The Truth about California: It's actually saving the rest of the USA
1–10 of 60 posts
Re: The Truth about California: It's actually saving the rest of the USA
#2IANAE (I am not an economist), but here's an observation from a born-and-bred Californian: whenever the economy is bad, the state budget takes it on the chin. California is big -- bigger than a lot of people realize. I mean this in terms of geography and population. So it seems to me that national problems are magnified here in our microcosm.
Once the economy picks up, the state problems ease.
Tangential anecdote: I was at a JBoss conference a few years ago, talking with a guy from the company who'd never been to California before. I mentioned that I had just driven back here -- I'd been snowboarding over the weekend. He gives me a dubious look, and says, "You don't have snow in California."
Re: The Truth about California: It's actually saving the rest of the USA
#3Most criticisms of California target public sector backwardness, so it's not a refutation of that to point to the strength of the state's private sector. And "CA's private sector is strong, ergo it hasn't been harmed by the government" is a circular argument.
This is an argument over the precise extent to which bad policies are bad. Seems more useful to discuss what genuinely good policy looks like.
Re: The Truth about California: It's actually saving the rest of the USA
#4Interesting article.
One statement struck me as odd:
> Most of the states that have grown faster than California during that time are farm states, riding an incredible boom in agriculture prices.
I suppose there is nothing wrong with this statement, strictly speaking. However, it suggests that CA is not a "farm state". But it certainly is. CA is the number-one agricultural producer of all the 50 states. It's a clear number one in crops, and number two (after TX) in livestock.
Re: The Truth about California: It's actually saving the rest of the USA
#5IANAE (I am not an economist), but here's an observation from a born-and-bred Californian: whenever the economy is bad, the state budget takes it on the chin. California is big -- bigger than a lot of people realize. I mean this in terms of geography and population. So it seems to me that national problems are magnified here in our microcosm. Once the economy picks up, the state problems ease. Tangential anecdote : I…
Here's what strikes me as funny: California's budget crunch is $25 billion. Texas (a paragon of small government) is facing a deficit of... $25 billion. The fact that both states have similar deficits would seem to back your argument that this has more to do with the economy than budgetary policy.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/st...
http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-11-11/news/24826042_1_budget...
Re: The Truth about California: It's actually saving the rest of the USA
#6Interesting article. One statement struck me as odd: > Most of the states that have grown faster than California during that time are farm states, riding an incredible boom in agriculture prices. I suppose there is nothing wrong with this statement, strictly speaking. However, it suggests that CA is not a "farm state". But it certainly is. CA is the number-one agricultural producer of all the 50 states. It's a clear…
Agricultural products are also a big export for the US.
Re: The Truth about California: It's actually saving the rest of the USA
#7Most criticisms of California target public sector backwardness, so it's not a refutation of that to point to the strength of the state's private sector. And "CA's private sector is strong, ergo it hasn't been harmed by the government" is a circular argument. This is an argument over the precise extent to which bad policies are bad. Seems more useful to discuss what genuinely good policy looks like.
The argument that California's policies must be bad, regardless of the fact that they've produced the strongest private sector in the country, is equally fallacious.
Re: The Truth about California: It's actually saving the rest of the USA
#8Interesting article. One statement struck me as odd: > Most of the states that have grown faster than California during that time are farm states, riding an incredible boom in agriculture prices. I suppose there is nothing wrong with this statement, strictly speaking. However, it suggests that CA is not a "farm state". But it certainly is. CA is the number-one agricultural producer of all the 50 states. It's a clear…
I would imagine that the other states' economies depend much more on agriculture than California's does though. Thus, California has a lot of farmers, but it doesn't get as much from a surge in agriculture prices like the others do.
Re: The Truth about California: It's actually saving the rest of the USA
#9Most criticisms of California target public sector backwardness, so it's not a refutation of that to point to the strength of the state's private sector. And "CA's private sector is strong, ergo it hasn't been harmed by the government" is a circular argument. This is an argument over the precise extent to which bad policies are bad. Seems more useful to discuss what genuinely good policy looks like.
The argument that California's policies must be bad, regardless of the fact that they've produced the strongest private sector in the country, is equally fallacious.
True, though for a lot of state policies, people seem to generally agree that they're bad, just not on whether they're bad enough to justify the pain of changing them.
The policies, good or bad, coexist with the country's strongest private sector, but that doesn't mean they caused it.
Re: The Truth about California: It's actually saving the rest of the USA
#10IANAE (I am not an economist), but here's an observation from a born-and-bred Californian: whenever the economy is bad, the state budget takes it on the chin. California is big -- bigger than a lot of people realize. I mean this in terms of geography and population. So it seems to me that national problems are magnified here in our microcosm. Once the economy picks up, the state problems ease. Tangential anecdote : I…
Here's what strikes me as funny: California's budget crunch is $25 billion. Texas (a paragon of small government) is facing a deficit of... $25 billion. The fact that both states have similar deficits would seem to back your argument that this has more to do with the economy than budgetary policy. http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/st... http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-11-11/news/24826042_1_bud…
But California's economy is 50% larger than Texas', according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP. Since economists mostly talk about debt to GDP ratio, doesn't that make Texas considerably worse off?