
Furthermore, two of the categories are actually virtually even. In education (people over 25 with degrees) Md. has 35% and Va. has 33%. That is pretty close and probably reflects an advantage that Md. had in the past and is losing quickly. Also, as to venture capital investment, the numbers are about even -- Md. #8 and Va. #9.
In addition, broadband access appears to be a relatively minor category.
Finally, as to sprawl, the numbers also don't appear correct. If anyone has driven the beltway (especially near the American Legion Bridge) or 270, they know that the congestion there is much worse than what we have in Virginia.
Having lived in Maryland in the past, I would much rather live in Va. for the quality of life (especially in the Oakton area -- sorry for the hometown prejudice).