Tom Hefty and John Torinus grade the Walker administration on economic development, and their grade is better than mine would be. Click on their names and read and judge for yourself.
-
No comments on A passing grade that should be an incomplete
-
The number-one album today in 1958, and for the next 31 weeks, was the soundtrack to the musical “South Pacific” went to number one and stayed there for 31 weeks. The film version starred Mitzi Gaynor, who looked very much like my mother a few years later.
Today in 1979, Eric Clapton married Patti Boyd, the former wife of George Harrison and the muse for the song “Layla.” The song lasted much longer than the marriage.
One wonders if anyone played selections from that day’s number one British album:
-
The number one single today in 1963:
Another one-hit wonder had the number one single today in 1968:
The number one single today in 1974 might be the very definition of the term “novelty song”:
The number one British single today in 1975:
(Which more appropriately should have been called “Stand by Your Men,” since Tammy Wynette had had three husbands up to then, and two more thereafter.)
-
First, for those who believe the British are the height of sophistication and are so much more couth than us Americans: This was the number one song in the U.K. today in 1986:
The chicken is not having a birthday. Pervis Jackson of the Spinners is:
So is drummer Bill Bruford, who played for Yes, King Crimson and Genesis:
-
Wikipedia provides a definition of the cars found on today’s blog:
A personal luxury car is an American car classification describing a highly styled, luxury vehicle with an emphasis on image over practicality. Accenting the comfort and satisfaction of its owner and driver above all else, the personal luxury car sometimes sacrifices passenger capacity, cargo room, and fuel economy in favor of style and perceived cachet, as well as offering a high level of features and trim Typically mass-produced by employing a two-door platform with common mechanical components beneath their distinctive exteriors, these vehicles were a lucrative segment of the post-World War II automotive marketplace.
Personal luxury cars are characteristically two-door coupés or convertibles with two-passenger or 2+2 seating. They are distinguished on the performance end from GT and sports cars by their greater emphasis on comfort and convenience. Even though they usually contain higher horsepower engines and the necessary support systems for the higher horsepower output (transmissions, tires, brakes, steering, etc.); these larger power trains usually only bring these vehicles back to the power-to-weight ratios that they would have had; if, their gross vehicle weights had not been increased to accommodate the installation of their luxury features and accessories. …
Typically, the per unit profit of the sale of a new personal luxury vehicle is measured in thousands of dollars; to both the manufacturer, and the dealer. While the sale of a new compact or intermediate sedan yields only a few hundred dollars in profit per unit. However, they have additional styling elements and sometimes “baroque” designs. They are typically equipped with as many additional features as possible, including power accessories such as windows, locks, seats, antenna, as well as special trim packages, leather upholstery, heated seats, etc.
Today’s blog could be said to be a variation on my previous work on types of cars not made anymore. By today’s definition these cars are battleship-size, but in their era there were, believe it or don’t, bigger cars on the road.
While the majority of cars have had four doors for decades, two-door cars used to signify that the owner (1) had a smallish sports car, such as a Corvette; (2) didn’t want to pay more for a four-door, including salesmen who owned business coupes, or (3) had enough status that he (or sometimes she) had a fine car, but wanted to drive it himself (or herself), and didn’t usually need the back seat for passengers.
A good starting point is 1949, when the automakers had been frantically redesigning their cars after frantically pushing new-before-World-War-II designs out the door after the end of WWII. In those days, Cadillac was the standard of the world, and not just in price, but in power. Cadillac’s 1948 cars were a new design, with its first “modern” V-8 added one year later:

The Coupe de Ville was a fancier version of Caddy’s standard car. Midway through the next decade, Chrysler took its new hemi V-8, put in a handsomely styled car, and created the Chrysler 300 …
… which Carl Kiekhaefer, owner of an outboard engine company, promptly raced on the stock car circuit.

(Notice the “Mercury” underneath “Outboards” under the C-pillar. So why, you ask, would someone who created the Mercury outboard brand not race Mercurys? Good question, perhaps one Kiekhaefer’s son, Fred, could answer. I don’t believe Kiekhaefer or Mercury ever had a business relationship with Ford Motor Co., though I may be wrong about that.)
One year later, Ford revived a model name it hadn’t used for several years, Continental, for briefly a new marque separate from Lincoln. The Mark II cost $10,000, five times the average car’s cost, yet Ford still lost almost $1,000 per Mark II it sold.

Not to be outdone, Studebaker introduced four Hawks in 1956, ranging from the six-cylinder Flight Hawk to the Packard V-8-powered Golden Hawk.

Either the 300 or the Hawk could be said to be the world’s first “personal luxury” car — at least one someone could actually afford to buy, though the 300 wasn’t cheap either. The second didn’t start as a personal luxury car, but the Ford Thunderbird, which started life with two seats similar to the Corvette …

… added two seats in 1958. Sales flew upward, you might say; in fact, in the recession year of 1958, the Thunderbird was one of only two American cars that sold measuredly better than in 1957.

Over at GM, big coupes were basically just the two-door version of their model line. Pontiac debuted the Grand Prix in 1962, though it wasn’t distinctive from other Pontiacs until 1963:

The bigger GM news in 1963 was the introduction of perhaps the most beautiful car of all time …

… the Buick Riviera, though I prefer the ’65 and its hidden headlights myself.

One year after the Riviera debuted, Pontiac debuted the 2+2 option on its Catalina — two bucket seats in front, two seats in back. It was meant to be to the Catalina as the GTO was to the LeMans.

GM took a while to make a big stand in the personal luxury market, but once the Cadillac Fleetwood of carmakers got going, the hits came quickly.

This is the Oldsmobile Toronado, the biggest car to that point powered by front-wheel drive since before World War II. The Toronado was a huge innovation, followed one year later by …

… the Cadillac Eldorado, also front-wheel-driven.
Three years later, the aforementioned Pontiac Grand Prix shrank to become …

… this beauty, still a Grand Prix, but based on a lengthened mid-sized chassis. So was, one year later …

… the Chevrolet Monte Carlo.
You may notice a design theme developing here — long hoods and, with the advent of the Riviera, shrinking trunks, or at least the part of the car behind the rear axle. The full-sized personal luxury cars — the 300 and so on — still had full-size trunks, but styling started to shrink the trunks because longer hoods looked better.
The Toronado, Riviera and Eldorado were redesigned to look either more or less conventional depending on your point of view in the early ’70s:

The Toronado looked more like the previous Eldorado by 1971. 
The famous, or infamous, “boattail Riviera.” 
The 1971 Eldorado was still a fine-looking car, but more conventional in styling. Meanwhile, over at Ford Motor Co., president Lee Iacocca told his stylists to “put a Rolls–Royce grille on a Thunderbird,” and thus was created …

… the Continental Mark III, followed in 1972 by the Mark IV …

The 1976 Continental Mark IV Designer Series (from left) Pucci, Givenchy, Cartier and Bill Blass editions. … and in 1977 by the Mark V.

Elsewhere in the Lincoln–Mercury showroom could be found Mercury’s brief answer to the Pontiac 2+2 …

… the Mercury Marauder X-100, a car so over the top (hidden headlights, fender skirts, buckets and console, and of course a 429 V-8) that I of course would love to have one. This looks like something a 1970s private eye would drive.
GM redesigned its Monte Carlo and Grand Prix, adding the companion Olds Cutlass Supreme and Buick Regal in 1973. Chrysler was selling big coupes, but not exactly anything special, until it introduced …

Most of these cars were redesigned and shrunk in the late 1970s into the 1980s. (Chrysler brought back the 300, which looked a lot like a Cordoba.) And then the market started to fizzle out, due to gas prices, their practicality, or the ephermal nature of style.
I didn’t have a personal luxury car in my early driving days, but I did have a big coupe …

… a 1975 Caprice. It wasn’t sporty, though it had Radial Tuned Suspension. But it had a certain style, and doors big enough to serve as weapons if necessary:
These cars are not and really were never practical. They had big engines but not necessarily great performance, but certainly bad fuel economy. Back-seat passengers complained about getting into and out of the back seat. Practicality was never the point; style was.
The only domestically produced personal luxury coupe that comes to mind today is the Cadillac CTS and CTS-V coupes:

On the one hand, style has certainly changed. On the other hand, with 556 horsepower under the hood, the CTS-V could run rings around any other car on this blog.
-
The number one British single today in 1962 was based on Peter Tchaikovsky’s “Nutcracker Suite”:
The number one single today in 1964:
The number one album today in 1970 was Crosby Stills Nash & Young’s “Déjà Vu”:
Think the “Super Bowl Shuffle” created the singing jocks genre of music? Then you haven’t heard the number one British single today in 1970:
-
A YouTube video and a magazine have a somewhat related theme.
Facebook Friend Bryan Caplan, a George Mason University economist, did this video …
… the response to which ranges from unconvinced to quite hostile:
- Sure, you might be underemployed due to inflation raising prices on everything or a college graduate struggling with impossible debt you’ll never pay off, but at least we can all watch videos on YouTube on our iPhones telling us that that everything is perfectly fine.
- This video is giving false hope and does not take into account the cost of living during the 1900’s compared to today. In the 1900’s people did not need to make much money because everything was cheaper than it is today. The only reason why its hard for us to distinguish the poor and the rich on the street is because even when you are poor, you have still been trained to go out and buy expensive clothes and toys to play with.
- Surely human’s natural inclination to moan about absolutely everything is the reason why we’ve come so far? The wooden stick’s working just fine, why put a bit of flint on it? “CAUSE IT TAKES 80 STABS TO KILL A MAMMOTH WITH A STICK, do you know how tiring that is?” So voila, flint spearheads, if we were complacent as a species, we’d be in a different place, look at chameleons, they’re pretty smug with their superpowers, but they’ll never invent Flowbee.
- High inflation and a major correction in the DOW will just be little bumps on the overall uptrend… Hmm. What about the trend over the last decade for less economic freedom and more government spying in the US? What about the massive government debt globally? I guess in the long term we are all dead… So the short term is kind of important to We the Living.
I’m not an economist, but I think comparisons are kind of meaningless. Not that long ago in the scheme of human history our ancestors had daily fights for survival. So compared to then, of course things are better. Anyone who didn’t die from an infection thanks to antibiotics should think things are better. Your being able to read this on a computer sized somewhere between a box of 3×5 cards and a suitcase should think things are better, at least in an overall sense.
Note the comment that infers that you need a college education for certain professions. The concept of professional licensing is a topic that deserves more space than this, but to say that things are worse because people feel compelled to improve themselves through education is bizarre.
Democrats nationwide and statewide are fixating right now on income inequality, which is interesting given that income inequality has worsened during the current administration in Washington, and given that there are more really, really rich Democrats than Republicans. And those really, really rich Democrats are not putting their money where their mouths are by altruistically sharing their wealth, with the possible exception (depending on how you define “sharing”) of Warren Buffett and Bill Gates. Besides that, the rich will always take care of their own money (which is how they became rich in the first place); the bigger question is how are the non-rich doing.
As a UW student I was taught macroeconomics and microeconomics separately within the same class, but it seems likely to non-economists that someone’s perception of the latter influences that person’s feelings about the former. Caplan also doesn’t really address today’s rampant unemployment and underemployment, which is at levels that do not make noticeable economic growth that benefits most people sustainable. (Great legacy you’re leaving there, Barack.) Employment, doing something productive, is key to one’s happiness (to the extent that we’re supposed to be happy), and private-sector employment is the key to real live economic growth.
Caplan essentially is arguing that because things are better now than 100 years ago (and even pessimistic readers must admit that none of us is going to die fighting World War I, nor are we going to die from the 1918 influenza outbreak), they will be better in the future. That brings to mind the fine print in financial planning ads: Past performance does not necessarily predict future results, particularly when bad people advocating bad policies are in power in Washington. (This means you, Barack, on both scores.)
All this brings to mind a question that was actually asked before Caplan’s video. I commend to readers the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute‘s May issue, the theme of which is “Can the Dream Be Restored?”.
Editor Charles J. Sykes introduces two of the many must-reads in the magazine:
In a thoughtful interview with WPRI President Mike Nichols, [U.S. Rep. Paul] Ryan explains how entrenched poverty is a symptom of the decline of the American Dream. Ryan is careful to distinguish between two frequently conflated terms: inequality and mobility. While President Obama focuses on the need for spreading wealth around, Ryan asks a very different question: What are we going to do to remove barriers to allow more people to be where they want to be and do with their lives what they want to do?
In a related piece, Robert L. Woodson, Sr., founder of the Center for Neighborhood Enterprise, reflects on a listening tour that he arranged for Ryan to learn from community and faith-based leaders about the problems of poverty. “My goal in arranging these visits,” explains Woodson, “was to move beyond the traditional conservative and liberal understanding of how to address the needs of the poor.”
Nichols’ interview with Ryan can be read here, and Woodson’s piece can be read here.
Rick Esenberg also writes about the pluses and minuses (yes, there are some) to a market economy:
Economic arguments only go so far in the face of the natural desire of people to have more of what they do not have and their sense that the wealth enjoyed by others is “unfair.”
But we can hardly decide whether inequality is a problem and, if so, what to do about it, without understanding what we are talking about.
Our envy is not really over the 1% — a group that begins at somewhere in the neighborhood of $400,000 to $500,000 in annual income. This is a tidy sum, to be sure, but not nearly enough to finance the life of the rich and famous. We are actually green over some fraction of the 1% — those who earn millions every year and enjoy private jets and villas in Martinique.
But even then, we aren’t bothered by all of these people. We complain about CEOs and investment bankers. We don’t complain about pop stars and utility infielders. There’s a reason for that.
Most of us understand that someone who can play in the NFL or star in “Breaking Bad” is highly talented and earns huge sums of money for those paying the bills. We can’t see that with CEOs who seem to be doing something less extraordinary — sitting behind a desk and managing an organization. It doesn’t seem so special.
But, in economic terms, we are wrong about that. Liberal economist Robert Frank, in his book The Darwin Economy, explains that the only thing surprising about CEO salaries is that they are not higher. The reason, he says, is that the quality of the decisions made by people who run extremely large entities can add or subtract hundreds of millions of dollars to or from the bottom line. It is, Frank argues, perfectly rational to pay huge salaries to maximize the possibility of getting the right person to make the right decisions.
This doesn’t mean that companies will always choose wisely. The argument for markets is not that they are perfect, just better than command economies. To be sure, there was a time when the most highly paid earned less than they do today. Many on the left long to return to those days, calling it the Great Compression. This is more than a tad ironic. Back in the ’50s and ’60s, when that world still existed, the left hated it. …
As Frank and others point out, the old economy was riddled with regulatory and cultural barriers that tended to protect established producers and discourage competition. The freer global economy that we have today tends to reward people at levels more commensurate with the economic value of their contributions, and that certainly increases income inequality.
There is a robust debate among economists as to whether globalization and the turn to markets have helped the majority. While we hear claims that wages have been stagnant over the past 30 years and that mobility of generations is not what it should be, measuring these things over time is far more complicated than the sound-bite critics allow.
When you peel this statistical onion, I think you’ll find that the standard of living for almost all Americans is far better than it was when I was young.
Having said this, I think it’s fair to say that the new economy places a premium on marketable skills in a way that makes it more difficult for those lacking these skills to keep up.
This will require policy responses. But, as [Alexis de] Tocqueville and [James] Madison noted long ago, the greater challenges may be political. They saw that envy could trump reason. Avoiding that will require a conversation rooted in fact and not passion.
-
The Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto reports a deadline before “climate chaos,” which apparently is not Wisconsin spring:
Uh-oh. “In two languages, French Foreign Minister Lauren Fabius started the countdown Tuesday to climate change disaster, speaking in Washington before a meeting with American counterpart Secretary of State John Kerry,” reports TheBlaze.com:
“We have 500 days to avoid the climate chaos,” Fabius said in French. . . .
Speaking then in English, Fabius touched on Iran, Syria, and Ukraine, but then quickly returned to climate change.
“And very important issues, issue of climate change, climate chaos,” the foreign minister said. “And we have–as I said, we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos, and I know that President Obama and John Kerry himself are committed on this subject and I’m sure that with them, with a lot of other friends, we shall be able to reach success on this very important matter.”
Taranto reports the deadline before whatever “climate chaos” is is Sept. 25, 2015.
My favorite online meteorologist, Mike Smith, anticipated all this last year by repeating Taranto’s list of climate “tipping points”:
- “Global Warming Tipping Point Close?”–headline, ClimateArk.com, Jan. 27, 2004
- “Warming Hits ‘Tipping Point’ “–headline, Guardian, Aug. 11, 2005
- “Earth at the Tipping Point: Global Warming Heats Up”–headline, Time, March 26, 2006
- “Global Warming ‘Tipping Points’ Reached, Scientist Says”–headline,NationalGeographic.com, Dec. 14, 2007
- “Twenty Years Later: Tipping Points Near on Global Warming”–headline, Puffington Host, June 23, 2008
- “Global Warming: Those Tipping Points Are Closer Than You Think”–headline, WSJ.com, April 29, 2009
- “Have We Reached the Tipping Point for Planet Earth?”–video title, StudioTalk.tv, May 11, 2010
- “Must-Read Hansen and Sato Paper: We Are at a Climate Tipping Point That, Once Crossed, Enables Multi-Meter Sea Level Rise This Century”–headline, ThinkProgress.org, Jan. 20, 2011
- “Earth: Have We Reached an Environmental Tipping Point?”–headline, BBC website, June 15, 2012
- “In spite of the continued released [sic] of 90 million tons of global warming pollution every day into the atmosphere, as if it’s an open sewer, we are now seeing the approach of a global political tipping point.”–Al Gore, interview with Washington Post, Aug. 21, 2013
Smith added:
As far as I know, the earliest reference to global warming “tipping points” was in 1989. I did Google and Bing searches yesterday evening and there are more than one hundred alleged tipping points over the last 20 years.
Take, for example, the December, 2007, tipping point reference from National Geographic. Here are world temperatures (the same ones used by Al Gore’s friends at the IPCC) since 2000:
See any accelerating upward trend since January, 2008?
Plus, there is no upward temperature trend (actually, it is downward) since we passed 400 ppm in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. It, too, was supposed to produce an acceleration in the rate of warming.
This is ridiculous.
By any definition of the scientific method of advancing a hypothesis (i.e., a given tipping point exists) and measuring the results (lack of the predicted acceleration of warming) the tipping point hypothesis is falsified.
Global warming, more and more, has become a matter of ‘faith,’ not science.I bring this up only to keep readers abreast of one of my favorite subjects, end-of-the-world predictions. Remember when the world ended in December 2012 as predicted by the Mayans?
-
The number one British single today in 1959:
The number one album today in 1971 was Crosby Stills Nash & Young’s “4 Way Street”:
-
David Blaska honors former Gov. Patrick Lucey, who died Saturday:
No one did more than Patrick Lucey to transform Wisconsin into a two-party state. He died Saturday at age 96, the longest-lived governor in state history.
Mr. Lucey was elected to the State Assembly in 1948, the state’s centennial, the same year as my grandfather John M. and a young Ruth Bachhuber Doyle, wife of Jim Doyle Sr. and mother of a future governor. All were Democrats. Warren Knowles and Mel Laird (still living!) were already veterans of the upper house when Gaylord Nelson joined them that year.
Pat Lucey played hardball in his politics, as did his allies, the Kennedys, who were never shy about lubricating the electorate if it would help them win. My friend John Nichols has written a lovely remembrance of the man, true as far as it goes, but Patrick Lucey was no populist, however much John may wish.
He was the last overtly pro-business Democrat to be elected governor of Wisconsin, elected from the hamlet of Ferryville, in picturesque Crawford County, where he was recently honored.
He was very definitely a one-percenter, like Mary Burke, but oh so much more accomplished. Lucey and his combative wife, Jean, deigned not to move into the governor’s mansion; it would have been a step down from their own Maple Bluff home.
In contrast to Ms. Burke, Lucey made his own money and knew how to encourage others to make wealth. It was he who enacted the Machinery & Equipment exemption from property taxes, which resulted in the Wall Street Journal naming Wisconsin “the [economic] star of the snowbelt.”
Yes, Patrick Lucey was a tax cutter, like his hero JFK. He grew the pie instead of cutting it into ever-thinner slices. The Democrat who chairs the party today, as Patrick Lucey once did in its glory years, calls tax cuts a “gimmick.” As my father (he also served in the Legislature) said near the end of his life, I did not leave the Democratic Party, it left me.”
Lucey did the hard work of getting the Democratic Party back into relevancy in the late 1940s, when Wisconsin’s two parties were the Republicans and the Progressives. For being the nation’s oldest political party, the Democratic Party in Wisconsin was rather irrelevant for a long time, until after World War II.
Tom Still, who covered Lucey as a young Wisconsin State Journal reporter (whose work was read by a young WSJ reader), adds:
Lucey, who died May 10 at 96, was elected governor twice in the 1970s before resigning late in his second term to become ambassador to Mexico. A few years later, disappointed in the Democratic president who appointed him, Lucey ran as independent John Anderson’s vice presidential running mate in an election won by Ronald Reagan.
It was his stint as governor, and his knack for campaign tactics and hard-nosed party politics, that defined Lucey much more than his time in the national limelight.
Along with a handful of other familiar names in Wisconsin politics – John Reynolds, William Proxmire, Gaylord Nelson and James Doyle among them – Lucey was an architect of the state’s modern Democratic Party. It arose in the late 1940s and early 1950s, just as the Progressive Party’s influence was waning, and quickly became a force in an otherwise Republican state.
In part, that was because Lucey took political organizing to a new level. During his years as director and late as chairman of the Democratic Party, Lucey made sure the party fielded candidates in virtually every race for the Wisconsin Legislature. That hard work paid off. When Democrats finally won the Assembly in 1958, it was the party’s first working majority since 1933.
Much of the political capital Lucey earned by working in party vineyards was available to spend during his years as governor. He dusted off the idea of merging the University of Wisconsin in Madison, which also included the UW Extension and campuses in Milwaukee, Green Bay and Racine-Kenosha, with the nine-campus Wisconsin State University System. At the time, both systems had a Board of Regents.
He believed a merger would control costs at a time when “baby boomer” enrollments were taxing most campuses, diminish duplication, improve education and give the combined UW System a larger voice.
The move was initially unpopular with legislators in both parties and many people within academia, particularly those on the Madison campus who believed it would water down the quality of the state’s flagship university.
Lucey cracked heads, cut deals, cajoled and threatened (“I had to be pretty heavy-handed – no merger, no budget,” he said later) and won in October 1971 by the slimmest of margins. In some ways, the “merger wars” of that era wage on, as evidenced a few years ago when a proposal to carve out more autonomy for the UW-Madison was shot down, basically from within the UW System itself.
Lucey rarely shied away from a fight. His push for changes in the state’s shared revenue system – the mechanism by which state tax dollars are redistributed to local governments – and the state aid formula for local schools were among other political rumbles.
And while Democrats were closely identified with labor unions then and now, Lucey was still governor in mid-1977 during events that led to a major state employee strike. He was generally suspicious of the civil service, in general, and not afraid to put political appointees in place within state agencies to make sure his policies were being carried out.
Although a tactician who loved the art of organization, Pat Lucey probably wasn’t a politician who would fit in well today. He joked about his own lack of charisma, wasn’t especially telegenic and often disagreed with his own party on major issues.
Lucey represents a bygone, more personally civil, and more politically independent era in Wisconsin politics, as opposed to what we’ve seen in this state since the Scott Jensen/Chuck Chvala era. For one thing, Lucey was a real estate agent, and no legislator until the 1970s had the words “full-time legislator” appear in his or her Wisconsin Blue Book biography. Lucey was the last governor who could say that Wisconsin’s per capita personal income growth exceeded the national average.
The Machinery & Equipment property tax exemption is a tax cut that would never be supported by Democrats today. The M&E exemption was a huge tax break for Wisconsin’s manufacturers, who obviously have a lot of capital tied up in machines. (Including Georgia-Pacific, owned by the Evil Koch Brothers.) Democrats today see business as a necessary evil at best.
Democrat Mary Burke refuses to support tax cuts, including business tax cuts in a state with one of the highest corporate income tax rates in the entire world. Which is interesting because her family organized Trek Bicycles as a subchapter-S corporation so that the company didn’t have to pay corporate income taxes. There is nothing illegal or inappropriate about that, just hypocritical for someone running for governor based on her business experience. It’s also disingenuous for Burke to claim that Trek never made decisions based on tax impact; if a business isn’t taxed on its income (sub-S shareholders get all the company’s profits and thus pay taxes on those profits), there are no tax decisions to be made. And as a manufacturer, Trek certainly has taken advantage of not only the M&E exemption, but of the later computer equipment exemption.
I’m not sure which is more ironic — the fact that Democrats desperately need more business presence in their party (instead of government employees and career politicians), or the fact that their supposed business candidate doesn’t espouse pro-business policies.
