[ballenf]

This is a dynamic system with politicians changing economic policies for the better and worse over time. If the articles are written during "worse" times for businesses, then they might have been 100% right even though the predictions never come true.

It's like predicting that a ship is going to hit an iceberg if and only if the pilot doesn't/can't/won't change course in time.

Attacking these predictions with "haha weren't they stupid" is about as helpful as attacking various failed climate predictions which have been forestalled by environmental policy changes and technological advances, among other course corrections.

In reality it takes much longer than 30 years to topple empires as large as California (or the Bay Area) and it will often appear externally healthy right before the crash. Afterward we all know the drill where politicians will claim that "no one could have seen it coming", it was just an unlucky confluence of events and there was really nothing they could have done to prevent it.

[foxtr0t]

You clearly don't frequent the WSJ opinion section. Try searching for "site:wsj.com california" on Google and let us know what you get. Dig a little deeper and you'll find that what's actually happening is the Murdoch's are allowing a Fox Newsification of the opinion section, essentially a compromise between the actual journalists there and trash/gutter opinion pieces intended to push a narrative. There's even news about this news[1]. So no, this isn't some game of 19 dimensional chess, its just a stupid false narrative being pushed by people with power, vested interests, massive jealousy, thin skin, and many grudges.

[1] https://newrepublic.com/article/159953/will-wall-street-jour...