> You are right that is a big part of it. But I don't think all of it. Completely agree that that's not all of it. Not enforcing non-competes is just the only

> You are right that is a big part of it. But I don't think all of it. Completely agree that that's not all of it. Not enforcing non-competes is just the only piece of it that I can identify that can be credited to the California government. I'm not arguing that California isn't successful. It's very successful. I'm arguing that California is successful despite its government and that most policies passed by the government are well intentioned but counterproductive. We shouldn't compare California to other states because every state has different circumstances. We should compare California as it is to what it could be. You could get rid of most of California's governance and the state would do be even more successful because politicians wouldn't be messing things up. For example, there are reasons why California has the highest poverty rate when adjusting for cost of living and a lot has to do with well-meaning but counterproductive policies.