3 ms·

Real quick question: why is the country allowed to run at a deficit during an economic recovery but a State isn't? It's a commonly used tactic to dismiss Calif

Real quick question: why is the country allowed to run at a deficit during an economic recovery but a State isn't? It's a commonly used tactic to dismiss California because they've had to deal with nation-sized problems with a State level approach with mixed success, but it's the same California that's lead the nation in job and GDP growth. California is also one of those awkward giver states that so heavily subsidized other states that offer a fraction of the social services without substantially better growth. So yeah. Even Delaware has found strategies to be relevant. New York has also gone hard on innovation to keep from losing their dominance in finance. Meanwhile Wyoming is subsidizing a questionably run fossil energy business because they're feeling pressure from the tiny fraction of modern wind generation they don't own. But as an aside, I'm more than happy to shut down the people exploiting an ancient grant for our state's water. Their existence is based around destroying the state's future.

prewett 10y ago
Deficit spending: that's a good point and I don't know what economists would say. If California has good credit, maybe it would be okay. Given that the state was on the brink of bankruptcy a few years ago, I question their credit-worthiness. However, the situation is like the EU and Greece. Greece ran a deficit big deficit, defaulted, and threatened to bring down the Euro, because Greece cannot print money. California also cannot print money. The US, however, can print money, so it has more flexibility. "Giver state": not relevant for this discussion. The parent post talked about the State of California doing a good job of handling the recovery. The State of California does not give anything to other states (that I am aware of). The people of California pay more in federal income taxes than they collectively get back, but it is the State government that was asserted to be an economic exemplar. (And according to [1], California is not even a huge giver, as it receives about $.95 [guestimated from the bar chart] for every $1 its people pay in federal taxes.) Delaware, New York, Wyoming are also irrelevant. My point is that California is not an obvious shining economic example. Whether DE, NY, and WY are making wise or foolish choices is unrelated to CA's choices. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-s...
- KirinDave 10y ago
  > The State of California does not give anything to other states. California and Californians should be considered as a whole, as one enables the other. Californian's pay federal taxes and they lose money on these. > California is not even a huge giver, as it receives about $.95 [guestimated from the bar chart] for every $1 its people pay in federal taxes.) Worth noting that this is still more than other states because of the size of the economy in question. > My point is that California is not an obvious shining economic example. Whether DE, NY, and WY are making wise or foolish choices is unrelated to CA's choices. If the field is "States in the US" then California's strategies are obviously demonstrating success. That California also has governance problems is inarguable (our petition system needs to change, you can't govern public policy in a vacuum from the budget). It doesn't invalidate the point. The point is that California's stance on worker protection, health care, overtime, and libel have enabled its citizens to succeed despite a federal economy that its somewhat hostile to the states.

prewett 10y ago

Deficit spending: that's a good point and I don't know what economists would say. If California has good credit, maybe it would be okay. Given that the state was on the brink of bankruptcy a few years ago, I question their credit-worthiness. However, the situation is like the EU and Greece. Greece ran a deficit big deficit, defaulted, and threatened to bring down the Euro, because Greece cannot print money. California also cannot print money. The US, however, can print money, so it has more flexibility. "Giver state": not relevant for this discussion. The parent post talked about the State of California doing a good job of handling the recovery. The State of California does not give anything to other states (that I am aware of). The people of California pay more in federal income taxes than they collectively get back, but it is the State government that was asserted to be an economic exemplar. (And according to [1], California is not even a huge giver, as it receives about $.95 [guestimated from the bar chart] for every $1 its people pay in federal taxes.) Delaware, New York, Wyoming are also irrelevant. My point is that California is not an obvious shining economic example. Whether DE, NY, and WY are making wise or foolish choices is unrelated to CA's choices. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-s...

KirinDave 10y ago
> The State of California does not give anything to other states. California and Californians should be considered as a whole, as one enables the other. Californian's pay federal taxes and they lose money on these. > California is not even a huge giver, as it receives about $.95 [guestimated from the bar chart] for every $1 its people pay in federal taxes.) Worth noting that this is still more than other states because of the size of the economy in question. > My point is that California is not an obvious shining economic example. Whether DE, NY, and WY are making wise or foolish choices is unrelated to CA's choices. If the field is "States in the US" then California's strategies are obviously demonstrating success. That California also has governance problems is inarguable (our petition system needs to change, you can't govern public policy in a vacuum from the budget). It doesn't invalidate the point. The point is that California's stance on worker protection, health care, overtime, and libel have enabled its citizens to succeed despite a federal economy that its somewhat hostile to the states.