|
- - - CNBC Special Report - - - California in Crisis tonight @ 9:00pm ET/6:00pm PT (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
Panama Canal? |
Yes because the companies are going to pay for that to ship their goods to the east coast?
LMAO, we just set our rates to be slightly less expensive than what it would cost to ship it allll the way down there.
Also I am pretty sure that the Canal could not handle that sort of demand... :p |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
Yes because the companies are going to pay for that to ship their goods to the east coast?
LMAO, we just set our rates to be slightly less expensive than what it would cost to ship it allll the way down there.
Also I am pretty sure that the Canal could not handle that sort of demand... :p |
I think you're underestimating the number of things brought through there already at a less expensive rate than sending them to California. If it were constantly more expensive, why would we need it at all?
Secondly, your secession would make you a competitor with Canada and Mexico. I'm sure they'd be willing to lower their trade rates to compete, too. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
What? I think we could do it better if we didn't have the more conservative and slow mid-west and eastern seaboard to deal with.
Why should we have to put up with their crap? For the most part the Pacific Northwest could be very self-sustaining in terms of agriculture and economy. |
Honestly, this is almost as bad as theresa’s questions re the parachuting on a plane.
As groundhog has pointed out there are mammoth costs associated with forming your own republic; not just in the transfer process, but in the general day-to-day activities of any nation state. You’d need to do things like form your own IRS, create your own currency, create an entirely new level of government to perform the activities that your constitution has given solely (or in part) to the current federal government. This includes having to develop entire government departments to conduct business activities you wouldn’t have even heard of, that are currently the purview of Washington.
In other words, please let me have whatever you’re smoking. The secession of California from the US would be an almighty cluster that would ruin your state. It would cost you far far more in tax revenue to be self-sufficient than you’re currently being jewed by the distribution of tax income. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
Honestly, this is almost as bad as theresa’s questions re the parachuting on a plane.
As groundhog has pointed out there are mammoth costs associated with forming your own republic; not just in the transfer process, but in the general day-to-day activities of any nation state. You’d need to do things like form your own IRS, create your own currency, create an entirely new level of government to perform the activities that your constitution has given solely (or in part) to the current federal government. This includes having to develop entire government departments to conduct business activities you wouldn’t have even heard of, that are currently the purview of Washington.
In other words, please let me have whatever you’re smoking. The secession of California from the US would be an almighty cluster that would ruin your state. It would cost you far far more in tax revenue to be self-sufficient than you’re currently being jewed by the distribution of tax income. |
Did I say it would be easy? No.
Could it be done? Yes. |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
What? I think we could do it better if we didn't have the more conservative and slow mid-west and eastern seaboard to deal with. |
I just re-read this with PKC's quote and I can't believe I passed over it before
Do you really think that the Eastern seaboard is ing you? Are you kidding? Please take a look at the dollars paid vs. dollars received from the Maine to Florida in that link I provided. NY and NJ ($168B & $86B ($254 B total) pay almost as much in taxes as CA ($289B) and receive less, too (roughly $205B for NY & NJ (.80 on the $1 vs. $242B for CA ($.84 on the $1). Add in CT and the numbers get worse for the Eastern, which contributes far more to the federal coffers than CA, WA, and OR.
The fact is, the Eastern Coastal states pay 2x the federal taxes that the West Coast 3 do. Even remove everything south of D.C. and the East Coast still contributes more. And that's with all that trade money from China.
BTW, I'm not going to disagree with you on the Middle States. |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
I just don't think you'd be able to fund it. Coastal states and more highly developed states (like Illinois) do reap higher homeland security benefits because they've got more to hit.
Secondly, you make it sound like the use of the funding is entirely dictated by the federal government. |
The use of funds has never been dictated entirely by the federal government, nor will it ever be. There are always people in the regional and state based agencies that make decisions. And while this works for small states, or states with small populations, California on the other hand, is like 2 totally different states. Northern and Southern California are like two totally different worlds. I was born and raised in the North but I prefer and love the south where I have lived for 5 years. Most of the that works in the north does NOT work in the south. Neither can be managed as one and the same, but because we are the same state they can't be treated differently.
| quote: | Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
I think you're underestimating the number of things brought through there already at a less expensive rate than sending them to California. If it were constantly more expensive, why would we need it at all?
Secondly, your secession would make you a competitor with Canada and Mexico. I'm sure they'd be willing to lower their trade rates to compete, too. |
I think you are underestimating the time cost. The time to ship goods down through the Panama Canal is significant. By the time a ship gets to the canal, a train can be half way across the US with the goods. Or even delivering it to some of the places along the way. Thereby negating the cost benefits, because goods are delivered and sold.
Furthermore, if you equate time with money, the time lost going all the way around is innumerable to just paying a slightly higher toll to offload on the west coast.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
create your own currency |
This is utterly false. Just like there are countries using the Euro but aren't part of the EU and as such aren't part of the Euro Zone. We don't HAVE to create our own currency. Is it advised? Probably.
I don't disagree with your points that it would be a massive financial undertaking that could and very well run us broke. That doesn't mean that it isn't possible or even fathomable. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
Did I say it would be easy? No.
Could it be done? Yes. |
No, but your argument is based solely on the fact that you would be better off, and this is demonstrably incorrect. Your budget would balloon like you wouldn’t believe, and how you gonna pay it, considering you can't pay today's? |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
I just re-read this with PKC's quote and I can't believe I passed over it before
Do you really think that the Eastern seaboard is ing you? Are you kidding? Please take a look at the dollars paid vs. dollars received from the Maine to Florida in that link I provided. NY and NJ ($168B & $86B ($254 B total) pay almost as much in taxes as CA ($289B) and receive less, too (roughly $205B for NY & NJ (.80 on the $1 vs. $242B for CA ($.84 on the $1). Add in CT and the numbers get worse for the Eastern, which contributes far more to the federal coffers than CA, WA, and OR.
The fact is, the Eastern Coastal states pay 2x the federal taxes that the West Coast 3 do. Even remove everything south of D.C. and the East Coast still contributes more. And that's with all that trade money from China.
BTW, I'm not going to disagree with you on the Middle States. |
I dunno about Nou, but I don't see the eastern seaboard as ing us. If anything, I see them as equals. They pay more in tax by percentage per capita, but total revenue is the same as us. California just has lots of mismanaged programs. Too many in my books, but thats for another day. We can get out of this financial crisis by doing a lot of things, but sadly, our state is all about just working with what they have and yet demanding more programs. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by gehzumteufel
This is utterly false. Just like there are countries using the Euro but aren't part of the EU and as such aren't part of the Euro Zone. We don't HAVE to create our own currency. Is it advised? Probably. |
but then you're just at the whim of the rest of the US in regards to monetary policy, so how exactly would this be a REAL secession or how would you retain any independence re things that matter?
| quote: | Originally posted by gehzumteufel
I don't disagree with your points that it would be a massive financial undertaking that could and very well run us broke. That doesn't mean that it isn't possible or even fathomable. |
Of course its impossible. Right now your budget is completely ed. Explain to me how you would incorporate all the additional government expenses into your budget. Take a look at all the roles of your federal government and try and imagine how costly they would be to carry out at the state level. The costs per capita would be (hugely) in excess of what those services currently cost. |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
but then you're just at the whim of the rest of the US in regards to monetary policy, so how exactly would this be a REAL secession or how would you retain any independence re things that matter? |
Because monetary policy doesn't dictate where funds go nor what they are for. Nor does it dictate how your country is run. Also, isn't if I remember correctly, the world so hungry for US bonds? Wasn't it the US that caused the global financial crisis? So much for having independent monetary policies and currencies. One country ed them all.
| quote: | | Of course its impossible. Right now your budget is completely ed. Explain to me how you would incorporate all the additional government expenses into your budget. Take a look at all the roles of your federal government and try and imagine how costly they would be to carry out at the state level. The costs per capita would be (hugely) in excess of what those services currently cost. |
Impossible implies it is never, in any future situation possible. So, while I don't disagree that in our current fiscal crisis as a state, we cannot afford it, that doesn't mean that we can't fix it and be even stronger and be able to afford it. |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
Just a word of warning, I will no longer be posting here tonight, as I am on my 3rd beer and I don't want to get confused. So I will post tomorrow. :)
ps: pkc, I am quite uninformed in monetary policy, so feel free to mock my wholly unknowing of it all. :) I should probably study up on it a bit, so if you have any helpful resources, they would be greatly appreciated. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by gehzumteufel
Because monetary policy doesn't dictate where funds go nor what they are for. Nor does it dictate how your country is run. |
No, but you would always be beholden to Washington and hardly independent if you had no means to manage your own currency.
| quote: | Originally posted by gehzumteufel
Also, isn't if I remember correctly, the world so hungry for US bonds? Wasn't it the US that caused the global financial crisis? So much for having independent monetary policies and currencies. One country ed them all. |
Well firstly, monetary policy didn’t anyone, that’s a completely different kettle of fish. That economies are intertwined is just the nature of modern states, but that’s completely different from being able to effect meaningful monetary policy for the good of your country. Indeed, you wouldn’t be able to effect monetary policy at all unless you had your own currency, because there’s no way in hell that the US would let you print US dollars. Who is going to help you create your central bank btw? All the American banks are already members of the federal reserve, so where is your economic and currency stability going to stem from?
| quote: | Originally posted by gehzumteufel
Impossible implies it is never, in any future situation possible. So, while I don't disagree that in our current fiscal crisis as a state, we cannot afford it, that doesn't mean that we can't fix it and be even stronger and be able to afford it. |
Well, for as long as you and I are alive, it is quite impossible. You could never afford it. As I have mentioned like 3 times already, the activities performed by your federal government cost you less now than they ever would if you made your own country. |
|
|
|
|
