Which part of my statement isn’t true or critique of GDP as a measure isn’t true? If everything is working so well, why does California need a never before heard of wealth tax?
You made this statement about GDP and CA gov being the fastest growing part:
But haven’t provided any math or numbers to support it.
So it seems unsupported.
1 Like
There are numerous threads here citing the data on the decline in California. Further, the idea of simply looking at California’s GDP as an indication of the success of decades of political policies has been litigated here frequently. Are you really making that claim or could it be the size, diversity of inherent economic opportunities, climate, geographical position, and early player in the tech industry that have been the driving factors?
If so, what role has state govt played in making CA tops in GDP? If so, what role has govt played in making CA dead last in economic opportunity, affordability and near the bottom in terms of safety, crime and tax competitiveness?
Pretty sure the reason the tech explosion is in Silicon Valley is because of the higher education system which California spends a lot on, and Mississippi doesn’t.
And setting ambitious green energy goals along with providing subsidies is likely the reason Tesla started development in California instead of, say, West Virginia.
California totally bans non-compete agreements (that would be interference in the freeee market), which has allowed employees to move to companies where they are best suited to prosper. It is one of onl 4 states to do so, and the others are not significant in tech, industry, or finance.
The tech culture has had many beneficial spin-off effects, including the aggregation of venture capital in the state (which helps the flywheel produce even more tech success, which helps produce even more venture capital. Rinse. Repeat.)
California spent lavishly on ports, which has brought it to the happy place of having the largest container shipping industry employment in the country. The ports are all government built, owned, and run, and have been since the beginning. That has also brought rail and other transport infrastructure along with it, further amplifying employment.
California policies have historically encouraged and funded programs to support agriculture, including irrigation infrastructure, soil nd land use, and more. Right now, for instance, the state is issuing bonds to support farmers through the transition to greener practices and more efficient land use rather than simply “waiting for something to happen”. Perhaps that’s why California ranks #1 in the country for value of agriculture products produced? (Yes, more than Kansas with its endless fields of wheat, and Iowa’s vast corn fields.)
California has a huge economy, well diversified with information and technology (Apple, Google, Nvidia, etc); real estate and finance; other high value professional (Hollywood, consulting, science, design); and even manufacturing (aerospace, computers); transportation; healthcare; and of course, tourism. Pretty much any other state would drool to have such a thriving and balanced economy.
Or perhaps you, with your vast trove of Thomas Sowell archives, can explain why all of this hasn’t happened in those bastions of individual liberty like North Dakota or Montana.
9 Likes
Should you date the unemployed?
Well it depends on what you want. If you want to support someone else other than yourself, then you should date someone chronically unemployed. And if you don’t want to do so, then don’t date them. Someone unemployed for a short period between jobs is a different group.
Many men choose to date unemployed women who plan on being full-time mothers and homemakers, and it is a completely valid choice, and often a very good choice as well.
2 Likes
Pretty sure that emphasis is the result of master education plans that go back to 1960 and if not earlier, long before the Democratic Party dominated control of the state as it does today. In fact, Republicans often dominated in key races. Are you suggesting one party dominated California when it was developing its higher education emphasis?
These bans were effectively codified in CA in 1872. It’s a long standing part of the state. It does help with mobility but has nothing to do with last several decades of 1 party rule.
True, the GDP is highly diverse and there is no evidence to suggest 1 party or the other is largely responsible for it.
What is also true is CA now ranks dead last or near the bottom in a whole series of critical categories, despite its natural advantages. Conveniently, you seem to avoid addressing those facts but continue to focus on GDP and other aspects where there is correlation but not causation.
Of course, we haven’t really even addressed the fiscal mess in CA. But again, I’ll ask the question. If everything is going so well, why is California looking to pass a wealth tax?
Economist and social theorist Thomas Sowell has long used California as a primary case study for what he views as the negative consequences of heavy government regulation, progressive public policy, and political cronyism. [1]
Then, also with basic web search, it should be no problem to find the math and numbers to support this claim:
But we’ve gone back and forth several times and, for some reason, still no math and numbers to support it.
I didn’t make any claim, you did, above, specifically about CA GDP and the role of gov.
But, so far, it’s unsupported.
Not sure why you keep asking me all of these questions in response to my simple question.
I was simply looking for numbers and math to support your earlier statement above.
That’s all.
But no such numbers and math appear forthcoming.
5 Likes
Common or what is probably more aptly known uncommon sense is okay to apply in certain situations. Otherwise, I need an explanation as to why the GDP rank is a measure of success of one party rule in more recent decades. It’s entirely possible to bankrupt the state with tax and spending policies while GDP remains relatively unchanged.
You drew a connection between GDP and govt spending that is a fallacy. I explained why that is so, with no counter argument. Again, if the policy direction has been so successful, why does California need a wealth tax?
What??? Deliberately seeking out an unemployed woman to date in the hopes of getting a long term skivvy to serve ones needs? I’d say that’s often a really dumb choice
2 Likes
Hewlett and Packard in a garage in 1938 started the tech explosion, there is no arguing about that. Over the past 88 years the culture in California has changed.
The Captain
Food for thought using one of my favorite metrics for comparing states. I’m sure it’s just coincidental. According to the CDC:
States with the Highest Life Expectancy
- Hawaii: 80.0 years
- Massachusetts: 79.8 years
- New Jersey: 79.6 years
- New York: 79.5 years
- California: 79.0 - 80.6 years (approximate range depending on annual update sets)
- Minnesota: 79.1 years
- Connecticut: 79.2 years
States with the Lowest Life Expectancy
- West Virginia: 72.2 years
- Mississippi: 73.9 years
- Alabama: 73.2 years
- Louisiana: 73.1 years
- Kentucky: 73.5 years
- Tennessee: 73.8 years
- Arkansas: 73.8 years
5 Likes
Go ahead, provide an explanation for your claim about CA GDP:
Not that I recall.
This is your claim:
Looking for math and numbers to support what you wrote.
So, for now, it’s unsupported.
1 Like
No, my claim is CA has had 1 party rule for quite some time and the outcome has not been on the whole very good. GDP rank and or the budget relative to GDP is not the appropriate measure success of the policies. Just as the fact that the US is ranked 1 in the world is not affirmation of the policies of the current or former administrations as a dominant factor.
Do you think CA policies have been on the whole helpful and if so, can you demonstrate how without referring to GDP?
Ok.
Then what are you trying to say in this sentence?
Looks like a claim that, “if I look at CA GDP”, then “CA gov spending is the fastest growing part.”
Did you not intend to write that?
Did you really intend something else?
I believe it is ok to call an undo, or clarify.
3 Likes
When I was in school, there was a joke that some of the women there were “looking for their Mrs”. I knew one such woman. She was in community college, but had enough credits for a BS/BA.
Surprisingly, North Dakota is number 4 in GPD per capita. Probably the oil.
Both TX and CA have had ‘one party rule’. CA is far far better.
2 Likes
I’m not a fan of 1 party rule, regardless of the party. The migration out of California compared to the migration into Texas might suggest a different reality. One certainly needs to look beyond GDP as a measure of which policies and approaches are more effective.
TX is cheap. No one wants to live there, unless they have too.
1 Like
Like what? Which critical categories?
Thanks for sharing! I find these discussions about the best state tedious.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings
According to USN, Nebraska (#5) is a better state than Colorado (#17). That’s bonkers. You couldn’t pay me enough to live in Nebraska.
Speaking of Colorado, I was surprised to see that USN ranks our fiscal mess as worse than CA’s. TABOR, which limits how much revenue can be collected, is hamstringing us.
Similar to CO, CA is hamstrung by a constitutional amendment. Prop 98 requires 40% of the state general fund to be spent on education.
Sure. None of us should be cherry picking numbers to support political arguments. The TABOR (1992) and Prop 98 (1988) examples show how current conditions are NOT only shaped by current policies.
3 Likes