4 ms·

No. People in the current bubble forget that California is usually broke/in legislative crises, which might be about to happen again. Texas is probably the only

No. People in the current bubble forget that California is usually broke/in legislative crises, which might be about to happen again. Texas is probably the only state capable of thriving if it secedes, CA doesn't even have it's own electric grid. * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%9312_California_budget_crisis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%9312_California_b... * http://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/California-s-400-billion-debt-worries-analysts-6812264.php http://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/California-s-400...

Q6T46nT668w6i3m 10y ago
MA and NY have major economies and plenty of legislative cooperation.
- JBReefer 10y ago
  And no shared border. Also, NY State is much more conservative than people assume, the State legislature is usually controlled by Republicans.
  - tossaway1 10y ago
    > And no shared border. TIL MA and NY do not share a border...
  - grzm 10y ago
    And no shared border. Massachusetts borders New York to the east. Or were you thinking California?
    - JBReefer 10y ago
      Yes. It's a different thing to have partners in the legislature vs 2 of the most powerful states willing to join your new country. I don't know if the USA could be remotely the same if NY, MA, TX, and FL seceeded. I do know that they wouldn't at the same time, just by the nature of geography.
hyperbovine 10y ago
You act as though power exports from Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, Nevada and Utah would somehow cease overnight if California were to become its own country. This is of course false.
- makerbraker 10y ago
  It wouldn't continue uninterrupted forever. Those power exports are paid for in currency denominated by the US dollar. California is no longer part of the US, remember? Each of those states would have to negotiate with the new Republic to receive something in equal worth to the power they were delivering. And if they don't get it, they're not going to give away power for free. Their governments won't let them, their constituents won't let them, their budgets won't let them, and lastly, the FERC won't let them.
  - traek 10y ago
    I don't see why paying for the power would suddenly become an issue. If California can afford it now, they'll be able to afford it later, even if it's paid in a different currency--it's still the same amount of wealth.
    - smkellat 10y ago
      There still has to be two parties to a purchase. You can have all the currency with which to pay but if the seller does not want to sell, it doesn't really matter how much you have. The very big problem is that, regionally speaking, California may wind up a willing buyer with no willing sellers and no way to compel anyone to sell to it.
- smkellat 10y ago
  That's a wonderfully brave assertion of falsehood! Independence would be a problem for California. The unequal yoke that the Colorado River Compact provides now already has other participating states ticked off at California for how much water and power is diverted to SoCal. That Compact, though, is an agreement among US states and the federal government. To include an independent California would require making a treaty subject to advice-and-consent of the the US Senate. If that wasn't in place and as there's been no likelihood that the Southern Nevada Water Authority would be willing to let the current Compact terms continue to give California the majority of Lake Mead's water, watching SoCal lose a major source of water let alone power is indeed in the cards. Staying in the union means California keeps its preferential terms under the Compact. Leaving means everything has to be renegotiated and since SoCal has been sucking Lake Mead and Lake Powell dry there's little interest by the upstreams in letting that continue.
maxlybbert 10y ago
Yeah, I thought it was hilarious to expect California to show the US and the world how a country should be run.

Q6T46nT668w6i3m 10y ago

MA and NY have major economies and plenty of legislative cooperation.

JBReefer 10y ago
And no shared border. Also, NY State is much more conservative than people assume, the State legislature is usually controlled by Republicans.
- tossaway1 10y ago
  > And no shared border. TIL MA and NY do not share a border...
- grzm 10y ago
  And no shared border. Massachusetts borders New York to the east. Or were you thinking California?
  - JBReefer 10y ago
    Yes. It's a different thing to have partners in the legislature vs 2 of the most powerful states willing to join your new country. I don't know if the USA could be remotely the same if NY, MA, TX, and FL seceeded. I do know that they wouldn't at the same time, just by the nature of geography.

hyperbovine 10y ago

You act as though power exports from Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, Nevada and Utah would somehow cease overnight if California were to become its own country. This is of course false.

makerbraker 10y ago
It wouldn't continue uninterrupted forever. Those power exports are paid for in currency denominated by the US dollar. California is no longer part of the US, remember? Each of those states would have to negotiate with the new Republic to receive something in equal worth to the power they were delivering. And if they don't get it, they're not going to give away power for free. Their governments won't let them, their constituents won't let them, their budgets won't let them, and lastly, the FERC won't let them.
- traek 10y ago
  I don't see why paying for the power would suddenly become an issue. If California can afford it now, they'll be able to afford it later, even if it's paid in a different currency--it's still the same amount of wealth.
  - smkellat 10y ago
    There still has to be two parties to a purchase. You can have all the currency with which to pay but if the seller does not want to sell, it doesn't really matter how much you have. The very big problem is that, regionally speaking, California may wind up a willing buyer with no willing sellers and no way to compel anyone to sell to it.
smkellat 10y ago
That's a wonderfully brave assertion of falsehood! Independence would be a problem for California. The unequal yoke that the Colorado River Compact provides now already has other participating states ticked off at California for how much water and power is diverted to SoCal. That Compact, though, is an agreement among US states and the federal government. To include an independent California would require making a treaty subject to advice-and-consent of the the US Senate. If that wasn't in place and as there's been no likelihood that the Southern Nevada Water Authority would be willing to let the current Compact terms continue to give California the majority of Lake Mead's water, watching SoCal lose a major source of water let alone power is indeed in the cards. Staying in the union means California keeps its preferential terms under the Compact. Leaving means everything has to be renegotiated and since SoCal has been sucking Lake Mead and Lake Powell dry there's little interest by the upstreams in letting that continue.

maxlybbert 10y ago

Yeah, I thought it was hilarious to expect California to show the US and the world how a country should be run.