PDA

View Full Version : The Military–Industrial complex



Toby
10 Mar 17,, 02:02
Hard to know where to put this topic. So apologises if I got it wrong But seeing As Eisenhower was a US President and military leader ....

In President Eisenhower's last speech (https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_speaking) he said,

"we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence (https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influence), whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex."

I was interested in what your thoughts were on that comment. Which it has to be said came from a man that witnessed and was in part instrumental in the birth of America as a military super power.

SteveDaPirate
10 Mar 17,, 16:03
He had a cogent point. We have to be careful to strike the right balance with military spending and acquisition programs.

When looking at acquisition programs for complex things like submarines or aircraft, you have to strike the appropriate balance in the number and rate that they are acquired. If you don't buy enough or leave too big a gap in purchases, the industry that can supply them will dry up and you will lose decades of institutional knowledge and experience. If this happens, when you need new submarines again in 30 years you'll have to spend a ton of time and money to rebuild the industry before they can even start producing submarines again, then you'll have to deal with all the mistakes and defects that happen as a result of inexperience.

On the other hand, you don't want to buy to buy 15,000 tanks that will never be used just to keep a senator with a tank factory in his district happy with low unemployment rates. Resources allocated to the military above and beyond what is really required are detrimental because those are resources that can't be used more efficiently on domestic programs that will provide more benefit to the nation.

So you have to strike the right balance of buying enough tanks that the factory stays in the tank making business instead of switching to tractors, but without buying so many that you don't know what to do with them. You'll see several tricks to try to accomplish this balance, such as buying submarines at a rate of 2 per year for the next 20 years. We might really prefer to buy 40 submarines over the next 5 years and then not buy them again for a few decades but that would force the only shipyards capable of producing them to move on to making other things instead.

It is wasteful to buy equipment this way, but less so than rebuilding industry every few decades. It also provides insurance against quickly deteriorating political situations. If you suddenly need as many submarines as you can build and as quickly as possible due to a war, it's far easier to expand existing production facilities with experienced personnel that can train new hires.

Toby
11 Mar 17,, 00:05
He had a cogent point. We have to be careful to strike the right balance with military spending and acquisition programs.

When looking at acquisition programs for complex things like submarines or aircraft, you have to strike the appropriate balance in the number and rate that they are acquired. If you don't buy enough or leave too big a gap in purchases, the industry that can supply them will dry up and you will lose decades of institutional knowledge and experience. If this happens, when you need new submarines again in 30 years you'll have to spend a ton of time and money to rebuild the industry before they can even start producing submarines again, then you'll have to deal with all the mistakes and defects that happen as a result of inexperience.

On the other hand, you don't want to buy to buy 15,000 tanks that will never be used just to keep a senator with a tank factory in his district happy with low unemployment rates. Resources allocated to the military above and beyond what is really required are detrimental because those are resources that can't be used more efficiently on domestic programs that will provide more benefit to the nation.

So you have to strike the right balance of buying enough tanks that the factory stays in the tank making business instead of switching to tractors, but without buying so many that you don't know what to do with them. You'll see several tricks to try to accomplish this balance, such as buying submarines at a rate of 2 per year for the next 20 years. We might really prefer to buy 40 submarines over the next 5 years and then not buy them again for a few decades but that would force the only shipyards capable of producing them to move on to making other things instead.
Heavy lies the crown!

It is wasteful to buy equipment this way, but less so than rebuilding industry every few decades. It also provides insurance against quickly deteriorating political situations. If you suddenly need as many submarines as you can build and as quickly as possible due to a war, it's far easier to expand existing production facilities with experienced personnel that can train new hires.

As a proud Brit, I deeply apologise for the weaponising of American industry and all its consequences. Unfortunately we had no choice, as we were dealing at the time with a Tyrant. Regardless of what anybody says...Germans / Japanese fight just as bravely as any Russian, Brit, American, Indian etc the deciding factor in our war against Germany was production and logistics. Unfortunately in Piling the entire wealth of the British empire into arms production we collectively unleashed an unparalleled power. Which to this day has been ill at ease with its own might.... How do you say sorry and thank you at the same time?

Heavy lies the crown!

MilitaryMuseums
12 Apr 17,, 11:05
[Mod Edit: You don't need to post the same video in multiple threads. Thank you]

MilitaryMuseums
18 Apr 17,, 01:21
[Mod Edit: You don't need to post the same video in multiple threads. Thank you]

Don't see why its an issue if the video is relevant to both threads....

TopHatter
18 Apr 17,, 13:17
Don't see why its an issue if the video is relevant to both threads....

Before posting further, you might want to read here:

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=2232

Ironduke
20 Apr 17,, 07:14
Hard to know where to put this topic. So apologises if I got it wrong But seeing As Eisenhower was a US President and military leader ....

In President Eisenhower's last speech (https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_speaking) he said,

"we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence (https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influence), whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex."

I was interested in what your thoughts were on that comment. Which it has to be said came from a man that witnessed and was in part instrumental in the birth of America as a military super power.

Eisenhower was right, and ever-increasing degrees of unwarranted influence has been acquired in the decades since he made that statement.

Toby
20 Apr 17,, 07:59
Eisenhower was right, and ever-increasing degrees of unwarranted influence has been acquired in the decades since he made that statement.

He seems to have had a real insight into the workings of industry. I think we saw this happen in Germany also. That didn't go well either.

Ironduke
20 Apr 17,, 08:52
He seems to have had a real insight into the workings of industry. I think we saw this happen in Germany also. That didn't go well either.
Well, he was the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe. A politician-general and top-level coordinator, really, quite unlike Patton, for example. He had broad situational awareness of all aspects of war, the military, politics, and the military industry even back in the 1940s.

What Eisenhower witnessed was a failure of the industry to re-trench itself back into a role of simply being a simple manufacturer that fulfilled orders, that was more or less the case pre-war - instead the industry leveraged itself post-war into having a high degree of political influence.

Today, the DC metro system, for example, especially in proximity to the Pentagon, is completely plastered with all types of Lockheed/Boeing/BAE/Raytheon etc. advertisements - I'm just going to call it what it is - propaganda posters. The defense employees making purchasing decisions get a healthy dose of propaganda each day on their way to and from work - from the companies they're purchasing from. Usually there's something in the posters about how patriotic these companies are, interspersed with such things as sleek looking pictures of their products, depictions of US service members in front of/handling their products, etc. There's almost always an American flag in the posters as well.

The 1st Amendment technically allows these type of posters - but it is what it is. Things like this are a very uncomfortable truth.

Ironduke
20 Apr 17,, 09:26
Unfortunately in Piling the entire wealth of the British empire into arms production we collectively unleashed an unparalleled power. Which to this day has been ill at ease with its own might.... How do you say sorry and thank you at the same time?

Heavy lies the crown!
The United States had the potential to exceed the British Empire in power by the dawn of the 1890s. Even in the 1865 the United States could have kicked the British out of North America if it had wished - with ease. I am saying this, because I think you are overstating/misstating both the relevance and the degree to which the British were a factor in certain matters.

The United States had a visceral avoidance with regards to acting like European nations for the most part - Europe being a continent constantly at war with various degrees of despotism, monarchy, etc. The US was cognizant of European history, and decided to simply inwardly focus for the most part on developing its own economy, agriculture, infrastructure, growth, etc. - basically establishing itself as an alternate, anti-Europe, recreating a New Europe, in a new continent, hoping to do so with none of the bad things and all of the good things.

Britain didn't weaponize the United States - the United States simply made a calculation that if the rest of the world were lost to the Nazis and Imperial Japanese - it would not be in a good position. It was in our self-interest to aid Britain and even the Soviet Union because if they fell, 80% of the world would be dominated by forces diametrically opposed to American ideals. It wouldn't then be long before the 80% - the Old World conquered by Germany and Japan - prevailed against the remaining 20% - the New World.

Even the idea of a special relationship with Britain, language and historical-based kinship, and even "Uncle Joe" in Russia was simply to make our aid and eventual entry into the war palatable to an American population that still had visceral tendencies toward avoidance of Old World affairs from the 1770s-1940s.

Britain simply exhausted itself during World War II, and could no longer maintain its Empire. France was defeated in 1940, and post-war attempted to re-assert a degree of control, experiencing failure in Syria, Lebanon, Indochina, and Algeria, but success in West Africa. The United States never saw eye to eye with Britain and France regarding imperialism, but could not allow a vacuum to be created that would be potentially filled by unsavory actors such as the Soviets.

That brings us to where we are today. The United States with its foreign policy is still trying to fill the various pieces of vacuum that exists to this very day, that started with the fall of the British and French Empires, with varying degrees of success and failure. Sometimes the United States happens to "whoops, I broke it" and creates a new vacuum.

It is not a case of Britain "weaponizing" America - it's a case of Britain and France experiencing failure of Empire and the vacuum that was created. Only the Soviets truly had capability of alternately filling this vacuum for much of post-war history. A race emerged between Soviets and the US to fill the vacuum - now China, Putinine Russia, and the EU (both collectively and individually) have emerged as the major actors competing over the vacuum.

The US defers to various European countries regarding filling the vacuum in certain areas - especially with regards to the French in West Africa. The US has filled the vacuum left by the British in the Gulf - successfully except that Iran was lost in 1979. Iraq and Syria are British/French vacuum that were filled with pro-Soviet dictatorships - and are now vacuum again. Libya was Italian vacuum filled with another pro-Soviet dictatorship, now it's a vacuum again. Vietnam was French vacuum that we attempted to fill, it ended up filling itself with a Communist regime - but now with the old Soviet Union gone and China becoming a geopolitical adversary, Vietnam is aligning closer to a pro-US, pro-East Asian democracy foreign policy.

So, again, this isn't a case of Britain unleashing a weaponized America on the world. America has acted in the ways it has due to the failures of the British and French Empires, and the worse alternatives that would fill the vacuum of these Empires, sometimes making mistakes along the way. I will say though - the United States is the unintentional successor state to the British Empire, and the successor in the Great Game that was waged between the Russians and British for two hundred years. It is really more of an accident of history than anything else.

The United States never asked for or sought this role, it simply had no choice. If the United States did not act to fill the vacuum that emerged after World War II - the Soviets would have filled all of it. The US and Europe sought to democratize and stabilize Russia as a member of the group of liberal democracies in the 1990s - but Russian economic failures, the failures of Western advice and aid, and the "poaching" of former Russian subject/satellite states alienated Russia and led to the rise of Putin. So, the Great Game is back, with China being a wild card.

Toby
20 Apr 17,, 10:04
Well answered. I don't believe we did weaponize the US, but it was a good way to trigger a response (eventually) ;-) .

We did however convince various American factories to switch to arms production prior to the the US entering the war.

The British empire was built on trade. It was a corporate/maritime empire built on the same lines as the Venetian one, Primarily kick started by the East India company.
Over the course of two world wars we basically exhausted our resources and bankrupted ourselves. The US was a beneficiary of this wealth as it was the only nation to end the second world war richer than it entered it.

Ironduke
20 Apr 17,, 22:54
We did however convince various American factories to switch to arms production prior to the the US entering the war.
Well - it doesn't take much convincing. As long as the US government legally signs off on arms exports - US companies will manufacture anything you want - profit motive, capitalism. This has always been the case in the United States - from the 1780s through the 1930s/40s through today. "Show me the money."

If the US government signed off on it - which it never will - I'm sure US manufacturers would even gladly export nuclear warheads to any pre-authorized buyer.


The British empire was built on trade. It was a corporate/maritime empire built on the same lines as the Venetian one, Primarily kick started by the East India company.
True.


Over the course of two world wars we basically exhausted our resources and bankrupted ourselves. The US was a beneficiary of this wealth as it was the only nation to end the second world war richer than it entered it.
The problem with the British Empire is that the metropole (Britain) made an enormous mistake that was several hundred years in the making - becoming completely dependent on imports of raw materials and food from the Empire, and exporting manufactured goods to the Empire and to anybody else who would buy them.

Many times in British history - this strategy caused major economic devastation when peacetime ended and wartime began, or unforeseen factors emerged - the Grain Riots of the 1830s, the Irish potato famine, World War I, and World War II come immediately to mind.

Not a bad strategy in peacetime - but there has been severe blowback many times in British history, and ultimately, terminal blowback after World War II that killed the Empire.

An example post-war - the Royal Navy's decision to choose a strategy of near-absolute dependency on Persian oil became the motivation for the overthrow of Mossadegh in 1953 - which caused severe blowback in 1979, long after Britain receded from being a major player in the Middle East, and it was the United States as the successor of the British Empire that the blowback affected the most.

Britain wanted a gas station in Persia at a middle point in what remained of its Empire in 1953 - very short-sighted as the eventual fall of the British Empire, the mothballing and breaking up of most the Royal Navy, the transition to nuclear powered naval ships and the coming obsolescence of oil, and the availability of limitless supplies of oil from other sources, quickly rendered the original "need" for a coup unnecessary within just a few years.

Britain didn't need Persian oil - there were virtually infinite supplies available elsewhere - it was an irrational choice to force themselves into a state of dependency by choosing Persia as a gas station, pre-emptively choosing to deny themselves the flexibility to get oil available from many other sources. Blinders, horse.

For want of a nail - the Persian gas station - ultimately led to the loss of a major non-NATO ally and CENTO. 1953 was a short-sighted, completely unnecessary tragedy - yes, hindsight is 20/20, but I'm sure the British politicians were delusional enough to think what was left of their Empire would last another 200 years even in 1953.

These are hard, uncomfortable truths I'm speaking here - but I believe that they are nevertheless, true.

Toby
21 Apr 17,, 00:19
Well - it doesn't take much convincing. As long as the US government legally signs off on arms exports - US companies will manufacture anything you want - profit motive, capitalism. This has always been the case in the United States - from the 1780s through the 1930s/40s through today. "Show me the money." Ah so Nazi Germany received arms supply also?????


If the US government signed off on it - which it never will - I'm sure US manufacturers would even gladly export nuclear warheads to any pre-authorized buyer.Doubt it


The problem with the British Empire is that the metropole (Britain) made an enormous mistake that was several hundred years in the makingIf it was 700 years in the making it was hardly a mistake..lol

-
becoming completely dependent on imports of raw materials and food from the Empire,Incorrrect, we're a floating coal barge. The copper and Tin mines were also key to various aspects of building the Empire


and exporting manufactured goods to the Empire and to anybody else who would buy them. Its called Trade...the precursor to Globalisation, something the US can claim credit for off our backs.


Many times in British history - this strategy caused major economic devastation when peacetime ended and wartime began, or unforeseen factors emerged - the Grain Riots of the 1830s, the Irish potato famine, World War I, and World War II come immediately to mind.
Still managed to come out on top though, all those trade links did pay off when the shit hit the fan.



Not a bad strategy in peacetime - but there has been severe blowback many times in British history, and ultimately, terminal blowback after World War II that killed the Empire. 'Killed' is a bad choice of words..I think you'll find it metamorphosed into a family of nations called the British commonwealth http://thecommonwealth.org/member-countries


An example post-war - the Royal Navy's decision to choose a strategy of near-absolute dependency on Persian oilI In 1914, one month before the First World War, Churchill secured for the British Crown a 51 per cent controlling interest in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company for £2.2 million. His decisions were to assure British naval supremacy.


became the motivation for the overthrow of Mossadegh in 1953 - which caused severe blowback in 1979, long after Britain receded from being a major player in the Middle East, and it was the United States as the successor of the British Empire that the blowback affected the most. Operation Ajax was a CIA operation carried out by President Theodore Roosevelt’s grandson, Kermit Roosevelt. You got blow back from your own meddling.


Britain wanted a gas station in Persia at a middle point in what remained of its Empire in 1953We owned it...


- very short-sighted as the eventual fall of the British Empire, the mothballing and breaking up of most the Royal Navy, the transition to nuclear powered naval ships Apart from Submarines (for obvious reasons) we have never invested in Nuclear powered Warships, never needed to.



and the coming obsolescence of oil, and the availability of limitless supplies of oil from other sources, quickly rendered the original "need" for a coup unnecessary within just a few years. Everybody is clever in hindsight, Still a CIA operation though


Britain didn't need Persian oil - there were virtually infinite supplies available elsewhere - it was an irrational choice to force themselves into a state of dependency by choosing Persia as a gas station, pre-emptively choosing to deny themselves the flexibility to get oil available from many other sources. Blinders, horse.
Look up the AIOC..it wasn't Iranian owned, in 1954 it became BP.

For want of a nail - the Persian gas station - ultimately led to the loss of a major non-NATO ally and CENTO. 1953 was a short-sighted, completely unnecessary tragedy - yes, hindsight is 20/20, but I'm sure the British politicians were delusional enough to think what was left of their Empire would last another 200 years even in 1953.

These are hard, uncomfortable truths I'm speaking here Sorry but many already saw the writing was on the wall, India had already gone at this point

Ironduke
21 Apr 17,, 00:26
Toby - I'm not really interested in jingoism. I've got to run to the store - so I'll keep it brief.

Operation Ajax was conducted for the same reason the US supplied the UK during the Falklands War - to support a major US ally and its interests. The CIA intervened primarily on behalf of Britain. American interests were only at stake by proxy - British interests were the ones most directly at stake. That an American Anglophile in a nation allied to Britain intervened on behalf of British interests should be readily apparent if you look in depth at the operation and the motives of the actors who carried out.

This isn't the first time in history this sort of thing occurred, and it won't be the last. The occurrence of these types of events, in general, in one form or another, to some degree or another, has happened multiple times a day, every single day, throughout human history.

I will give credit where credit is due - the world, on the balance, is a better place as a result of British imperialism, mercantilism, innovation, and legal/social/cultural exports. But that does not mean we cannot speak truths regarding the motives and interests that drove these things - the seeking power and economic gain, naked self-interest.

It is serendipitous that on the balance, much good came out of these actions, but that does not mean we have carte blanche to be in denial about the... less than good outcomes. We have to accept both aspects/sides of these realities.

Toby
21 Apr 17,, 00:45
Toby - I'm not really interested in jingoism. I've got to run to the store - so I'll keep it brief.

Operation Ajax was conducted for the same reason the US supplied the UK during the Falklands War - to support a major US ally and its interests. The CIA intervened primarily on behalf of Britain. American interests were only at stake by proxy - British interests were the ones most directly at stake. That an American Anglophile in a nation allied to Britain intervened on behalf of British interests should be readily apparent if you look in depth at the operation and the motives of the actors who carried out.

This isn't the first time in history this sort of thing occurred, and it won't be the last. The occurrence of these types of events, in general, in one form or another, to some degree or another, has happened multiple times a day, every single day, throughout human history.

I will give credit where credit is due - the world, on the balance, is a better place as a result of British imperialism, mercantilism, innovation, and legal/social/cultural exports. But that does not mean we cannot speak truths regarding the motives and interests that drove these things - the seeking power and economic gain, naked self-interest.

It is serendipitous that on the balance, much good came out of these actions, but that does not mean we have carte blanche to be in denial about the... less than good outcomes. We have to accept both aspects/sides of these realities.
I wasn't being jingoistic. I'm quite glad the British empire has given way to independent states. But if you think the CIA backed up the British by proxy...then you're having a laugh. The CIA were nervous about the Soviets becoming Iran's new best friend. Quite right too! You were doing the same else where to. I was slightly amused when you said the US filed the vacuum in Vietnam. You bombed them into oblivion.....lol. Anyway Churchill was right in 1914....clearly the world had changed by 1953 though.

Ironduke
21 Apr 17,, 01:03
We bombed Korea into oblivion too. From Pusan to the Yalu.

The US most definitely had interests at stake in Iran. It is my opinion, that the Anglo-Persian Oil Company was the bigger interest. One thing to keep in mind is that parties almost definitely misstate their interests and motives, and up-play certain things while downplaying others. You cannot take every account at face value and only think on the surface level.

The immediate cause of the eventual operation and coup was loss of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. The United States then went about and found excuses of its own to layer on top of that to justify its actions. The bread and meat of the issue was the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. The United States added cheese, lettuce, onion, mustard, and a slice of tomato and made what it thought was an even tastier sandwich out of it.

Ironduke
21 Apr 17,, 01:15
Running out to the store - but it's just that I feel I'm detecting a hint of reductivist reasoning. When people do something, they might have 3, 5, or 10 reasons for doing it. Some of those reasons may even be contradictory. When two or more parties are involved, the number of reasons multiplies and the contradictions add up. To resolve the resulting cognitive dissonance, it is often convenient to reduce everything to one singular, grand reason, and then additionally be in denial about the contradictions.

But that does not mean that other reasons do not exist, or even that there are not contradictory reasons for doing that thing.

I'll be back later.

Toby
22 Apr 17,, 13:19
Running out to the store - but it's just that I feel I'm detecting a hint of reductivist reasoning. When people do something, they might have 3, 5, or 10 reasons for doing it. Some of those reasons may even be contradictory. When two or more parties are involved, the number of reasons multiplies and the contradictions add up. To resolve the resulting cognitive dissonance, it is often convenient to reduce everything to one singular, grand reason, and then additionally be in denial about the contradictions.

But that does not mean that other reasons do not exist, or even that there are not contradictory reasons for doing that thing.

I'll be back later.That store must be doing a great trade.... ;)

Nothing is black and white, I understand. Actions can lead to unforeseen situations and consequences. Multiple objectives of different parties can lead to 'a Syria'. I'm sure you could put this better but I get where you are going.

Around the Time of Operation Ajax the CIA was spreading its wings after being Schooled by SIS. I tend to look at this period as America taking the Mantle. It wasn't long after this event that another event took place namely SUEZ, after which the Mantle had most definitely been taken by the US. The US military had proven to be unrivalled (except for the Soviets) and had now accomplished an international intelligence gathering operation. Something which it lacked or was limited during the second world war.

Hard to believe how quickly all this took place and that in terms of history it was only a short time ago. On our part we most definitely supply expertise where needed in different shapes and forms to the US.( which is reciprocal ) More than any other country I would say and that in its self is acknowledgement of role reversal. People forget we were and still are a small island off the coast of Europe with big ambitions.

snapper
22 Apr 17,, 14:16
Just a couple of things; first the Irish potato problem followed a potato blight where because all the potatoes were clones as it were and not genetically diverse enough the entire crop was destroyed by one rogue bug. In England and elsewhere there was more genetic diversity so the effects were not as drastic. It was next to nothing to do with the lack of ability to import food from abroad but this reliance on imports was recognised and the reason for the strength and per-eminense of the Fleet in British military thinking.

Toby
22 Apr 17,, 15:54
Just a couple of things; first the Irish potato problem followed a potato blight where because all the potatoes were clones as it were and not genetically diverse enough the entire crop was destroyed by one rogue bug. In England and elsewhere there was more genetic diversity so the effects were not as drastic. It was next to nothing to do with the lack of ability to import food from abroad but this reliance on imports was recognised and the reason for the strength and per-eminense of the Fleet in British military thinking.
Sorry my eye is not on the ball at present. Moving house is very distracting....But yeh a long period of rain causing devastation to the Potato crop is hardly due to lack of planning. Like most problems over come in the Victorian period, Massive population growth in the industrial cities caused huge decisions to be made to counter all kinds of problems...Life expectancy in say Manchester in the early 19th century was 27, largely due to non existent sewerage and appalling sanitation. Infrastructure projects answered these problems but it took time and massive effort. In terms of the UK feeding it self, this was only addressed during WW2 (to my knowledge) and actually reached 78% self reliance in the early 80's,unfortunately its been in rapid decline ever since....

In terms of the size of the British fleet, as Snapper says its primary purpose was to protect movement of goods something which is carried out globally these days by various Navies.

Ironduke
23 Apr 17,, 08:17
Just a couple of things; first the Irish potato problem followed a potato blight where because all the potatoes were clones as it were and not genetically diverse enough the entire crop was destroyed by one rogue bug. In England and elsewhere there was more genetic diversity so the effects were not as drastic. It was next to nothing to do with the lack of ability to import food from abroad but this reliance on imports was recognised and the reason for the strength and per-eminense of the Fleet in British military thinking.
Ireland was exporting millions of tons of beef, pork, ham, cheese, butter, and wheat to England at this time - food items that were very profitable for the landlords of Ireland, but which the typical Irish could not afford to eat much of - they certainly were not given much or any at all of these foodstuffs. These were luxury food items destined for England and the export went on relatively uninterrupted.

Ireland was an oasis of food during the famine - potatoes were the only crop that suffered, massive exports continued unabated. Ireland was primarily an agricultural colony to feed the burgeoning population of the UK for several centuries. Limitless amounts of green grass = lots of dairy and beef.

Something like 80% or more of the population subsisted on potatoes grown on whatever small plots they were allowed on their landlord's estate - while primarily working in the agricultural export sector for their landlord.

It is not really any different than the famines in Roman Egypt - the native Egyptians would starve to death by the hundreds of thousands or even millions, so that Rome could eat.

This is yet another uncomfortable truth - yet it is the truth nonetheless. This and a multitude of other similar factors are the primary reason for the historical Irish animus toward the UK.

snapper
23 Apr 17,, 09:17
I have no doubt that the social hierarchy at the time was not 'ideal' but the difference between the Irish potato famine and say the Ukrainian Holodomor was that if had the potato blight had not occurred, or had there been great genetic differences in the potatoes grown - the famine would not have occurred. In Ukraine it was arguably far more 'man made' and on purpose notwithstanding the then current social hierarchy structure in place in both/either.

Possibly you know that the blight came from the US?

Toby
23 Apr 17,, 10:42
the historical Irish animus toward the UK.

Towards the establishment maybe. But seeing as there's more people with Irish blood in them in the UK, than there is in Ireland. I find that illogical. Prior to the famine huge amounts of Irish labour helped build the Canals and railway systems that litter the landscape. Especially here in Manchester and the surrounding area. Most of this labour did not return home. You only have to pick up an old phone directory to realise who the present day English actually are in the historical industrial areas.


Ireland was an oasis of food during the famine - potatoes were the only crop that suffered, massive exports continued unabated. Ireland was primarily an agricultural colony to feed the burgeoning population of the UK for several centuries. Limitless amounts of green grass = lots of dairy and beef.They still do, another 'uncomfortable truth' for Ireland and the EU mafia to suck on. Ireland although independent relies even more heavily on the UK economy than it did when it was apart of it.

Toby
23 Apr 17,, 10:44
I have no doubt that the social hierarchy at the time was not 'ideal' but the difference between the Irish potato famine and say the Ukrainian Holodomor was that if had the potato blight had not occurred, or had there been great genetic differences in the potatoes grown - the famine would not have occurred. In Ukraine it was arguably far more 'man made' and on purpose notwithstanding the then current social hierarchy structure in place in both/either.

Possibly you know that the blight came from the US?So Ukrainian potatoes can withstand a deluge of rain that washes away the soil and all the nutrients needed to sustain healthy growth?

(are we really having a conversation about potatoes? I prefer Cyprus ones for chips, Jerseys for boiling, Marabella for roasting and Maris piper for mashing....being part Irish I'm a freakin authority on this subject ;-) Anyway I'm off on a bike ride over the moors and when I get back I'll be on Hash browns or maybe potato cakes, haven't decided yet)

snapper
23 Apr 17,, 12:13
So Ukrainian potatoes can withstand a deluge of rain that washes away the soil and all the nutrients needed to sustain healthy growth?

I am not sure any crop could survive "a deluge of rain that washes away the soil and all the nutrients needed to sustain healthy growth" but the blight was a disease as much as rain. As for Ukraine it is mostly grain country and we are blessed with 'black earth' such that a single Ukrainian harvest (and in some places double harvests are possible) could in theory supply all of Europe. That is why Ukraine was the object of Stalin and Hitlers ambitions (Hitlers being the whole 'lebensraum' BS and Stalin's version being the previous Holodomor which fortunately my ancestors avoided living in what was then Poland).

Toby
23 Apr 17,, 13:52
I am not sure any crop could survive "a deluge of rain that washes away the soil and all the nutrients needed to sustain healthy growth" but the blight was a disease as much as rain. As for Ukraine it is mostly grain country and we are blessed with 'black earth' such that a single Ukrainian harvest (and in some places double harvests are possible) could in theory supply all of Europe. That is why Ukraine was the object of Stalin and Hitlers ambitions (Hitlers being the whole 'lebensraum' BS and Stalin's version being the previous Holodomor which fortunately my ancestors avoided living in what was then Poland).I believe so, I had a conversation a few years back with a former Waffen SS soldier...Thats what he said,'Black earth' he also said that it needed Germans to get the full yield from it. As the peasants that occupied the land didn't know what they were doing (his words not mine) He was quite unrepentant.

Skywatcher
23 Apr 17,, 20:34
I believe so, I had a conversation a few years back with a former Waffen SS soldier...Thats what he said,'Black earth' he also said that it needed Germans to get the full yield from it. As the peasants that occupied the land didn't know what they were doing (his words not mine) He was quite unrepentant.

There was loony (even by Nazi standard schemes) plan to ship Ukrainian topsoil into Germany. Think even a few trainloads actually got sent to the Fatherland.

Ironduke
23 Apr 17,, 21:16
I have no doubt that the social hierarchy at the time was not 'ideal' but the difference between the Irish potato famine and say the Ukrainian Holodomor was that if had the potato blight had not occurred, or had there been great genetic differences in the potatoes grown - the famine would not have occurred. In Ukraine it was arguably far more 'man made' and on purpose notwithstanding the then current social hierarchy structure in place in both/either.

Possibly you know that the blight came from the US?
The potatoes and the blight are irrelevant. The fact is that Ireland was exporting 5x more calories in the form of meat and dairy than the potatoes provided either before, during, and after the famine is what made the potato famine an unnecessary, completely avoidable tragedy.

Talking about potatoes and blights is getting lost in the weeds. Potatoes and blight are a non-factor. The issue is the fact that 5x as many calories were being exported to England before/after the famine, and perhaps 10x as many during the famine. This is what ruined Ireland. The Irish only consumed potatoes because they were denied every other former of sustenance, sustenance that was, in fact, locally abundant in enormous quantities throughout the famine.

The metropole was fed with good beef and dairy - marginal Ireland suffered.

Ironduke
23 Apr 17,, 21:19
Towards the establishment maybe. But seeing as there's more people with Irish blood in them in the UK, than there is in Ireland. I find that illogical. Prior to the famine huge amounts of Irish labour helped build the Canals and railway systems that litter the landscape. Especially here in Manchester and the surrounding area. Most of this labour did not return home. You only have to pick up an old phone directory to realise who the present day English actually are in the historical industrial areas.
The Irish emigrated to England for the same reasons we see migration flows from North Africa/Middle East to Europe, or Mexico/Latin America to the United States.

The same exact factors that drive these two types of modern-day immigration are the same factors that drove Irish immigration to the UK.

I'll give you an example that occurs in my own country: Mexican-American border patrol agents can be even dedicated to their jobs and enforcement activities than their White American counterparts, as they feel they have something to prove. Many Irish-descended persons in England are more patriotic than your everyday Briton/Englander - as the saying goes in converts to Catholicism, they are more Catholic than the Pope, just as Mexican-American border patrol agents are even more dedicated and patriotic than their white counterparts.

These are the same exact qualities playing themselves out, the only difference is the place/location these universal aspects of human nature are occurring in.

900+ years ago - the Anglo-Norman elite in Ireland went native as well - they became more Irish than they Irish themselves. This is the origin of the term, 'going native'.

Ireland and England have been deeply intertwined since the Norman days. Dublin was in fact an English city for over 800 years - and since Irish independence, it's only been an Irish city for less than 100.


They still do, another 'uncomfortable truth' for Ireland and the EU mafia to suck on. Ireland although independent relies even more heavily on the UK economy than it did when it was apart of it.
Even with independence - the economic ties were not torn. England and especially southern England/London is the metropole - Ireland is on the margins. No different than a suburb that is independently governed from the metropolis it lies at some distance from - but make no mistake, the suburb is still almost entirely dependent on the metropolis for its well-being.

We see the same thing playing out in the intertwining of Canada and the US, the same exact thing occurs with regards to the UK and Ireland.

A suburb can be far wealthier and affluent than the metropole - but if say, Minneapolis were to disappear overnight, for the sake of argument, and I don't mean this literally - let's say it was sucked into another dimension - nobody would have jobs in the suburbs. Even the wealthiest suburbs are dependent on 6-7 figure salaries that are only found for the most part in Minneapolis.

snapper
23 Apr 17,, 22:18
The potatoes and the blight are irrelevant. The fact is that Ireland was exporting 5x more calories in the form of meat and dairy than the potatoes provided either before, during, and after the famine is what made the potato famine an unnecessary, completely avoidable tragedy.

Talking about potatoes and blights is getting lost in the weeds. Potatoes and blight are a non-factor. The issue is the fact that 5x as many calories were being exported to England before/after the famine, and perhaps 10x as many during the famine. This is what ruined Ireland. The Irish only consumed potatoes because they were denied every other former of sustenance, sustenance that was, in fact, locally abundant in enormous quantities throughout the famine.

The metropole was fed with good beef and dairy - marginal Ireland suffered.


All famines are doubtless partly due to social or political unwillingness to alleviate them to some extent and I am not seeking to deny every 'human factor' in the Irish or any other case. The distinction I am drawing is that some famines also have natural causes whereas some are predominantly man made. In the Irish case there was a potato disease, in Ethiopia there was a drought etc which precipitated the disaster. Those Jews who starved in Nazi concentration camps or the greatly man made Holodomor in Ukraine had no original diseases or droughts that of themselves started the hunger. Yes man can alleviate the worst effects of a famine if there is sufficient political and social will but where the crisis is specifically man made no such will can occur. Sure the exports of food from Ireland could have been stopped and perhaps should have been from a moral perspective if nothing else but the original cause was a disease that ruined the potato crop and not some social or political inclination to deliberately starve the Irish. There is a difference between not responding appropriately to a crisis and actually manufacturing it.

Toby
23 Apr 17,, 22:27
Many Irish-descended persons in England are more patriotic than your everyday Briton/EnglanderNot really, As a whole we have a healthy disrespect for any authority, especially people who wave a flag in our face. We're not American.

Ironduke
23 Apr 17,, 23:39
Not really, As a whole we have a healthy disrespect for any authority, especially people who wave a flag in our face. We're not American.
I stand corrected - I've never fully explored or asked any Englanders or Britons of Irish descent their thoughts regarding their history, background, and thoughts. I generalized something seen in America to be also be generally true in England. From what you've told me, my previous statement is generally not the case with regards to Irish in Britain.

Toby
24 Apr 17,, 00:08
I stand corrected - I've never fully explored or asked any Englanders or Britons of Irish descent their thoughts regarding their history, background, and thoughts. I generalized something seen in America to be also be generally true in England. From what you've told me, my previous statement is generally not the case with regards to Irish in Britain.You're an interesting guy ( I assume you're a guy?) with a thoughtful opinion, I respect that.
I found it very difficult to explain the cultural differences when I lived in Texas....Most days my jaw ached from rounding my words and not using my Northern accent...I was mistaken for Scottish ..Irish ..some people just stared and went shy after I spoke...quite difficult to deal with at times...I got asked to say something in my local dialect frequently which was funny at first but started to gnaw after a while.
I believe in the American dream simply because I'm British and its something worth aspiring to. However I didn't see much of it while I was there...everything is about turning a coin, it is here too but not to that extent. Yep had a glass of wine or 5 so I'm rambling..lol ;)
You are right in part by the way about immigrants being more patriotic because they feel they have something to prove. My problem is as with many English from the North, I don't see the Irish, Scottish or Welsh as foreigners. Because thats who we are!
I probably should also add that considering how long the Asian community have populated the Northern mill towns, they in the main have not integrated. Which I find very troubling as do many. You'd need to ask them how patriotic they feel because from where I'm stood they don't look like they want to be apart of anything we stand for. In conversations I've had this does change depending on region and also educational background

Ironduke
24 Apr 17,, 01:09
You're an interesting guy ( I assume you're a guy?) with a thoughtful opinion, I respect that.
I was the principal visionary in the founding of WAB in its current format. Way back in July 2003 - the forum had previously been hosted on globalrelations.net for several weeks. We ported the forum to this domain on August 2, 2003 as it had an existing vBulletin license, but the previous site was a completely different forum concerning roleplaying micronations, that has since been lost to the vagaries of time, none of the original content survived the globalrelations.net port.

WAB represented a merger between a dozen or so high profile contributors across several different geopolitical discussion communities that discovered one another, and coalesced here.

WAB was created in co-operation with many other people, without whom WAB would have never existed. After all, one guy's vision means nothing if others also don't join in. I merely hustled and rounded up a bunch of people I was able to persuade to join me as contributors and staff members.

The origin story of WAB is relatively banal - an endless stream of annoying tldr; instant messages in May/June 2003 on MSN Messenger from me to people who are mostly no longer with us, but were critical in founding WAB and stayed on for various periods of time - then the squeaky wheel (me) got the grease, and voila, this forum was born.

Tophatter is the longest serving staff member - 3 months after the forum was founded. I say that, because I'm not a staff member anymore.

I was the principal admin through 2011, since then, the reins have since passed to other capable hands.

astralis runs the show now, along with JAD, Parihaka, Tophatter, and others I'm not yet quite familiar with.

Anyways, that's who I am. In case you might have been wondering or didn't know.

Got a few things to do - there was a post I skipped on that I'll address tonight.

Yes, I'm a guy.

Toby
24 Apr 17,, 01:26
I was the principal visionary in the founding of WAB in its current format. Way back in July 2003 - the forum had previously been hosted on globalrelations.net for several weeks. We ported the forum to this domain on August 2, 2003 as it had an existing vBulletin license, but the previous site was a completely different forum concerning roleplaying micronations, that has since been lost to the vagaries of time, none of the original content survived the globalrelations.net port.

WAB represented a merger between a dozen or so high profile contributors across several different geopolitical discussion communities that discovered one another, and coalesced here.

WAB was created in co-operation with many other people, without whom WAB would have never existed. After all, one guy's vision means nothing if others also don't join in. I merely hustled and rounded up a bunch of people I was able to persuade to join me as contributors and staff members.

The origin story of WAB is relatively banal - an endless stream of annoying tldr; instant messages in May/June 2003 on MSN Messenger to people who are mostly no longer with us, then the squeaky wheel (me) got the grease, and voila, this forum was born.

I was the principal admin through 2011, since then, the reins have since passed to other capable hands.

astralis runs the show now, along with JAD, Parihaka, Tophatter, and others I'm not yet quite familiar with.

Anyways, that's who I am. In case you might have been wondering or didn't know.

Got a few things to do - there was a post I skipped on that I'll address tonight.

The Iron Duke was Wellington?

Ironduke
24 Apr 17,, 01:38
The Ironduke is a reference to three things, in descending order:

1) The 4-cylinder engine in my second car, a 1986 Pontiac 6000, which is nicknamed in mechanic circles the 'Ironduke'. The 6000 is a type of car that flies under the radar, however, it just keeps running and it's hard to kill the engine - as long as you change the oil and keep it lubricated, it never stops and just keeps going.

From there, I just went with it, the other two retroactive continuity references are:

2) The Duke of Wellington - he himself got his nickname in a disparaging manner - he often had to close his iron curtains when rioters bombarded his residence with rotten vegetables, glass bottles, and rocks while he was Prime Minister.

3) The HMS Ironduke - the Dreadnought pictured at left under my username - when it needed to, it could turn and direct its 13.5 inch guns, arrive at a firing solution, and land a heavy salvo directly on target.

Ironduke
24 Apr 17,, 06:51
All famines are doubtless partly due to social or political unwillingness to alleviate them to some extent and I am not seeking to deny every 'human factor' in the Irish or any other case. The distinction I am drawing is that some famines also have natural causes whereas some are predominantly man made. In the Irish case there was a potato disease, in Ethiopia there was a drought etc which precipitated the disaster.
The Irish were basically enslaved in a tenant-landlord relationship very unfavorable for poor tenant farmers, and very favorable for the landlords, who were usually lords in their own right. The Irish model from the 16th century is what slavery in America was based upon. The Irish were merely swapped out first for indentured servants, and finally black slaves in America.

The Irish did not eat potatoes because they liked potatoes. It's not like Pringles, where once they popped, they just couldn't stop. It was the only food source they could reasonably grow on what tiny plots were allotted to them for self-sustenance, while they worked the rest of their landlord's land engaged primarily in beef, dairy, and wheat production destined for England. Ireland was an agricultural colony meant to feed England. The potatoes were the only food the Irish could grow as the rest were primarily exported.

The blight merely aggravated pre-existing man-made conditions. Slavery under a different name, potatoes are the only food allowed to you, and then a blight hits the only food you are allowed to eat. Famine. The causes were man-made. Irish dependence on the potato was a result of centuries of greed and avarice. Then the blight hit the potato, and millions died or emigrated. The blight devastated the potato crop, but Irish dependence on the potato crop was not a willing choice on their part. Enforced poverty, no alternative food sources, and serfdom under landlords were the drivers.

If the Irish were allowed a diversified food supply - the potato blight wouldn't have had much of an impact. They were not allowed a diversified food supply - even though it was readily available. There was too much profit in selling cheese, butter, and beef in England - the Irish were allowed to starve while mountains of rich calories were shipped east across the Irish Sea.

Ironduke
24 Apr 17,, 08:27
I believe in the American dream simply because I'm British and its something worth aspiring to. However I didn't see much of it while I was there...everything is about turning a coin, it is here too but not to that extent.
Too many in the US believe crass materialism is the standard to aspire to - unfortunate, really. This is true everywhere - but in the US is crass materialism on hyper-steroids. There should be a point where people are satisfied with what they have - where enough is enough - but there's this drive to consume as much as possible. People get emotionally invested in a big pile o' stuff, and stake their entire ego on this big pile 'o stuff. Most of the population seems to determine a person's worth by how big their pile 'o stuff is - which I suppose is generally the case everywhere - but is on steroids in the US.

I suppose it was the same in prehistoric times, as the man with the most shiny rocks and agates was probably seen as the social better, more intelligent, and the best mating prospect relative to everyone else. And wars with spear and atlatl probably broke out between caveman tribes over various caveman collections of shiny rocks and agates. I suppose that cavemen were even killed over a very particular hard-to-find singular agate.

Too much work and not enough life, as the saying goes, here in the US. My personal view. Something like 20% of the population is medicated at any one time - I see it as a result of perfectly ordinary people being overtaxed and ill-adapted to the entirely artificial nature and tempo of the modern world we live in.

I live something close to a Danish or Dutch lifestyle myself, a form of genteel poverty, far beneath my means, which is practical in the city I happen to live in. I err on the side of enjoying life - if I have too much money - I'm working too much and haven't been having as good of a time as I should be. Personally, I will always choose meatspace social capital over money, any time, any where.

To me, the real dream is to live life as well as possible. I don't aspire to a McMansion or even a regular McHouse - made of Grade D pine lumber clad in particle board, with gypsum powder caked between two sheets of paper for walls, cupboards made of glued sawdust board, with extruded vinyl exterior siding, with asphalt squares on the top of the whole thing. Nor do I need three cars, electronics that get thrown away every year, or furniture that matches the drapes in a room that nobody uses, to feel like I'm living the dream.

Some day, perhaps in my 50s, I might rent a backhoe and dig a hole near a river or lake near the Hudson Bay. Then build my own house from scratch with real materials. Stone, brick and mortar, oak, maple, etc. Collect the stone and wood myself, perhaps even mold and fire the bricks. I might pour concrete for the foundation and hire a local to help me with a handful of things, but that's about it. That's my dream.

Ironduke
24 Apr 17,, 11:39
You are right in part by the way about immigrants being more patriotic because they feel they have something to prove. My problem is as with many English from the North, I don't see the Irish, Scottish or Welsh as foreigners. Because thats who we are!
Well, technically - the English themselves are of blended Celtic-Germanic ancestry.

Myself, direct patrilineal descent, I'm Cornish. Cattle ranchers. Other members of my distant family in Cornwall are masons - the last name can be found engraved on many of the cornerstones in Truro and other cities.

There was a lot of land in Canada and not much in Cornwall. My family arrived in PEI in the 1830s. After the arrival, there were two branches that split on each side of the Great Lakes - from Eastern Ontario - a leather tannery that still operates today was established in Pennsylvania by one branch, and from Western Ontario - my branch progressively established a series of cattle ranches in Minnesota, Kansas, and Texas, moving south as time went on.

The last ancestor of mine who had a British accent died in 1953 - my grandpa's grandpa. Not a Cornish accent, it might have been RP. Or it could have been Cornish for all I know - I know Cornish sounds nothing like RP but who knows how Midwesterners from his arrival in the 80s/90s to his death in 1953 would have perceived it. My grandpa told me a lot about him, he died 29 years before I was born, so I never got to meet the guy.

He was a 1/4 Cornish, and the rest was Scottish and English via his mother and father's mother. He was the patriarch of the family, and was locally known as the Englishman in the county on the Iowa-Minnesota border where he had his several thousand head, feed lots, corn farms, slaughterhouses, butcher's shop and grocery. Privately, he reminded his family despite what the locals called him, he was Cornish, not English.

Doktor
24 Apr 17,, 13:32
Shame, a somehwat very interesting and educational discussion got derailed. Oh, well...

Ironduke
25 Apr 17,, 04:37
Shame, a somehwat very interesting and educational discussion got derailed. Oh, well...
You can always re-rail it by chipping in on something from page 1 or 2. ;-)

looking4NSFS
25 Apr 17,, 11:23
[QUOTE=Ironduke;1024253]The Ironduke is a reference to three things, in descending order:

1) The 4-cylinder engine in my second car, a 1986 Pontiac 6000, which is nicknamed in mechanic circles the 'Ironduke'. The 6000 is a type of car that flies under the radar, however, it just keeps running and it's hard to kill the engine - as long as you change the oil and keep it lubricated, it never stops and just keeps going.

Ironduke: And entirely under rated car and engine combination. Ran mine out to 250,000 miles before my better half absolutely refused to get in it to go anywhere! I kept trying to tell her that if it was going to break...... it would have broken many many miles before a quarter of a million! Nice thread, and a little WAB history, thanks.

Albany Rifles
25 Apr 17,, 16:32
I believe in the American dream simply because I'm British and its something worth aspiring to. However I didn't see much of it while I was there...everything is about turning a coin, it is here too but not to that extent. Yep had a glass of wine or 5 so I'm rambling..lol ;)

You say you visited Texas. Did you visit any other parts of America? Were most of your contacts business related? And as for turning a coin....remember our founding documents were written by men who, while politicians, were also merchants. This is reflected in the business influence on our Constitution.

And as for the wine....in vino vertitas!!!

snapper
25 Apr 17,, 16:44
The blight merely aggravated pre-existing man-made conditions. Slavery under a different name, potatoes are the only food allowed to you, and then a blight hits the only food you are allowed to eat. Famine. The causes were man-made. Irish dependence on the potato was a result of centuries of greed and avarice. Then the blight hit the potato, and millions died or emigrated. The blight devastated the potato crop, but Irish dependence on the potato crop was not a willing choice on their part. Enforced poverty, no alternative food sources, and serfdom under landlords were the drivers.

If the Irish were allowed a diversified food supply - the potato blight wouldn't have had much of an impact. They were not allowed a diversified food supply - even though it was readily available. There was too much profit in selling cheese, butter, and beef in England - the Irish were allowed to starve while mountains of rich calories were shipped east across the Irish Sea.

Look I am not saying the response was adequate by today's standards but it would not have occurred had not the blight occurred. It's a bit like arguing that the Black Death wasn't handled as well as it might have been; sure - wiping out fleas and rats would have helped but at the time nobody understood that. That does NOT mean that the Black Death was "man made" or "waiting to happen" it wasn't. The same for the Spanish flu epidemic etc; these have natural causes which the understanding of the time was not upto sufficiently alleviating; the reaction given historical hindsight could and should have been better but the cause was 'natural'.

Toby
25 Apr 17,, 20:19
Shame, a somehwat very interesting and educational discussion got derailed. Oh, well...
LOL, come on Doc say something controversial...

Toby
25 Apr 17,, 20:41
You say you visited Texas. Did you visit any other parts of America? Were most of your contacts business related? And as for turning a coin....remember our founding documents were written by men who, while politicians, were also merchants. This is reflected in the business influence on our Constitution.

I loved it in Texas, because its not like here, ....I lived there with my wife and yeh we travelled to about 5 or 6 other states.. I enjoyed the big skies and the lightening storms, sat outside watching them roll in for hours, course when they arrived I ran for it!
To clarify, I enjoyed the work and had about 7 jobs While I was there. Thats the thing, if you wanna work its there and you can and I did. Did my own yard sale, all the customers were you know who, that was quite a humbling experience..Ran a T Shirt stall at a basketball tournament...Loved it. Chopped wood forever, loved that too, lots of yard work, enjoyed that, Cleaned carpets in Dallas at the Catholic school, Got an EPA in Refrigeration, laid wooden floors, resprayed bathrooms with one guy, not for me, but I tried it...Unfortunately things didn't work out in the relationship..hayho!




And as for the wine....in vino vertitas!!! You think....lol... Hear we say,'he's on the wind up' (tongue in cheek)

Parihaka
25 Apr 17,, 21:05
You can always re-rail it by chipping in on something from page 1 or 2. ;-)

Doc doth make the mock

Toby
25 Apr 17,, 23:01
Look I am not saying the response was adequate by today's standards but it would not have occurred had not the blight occurred. It's a bit like arguing that the Black Death wasn't handled as well as it might have been; sure - wiping out fleas and rats would have helped but at the time nobody understood that. That does NOT mean that the Black Death was "man made" or "waiting to happen" it wasn't. The same for the Spanish flu epidemic etc; these have natural causes which the understanding of the time was not upto sufficiently alleviating; the reaction given historical hindsight could and should have been better but the cause was 'natural'.Natural yes but driven by intense farming and too much reliance on one product to feed the masses. It was certainly manmade in terms of not diversifying enough to feed the working population. But yeh I agree with your point also that we're all clever after the event..Which is why I tried to explain the living conditions inflicted on the working population in Manchester. From near catastrophe came answers from engineers and scientists in the form of Infrastructure which is still in use today. I drove past a section of one today the"Thirlmere Aqueduct".

Doktor
25 Apr 17,, 23:09
Look I am not saying the response was adequate by today's standards but it would not have occurred had not the blight occurred. It's a bit like arguing that the Black Death wasn't handled as well as it might have been; sure - wiping out fleas and rats would have helped but at the time nobody understood that. That does NOT mean that the Black Death was "man made" or "waiting to happen" it wasn't. The same for the Spanish flu epidemic etc; these have natural causes which the understanding of the time was not upto sufficiently alleviating; the reaction given historical hindsight could and should have been better but the cause was 'natural'.

I am pretty sure you have some sort of excuse for the Bengal Famine, of 1943 as well.

The Crown didn't care for anyone outside London, hence it shrank.

Doktor
25 Apr 17,, 23:10
Doc doth make the mock

Shush

Ironduke
26 Apr 17,, 02:40
Look I am not saying the response was adequate by today's standards but it would not have occurred had not the blight occurred. It's a bit like arguing that the Black Death wasn't handled as well as it might have been; sure - wiping out fleas and rats would have helped but at the time nobody understood that. That does NOT mean that the Black Death was "man made" or "waiting to happen" it wasn't. The same for the Spanish flu epidemic etc; these have natural causes which the understanding of the time was not upto sufficiently alleviating; the reaction given historical hindsight could and should have been better but the cause was 'natural'.
I don't see how anyone can fail to see that Ireland was an agricultural colony, ruthlessly exploited for centuries, the Irish were basically slaves and allowed only a few hundred square feet for potatoes, while massive exports consisting of mountains of beef, dairy, and wheat continued on unabated to fill the pockets of lords and merchants - the barrels and crates of vast amounts of nutritious food, enough to feed Ireland several times over, were rolled and carried right past hundreds of thousands of emaciated skeletons starving to death just inches away on the very same dock.

I'm sorry - it was an act of outright cruelty and indifference. Ireland was a giant plantation and its population were mostly slaves. There were some loopholes to make it technically legal under British law, but they were slaves on a giant plantation nonetheless. What happened in the Ireland was not substantially different than the Holodomor in Ukraine in my book. And yet somehow America is to blame because the blight came from there?

Parihaka
26 Apr 17,, 07:08
Comparable land masses, comparable climate.
England population 53 million, Ireland population 4.5 million. That's not an accident of nature, it's deliberate policy.

astralis
26 Apr 17,, 14:29
pari,


Comparable land masses, comparable climate.
England population 53 million, Ireland population 4.5 million. That's not an accident of nature, it's deliberate policy.

not comparable history, though. England by the time of the Black Death probably already had triple the population of Ireland. similarly, London as an urban center was always significantly larger than anything comparable in Ireland.

of course the issue with British imperialism affected things, but not as much as is commonly portrayed. it's hard to say that British policies were significantly better from 1800-1850 (where the Irish population tripled) than they were in the 50 years beforehand or 50 years afterwards.

GVChamp
26 Apr 17,, 15:44
Some day, perhaps in my 50s, I might rent a backhoe and dig a hole near a river or lake near the Hudson Bay. Then build my own house from scratch with real materials. Stone, brick and mortar, oak, maple, etc. Collect the stone and wood myself, perhaps even mold and fire the bricks. I might pour concrete for the foundation and hire a local to help me with a handful of things, but that's about it. That's my dream.

There's something appealing about this, but it'd never fly in the US. We're mobile and shift quickly. The same neighborhoods went from solid working-class neighborhoods to blighted slums to gentrified places to overpriced yuppie nightmares within about 2 generations, and a lot of our suburbs are going to decline into slums in about a generation.
My family is going to end up with 3 generations in the same suburban household, but that's a huge exception. The median household moves every few years, so if you build a nice home, it's just going to get sold (and possibly demolished to build a McMansion) inside of 30 years. Which is sad, but that's America for you.

Just wait another 10 years when we have all those dead malls....

On the plus side, the younger Millennials are a lot less enamored with the McMansion, 3-car lifestyle than Gen X or the Boomers. Partly because most of us can't afford it, heh.
The downside is a lot of obsession with location, which leads to young people blowing thousands of dollars each month on rent for what are basically hovels in high-priced areas (San Fran, Chicago, etc). These kids would be a lot better off if they moved to, say, Buffalo, and try to incubate their own little hipster cultures there for 1/5 the rent.

snapper
26 Apr 17,, 16:05
I don't see how anyone can fail to see that Ireland was an agricultural colony, ruthlessly exploited for centuries, the Irish were basically slaves and allowed only a few hundred square feet for potatoes, while massive exports consisting of mountains of beef, dairy, and wheat continued on unabated to fill the pockets of lords and merchants - the barrels and crates of vast amounts of nutritious food, enough to feed Ireland several times over, were rolled and carried right past hundreds of thousands of emaciated skeletons starving to death just inches away on the very same dock.

I'm sorry - it was an act of outright cruelty and indifference. Ireland was a giant plantation and its population were mostly slaves. There were some loopholes to make it technically legal under British law, but they were slaves on a giant plantation nonetheless. What happened in the Ireland was not substantially different than the Holodomor in Ukraine in my book. And yet somehow America is to blame because the blight came from there?

I do not accept this - it makes no sense. You say they were "mostly slaves" when I presume you mean 'indentured tennants' which was the actual case. Well the two are not identical - many in England had lived under feudal landlords for a long time and in the Czarist Empire it was of course the rule until the commies. Now even if you accept that this indentured tenancy had similarities to slavery in the full blown sense (I mean they weren't shipped in to work or sold at slave markets) then what fool intentionally murders his workforce be they tenants or slaves? You need them to work the land - with slaves that's what you bought them for. The Irish famine was NOT an artificial event designed specifically to murder alot of Irish tennant farmers as arguably the Ukrainian Holodomor was or was the starvation of the Jews in the 1940s. It started with the blight which was not introduced by some evil English landlord to deliberately starve alot of Irish workers but spread as other agricultural diseases do. The only culture where the murder of the slave class was commonly practiced was in ancient Sparta due to the relatively low number of Spartiates compared to the subjugated Messenes. Otherwise it does not make sense.

I do not deny that more could have been done to alleviate the worst effect of this potato blight and perhaps by today's morality it would be just immoral that more was not done but this is a matter of historical and cultural relativity; what was right for the ancient Roman was not right for the ancient Celt and neither would be right for us today. For us to say "yes there should have been more done to alleviate the effects of the blight" is akin to us condemning the sacrifice of ancient Christians in the circuses of Rome. Doubtless both right through our eyes but then we can only see through our modern glasses whereas they could only see through the eyes of their standards.


Comparable land masses, comparable climate.
England population 53 million, Ireland population 4.5 million. That's not an accident of nature, it's deliberate policy.

There are also geological and weather differences most of the weather coming off the Atlantic tends to hit Ireland (and Western England) first so they get more rain and storms than say Kent and East Anglia.

Albany Rifles
26 Apr 17,, 17:16
Shush

Children!

GVChamp
26 Apr 17,, 17:17
Some quick googling says Britain has 4 times the arable land of Ireland, as percentage of total land. Isn't Ireland pretty hilly?

astralis
26 Apr 17,, 17:29
GVChamp,


These kids would be a lot better off if they moved to, say, Buffalo, and try to incubate their own little hipster cultures there for 1/5 the rent.

yes, there was a Don Quixote-ish article a while back about how hipsters should all move en masse to the Midwest and thus flip those red states...:-)

i suppose if Wichita or Buffalo suddenly beckoned with the prospect of churning out overnight millionaires or at least plentiful jobs I suspect then you might pull hipsters.

then there's also the issue of Chinese oligarchs (mostly West coast) or Russian oligarchs (mostly East coast) adding a not insignificant amount of inflation into those prime housing markets as well.

Ironduke
26 Apr 17,, 18:12
There's something appealing about this, but it'd never fly in the US. We're mobile and shift quickly. The same neighborhoods went from solid working-class neighborhoods to blighted slums to gentrified places to overpriced yuppie nightmares within about 2 generations, and a lot of our suburbs are going to decline into slums in about a generation.
My family is going to end up with 3 generations in the same suburban household, but that's a huge exception. The median household moves every few years, so if you build a nice home, it's just going to get sold (and possibly demolished to build a McMansion) inside of 30 years. Which is sad, but that's America for you.

Just wait another 10 years when we have all those dead malls....

On the plus side, the younger Millennials are a lot less enamored with the McMansion, 3-car lifestyle than Gen X or the Boomers. Partly because most of us can't afford it, heh.
The downside is a lot of obsession with location, which leads to young people blowing thousands of dollars each month on rent for what are basically hovels in high-priced areas (San Fran, Chicago, etc). These kids would be a lot better off if they moved to, say, Buffalo, and try to incubate their own little hipster cultures there for 1/5 the rent.
You're preaching to the choir a bit here ;-), I'm extremely mobile and can shift quicker than most. I live only in central urban areas - and I don't go in for expensive gentrified apartments either. I have very low overhead and few possessions - I prefer liquidity and mobility. I don't own anything I wouldn't donate to charity or give away, in order than I can quickly shift/move on the turn of a dime. I live in areas where I can simply walk outside and in minutes be at a bar, theater, museum, beach, etc., located right next to major transportation links such as light rails, city buses, intercity buses, airports, trains. I also use bicycle sharing programs where you pay a yearly fee and undock and re-dock bikes to get around, and Uber/Lyft as a last resort. I live in places like apartment hotels and rooming houses for a few hundred dollars a month, instead of $2000-$3000/month apartments.

The idea regarding the Hudson Bay house is that after a lifetime of mobility, liquidity, and shifting around, is to go back to the land and revert in my last years of life to an existence that was normal most of human history, live the way our ancestors did - small farm with vegetable gardens, fishing, and hunting and gathering. I don't have a crystal ball - but I'm predicting the Hudson Bay will be quite habitable and temperate in 20 years, due to continued climate change, and that I can acquire land ahead of time for very little money.

I also predict the suburbs will become increasingly ghettoized. Most homes there were poorly built - and being absolutely dependent on having to drive everywhere to do anything is not economically optimal.

Ironduke
26 Apr 17,, 18:21
I do not accept this - it makes no sense. You say they were "mostly slaves" when I presume you mean 'indentured tennants' which was the actual case. Well the two are not identical - many in England had lived under feudal landlords for a long time and in the Czarist Empire it was of course the rule until the commies. Now even if you accept that this indentured tenancy had similarities to slavery in the full blown sense (I mean they weren't shipped in to work or sold at slave markets) then what fool intentionally murders his workforce be they tenants or slaves? You need them to work the land - with slaves that's what you bought them for. The Irish famine was NOT an artificial event designed specifically to murder alot of Irish tennant farmers as arguably the Ukrainian Holodomor was or was the starvation of the Jews in the 1940s. It started with the blight which was not introduced by some evil English landlord to deliberately starve alot of Irish workers but spread as other agricultural diseases do. The only culture where the murder of the slave class was commonly practiced was in ancient Sparta due to the relatively low number of Spartiates compared to the subjugated Messenes. Otherwise it does not make sense.

I do not deny that more could have been done to alleviate the worst effect of this potato blight and perhaps by today's morality it would be just immoral that more was not done but this is a matter of historical and cultural relativity; what was right for the ancient Roman was not right for the ancient Celt and neither would be right for us today. For us to say "yes there should have been more done to alleviate the effects of the blight" is akin to us condemning the sacrifice of ancient Christians in the circuses of Rome. Doubtless both right through our eyes but then we can only see through our modern glasses whereas they could only see through the eyes of their standards.
I never said they were intentionally murdered - they died as an indirect result of gross indifference and greed. The export of luxurious foodstuffs, highly profitable beef, cheese, and butter of Ireland continue unabated despite widespread starvation. A small portion of this export could have been easily diverted to save the lives of most of those who died in Ireland - instead they were loaded onto ships to be sold for pounds and guineas in England - they were not meant for people who might only have a single copper coin to their name.

The majority of Irish who were dependent on a poverty food had no other options they could afford, nor were they offered the rich abundance of what their island produced. Nobody chooses to become dependent on a poverty food. Poverty foods are eaten when every other choice is not available. The lack of other foodstuffs in Ireland at this time, despite their massive locally abundant production, was a result of human greed and indifference.

You can call it indentured tenancy, sharecropping, serfdom or whatever you prefer - all of these are simply different shades of slavery.

GVChamp
26 Apr 17,, 23:06
GVChamp,



yes, there was a Don Quixote-ish article a while back about how hipsters should all move en masse to the Midwest and thus flip those red states...:-)

i suppose if Wichita or Buffalo suddenly beckoned with the prospect of churning out overnight millionaires or at least plentiful jobs I suspect then you might pull hipsters.

then there's also the issue of Chinese oligarchs (mostly West coast) or Russian oligarchs (mostly East coast) adding a not insignificant amount of inflation into those prime housing markets as well.

Nebraska may not mint millionaires,but the unemployment rate is something like 3%, isn't it? No reason why not to move there.

astralis
26 Apr 17,, 23:30
it'd be a more attractive pull if it were 3% whereas the other places you mention were at, say, 12%.

but given, for instance, that SF has an even lower unemployment rate, or how NYC has only a slightly higher one...not too hard of a choice.

there's more than just the economic aspect, of course, which is why we see Kansas of "conservative experiment" fame finds its economy sucking so bad compared to the People's Republic of California.

Doktor
27 Apr 17,, 12:22
it'd be a more attractive pull if it were 3% whereas the other places you mention were at, say, 12%.

but given, for instance, that SF has an even lower unemployment rate, or how NYC has only a slightly higher one...not too hard of a choice.

there's more than just the economic aspect, of course, which is why we see Kansas of "conservative experiment" fame finds its economy sucking so bad compared to the People's Republic of California.

Bellow the average unemployment, low debt and an average GDP makes it "sucking so bad"?
Interesting.

astralis
27 Apr 17,, 13:58
Bellow the average unemployment, low debt and an average GDP makes it "sucking so bad"?
Interesting.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/17/one-state-raised-taxes-the-other-cut-them-guess-which-one-is-in-recession/


California's economy grew by 4.1 percent in 2015, according to new numbers from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, tying it with Oregon for the fastest state growth of the year. That was up from 3.1 percent growth for the Golden State in 2014, which was near the top of the national pack.

The Kansas economy, on the other hand, grew 0.2 percent in 2015. That's down from 1.2 percent in 2014, and below neighboring states such as Nebraska (2.1 percent) and Missouri (1.2 percent). Kansas ended the year with two consecutive quarters of negative growth -- a shrinking economy. By a common definition of the term, the state entered 2016 in recession.

...

Kansas’s gross domestic product is still less than it was at the end of 2011, said Menzie Chinn, an economist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who has been following Kansas’s economy. Meanwhile, the economy in the rest of the country continues to expand.

GVChamp
27 Apr 17,, 15:53
it'd be a more attractive pull if it were 3% whereas the other places you mention were at, say, 12%.

but given, for instance, that SF has an even lower unemployment rate, or how NYC has only a slightly higher one...not too hard of a choice.

there's more than just the economic aspect, of course, which is why we see Kansas of "conservative experiment" fame finds its economy sucking so bad compared to the People's Republic of California.
Roflmao, let the experiment run a little further. In the 70s NYC was a borderline bankrupt city, in the 80s GM was the most profitable company in the world, and in the 90s Apple was some failed experiment that had only ever generated one decent product.

So long-winded response below, just running through some thoughts:

Nebraska per capita GDP is 50,000, scarcely below the California state GDP.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per_capita
You'll notice Texas is ahead of both of them.
And like I mentioned to Antimony before, Oregon and Washington aren't super high-tax states, and the Plains states are in the middle of the pack. Upper Midwest States like Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Minnesota are above the average: they were settled by Nordic and German folks who were quite enamored with the Progressive Movement.


Either way, I think these big cities are great for certain classes of jobs. You want to get into start-up? San Francisco is the place for you? I-Banking? NYC beckons. Business Consulting? You can make it big in Boston.

But let's be honest. That's not most of us. I'm a corporate accountant and can work anywhere. In fact, around here, many Fortune 500 companies are located in the suburbs (Caterpillar just located to Deerfield), so living in the city is actually a PREMIUM payment, AND you are getting screwed over on your commute. AND if you have kids, you are sending them to the vastly inferior Chicago Public School district, or paying to send them to private school. My understanding is that this is the case in San Francisco and New York City as well.

I looked up some average salaries last night: Staff Accountants make $50k on average in the US. They make slightly BELOW average in the Chicago market, $51k in Omaha, and $56k in NYC. You make more in NYC, but that salary is going to get wiped away by taxes and sky-high rentals. Like, my Sister-In-Law pays $2100 a month for a 2bd/1ba apt in Brooklyn, which she can only afford because it's rent-controlled. And because it's rent-controlled, it's an absolute piece of shit. The interior of the building resembles a Soviet bunker, she has no oven, the gas range rarely works, the weather-stripping is horrible, there's no air conditioning, the tub is damaged beyond repair and cuts your feet when you stand it for a shower...
I have a friend out in the Bay Area, cause, you know, she's gonna make it BIGGGGGGG! She also pays $2k a month, but she gets 1 bed and 1 bath in a shared apartment. Fun! She can easily find a job back in Chicago (her sister did, and she's making six figures now), but she's so convinced she MUST be in the Bay Area that's she never going to move back. But she's still a temp...because, you know, she's not special, she's just a normal person that should live in Kansas and deal with it.

I have several teacher friends. One works for CPS and owns his own home in the Chicago suburbs, which he paid $240k for. His mortgage, I think, is around $900 a month. He has 3 beds and 3 baths. Factoring in his property taxes, he probably is paying $1300/month. It looks like, if he has kids, they will feed into Niles West, which has a 22 ACT average and 94% high school graduation rate. Which is perfectly fine, certainly better than the city averages!

I also have some friends in Wisconsin that are teachers and are renting 2 bed/2 bath apartments for something like $600/month. They aren't glamorous, but in MUCH better repair than a rent-controlled hellhole in Brooklyn. They even have ovens and air conditioning and in-unit washer/dryers! Teachers! They can afford that!

Personally, I find these arguments among Millennials for urban living to be no different than Gen Xers or Late Baby Boomers arguing that they "need" McMansions.


I am personally of the opinion that this urban renaissance will have fully run its course by the 2040s. The Bay Area isn't even an urban renaissance, it's a tech hub through the whole suburban valley, and it will never be a full urban area like New York City is. In the long-run, there are no good bones there, and it will decay, and it will decay worse than Cleveland (though not as bad as Detroit).

The Plains States will probably continue to empty out, but they will still be perfectly reasonable places to live for ordinary people.

I expect Columbus, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, to come back over the next few decades.

astralis
27 Apr 17,, 16:27
GVChamp,


Personally, I find these arguments among Millennials for urban living to be no different than Gen Xers or Late Baby Boomers arguing that they "need" McMansions.

not really. people are usually "sticky" in terms of location, which is why there's still plenty of people living in Bomfouck, West Virginia or Middle-of-nowhere, Mississippi despite having zero economic opportunity there. location premium has always been huge, it's now just bigger than ever.

there's gotta be an immediately obvious, pretty big pay off to attract people, even more so if the location isn't exactly the most beautiful place. hell, on a personal note, if they increased my salary here in DC by 50% to move to Omaha, I wouldn't take it. on the other hand, if they decreased it 25% to move to SF, I -would-...even though my economic situation would be significantly more precarious.

GVChamp
27 Apr 17,, 16:37
If that's what you want to do with your money, be my guest! Just don't expect anything other than the world's smallest violin if you can barely make it in San Francisco and your salary is the American median. :)

Same if you're still living in a crappy rural area where the major industry left town.

I definitely get the location stickiness...my family is all in the Chicagoland area. But it shouldn't be on other people to pay for that. Same for the new suburbs that are not able to upkeep their expenses: they shouldn't be expecting a free ride from the state or the feds for their infrastructure.

TopHatter
27 Apr 17,, 18:13
If that's what you want to do with your money, be my guest! Just don't expect anything other than the world's smallest violin if you can barely make it in San Francisco and your salary is the American median. :)

Blows my mind reading about these software engineers out in CA making 6 figures and still practically homeless

astralis
27 Apr 17,, 19:30
GVChamp,



I definitely get the location stickiness...my family is all in the Chicagoland area. But it shouldn't be on other people to pay for that. Same for the new suburbs that are not able to upkeep their expenses: they shouldn't be expecting a free ride from the state or the feds for their infrastructure.

not sure how that should be legislated.

in any case, given that those places also happen to be the economic engines of the US, they also provide the most tax.

but yes, i agree: i'm not sympathetic to those trope upper-middle class articles that start with "I make $150K a year and I hardly qualify as middle-class in X city".

astralis
27 Apr 17,, 19:37
Blows my mind reading about these software engineers out in CA making 6 figures and still practically homeless

not too hard to imagine when those engineers are competing for space with a huge number of vested CEOs, and Chinese plutocrats.

of course in SF's case it also has to do with an enormous amount of NIMBYism and urban planning/zoning rules. the height restrictions, in particular.

Doktor
27 Apr 17,, 21:10
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/17/one-state-raised-taxes-the-other-cut-them-guess-which-one-is-in-recession/

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/KSNGSP

Mind-blowing how this is shrinking. Well, I am not an economist at the UWM.

Dazed
27 Apr 17,, 22:28
GVChamp,



not sure how that should be legislated.

in any case, given that those places also happen to be the economic engines of the US, they also provide the most tax.

but yes, i agree: i'm not sympathetic to those trope upper-middle class articles that start with "I make $150K a year and I hardly qualify as middle-class in X city".

Feds: $100,000 ‘Low Income’ In Parts Of Bay Area

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/04/24/bay-area-low-income-100000-san-francisco-san-mateo-county-hud/

astralis
27 Apr 17,, 23:10
doktor,


Mind-blowing how this is shrinking. Well, I am not an economist at the UWM.

the article said it shrank for two quarters. it grew enough in Q2 to prevent it from an yearly drop. also enough to place Kansas as #44 out of 50 US states for growth.

Doktor
27 Apr 17,, 23:46
doktor,



the article said it shrank for two quarters. it grew enough in Q2 to prevent it from an yearly drop. also enough to place Kansas as #44 out of 50 US states for growth.

How is that a sucking bad economy? I remember when US economy eas really shrinking, jobs were lost and debt rose, you minced better words

zraver
28 Apr 17,, 02:26
it'd be a more attractive pull if it were 3% whereas the other places you mention were at, say, 12%.

but given, for instance, that SF has an even lower unemployment rate, or how NYC has only a slightly higher one...not too hard of a choice.

there's more than just the economic aspect, of course, which is why we see Kansas of "conservative experiment" fame finds its economy sucking so bad compared to the People's Republic of California.

Ahe gilded economy. What is the bulk of California minus the Bay Area and Hollywood. In Arkansas we have Bentonville the home of Wal-Mart which acts as a sort of economic focal point like Silicon Valley, Wall Street or DC. If you want to sell things in the USA, you deal with Wal-Mart. You'd figure with a median income nearly 2x higher than Arkansas, the poverty rate wouldn't be in the same ball park.... seems like that money isn't making it out of the bay Area.

astralis
28 Apr 17,, 02:29
doktor,


How is that a sucking bad economy? I remember when US economy eas really shrinking, jobs were lost and debt rose, you minced better words


it is a bad economy when you're #44 out of 50 states for economic growth. when economic growth over the last four years is less than a third of that of the nation as a whole.

the entire point of using the Kansas example was because Kansas was touted by conservatives as having passed the most rigorous conservative economic reforms. Moore and Laffer, the principle evangelicals for supply-side reform, promised immediate and permanent economic growth as a result of the reforms. these reforms came into effect in 2013.

at the same time, California raised taxes on millionaires to the highest in the nation, something which conservatives predicted would result in disaster.

CA had the second fastest economic growth in the nation in 2014. it had the fastest economic growth in 2015. Kansas was #28 in 2014. It was #44 in 2015.

so yeah, Kansas economic growth sucks.

astralis
28 Apr 17,, 02:30
z,


What is the bulk of California minus the Bay Area and Hollywood.

and where is the bulk of CA population? lol.

Ironduke
28 Apr 17,, 03:20
GVChamp,



not really. people are usually "sticky" in terms of location, which is why there's still plenty of people living in Bomfouck, West Virginia or Middle-of-nowhere, Mississippi despite having zero economic opportunity there. location premium has always been huge, it's now just bigger than ever.

there's gotta be an immediately obvious, pretty big pay off to attract people, even more so if the location isn't exactly the most beautiful place. hell, on a personal note, if they increased my salary here in DC by 50% to move to Omaha, I wouldn't take it. on the other hand, if they decreased it 25% to move to SF, I -would-...even though my economic situation would be significantly more precarious.
I've got the same attitude - no matter how much money someone were to throw at me - there are things I won't do and places I won't move to.

I just helped bail a buddy out of San Francisco back down to San Diego... he was making 70k a year and barely making ends meet with a child down in San Diego he was shooting down the 5 every two weeks to pick up. Living in a $2000+ 100 square foot apartment and Ubering just to make some extra scratch. He's a government employee - but the salary wasn't sufficient - he was impoverished. He exercised the correct option - move to another city with more reasonable living costs where his money would go much further. Since he's from SD anyways and SD is a great city - he could do no wrong by making the move.

SF might be nice to tourist in - but I would never live there. The housing market is just too distorted for a number of reasons, as you outlined.

zraver
28 Apr 17,, 04:38
z,



and where is the bulk of CA population? lol.

The Bay Area minus oakland is 6.6 million and Hollywood directly employs about 132,000 people in the LA area. So out of a population of 39 million just under 1 in 6 Californians lives in the two mega money enterprises in California. California has become a net exporter of people. The California Dream might still be real for tech wizards and role players but everyone else is leaving. Many counties in California have levels of poverty that rival Appalachia of the Mississippi Delta wen you adjust income to cost of living. Texas on the other hand is a go to destination for people looking for a fresh start.

astralis
28 Apr 17,, 05:12
z,


The Bay Area minus oakland is 6.6 million and Hollywood directly employs about 132,000 people in the LA area. So out of a population of 39 million just under 1 in 6 Californians lives in the two mega money enterprises in California. California has become a net exporter of people. The California Dream might still be real for tech wizards and role players but everyone else is leaving. Many counties in California have levels of poverty that rival Appalachia of the Mississippi Delta wen you adjust income to cost of living. Texas on the other hand is a go to destination for people looking for a fresh start.

lol, so 6.7 million people out of 39 million is enough to create 4.1% growth in spite of the rest of the populace either fleeing or in desperate straits? :-)

hahaha...ok.

in any case, let's not lose sight of the original argument. let's not even compare Kansas with California. just compare it to the rest of the United States. how is it that despite so rigorously following conservative orthodoxy, Kansas is still doing so bad? why isn't the economy booming?

Doktor
28 Apr 17,, 08:13
doktor,



it is a bad economy when you're #44 out of 50 states for economic growth. when economic growth over the last four years is less than a third of that of the nation as a whole.

the entire point of using the Kansas example was because Kansas was touted by conservatives as having passed the most rigorous conservative economic reforms. Moore and Laffer, the principle evangelicals for supply-side reform, promised immediate and permanent economic growth as a result of the reforms. these reforms came into effect in 2013.

at the same time, California raised taxes on millionaires to the highest in the nation, something which conservatives predicted would result in disaster.

CA had the second fastest economic growth in the nation in 2014. it had the fastest economic growth in 2015. Kansas was #28 in 2014. It was #44 in 2015.

so yeah, Kansas economic growth sucks.

Still, you minced other words when then GDP growth was negative. You are not saying growth sucks, you say economy sucks (badly)

Doktor
28 Apr 17,, 08:18
in any case, let's not lose sight of the original argument. let's not even compare Kansas with California. just compare it to the rest of the United States. how is it that despite so rigorously following conservative orthodoxy, Kansas is still doing so bad? why isn't the economy booming?

You've brought Kanzas to the table.

astralis
28 Apr 17,, 15:04
doktor,


Still, you minced other words when then GDP growth was negative. You are not saying growth sucks, you say economy sucks (badly)

why don't you show me what i said? i'll explain it... or acknowledge that you were right. either way, can't debate vague statements of 'you said this in the past'.

if you're debating the difference between economic growth and the overall economy, i'd say you are the one mincing words. :-) but very well, i'll amend my original statement to say that Kansas economic growth sucks badly, despite a rigorous, costly conservative economic program that was supposed to create an immediate economic boom with permanent effects.

and linking it back to my original post:


there's more than just the economic aspect, of course, which is why we see Kansas of "conservative experiment" fame finds its economy sucking so bad compared to the People's Republic of California.

the growth rate, along with other factors, is why Kansas outmigration rates (http://www.governing.com/gov-data/census/state-migration-rates-annual-net-migration-by-state.html) are relatively high.

Doktor
28 Apr 17,, 15:38
doktor,

why don't you show me what i said? i'll explain it... or acknowledge that you were right. either way, can't debate vague statements of 'you said this in the past'.
Yep, you know I am lazy, but you are senile. I am not looking for your shoulder tap.


if you're debating the difference between economic growth and the overall economy, i'd say you are the one mincing words. :-) but very well, i'll amend my original statement to say that Kansas economic growth sucks badly, despite a rigorous, costly conservative economic program that was supposed to create an immediate economic boom with permanent effects.
I am mincing words? I called you on what you said.


the growth rate, along with other factors, is why Kansas outmigration rates (http://www.governing.com/gov-data/census/state-migration-rates-annual-net-migration-by-state.html) are relatively high.

Are you saying KA is making more with less people? Isn't that growth on it's own :-)

Tell me again why is Kansas on the table and not Texas when you compare it to California?

GVChamp
28 Apr 17,, 16:01
I don't find any of those data points convincing. California still fails to deliver a great standard of living to its residents. The North-eastern states are largely the same. They are too expensive and residents are fleeing. The states that are winning the most through inter-state migration are Texas, South Carolina, Florida, etc. Texas currently has a higher per capita GDP and lower costs: the average Texan is probably better off.

Obviously no accounting for the weather....


I don't see California faring too well. I also don't see how the Bay Area can improve. It's already extremely dense, one of the densest areas in the whole US. It wasn't designed to be an urban area, and it's never going to be retro-fitted for that, so it won't ever be as dense or nice as a NYC: it will end up as a high-density in-fill suburban hell like Los Angeles.

astralis
28 Apr 17,, 17:07
doktor,



Tell me again why is Kansas on the table and not Texas when you compare it to California?

just making a tongue in cheek comparison between conservative Kansas and liberal California. there's more than one reason why Kansas will not beat California for economic growth.

but if you want to do the perennial California vs Texas (http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2016/dec/19/jerry-brown/are-jobs-california-growing-hell-lot-faster-texas/) comparison, though, I'll accommodate.

although to be sure, i'd far rather live in Texas than Kansas.

astralis
28 Apr 17,, 17:28
GVChamp,


I don't find any of those data points convincing. California still fails to deliver a great standard of living to its residents. The North-eastern states are largely the same. They are too expensive and residents are fleeing. The states that are winning the most through inter-state migration are Texas, South Carolina, Florida, etc. Texas currently has a higher per capita GDP and lower costs: the average Texan is probably better off.

doesn't seem to be the case where cost of living directly correlates with migration levels. California still attracts a steady positive pattern of migration despite high cost of living. Massachusetts, Colorado, Washington (both DC and state) all attract fairly high levels of positive migration as well.

places like Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wyoming, West Virginia all see fairly severe out-migration despite having rock-bottom cost of living expenses. economic opportunity and to a lesser extent cultural factors matter more.



I don't see California faring too well.

i do. the next huge gains in tech are getting powered by Silicon Valley. yes, there's still stupid startups like Juicero, but the technical innovations coming from the House of Musk and Google will likely be highly profitable.

and getting out of Silicon Valley, LA in its own right is undergoing an economic transformation/urban renewal process, along with the biotech corridor in San Diego and the new economic power in Orange County.


I also don't see how the Bay Area can improve. It's already extremely dense, one of the densest areas in the whole US.

not really. SF has what, half the population density of NYC. don't foresee the suburban hell you envision because growth is not LA 1950s-explosive growth.

as I said, migration to California is relatively small/steady, and will likely reduce as a whole anyway given that the US population will necessarily peak and begin decline over the next few decades.

tbm3fan
28 Apr 17,, 18:17
Many counties in California have levels of poverty that rival Appalachia of the Mississippi Delta wen you adjust income to cost of living.

So? I'll assume you have a ready reason why that is versus the real reasons. You know I just don't understand why tech doesn't move to Redding or further north. I can always hope.

GVChamp
29 Apr 17,, 00:01
GVChamp,



doesn't seem to be the case where cost of living directly correlates with migration levels. California still attracts a steady positive pattern of migration despite high cost of living. Massachusetts, Colorado, Washington (both DC and state) all attract fairly high levels of positive migration as well.

places like Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wyoming, West Virginia all see fairly severe out-migration despite having rock-bottom cost of living expenses. economic opportunity and to a lesser extent cultural factors matter more.



i do. the next huge gains in tech are getting powered by Silicon Valley. yes, there's still stupid startups like Juicero, but the technical innovations coming from the House of Musk and Google will likely be highly profitable.

and getting out of Silicon Valley, LA in its own right is undergoing an economic transformation/urban renewal process, along with the biotech corridor in San Diego and the new economic power in Orange County.



not really. SF has what, half the population density of NYC. don't foresee the suburban hell you envision because growth is not LA 1950s-explosive growth.

as I said, migration to California is relatively small/steady, and will likely reduce as a whole anyway given that the US population will necessarily peak and begin decline over the next few decades.

State-to-state migration flows don't favor New England or California or Great Lakes States just as much they don't favor the Plains states. Real winners are Southern States and Sunbelt states...especially Texas.

The fate of Ohio and Michigan can easily be the fate of California depending on how their industries evolve. CA is more diversified, but its financial structure is also more horrid.


Also, while San Fran has an urban core, the larger metro area doesn't. CMSAs include broader suburban areas: NYC includes Northern Jersey and a good chunk of Connecticut, while the Bay Area includes San Jose, Oakland, and some adjacent counties. Using those measures, the Bay Area is actually denser than the NYC area already, and the LA area is actually the most dense. But the LA area is nowhere near as nice as the NYC area, because the density is of a totally different character. The greater Bay Area isn't built to the same specs NYC is, and San Fran absolutely can't be used to grow the same way Brooklyn or Manhattan can, because the actual economic center-of-gravity isn't even in San Fran. It's closer to San Jose. Good luck retro-fitting San Jose to look like Manhattan. Never gonna happen, IMHO.

I'm just speculating, but mean reversion is usually a good guess, and mean reversion predicts bad things for California. Not going to lie, Kansas isn't exactly going to be Disneyland, but it won't resemble hell on Earth, like say OH or MI look right now.

zraver
29 Apr 17,, 03:06
z,



lol, so 6.7 million people out of 39 million is enough to create 4.1% growth in spite of the rest of the populace either fleeing or in desperate straits? :-)

hahaha...ok.

in any case, let's not lose sight of the original argument. let's not even compare Kansas with California. just compare it to the rest of the United States. how is it that despite so rigorously following conservative orthodoxy, Kansas is still doing so bad? why isn't the economy booming?

Tight labor market, cyclic economy heavily dependent on aviation aircraft orders, collapse in commodity prices... Kansas currently has an unemployment rate of 3.8%. The national rate is 4.9% and California is 5.2%. Its hard to expand the economy when already at full employment. My own state is at 3.6%. Everyone who wants a job has one. Kansas' policies however mean that Kansas is well ahead of the national average on new business start ups. Money and people are flowing into Kansas from neighboring states reversing a previous trend where money and people left. Kansas has doubled its GDP in the previous 20 years going from $70 billion to $149 billion per the St. Louis Fed. So while Kansas may not enjoy an economy fueled by easy access to the sea, lots of tech development or movie making, its not the economic basket case you claim it is.

Also Kansas debt to GDP ratio at 16.5% is better than California's 17.18%. State only excluding local government debt is even more in Kansas favor 4.3% vs 6.74%. These numbers are only going to go even more in Kansas favor. Kansas is growing its debt 1.9% a year, California is nearly double that rate at 3.3% I don't remember Wichita or Topeka declaring bankruptcy.

Gun Grape
29 Apr 17,, 06:57
Tight labor market, cyclic economy heavily dependent on aviation aircraft orders, collapse in commodity prices... Kansas currently has an unemployment rate of 3.8%. The national rate is 4.9% and California is 5.2%. Its hard to expand the economy when already at full employment. My own state is at 3.6%. Everyone who wants a job has one. Kansas' policies however mean that Kansas is well ahead of the national average on new business start ups. Money and people are flowing into Kansas from neighboring states reversing a previous trend where money and people left. Kansas has doubled its GDP in the previous 20 years going from $70 billion to $149 billion per the St. Louis Fed. So while Kansas may not enjoy an economy fueled by easy access to the sea, lots of tech development or movie making, its not the economic basket case you claim it is.

Also Kansas debt to GDP ratio at 16.5% is better than California's 17.18%. State only excluding local government debt is even more in Kansas favor 4.3% vs 6.74%. These numbers are only going to go even more in Kansas favor. Kansas is growing its debt 1.9% a year, California is nearly double that rate at 3.3% I don't remember Wichita or Topeka declaring bankruptcy.

Ouch: Kansas jobs growth rate ‘surges’ to 0.0 percent over last 12 months
BY YAEL T. ABOUH

The new March employment report in Kansas released Friday contains some good news for Gov. Sam Brownback and his supporters: The state gained 2,400 jobs over February.

Now for the bad news: The Sunflower State’s total nonfarm employment was 1,398,800 in March — exactly the same as it was in March 2015.

That’s right. The state had a jobs growth rate of 0.0 percent over the last 12 months.

That’s the seventh worst figure in the entire country, according to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics.

That’s not even close to adding the 25,000 jobs per year that Brownback promised during his 2014 re-election, then doubled down on earlier this year.

Yet it’s also true that the 0.0 percent figure is an improvement.

In February, Kansas was several thousand jobs below what it had had in February 2015. The “growth” rate was minus 0.4 percent, the fifth worst year-over-year mark in the United States.

In a way, Kansas has seen a “surge” in its jobs market.

Missouri’s employment picture is a bit brighter.

It lost 1,500 jobs in March over February, yet has still gained 23,700 jobs since March 2015.

That’s a growth rate of 0.9 percent, which is the 11th worst rate in the country.

To be clear, by now it’s obvious that the huge tax cuts Brownback pushed through in 2012 have not led to the promised surge in jobs in his state.

Instead, they have crippled the general fund budget, led to massive diversions of road money, delayed payments to pension funds and a host of scary education funding issues.

The tax cuts, at least the $250 million a year for businesses, need to be repealed to put Kansas back on firmer financial footing.

Here’s a quick summation of recent job news in Kansas, veering from one problem to another:

▪ The news in January was a punch in the gut, when jobs fell by 4,000 from December of 2015.

▪ In February the state lost even more jobs and had 5,400 fewer jobs than it did in February of 2015.

▪ Earlier this month came the latest BLS news that employment has grown far more quickly on the Missouri side of the state line in the Kansas City area over the last year — the exact opposite of what Brownback had pledged would occur because of the Kansas tax cuts.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/yael-t-abouhalkah/article72012847.html#storylink=cpy

Ironduke
29 Apr 17,, 15:46
Hey Gunny - nice to see you here.

Besides policies, I think the problem with Kansas might have something to do with the population growth rate there - perhaps you can work the magic you did in Japan, driving from farm to farm in Kansas. Gun Grape Delivery Service™. After all - you are retired and perhaps yet you can cure what ills Kansas. You may as well take detours and hit Nebraska, the Dakotas, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho while you're at it. Even Minnesota, if you wish - you have carte blanche as I'm not in a position to exercise this strategy myself, nor am I a stud.

Leave a sealed letter behind to be opened upon the 18th birthday, with instructions for the child to join the Corps - and the circle will be complete. No loose threads. I expect the Corps will have to re-activate the 5th Division (to be renamed The Grapehead) and 6th Division (to be renamed The Graping Sixth) to be able to absorb half of them, the new recruits that will pour in beginning in 2036/37. I'm sure the other half will enter the civilian workforce and might be a major boon to the economies of the small metros through the Midwest/West, such as Omaha, Topeka, Sioux Falls, Rapid City, and so on. The next five Warren Buffets may also come into existence as a byproduct of this strategy.

Perhaps we could set up a Kickstarter page to fund hotel stays and gasoline expenses. :-)

zraver
29 Apr 17,, 21:44
Ouch: Kansas jobs growth rate ‘surges’ to 0.0 percent over last 12 months
BY YAEL T. ABOUH

Yeah... 3.8% unemployment rate and a population that is aging out of the workforce faster than it is adding new workers. Not a lot of room for growth if everyone has a job. The thing t look for now is are wages going up as employers compete for employees. Currently $16.57 is the median hourly wage.

Ironduke
30 Apr 17,, 00:07
I think there's are four things we need to keep in mind with regards to economic growth numbers, rather than simply taking them at face value as meaningful.

I think we need to look a little deeper.

1) While considering economic growth, taking into account population growth. For example, country/state with 0.0% population growth and 0.2% economic growth is doing better than a country/state with 5.0% population growth and 4.0% economic growth. GDP per capita grows faster in the former, and slower in the latter.

2) The flip side of this, in an ideally free market where companies and workers can both vote with their feet, out-migration and lack of in-migration must be considered, to a certain extent, a lack of confidence in that state's potential as a good place to locate businesses and for workers to move to.

3) Location, location, location. Kansas doesn't have it. There are certain virtuous cycles and economies of scale created by concentrations of human capital in other parts of the country that will never exist in Kansas, or the Dakotas, or Montana. Being a coastal city with a good port, a riverine city, or already being a major or minor hub of trade, commerce, and industry creates virtuous cycles and economies of scale that cannot exist elsewhere.

4) The major city - capital city problem. Wisconsin has this, compared to Minnesota. Milwaukee is the biggest city in WI, but the capital is Madison, which besides being the seat of the state government is primarily a college town (UW Madison). Minneapolis-St. Paul is the only game in town between Chicago and Seattle/Portland. The state government in St Paul and the business center in Minneapolis are viewable from one another's skylines - only about 5-6 miles apart. Wisconsin has roughly as many people as MN - but the population is very evenly distributed and it's hard to establish virtuous cycles and economies of scale in that state. 70% of Minnesota lives in the Mpls-St Paul metropolitan area, and the metro is the economic anchor and magnet for most of Iowa (St. Louis and Kansas City don't compare to Mpls-St Paul), North Dakota, most of South Dakota (the southwestern part is anchored on Denver), most of Wisconsin outside the Chicago megalopolis, and even the greater part of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.

There are exceptions to the co-location issue, CA, IL, and TX, for example, have transcended this issue which is a problem elsewhere - the capital's location is irrelevant to where business is done. NYC and Philly were already established cities prior to their capitals being re-located. They are among the lucky few in the US. For flyover Midwestern, Mountain Western, and Southern states, the capital-major city split can pose major problems, as these states can't quite catch up to the states where the capital/center of business are either co-located or are a non-factor. Besides being at a disadvantage due to starting late, not having a riverine city, not having a coastal city - the capital/major city split creates vicious cycles on top of these factors.

GVChamp
01 May 17,, 17:22
I think there's are four things we need to keep in mind with regards to economic growth numbers, rather than simply taking them at face value as meaningful.

I think we need to look a little deeper.

1) While considering economic growth, taking into account population growth. For example, country/state with 0.0% population growth and 0.2% economic growth is doing better than a country/state with 5.0% population growth and 4.0% economic growth. GDP per capita grows faster in the former, and slower in the latter.

2) The flip side of this, in an ideally free market where companies and workers can both vote with their feet, out-migration and lack of in-migration must be considered, to a certain extent, a lack of confidence in that state's potential as a good place to locate businesses and for workers to move to.

3) Location, location, location. Kansas doesn't have it. There are certain virtuous cycles and economies of scale created by concentrations of human capital in other parts of the country that will never exist in Kansas, or the Dakotas, or Montana. Being a coastal city with a good port, a riverine city, or already being a major or minor hub of trade, commerce, and industry creates virtuous cycles and economies of scale that cannot exist elsewhere.

4) The major city - capital city problem. Wisconsin has this, compared to Minnesota. Milwaukee is the biggest city in WI, but the capital is Madison, which besides being the seat of the state government is primarily a college town (UW Madison). Minneapolis-St. Paul is the only game in town between Chicago and Seattle/Portland. The state government in St Paul and the business center in Minneapolis are viewable from one another's skylines - only about 5-6 miles apart. Wisconsin has roughly as many people as MN - but the population is very evenly distributed and it's hard to establish virtuous cycles and economies of scale in that state. 70% of Minnesota lives in the Mpls-St Paul metropolitan area, and the metro is the economic anchor and magnet for most of Iowa (St. Louis and Kansas City don't compare to Mpls-St Paul), North Dakota, most of South Dakota (the southwestern part is anchored on Denver), most of Wisconsin outside the Chicago megalopolis, and even the greater part of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.

There are exceptions to the co-location issue, CA, IL, and TX, for example, have transcended this issue which is a problem elsewhere - the capital's location is irrelevant to where business is done. NYC and Philly were already established cities prior to their capitals being re-located. They are among the lucky few in the US. For flyover Midwestern, Mountain Western, and Southern states, the capital-major city split can pose major problems, as these states can't quite catch up to the states where the capital/center of business are either co-located or are a non-factor. Besides being at a disadvantage due to starting late, not having a riverine city, not having a coastal city - the capital/major city split creates vicious cycles on top of these factors.
Yeah, agreed with lots of that. There's a lot of differences that make cross-comparisons difficult to make, particularly if you are looking for optimum policy. No one will say Saudi Arabia has great policy on the basis of GDP per capita. We know it's all oil wealth.


Kansas may do better over the years or may do worse. Forbes mentioned that Kansas has an increased number of start-ups in recent years and much higher than their neighbors. That's something that might pay dividends over the coming decades. I think Kansas will fare better than Missouri over time, but probably not as well as Colorado.

Wisconsin's direction is interesting. They are a slow-growing state, Milwaukee has some growing areas but is mostly heading the same direction as Detroit, and Madison is nice but way too small to scale any industry.

Ironduke
02 May 17,, 07:23
I had meant to say, it is not just government and industry/commerce being co-located, or lack of co-location, that is causing virtuous/vicious cycles. The more areas of human capital, whether it be science, education, research, etc., the more various types of human capital that are all located together in a single area - the better it will do. Large populations with extremely diverse human capital pools do even better. As human civilization itself is the result of specialization and positive-sum outcomes of specialized individuals working together in ways that complement other skill sets and specializations, the more of them you can find in places, the more likely you are to find a virtuous cycle. The less types of human capital in an area, whether it's a mono-industrial area, there's no colleges, it's an agricultural region, etc., the more likely a vicious cycle is going to be seen.

GVChamp
02 May 17,, 16:09
I had meant to say, it is not just government and industry/commerce being co-located, or lack of co-location, that is causing virtuous/vicious cycles. The more areas of human capital, whether it be science, education, research, etc., the more various types of human capital that are all located together in a single area - the better it will do. Large populations with extremely diverse human capital pools do even better. As human civilization itself is the result of specialization and positive-sum outcomes of specialized individuals working together in ways that complement other skill sets and specializations, the more of them you can find in places, the more likely you are to find a virtuous cycle. The less types of human capital in an area, whether it's a mono-industrial area, there's no colleges, it's an agricultural region, etc., the more likely a vicious cycle is going to be seen.
Agreed, which is why I am more optimistic about the Great Lakes Region down to Cincinnati than most. The Rust Belt states have a lot of quality Land Grant universities, and other schools. Indiana, OSU, Michigan, Illinois, plus Carnegie Melon in Pittsburgh, and Northwestern and UChicago aren't terribly far away. Might even get some draw from Wisconsin: it's no different than an OSU grad going to Minneapolis.

astralis
02 May 17,, 16:38
The major city - capital city problem.

BTW, for most states this was a feature not a bug.

Ironduke
02 May 17,, 17:45
BTW, for most states this was a feature not a bug.
It was intended. As is Brasilia in Brazil, Naypyidaw in Burma, and so on. The idea is to locate the capital in an area where it isn't easy for the capital to be seized and a government overthrown by the sudden passions or revolution occurring in the major city.

There are unintended consequences of this strategy though. If the breadth and depth of human capital are widely distributed, in addition to other factors, it is difficult to establish these virtuous cycles in a state, and instead, another city in possibly another state experiences them.

For example, this is seen in Minnesota-Wisconsin. There are perhaps more than 10x as many Wisconsinites living in Minnesota than the other way around. Minneapolis-St Paul punches above its weight in terms of concentration of industry, commerce, governance, science, research, technology, and a host of other factors. That's why it's grown to 3.5 million people, while Wisconsin is spread thin through a 800,000 person city (Milwaukee) with a smaller metro, with the rest distributed mostly between sub-100,000 person cities.

Wisconsin is almost of schizophrenic state - with a small albeit somewhat populous portion (along Lake Michigan) being dependent on Chicago as the anchor, while the rest of the state is anchored on Minneapolis. Routinely, the success of Minnesota is touted again and again as lessons for Wisconsin to learn. Wisconsin, however, has fallen behind due to a host of other factors (which I've mentioned once or twice at this point) that aren't easy to resolve.