Talmage, seconded by Chad, points out that one lesson from the Ellsworth adventure is that the state shouldn't be depending on government jobs to bring progress to our state. As a public employee I have profound respect for the good done by government spending, but government spending is generally not productive spending. What I mean by that is the government, as a rule, does not create new things, market new things, and produce profit. The government is generally a redistributive force, not a creative force. That said, government can often grant seed money that leads to productive enterprise. For example, Gov. Rounds is keen on using state money for research and development at our universities. While SDSU, USD, and SDSMT will see the lion's share of this money, all the schools will benefit and the state will in the long run. I also think that we should be welcoming to employers like Wal-Mart and Lowes. While these businesses do not represent the kind of creative industry just discussed, welcoming them with open arms creates an employer friendly environment that can hopefully attract other business. And hey, these businesses do create wealth by making us more efficient in the use of our shopping dollars. I think our state should accept employers when they want to locate here. One thing about employers, they do tend to have employees. And that's good for South Dakota. I would be interested in hearing solid ideas from Talmage, Chad or anyone else on how we can get more and better industry/productive business in South Dakota. I will say that state Republicans have to get over their reflexive anti-government stance since government aid can help lure and create productive industry. Let's not turn support for limited government into a fetish that stops the state from doing sensible things. Also, conservatives must remember that spending that might be inappropiate for the federal government might be entirely appropriate for state and local government. Conversely, Democrats need to stop being antagonistic to businesses like Wal-Mart.
Just a note on the Brookings/Lowes thing. It is only my gut instinct that Brookings will be better off with Lowes, and offering incentives to lure businesses is quite typical. That said, like PP over at the War College, I don't know enough about it to have a strong opinion. I'm not interested in arguments against Lowes as a company, but if someone has a good argument against this particular deal I'd be willing to hear it.
Recent Comments