3 ms·

This is nonsensical.

• JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > This is nonsensical California spends about $600bn a year on construction [1]. That’s 15% of its GDP [2]. Let’s say half of that is residential, in line with the nation [3]. The proposal is thus to monetise 7.5% of GDP. That is literally Argentina [4]. [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CACONSTNQGSP https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CACONSTNQGSP [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_California https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_California [3] https://www.agc.org/sites/default/files/Files/Construction%20Data/CA.pdf https://www.agc.org/sites/default/files/Files/Construction%2... [4] https://www.statista.com/statistics/316916/argentinas-budget-balance-in-relation-to-gdp/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/316916/argentinas-budget...
  • fragmede 2y ago
    Of the FAANG companies, how many of them were started in Argentina? Of produce, how much is sold to other states in the US by Argentina? It's a lazy argument to say this totally different other place did this thing, and so we should expect the same results if California did that.