Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Military/Industrial complex

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    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.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

    Comment


    • #77
      z,

      What is the bulk of California minus the Bay Area and Hollywood.
      and where is the bulk of CA population? lol.
      There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by astralis View Post
        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.
        "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by astralis View Post
          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.

          Comment


          • #80
            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?
            There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by astralis View Post
              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)
              No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

              To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by astralis View Post
                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.
                No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                Comment


                • #83
                  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 are relatively high.
                  There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by astralis View Post
                    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 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?
                    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      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.
                      "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        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 comparison, though, I'll accommodate.

                        although to be sure, i'd far rather live in Texas than Kansas.
                        Last edited by astralis; 28 Apr 17,, 16:33.
                        There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          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.
                          There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by zraver View Post
                            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.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by astralis View Post
                              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.
                              "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by astralis View Post
                                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.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X