pros and cons of splitting the US into 2 countries?

[Starbuck1975]

That’s not the part I was disputing, I was disputing your claim of privilege on California’s part. I’ve asked for evidence of this probably a dozen times and you have steadfastly refused.

I have provided that list several times over and you refuse to acknowledge it. CA’s privilege is a blend of geographic luck, climate and federal investment in infrastructure that simply did not exist prior to WW2. That is a simple fact.

You seem to think that in addition to all of that, there is something else that CA has done that is unique or special.

I believe CA is in the place it is for the same reasons TX and Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and other resource rich places are. It is also the reason why areas tied to economically obsolete areas are now suffering.

There is a reason why in Civ games you plop down cities next to as many resources as you can.

 

[fskimospy]

I have provided that list several times over and you refuse to acknowledge it. CA’s privilege is a blend of geographic luck, climate and federal investment in infrastructure that simply did not exist prior to WW2. That is a simple fact.

You have not provided this list despite being asked for it over and over again. You attempted to provide information that federal investment existed in California but at no time did you show it was disproportionate, which would of course be an absolute requirement.

You seem to think that in addition to all of that, there is something else that CA has done that is unique or special.

I’m simply saying that plenty of places have nice climates and fortuitous geography and are not as successful as California. You’ve claimed they had no role in their disproportionate success. I’ve simply asked you to back up your assertion, which you have been unable to do.

I believe CA is in the place it is for the same reasons TX and Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and other resource rich places are. It is also the reason why areas tied to economically obsolete areas are now suffering.

There is a reason why in Civ games you plop down cities next to as many resources as you can.

Places are successful because they are resource rich? Better tell that to Africa or Venezuela.

 

[pmv]

I see a split as a forgone conclusion. ....

http://thefederalist.com/2018/04/10/time-united-states-divorce-things-get-dangerous/

Funny to read this:

... one that already would have blown if conservatives had liberals’ emotional instability.

A couple of minutes after reading this:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...lman-resigns-david-hogg-sexual-assault-threat

A conservative commentator who sent a tweet saying he would use “a hot poker” to sexually assault an outspoken 17-year-old survivor of the Florida high school shooting has resigned from a St Louis TV station

I think maybe your quoted article has that the wrong way round? (Which side produces the majority of crazed spree-killers?)

I can't see the US having a new war of seccession in the foreseeable future. Though I have to say, in the past, when going through the occasional Anti-American spasm (usually during an argument with an American friend) I'd find myself thinking it would be good if the US broke up, as it would be the best way to reduce its global power. The only thing Americans have to fear...is America itself.

 

[pmv]

You have not provided this list despite being asked for it over and over again. You attempted to provide information that federal investment existed in California but at no time did you show it was disproportionate, which would of course be an absolute requirement.



I’m simply saying that plenty of places have nice climates and fortuitous geography and are not as successful as California. You’ve claimed they had no role in their disproportionate success. I’ve simply asked you to back up your assertion, which you have been unable to do.



Places are successful because they are resource rich? Better tell that to Africa or Venezuela.

Being resource-rich can also be a curse, becuase it can grossly distort an economy, draw investment away from more research-dependent industries, and have disastrous socio-political effects. Some resources in particular (mainly, oil) can encourage the accumulation of power by elites, becuase they don't require huge labour power and can be turned on or off by technocrats.

But isn't it a pointless argument to try and determine how much of California's wealth is 'intrinsic'? You can't run an experiment and create an alternative world where California was settled and developed entirely separate from the rest of the US, the two are totally interlinked in their history. I'm not sure it's even a meaningful question to ask.

 

[fskimospy]

Being resource-rich can also be a curse, becuase it can grossly distort an economy, draw investment away from more research-dependent industries, and have disastrous socio-political effects. Some resources in particular (mainly, oil) can encourage the accumulation of power by elites, becuase they don't require huge labour power and can be turned on or off by technocrats.

But isn't it a pointless argument to try and determine how much of California's wealth is 'intrinsic'? You can't run an experiment and create an alternative world where California was settled and developed entirely separate from the rest of the US, the two are totally interlinked in their history. I'm not sure it's even a meaningful question to ask.

Yes, in the end it’s probably unknowable to a certain extent but certain things are very much knowable, such as if CA has received disproportionate federal funding as compared to its population/GSP.

 

[pmv]

Yes, in the end it’s probably unknowable to a certain extent but certain things are very much knowable, such as if CA has received disproportionate federal funding as compared to its population/GSP.

That might be knowable, but I don't see that knowing it would resolve anything. I suppose your point is just that the previous poster made that claim and should back it up? But even if they could and did, it wouldn't mean much.

Federal funding is only one small part of the exchange of wealth between different regions. California has recieved knowledge and people from the rest of the world, as has the US itself. That has value as well.

Plus you could probably argue that _early_ outside investment should be weighted more (and how to count the use of Federal military in helping wipe out the previous inhabitants, eh?).

There are doubltess many ways wealth has gone the other way, ways in which that federal funding bought federal returns (e.g. helping win wars abroad which benefited the US as a whole).

Just not sure what the point of the discussion is. The hypothetical issue, I am guessing, is how well California would do in future if it were independent? Not sure arguing about the past helps decide that much. Especially as no country is ever truly and absolutely independent anyway.

 

[glenn1]

Yes, in the end it’s probably unknowable to a certain extent but certain things are very much knowable, such as if CA has received disproportionate federal funding as compared to its population/GSP.

<shrug> it's probably like most states where saying a state gets "disproportionate" funding depends on timeframe examined, the political conditions, the nature of what's being funded, etc.

No one probably blinked an eye at "disproportionate" funding in California during WW2 when it was a prime staging area for the Pacific theater. No one probably blinks an eye now when CA houses the most military troops of all states and is 2nd in overall military spending on a per-state basis behind Virginia (you can't exactly park an aircraft carrier in Kansas so it makes sense there are Navy bases there for example). No one blinked an eye when the feds made massive land grants and subsidies to make California railroads a reality in the 19th century. But it is somewhat disingenuous for modern Californians to overlook this history and believe something like their state politics or what policies they voted for was the primary cause of their current fortune.

As for the "donor state" complaint, it's also fair to observe that a good part of federal spending in states is due to entitlement payments (social security, Medicare, etc.) and CA is of course going to get relatively less back then other states because the average age of it's population is among the youngest in the nation (5th in 2004, 7th in 2014). That's also a big reason why states like Maine (with the nation's oldest population on a state-by-state basis) is considered a "recipient" state of net federal spending rather than a "donor." Again it has very little to do with politics, political representation in DC, who holds the White House, or other factors. Who's in power in Sacromento or DC wouldn't change much unless it was accompanied by profound changes to our social welfare system.

 

[fskimospy]

<shrug> it's probably like most states where saying a state gets "disproportionate" funding depends on timeframe examined, the political conditions, the nature of what's being funded, etc.

No one probably blinked an eye at "disproportionate" funding in California during WW2 when it was a prime staging area for the Pacific theater. No one probably blinks an eye now when CA houses the most military troops of all states and is 2nd in overall military spending on a per-state basis behind Virginia (you can't exactly park an aircraft carrier in Kansas so it makes sense there are Navy bases there for example). No one blinked an eye when the feds made massive land grants and subsidies to make California railroads a reality in the 19th century. But it is somewhat disingenuous for modern Californians to overlook this history and believe something like their state politics or what policies they voted for was the primary cause of their current fortune.

Well if they have received disproportionate funding over the course of their history you should be able to compile evidence of this?

As for the "donor state" complaint, it's also fair to observe that a good part of federal spending in states is due to entitlement payments (social security, Medicare, etc.) and CA is of course going to get relatively less back then other states because the average age of it's population is among the youngest in the nation (5th in 2004, 7th in 2014). That's also a big reason why states like Maine (with the nation's oldest population on a state-by-state basis) is considered a "recipient" state of net federal spending rather than a "donor." Again it has very little to do with politics, political representation in DC, who holds the White House, or other factors. Who's in power in Sacromento or DC wouldn't change much unless it was accompanied by profound changes to our social welfare system.

Whatever the cause you're talking about billions being exported out of the state to subsidize others. Those billions clearly could have been used by California instead to further improve its situation.

 

[Starbuck1975]

You have not provided this list despite being asked for it over and over again. You attempted to provide information that federal investment existed in California but at no time did you show it was disproportionate, which would of course be an absolute requirement.

That information does not reside in one place and you know it, and it is akin to asking me prove why the sky is blue.

Most of the articles out there lamenting the unfairness to blue states use a convenient framework for their arguments.

Federal taxes fall into five categories: income tax, social insurance tax, corporate income tax, excise tax and estate/gift tax.

Federal expenditures fall under Social Security, Medicare, Grants, Procurement and Govt Employee Salaries.

From a pure accounting standpoint based on that framework, CA pays more than it gets out per citizen.

Where the disproportionate conversation comes into play is color of money.

Many Red States are simple welfare states. From a dollars perspective, they are receiving a lot of federal aid, but in the form of entitlements like Social Security that provide no economic growth.

Then there are Grants and Procurements, which have a self fulfilling loop. Grants and procurements create jobs, which promotes economic growth, which increases tax revenues...rinse, wash, repeat.

I simply saying that plenty of places have nice climates and fortuitous geography and are not as successful as California.

If those places had a generous Uncle Sam, I bet they would

You’ve claimed they had no role in their disproportionate success.

I’ve never said that they have no role. Blue states obviously attribute much of their success to the people contributing tax revenues to them, myself being one of them. You’ve yet to identify what you think CA is doing right independent of its position of privilege.

Places are successful because they are resource rich? Better tell that to Africa or Venezuela.

Mismanagement at a federal level would have put CA in a similar predicament.

It all goes back to the Obama quote. You didn’t build this.

 

[fskimospy]

That information does not reside in one place and you know it, and it is akin to asking me prove why the sky is blue.

It's very easy to prove why the sky is blue, FYI.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/BlueSky/blue_sky.html

Since I did that for you, can you go back and fulfill my request?

Most of the articles out there lamenting the unfairness to blue states use a convenient framework for their arguments.

Federal taxes fall into five categories: income tax, social insurance tax, corporate income tax, excise tax and estate/gift tax.

Federal expenditures fall under Social Security, Medicare, Grants, Procurement and Govt Employee Salaries.

From a pure accounting standpoint based on that framework, CA pays more than it gets out per citizen.

Where the disproportionate conversation comes into play is color of money.

Many Red States are simple welfare states. From a dollars perspective, they are receiving a lot of federal aid, but in the form of entitlements like Social Security that provide no economic growth.

Then there are Grants and Procurements, which have a self fulfilling loop. Grants and procurements create jobs, which promotes economic growth, which increases tax revenues...rinse, wash, repeat.

This is simply wrong from an economics perspective. Social Security and other welfare payments absolutely, unquestionably provide economic growth. In fact, they are some of the biggest pro-growth payments the government could provide as elderly and low income people have a high marginal propensity to spend their income. I mean, what do you think happens with the Social Security money that gets imported to Mississippi from California? The recipients spend it, which increases revenues to local businesses, which creates jobs, which increases tax revenues, rinse, wash, repeat. Exact same self-fulfilling loop.

If those places had a generous Uncle Sam, I bet they would

I’ve never said that they have no role. Blue states obviously attribute much of their success to the people contributing tax revenues to them, myself being one of them. You’ve yet to identify what you think CA is doing right independent of its position of privilege.

You're trying to shift the burden of proof with the new baseline of me accepting your unsupported arguments as factual. Sorry, that isn't going to happen.

Mismanagement at a federal level would have put CA in a similar predicament.

It all goes back to the Obama quote. You didn’t build this.

Again, what is your basis for this?

 

[Starbuck1975]

This is simply wrong from an economics perspective.

No its not. Grandma having enough money to feed her cat is in no way economically proportional to the Naval and NASA investments in the SF Bay area that set the groundwork for Silicon Valley.

The Navy setup a huge manufacturing apparatus during WW2 in the Bay Area. Its why so many residential areas in and around Oakland sit on top of or adjacent to superfund sites, mostly attributed to heavy metals.

NASA claimed much of the Naval infrastructure that set the foundation for the Venture Capital model that started HP.

The internet is a product of government research.

@glenn1 and @pmv understand what I am saying and expanded upon it.

 

[fskimospy]

No its not. Grandma having enough money to feed her cat is in no way economically proportional to the Naval and NASA investments in the SF Bay area that set the groundwork for Silicon Valley.

The Navy setup a huge manufacturing apparatus during WW2 in the Bay Area. Its why so many residential areas in and around Oakland sit on top of or adjacent to superfund sites, mostly attributed to heavy metals.

NASA claimed much of the Naval infrastructure that set the foundation for the Venture Capital model that started HP.

The internet is a product of government research.

@glenn1 and @pmv understand what I am saying and expanded upon it.

1) I assume you'll retract the obviously false statement that transfer payments don't lead to economic growth for the net recipient? I mean that's econ 101 and there's no getting around it. Your statement that they don't create growth was just wrong.

2) You're just now making broad statements without any facts or numbers to back them up. What were the quantity of investments and how did they compare to investments per capita in other states? How many years of net payments does it take from California to offset those investments? etc, etc.

Numbers, numbers, numbers. That's what we need.

 

[Jhhnn]

It's perfectly obvious that some parts of the country are more prosperous than others. It's also true that federal transfer payments attempt to mitigate that.

The most remarkable part of that is how residents of states on the receiving end of that are the ones trying to tear down the system that benefits their people. Don't need no big gubmint!

Imagine how bad it could get for the people in the lands that the Job Creators forgot...

 

[glenn1]

No its not. Grandma having enough money to feed her cat is in no way economically proportional to the Naval and NASA investments in the SF Bay area that set the groundwork for Silicon Valley.

The Navy setup a huge manufacturing apparatus during WW2 in the Bay Area. Its why so many residential areas in and around Oakland sit on top of or adjacent to superfund sites, mostly attributed to heavy metals.

NASA claimed much of the Naval infrastructure that set the foundation for the Venture Capital model that started HP.

The internet is a product of government research.

@glenn1 and @pmv understand what I am saying and expanded upon it.

You're wasting your time with fskimospy. He has no problem with saying that matter of opinion are self-evident facts (e.g. deflation is always bad and must be fought at all costs) and ignores things when it suits him (such as asking for "evidence" the federal government has made enormous investments in California). Or perhaps he's simply ignorant of historical facts such as during WW2 when CA had 140 military bases, or defense enjoyed defense spending that made CA the nation's leading producer of aircraft, 2nd to Detroit in automobiles, etc. Even a rudimentary amount of research would cure his ignorance but he'd rather play dumb because he wants to continue to believe it's his preferred politics which led CA to its current situation and it would cause cognitive dissonance to know how much CA was subsidized with federal loot over the years. Hell, he's probably not even aware that CA has more federal civilian workers now than DC even though the later is the seat of government, more active duty troops than any other state, etc.

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/federal-employees-workforce-numbers-by-state.html

 

[Jhhnn]

You're wasting your time with fskimospy. He has no problem with saying that matter of opinion are self-evident facts (e.g. deflation is always bad and must be fought at all costs) and ignores things when it suits him (such as asking for "evidence" the federal government has made enormous investments in California). Or perhaps he's simply ignorant of historical facts such as during WW2 when CA had 140 military bases, or defense enjoyed defense spending that made CA the nation's leading producer of aircraft, 2nd to Detroit in automobiles, etc. Even a rudimentary amount of research would cure his ignorance but he'd rather play dumb because he wants to continue to believe it's his preferred politics which led CA to its current situation and it would cause cognitive dissonance to know how much CA was subsidized with federal loot over the years. Hell, he's probably not even aware that CA has more federal civilian workers now than DC even though the later is the seat of government, more active duty troops than any other state, etc.

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/federal-employees-workforce-numbers-by-state.html

WW2? Really? 73 years ago? The Rust Belt was the heart of American industry, too, pumping out all kinds of war materials. And then things changed.

 

[bbhaag]

While I think that it would be a terrible idea "Mass amounts of death, famine, mass relocations, civil war that could last years..." is a bit overblown!
If/when Scotland leaves the UK I'm not expecting mass casualties!

Well I'm not up to date on Scotland/England splitting ways but the last time the United States decided it would be a good idea it ended terribly for both sides. There was "Mass amounts of death, famine, mass relocations,and a civil war that lasted years...".
While you can say we are more civilized now then the last time it happened here you all across the pond like to remind us on an almost daily basis how uncouth and uncivilized we Americans are.

 

[WelshBloke]

While you can say we are more civilized now then the last time it happened here you all across the pond like to remind us on an almost daily basis how uncouth and uncivilized we Americans are.

Umm. Aren't I the one saying that you could do this in a civil way and you're the one saying that you can only do it with violence and killing?

 

[Indus]

Well I'm not up to date on Scotland/England splitting ways but the last time the United States decided it would be a good idea it ended terribly for both sides. There was "Mass amounts of death, famine, mass relocations,and a civil war that lasted years...".
While you can say we are more civilized now then the last time it happened here you all across the pond like to remind us on an almost daily basis how uncouth and uncivilized we Americans are.

Except it wasn't a split as much as a war.

I'm all for 1 new constitutional amendment that says.. "States have the right to secede from the union if they give a 5 year notice ahead of time."

 

[Starbuck1975]

1) I assume you'll retract the obviously false statement that transfer payments don't lead to economic growth for the net recipient?

Yes I retract my statement. Grandma buying food for her cat with her social security check leads to economic growth.

You're just now making broad statements without any facts or numbers to back them up. What were the quantity of investments and how did they compare to investments per capita in other states? How many years of net payments does it take from California to offset those investments? etc, etc. Numbers, numbers, numbers. That's what we need.

Numbers are important. But it doesn’t take numbers to recognize that investment in military bases and infrastructure has a greater net economic benefit than grandma and her social security check. If you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge that CA is the beneficiary of considerable federal investment, numbers won’t sway you. For the record, I actually made some calls today to obtain those numbers, and it would take far more of my time than is worth the effort to quantify.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yes I retract my statement. Grandma buying food for her cat with her social security check leads to economic growth.



Numbers are important. But it doesn’t take numbers to recognize that investment in military bases and infrastructure has a greater net economic benefit than grandma and her social security check. If you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge that CA is the beneficiary of considerable federal investment, numbers won’t sway you. For the record, I actually made some calls today to obtain those numbers, and it would take far more of my time than is worth the effort to quantify.

Numbers?

http://www.governing.com/topics/finance/gov-state-budgets-federal-funding-2015-2018-trump.html

There are places in this country that would go to Hell in a hand basket w/o federal money. CA isn't one of them.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Numbers?

http://www.governing.com/topics/finance/gov-state-budgets-federal-funding-2015-2018-trump.html

There are places in this country that would go to Hell in a hand basket w/o federal money. CA isn't one of them.

The point, you missed it

 

[Jhhnn]

The point, you missed it

You made no point. You merely claimed that you have one.

California seceding from the Union is a tongue in cheek response to the usual idiocy of states that just might do it if they could. It's not a serious proposition in the slightest. Whatever investment the federal govt made in CA has paid off, anyway, given that they regularly put more into the federal kitty than they get back. Their economy is sufficiently robust that they help support people who don't even live there.

 

[TeeJay1952]

So at any given time I am susceptible to 2 out of 3 neighbors wanting to change allegiance? I either move or lose citizenship, Constitutional Rights? Pipe dream.Nightmare.

 

[bshole]

I can't see the US having a new war of seccession in the foreseeable future. Though I have to say, in the past, when going through the occasional Anti-American spasm (usually during an argument with an American friend) I'd find myself thinking it would be good if the US broke up, as it would be the best way to reduce its global power. The only thing Americans have to fear...is America itself.

China is matching America's manufacturing and will likely double it in 20 years. If you think America had too much power, you haven't seen nothing yet. China will OWN the world by 2100.

What should make you very nervous is that China actively loathes Japan. This is the one of reasons that I have a problem about obsessing over sins of the past. This constant picking at things someone's ancestors did FOSTERS and ENCOURAGES hatred and could lead to mass death, war and chaos in the present.

When China dwarfs America in both economic and military might, what do you think is going to happen to Japan? Could there a bit of a conflict there? Could China attempt to get a little payback for the butchery of WWII?

In the meantime I suspect China and India could come into conflict. That would end very poorly for India. I don't think China will go into colonization mode but I definitely believe it is going to go ahead and take bits and pieces that are in its strategic best interest to have.

According to a 2014 BBC World Service Poll, mainland Chinese people hold the largest anti-Japanese sentiment in the world, with 90% of Chinese people viewing Japan's influence negatively, and 5% expressing a positive view. Anti-Japanese sentiment in China was at its highest in 2014 since the poll was first conducted in 2006 and was up 16 percent over the previous year.

For the past two months, Indian and Chinese troops have faced off on a plateau in the Himalayas in tense proximity, in a dispute prompted by moves by the Chinese military to build a road into territory claimed by India’s close ally, Bhutan.

India has suggested that both sides withdraw, and its foreign minister said in Parliament that the dispute can be resolved only by dialogue.

Yet China has vociferously defended the right it claims to build a road in the Doklam area, territory it also claims.

Since the dispute began, the Chinese Foreign Ministry has issued an angry stream of almost daily denunciations of India and its “illegal trespass” and “recklessness,” along with demands that New Delhi withdraw its troops “if it cherishes peace.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...0fa8d7a0db6_story.html?utm_term=.1660562104c9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Japanese_sentiment_in_China

 

[NTMBK]

Screw that nonsense. Just fix your damn electoral system. Make the president directly elected by popular vote (throw the electoral college in the bin), and either allocate senators according to population or split up all states into roughly equal population counts.