[ianb]

It would also be wrong to think that lowering taxes would change something dramatically; . The Dakotas were in bad shape economically and could sacrifice existing tax revenue and responsible fiscal oversight (remembering a lot of what they attracted was financial industry drawn to low regulation and low consumer protections -- thanks a lot Dakotas!) Minnesota's economy is going relatively well, and there's no dearth of successful companies. And generally there's a good standard of living and a strong sense of community responsibility, which is why those companies are staying -- there's real people behind any decision to move, and a lot of people aren't willing to move even if there might be financial incentives.

Minnesota is missing tech entrepreneurship... well, even that isn't true, as medical technology is doing quite well. Y Combinator style startups aren't. This is unfortunate, but overall changes to the economic structure of the state is hardly called for.

[protomyth]

uhm.. North Dakota is doing fine fiscally (budget surplus) and has a lot of money coming in from oil. Perhaps you are referring to South Dakota which is home to a lot of credit card companies? Minnesota is running the 10th worst budget deficit (14.7% of state's general fund).

[ianb]

Yes, I'm referring to those states (at least I believe it's both North and South Dakota, though maybe it's only the South?) being lax on financial regulation of companies.

[protomyth]

I'm pretty sure its only SD, they have all the credit card companies. ND has its own bank though.