3 Californias

[Zorba]

While I agree that California seceding would not happen removing federal spending would be a net positive for California because along with the removal of federal spending you have the removal of federal taxes. California is a net donor of federal taxes so they would come out ahead.

As to whether or not the remaining United States would try and sabotage their economy, who knows?

That is only when you look at federal money directly spent for the state's benefit. It is not looking at the fact that almost the entire aerospace industry there is supported by federal spending, or the vast amounts federal purchasing from companies like Intel. I also doubt it really includes the real value/cost of Colorado River water or the economic impact of military bases.

As far as sabotage, I don't really see it that way. It is illegal to export oil and WTH would we give away Colorado River water to a different country? Leaving the military and space contracts there would require export licenses, many of which wouldn't be approved, and there are laws about buying American for the military. All classified work would also be put to an end.

You can't secede but then still try to act like you are part of the same country when it benefits you.

Regardless this is all hypothetical, Cali would never be allowed to scede even if it meant another civil war.

 

[fskimospy]

That is only when you look at federal money directly spent for the state's benefit. It is not looking at the fact that almost the entire aerospace industry there is supported by federal spending, or the vast amounts federal purchasing from companies like Intel. I also doubt it really includes the real value/cost of Colorado River water or the economic impact of military bases.

As far as sabotage, I don't really see it that way. It is illegal to export oil and WTH would we give away Colorado River water to a different country? Leaving the military and space contracts there would require export licenses, many of which wouldn't be approved, and there are laws about buying American for the military. All classified work would also be put to an end.

You can't secede but then still try to act like you are part of the same country when it benefits you.

Regardless this is all hypothetical, Cali would never be allowed to scede even if it meant another civil war.

No it accounts for all federal spending, including contracts the Feds award to private industry. California would gain money on net. This is primarily because California has a lot of high income people who pay a lot in federal income taxes. As for sabotage I wasn’t talking about military stuff as that’s already accounted for in federal spending and as I said, California is a net federal donor state.

When it comes to electricity and water we already have agreements for sharing that with neighboring countries so the same reasoning we do it now would apply.

I agree it’s all hypothetical and will never happen. Doesn’t change the fact that California is not dependent on federal money, in fact other states depend on the federal money flowing from California.

 

[fskimospy]

Depending on how the accounting is done California is anywhere from a slight donor state to a pretty major one. (it also likely depends on the year) I'm aware of no analysis that shows California gets more in federal money than it pays out.

http://www.politifact.com/california/article/2017/feb/14/does-california-give-more-it-gets-dc/

 

[brandonbull]

Then they can secede. Call themselves the United States of California. Immediately becoming the country with the 5th largest economy in the world.

Incapable of surviving long as the 5th largest economy.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Incapable of surviving long as the 5th largest economy.

It's all fantasy anyway. Never going to happen so no reason to look at it objectively and critically.

 

[fskimospy]

Incapable of surviving long as the 5th largest economy.

It's frankly bizarre how many people seem to think that California is dependent on the rest of the country for its prosperity. It has a gigantic, diverse economy and would be fine by itself. There would be an adjustment period as certain industries would no longer be viable and other industries would spring up to replace what it was no longer getting from the rest of the country but that's true for anywhere.

I know it bothers you that California is both very liberal and very successful. Why that bothers you is beyond me though, other than it makes you think uncomfortable thoughts.

 

[mect]

I though there was no way Brexit would happen. I thought there was no way Trump would be elected. Nothing lasts forever.

 

[Starbuck1975]

It's frankly bizarre how many people seem to think that California is dependent on the rest of the country for its prosperity. It has a gigantic, diverse economy and would be fine by itself. There would be an adjustment period as certain industries would no longer be viable and other industries would spring up to replace what it was no longer getting from the rest of the country but that's true for anywhere.

I know it bothers you that California is both very liberal and very successful. Why that bothers you is beyond me though, other than it makes you think uncomfortable thoughts.

California can attribute its success to federal investments in the state during and immediately after WW2. Of all the the things California can attribute its success to, liberalism is fairly low on the list.

 

[fskimospy]

California can attribute its success to federal investments in the state during and immediately after WW2. Of all the the things California can attribute its success to, liberalism is fairly low on the list.

Again, I’m still waiting for literally any evidence that California has been a diaproportionate net recipient of federal investment as compared to its population/GDP.

You can’t keep making a claim and then refuse to offer any evidence to back it up. Well, you can, but it’s not going to be taken seriously.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

Uh, nope.

-I suspected as much when posting last night, but I didn't have the energy to track down the specific voting patterns and demographics of the different counties. The Bay Area certainly holds a population advantage over the rest of the new Northern California, but state legislature would likely be more evenly split after redistricting.

I wouldn't think that voting for Hillary (Basically an 80's/90's Republican) over Donald Trump isn't inherently an indicator that the new Southern California would not swing right. Much of the population are similar to red states (Evangelicals and Farmers), but there definitely have been demographic shifts over time to more Asian and Latino communities.

The far north and interior of the state do hold populations that feel very underrepresented by Sacramento, which pays much more attention (and rightly so, given relative populations) to the Los Angeles and Bay Areas.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Again, I’m still waiting for literally any evidence that California has been a diaproportionate net recipient of federal investment as compared to its population/GDP.

You can’t keep making a claim and then refuse to offer any evidence to back it up. Well, you can, but it’s not going to be taken seriously.

It’s because you have a reading comprehension issue. I am not making a statement around the equity of tax dollar flow. I am challenging the notion that California can attribute its financial success to liberalism.

Silicon Valley, aerospace, SpaceX and Tesla - all directly linked to federal investments during and after WW2 due to the Pacific theater.

Trade and ports: Geography

Agriculture: Geography and climate and the migrant underclass of slave labor

Entertainment: Climate

Freeway system: Eisenhower

UC system: Those investments were made well before California turned blue

The only component of the CA economy I would perhaps attribute to liberal thinking is sustainability and green tech.

 

[fskimospy]

It’s because you have a reading comprehension issue. I am not making a statement around the equity of tax dollar flow. I am challenging the notion that California can attribute its financial success to liberalism.

Silicon Valley, aerospace, SpaceX and Tesla - all directly linked to federal investments during and after WW2 due to the Pacific theater.

Trade and ports: Geography

Agriculture: Geography and climate

Entertainment: Climate

Freeway system: Eisenhower

UC system: Those investments were made well before California turned blue

The only component of the CA economy I would perhaps attribute to liberal thinking is sustainability and green tech.

If federal investments weren’t disproportionate then they don’t matter.

 

[Starbuck1975]

If federal investments weren’t disproportionate then they don’t matter.

We’ve been down this path before. You cannot possibly argue that in aggregrate, the federal government has proportionally and equitably invested in economy growing infrastructure in every state across the country.

 

[fskimospy]

We’ve been down this path before. You cannot possibly argue that in aggregrate, the federal government has proportionally and equitably invested in economy growing infrastructure in every state across the country.

I’m not arguing anything, you’re the one that says California has been the recipient of disproportionate federal investment and I asked for you to back that up.

 

[Vic]

I’m not arguing anything, you’re the one that says California has been the recipient of disproportionate federal investment and I asked for you to back that up.

Any federal investment in California is a drop in the bucket compared to the value California has given back.
FFS, the California gold fields almost singlehandedly financed the Union Army during the Civil War.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I’m not arguing anything, you’re the one that says California has been the recipient of disproportionate federal investment and I asked for you to back that up.

I finally found some data to back up what most people recognize as common sense. Most of the data liberals use to lament the whole tax flow inequity only takes into account the last decade or so, and most of that disparity is driven by New Deal entitlements and retirement benefits. Why do liberals hate democratic socialism?

I did finally find an article that breaks down federal spending in CA during WW2.

https://www.shmoop.com/wwii-home-front/economy.html

“Perhaps no region benefited more from government spending during World War II than the West Coast. A strategically vital segment of the continental United States, the California coast became the primary focus of military-industrial production.

The federal government virtually poured money into the golden state: new defense manufacturing plants, shipyards, aircraft factories, and military bases were built in cities like Oakland, Richmond, Sausalito, Vallejo, San Pedro, Alameda, and Treasure Island in the San Francisco Bay.

In addition, military industries already established in the San Francisco Presidio, on Mare Island, and in San Diego were greatly expanded. During the war years, the federal government spent a total of $35 billion in California—one-tenth of the total amount spent on all domestic wartime projects. In 1945 alone, the government invested a whopping $8.5 billion in the Golden State.”

So as I’ve said repeatedly, CA received disproportional federal investments during WW2 that are directly attributable to its robust economy today.

The city of Seattle similarly has this foolish notion of liberalism as an economic driver, but Boeing and now Amazon have proven otherwise.

 

[fskimospy]

I finally found some data to back up what most people recognize as common sense. Most of the data liberals use to lament the whole tax flow inequity only takes into account the last decade or so, and most of that disparity is driven by New Deal entitlements and retirement benefits. Why do liberals hate democratic socialism?

I did finally find an article that breaks down federal spending in CA during WW2.

https://www.shmoop.com/wwii-home-front/economy.html

“Perhaps no region benefited more from government spending during World War II than the West Coast. A strategically vital segment of the continental United States, the California coast became the primary focus of military-industrial production.

The federal government virtually poured money into the golden state: new defense manufacturing plants, shipyards, aircraft factories, and military bases were built in cities like Oakland, Richmond, Sausalito, Vallejo, San Pedro, Alameda, and Treasure Island in the San Francisco Bay.

In addition, military industries already established in the San Francisco Presidio, on Mare Island, and in San Diego were greatly expanded. During the war years, the federal government spent a total of $35 billion in California—one-tenth of the total amount spent on all domestic wartime projects. In 1945 alone, the government invested a whopping $8.5 billion in the Golden State.”

So as I’ve said repeatedly, CA received disproportional federal investments during WW2 that are directly attributable to its robust economy today.

The city of Seattle similarly has this foolish notion of liberalism as an economic driver, but Boeing and now Amazon have proven otherwise.

As I've said from the beginning you can't just cherry pick a few year period, you need to look at federal investments in TOTAL. After all, why would it matter if a state had billions poured into it in 1942 vs say, 1932, or 1910, or 1962?

 

[Zorba]

No it accounts for all federal spending, including contracts the Feds award to private industry. California would gain money on net. This is primarily because California has a lot of high income people who pay a lot in federal income taxes. As for sabotage I wasn’t talking about military stuff as that’s already accounted for in federal spending and as I said, California is a net federal donor state.

When it comes to electricity and water we already have agreements for sharing that with neighboring countries so the same reasoning we do it now would apply.

I agree it’s all hypothetical and will never happen. Doesn’t change the fact that California is not dependent on federal money, in fact other states depend on the federal money flowing from California.

Well I stand corrected. However, I still think if you pulled $356B out of the economy basically over night it would crash the economy. Especially since at least some of the taxes going to the Feds would now have to go to the new country. Plus the $356B to the state is going to specific individuals (lots of them but still specific), while the $369B is coming from everybody. So for the tens of thousands that are laid off, they won't really care that their taxes went down. I am also sure there would be many companies that couldn't handle the lost of federal contracts and go out of business, affecting even non-federal supported employs.

Then you have things like Medicare and SS that the state would have to pick up (or eliminate) with no trust fund, so they would have to be self supporting overnight.

I would be interesting in seeing a real analysis of what would actually happen, but I personally think it would lead to a deep recession or complete collapse of the economy. And it isn't just Cali, I think the same would be true for any other state.

 

[fskimospy]

Well I stand corrected. However, I still think if you pulled $356B out of the economy basically over night it would crash the economy. Especially since at least some of the taxes going to the Feds would now have to go to the new country. Plus the $356B to the state is going to specific individuals (lots of them but still specific), while the $369B is coming from everybody. So for the tens of thousands that are laid off, they won't really care that their taxes went down. I am also sure there would be many companies that couldn't handle the lost of federal contracts and go out of business, affecting even non-federal supported employs.

Then you have things like Medicare and SS that the state would have to pick up (or eliminate) with no trust fund, so they would have to be self supporting overnight.

I would be interesting in seeing a real analysis of what would actually happen, but I personally think it would lead to a deep recession or complete collapse of the economy. And it isn't just Cali, I think the same would be true for any other state.

Well I imagine it would all depend on how it's done and I agree that the requirement to realign significant parts of California's industry would be very costly. Brexit is a good example (although only to a point as the UK is less intertwined with the EU than California with the US). If it's done thoughtfully I imagine it would be fine but if done all at once would be very bad. It's something Paul Krugman brought up about Trump's looming trade war. Sure the loss of trade efficiencies are bad for the economy but one part people often overlook is that companies have spent huge amounts of money building up supply chains and factories based on trade barriers being low. If that changes you then have a lot of factories that are no longer economically viable in place A and have to be rebuilt in place B. That costs a shitload of money.

Anyways the most important point is the one we both agree on, which is that it isn't going to happen, haha. I think California might be better governed if it were split into two or more states but I can't imagine the Republicans would ever let that happen as it most likely means granting Democrats a net gain of somewhere between 1 and 4 senators.

 

[glenn1]

Anyways the most important point is the one we both agree on, which is that it isn't going to happen, haha. I think California might be better governed if it were split into two or more states but I can't imagine the Republicans would ever let that happen as it most likely means granting Democrats a net gain of somewhere between 1 and 4 senators.

Depends on how you do it. If you split off Inland Empire that's a new red state with a decent amount of population (~5M I think?). Ditto for the more northern inland counties. The state could just as easily be divided to pack all the major coastal cities into a single state with the same two legacy senators and portion out red areas as the "new" state(s).

 

[Genx87]

Be an interesting process if it came to fruition. But I don't see how that will happen. The bickering back and forth would last a century.

 

[fskimospy]

Depends on how you do it. If you split off Inland Empire that's a new red state with a decent amount of population (~5M I think?). Ditto for the more northern inland counties. The state could just as easily be divided to pack all the major coastal cities into a single state with the same two legacy senators and portion out red areas as the "new" state(s).

The only problem with that would be that the new inland empire state would be an exceptionally poor one, on par with Mississippi. I don't think many people would want to create a deliberately destitute state like that.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Depends on how you do it. If you split off Inland Empire that's a new red state with a decent amount of population (~5M I think?). Ditto for the more northern inland counties. The state could just as easily be divided to pack all the major coastal cities into a single state with the same two legacy senators and portion out red areas as the "new" state(s).

My plan of extending the coastal "California" area would create 2 red states and 1 deep, deep, deep shit blue state.

 

[Starbuck1975]

As I've said from the beginning you can't just cherry pick a few year period, you need to look at federal investments in TOTAL. After all, why would it matter if a state had billions poured into it in 1942 vs say, 1932, or 1910, or 1962?

WW2 is hardly cherry picking. It is a significant milestone that changed the industrial trajectory of our nation and enabled its economic dominance in the years that followed, with California benefitting disproportionally from it.

A similar argument can be made for the economic devastation of former Confederate states from the Civil War, compounded by the failure of reconstruction. Granted, it was their own fault, but we did a better job of rebuilding Germany and Japan than we did the Confederacy, something we are paying for to this day.

 

[dainthomas]

I know it bothers you that California is both very liberal and very successful. Why that bothers you is beyond me though, other than it makes you think uncomfortable thoughts.

It's why they generally don't talk about how successful the liberal democracies of Europe are either.