5 ms·

The federal money printer is backed by the strength of the national economy. How would the money printer backed by the states ranked at the bottom in GDP per ca

The federal money printer is backed by the strength of the national economy. How would the money printer backed by the states ranked at the bottom in GDP per capita, lifespan, education etc. fare? I can't imagine that going well.

rayiner 4y ago
I assume it would be fine. Iowa’s GDP is bigger than Greece and it’s GDP per capita is comparable to Norway’s. Mississippi’s GDP per capita is higher than France’s.
- cudgy 4y ago
  Yet France provides far more social services to its citizens with less money per capita than Mississippi. I guess the difference is mainly due to immense spending on defense and medical care.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    Defense is a drop in the bucket, 3.5% of GDP in the US versus 2% in France. The difference is taxes and what people have let after taxes. France’s taxes are 45% of GDP, versus 25% in the US. The French have universal healthcare, but Americans have bigger trucks and more TVs. And based on their voting patterns, they prefer it this way, whatever you think about their priorities.
  - native_samples 4y ago
    Having been to a French hospital and having been shocked by what I saw there, I wouldn't assume that more spending automatically equals more services.
rayiner 4y ago
Given that the poorest US states are similarly wealthy to rich European states, it would go fine: https://mises.org/wire/if-sweden-and-germany-became-us-states-they-would-be-among-poorest-states https://mises.org/wire/if-sweden-and-germany-became-us-state...
- otikik 4y ago
  I think that article is just number massaging. I have been to both Sweden and several US states (some of them quite wealthy) and there's no color. As in: a diabetic school teacher can afford insulin. On the explanation section of that article it says: > The Census numbers are much higher than the OECD numbers for a variety of reasons. In fact, the OECD income number of the US is only 59 percent of the Census number. The adjustment they did was "moving all the medians of all the states down by 59%" but I don't think that is enough. A more appropriate way to compare things would have been figuring how what those "differentiating reasons" and deducing amounts for each of the states, or incrementing the other countries' median in the same way. The American Census could (for example) be counting every state's natural resources as part of each household's income. In that case, they should include Sweden's petrol reserves in that computation. With the disparate measurement methods and the simplistic adjustment, they are comparing apples to oranges.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    In the US, most school teachers can also afford insulin, because they have generous healthcare plans. Remember, over 80% of Americans are happy with their own healthcare quality. The difference between the US and Sweden is that Americans would rather have bigger houses and more cars than ensure that the small fraction of teachers who can’t get insulin now can do so. To be clear, that adjustment can only affect the relative numbers across US states, not the overall average for US states. That is because all states are adjusted by the OECD number for the US. Presumably the OECD methodology is consistent within itself. So maybe the Census includes oil resources and OECD doesn’t. Discounting the US numbers across the board to 59% may make Texas and California artificially look better than Mississippi. But the overall average of the US states would still correspond to the OECD number for the US, which presumably is computed the same way as for Sweden.
NotSammyHagar 4y ago
Imagine if the poor but anti-democratic states that choose policies that hurt their citizens and vastly benefit form being subsidized by rich liberal states like NY and California, say Kentucky and Mississippi leave the US. More on topic, those poor states that benefit from federal money would not have a very strong economy and they would not be able to do deficit spending on their own currency or pay for things through deficit spending. If Oregon, Washington and California formed a new country or joined Canada they'd be better off financially, because their tax drain to poor state america would end. I don't want a split but I'm starting to feel it will happen in my lifetime. I'm more than ok with helping the poorer states with their infrastructure needs, we are all in this together. But I'm tired of 15% of the population having control over the federal agenda through the senate.

rayiner 4y ago

I assume it would be fine. Iowa’s GDP is bigger than Greece and it’s GDP per capita is comparable to Norway’s. Mississippi’s GDP per capita is higher than France’s.

cudgy 4y ago
Yet France provides far more social services to its citizens with less money per capita than Mississippi. I guess the difference is mainly due to immense spending on defense and medical care.
- rayiner 4y ago
  Defense is a drop in the bucket, 3.5% of GDP in the US versus 2% in France. The difference is taxes and what people have let after taxes. France’s taxes are 45% of GDP, versus 25% in the US. The French have universal healthcare, but Americans have bigger trucks and more TVs. And based on their voting patterns, they prefer it this way, whatever you think about their priorities.
- native_samples 4y ago
  Having been to a French hospital and having been shocked by what I saw there, I wouldn't assume that more spending automatically equals more services.

rayiner 4y ago

Given that the poorest US states are similarly wealthy to rich European states, it would go fine: https://mises.org/wire/if-sweden-and-germany-became-us-states-they-would-be-among-poorest-states https://mises.org/wire/if-sweden-and-germany-became-us-state...

otikik 4y ago
I think that article is just number massaging. I have been to both Sweden and several US states (some of them quite wealthy) and there's no color. As in: a diabetic school teacher can afford insulin. On the explanation section of that article it says: > The Census numbers are much higher than the OECD numbers for a variety of reasons. In fact, the OECD income number of the US is only 59 percent of the Census number. The adjustment they did was "moving all the medians of all the states down by 59%" but I don't think that is enough. A more appropriate way to compare things would have been figuring how what those "differentiating reasons" and deducing amounts for each of the states, or incrementing the other countries' median in the same way. The American Census could (for example) be counting every state's natural resources as part of each household's income. In that case, they should include Sweden's petrol reserves in that computation. With the disparate measurement methods and the simplistic adjustment, they are comparing apples to oranges.
- rayiner 4y ago
  In the US, most school teachers can also afford insulin, because they have generous healthcare plans. Remember, over 80% of Americans are happy with their own healthcare quality. The difference between the US and Sweden is that Americans would rather have bigger houses and more cars than ensure that the small fraction of teachers who can’t get insulin now can do so. To be clear, that adjustment can only affect the relative numbers across US states, not the overall average for US states. That is because all states are adjusted by the OECD number for the US. Presumably the OECD methodology is consistent within itself. So maybe the Census includes oil resources and OECD doesn’t. Discounting the US numbers across the board to 59% may make Texas and California artificially look better than Mississippi. But the overall average of the US states would still correspond to the OECD number for the US, which presumably is computed the same way as for Sweden.

NotSammyHagar 4y ago

Imagine if the poor but anti-democratic states that choose policies that hurt their citizens and vastly benefit form being subsidized by rich liberal states like NY and California, say Kentucky and Mississippi leave the US. More on topic, those poor states that benefit from federal money would not have a very strong economy and they would not be able to do deficit spending on their own currency or pay for things through deficit spending. If Oregon, Washington and California formed a new country or joined Canada they'd be better off financially, because their tax drain to poor state america would end. I don't want a split but I'm starting to feel it will happen in my lifetime. I'm more than ok with helping the poorer states with their infrastructure needs, we are all in this together. But I'm tired of 15% of the population having control over the federal agenda through the senate.