  We saw the first argument emerge in December when new Census
figures were released. Texas' population increased substantially
over the past decade, which some writers were all too ready to
attribute to low taxes and regulation. In fact, the dynamics
involved are far more complicated, and revolve in part around
Texas' decision to allow rapid growth in its housing supply.
Paul Krugman offers up an example of the second argument today
in a post aiming to undermine the case for a "Texas miracle"
through this chart:  Mr Krugman is a good economist on urban
issues—his Nobel was due, in part, to his pioneering work in
economic geography—and he is capable of making a sophisticated
argument against simplistic, low-tax explanations of Texas'
growth. But rather than do that, he opts to publish this chart,
which I think is highly misleading. You see, Texas really is
different; there's no getting around it:  The chart above shows
the change in state labour forces and state unemployment from
the onset of recession until