4 ms·

Sounds like they aree going to be ready for when they decide to break off...

renegade-otter 2y ago
Like that time when Kansas decided to gut its tax income in order to show it to those moochers, and then resorted to selling dildos. https://www.businessinsider.com/kansas-is-using-sex-toys-to-help-balance-its-state-budget-2014-9 https://www.businessinsider.com/kansas-is-using-sex-toys-to-...
tombert 2y ago
I hear this meme a lot, but I think it's kind of laughable to think that Texas could break off. The Civil War made it pretty clear that states cannot leave the union, and doing so would probably be treated as an act of war, and while Texas does have a pretty impressive economy, it's still not enough to take on the entire rest of the United States. I lived in Texas for awhile, and there is this sort of running idea that Texas is somehow able to be self-sufficient in a way that other states cannot be. I think I dispute that.
- georgeecollins 2y ago
  One of the problems with the global economic order benefiting people unequally is that we undersell how much that order benefits the US to the average citizen. It is so advantageous to do business around the world as an American, because you are coming from such a big, prosperous, unified market. I am sure there lots of people in Texas, California, etc. that think they'd be better off as their own states. Its the same logic as Brexit and its hard for elites to take it seriously because it is so obviously dumb. But the benefits are so poorly spread around there are just a lot of people who don't care. "I will still get my pension." "This town was dying before." etc.
  - tombert 2y ago
    I mean, my grandmother used to talk about how people are just "mooching off the system" and living off "her taxdollars" while depending on her social security checks every month. She also felt it prudent to mention how Mexicans are coming over the border to steal our benefits (right in front of my Mexican wife), while she has been on Medicare for like 25 years and therefore had not had to pay for health insurance for that entire time, while the Mexicans who come here decidedly do not get that luxury unless they become citizens. When I called her out on this stuff, she'd give some vague justification about "savings accounts" and the like. She might still say this stuff, I don't know, I haven't talked to her in like 7 years. The hypocritical potential of humans is incredible.
    - georgeecollins 2y ago
      Sadly, that is my experience with some of my nice, but not too sophisticated relatives. One of the funniest things I ever heard was: "California is so hostile for business!" I pointed out that the fastest growing, most world beating corporations have been coming out of California for the last generations. The reply: "That's not business, that's tech." These people in general had jobs working for the state or local government. But they were very sure in their views about the economy. My point is that they also didn't really directly benefit much from tech, or international trade, or global finance. So they really didn't have a big stake in being right or wrong.
      - tombert 2y ago
        Yeah, I have had the exact same argument, with that same grandmother; she said NY and California are horrible for business and that's why "no one is opening up businesses there". When I pointed out that that's just not true, California and NYC actually have a lot of very successful and profitable businesses, the response was that "tech" and "finance" don't count, for undefined reasons. > My point is that they also didn't really directly benefit much from tech, or international trade, or global finance. So they really didn't have a big stake in being right or wrong. I mean, they have some stake though; presumably most of them have a 401k or some equivalent if they have government jobs, which probably invests in a diversified S&P500 fund or something similar, and most of the biggest businesses in those are tech companies. They should care a little about those business; their retirements probably depend on them.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
  > that Texas is somehow able to be self-sufficient in a way that other states cannot be. I think I dispute that. The world is filled with states similar in size to Texas (or smaller), by whatever measurement you want to use, all of which seem perfectly self-sufficient. Even those in Europe didn't join the EU out of concerns about self-sufficiency, but rather about efficiency and synergy. I see no reason why Texas would be different in this regard. It might be unwise for Texas to attempt such, as there are benefits to remaining, but the idea that it couldn't be is nothing short of absurd. For the record, I don't think this opinion is unique to Texas, most of the other states in the US could do so just as well.
  - tombert 2y ago
    I wasn't saying it wasn't possible for Texas to be self-sufficient in a vacuum, I'm saying that I don't think Texas is uniquely qualified to be self-sufficient. I think there are several other states that are comparably qualified (e.g. California) if they wanted to be self-sufficient. I mostly think Texas would not be able to win a civil war against the US, and so splitting off would be impossible. If they were somehow able to convince the federal government to let them secede, I think they'd probably survive, though I also think it would be a downgrade to Texas citizens. ETA: Rereading your comment, I actually don't think we really disagree on anything here, I just chose some poor wording making what I said ambiguous.
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
      > I'm saying that I don't think Texas is uniquely qualified to be self-sufficient. Oh. I'll do you one better then. Texas is uniquely unqualified to be self-sufficient. They tried it once and went bankrupt in 10 years. > I mostly think Texas would not be able to win a civil war against the US, I don't know why one would or should be fought. The people who think that the US has the right to prevent secession are pretty weird... ask them if they think divorce should be illegal or if the husband should be allowed to murder a wife who tries.
      - tombert 2y ago
- delfinom 2y ago
  >The Civil War made it pretty clear that states cannot leave the union, and doing so would probably be treated as an act of war, and while Texas does have a pretty impressive economy, it's still not enough to take on the entire rest of the United States. Except there's more than one state that would probably side with Texas out of culture war spite. Also, we just so happen to have the majority of military manufacturing located in said states because defense contractors spent decades relocating for that sweet savings on taxes.
  - tombert 2y ago
    I think the first point is fair enough, but I take issue with: > we just so happen to have the majority of military manufacturing located in said states because defense contractors spent decades relocating for that sweet savings on taxes. Most of the financing for these companies is funded by the US military. I doubt Texas (or Texas and the few surrounding states that also left) would be able to maintain the nearly infinite military budget that the fed has, and the military manufacturers would move to a Union state as soon as possible. I guess the physical factories would still be there, but there's a lot more to manufacturing than just the factories.
ethagnawl 2y ago
I do somewhat seriously wonder if we'd all be better off at this point. Let the so-called libertarians all flock there (as they're happy to suggest other do, e.g. when local laws are passed to restrict reproductive rights). It'd be a release valve for lots of the tension which has arisen over the last few years. They can deregulate everything, roll the dice and enjoy the flaky electric grid, fire ants, modified AR-15s, tornadoes, floods, etc. They can do whatever they want with their new southern border and we can do the same in turn.
- olsonjeffery 2y ago
  Fort Sumter. You want to let Texas have nukes?
  - ethagnawl 2y ago
    Would that really be worse than North Korea? As dumb as it is, mutually assured destruction has worked so far.
- digging 2y ago
  Sure, as long as we fully subsidize relocation the millions of vulnerable people who would like to leave, and who will otherwise be forced into slave labor for the likes of Paxton and the other criminals running the show.

Like that time when Kansas decided to gut its tax income in order to show it to those moochers, and then resorted to selling dildos. https://www.businessinsider.com/kansas-is-using-sex-toys-to-help-balance-its-state-budget-2014-9 https://www.businessinsider.com/kansas-is-using-sex-toys-to-...

tombert 2y ago

I hear this meme a lot, but I think it's kind of laughable to think that Texas could break off. The Civil War made it pretty clear that states cannot leave the union, and doing so would probably be treated as an act of war, and while Texas does have a pretty impressive economy, it's still not enough to take on the entire rest of the United States. I lived in Texas for awhile, and there is this sort of running idea that Texas is somehow able to be self-sufficient in a way that other states cannot be. I think I dispute that.

georgeecollins 2y ago
One of the problems with the global economic order benefiting people unequally is that we undersell how much that order benefits the US to the average citizen. It is so advantageous to do business around the world as an American, because you are coming from such a big, prosperous, unified market. I am sure there lots of people in Texas, California, etc. that think they'd be better off as their own states. Its the same logic as Brexit and its hard for elites to take it seriously because it is so obviously dumb. But the benefits are so poorly spread around there are just a lot of people who don't care. "I will still get my pension." "This town was dying before." etc.
- tombert 2y ago
  I mean, my grandmother used to talk about how people are just "mooching off the system" and living off "her taxdollars" while depending on her social security checks every month. She also felt it prudent to mention how Mexicans are coming over the border to steal our benefits (right in front of my Mexican wife), while she has been on Medicare for like 25 years and therefore had not had to pay for health insurance for that entire time, while the Mexicans who come here decidedly do not get that luxury unless they become citizens. When I called her out on this stuff, she'd give some vague justification about "savings accounts" and the like. She might still say this stuff, I don't know, I haven't talked to her in like 7 years. The hypocritical potential of humans is incredible.
  - georgeecollins 2y ago
    Sadly, that is my experience with some of my nice, but not too sophisticated relatives. One of the funniest things I ever heard was: "California is so hostile for business!" I pointed out that the fastest growing, most world beating corporations have been coming out of California for the last generations. The reply: "That's not business, that's tech." These people in general had jobs working for the state or local government. But they were very sure in their views about the economy. My point is that they also didn't really directly benefit much from tech, or international trade, or global finance. So they really didn't have a big stake in being right or wrong.
    - tombert 2y ago
      Yeah, I have had the exact same argument, with that same grandmother; she said NY and California are horrible for business and that's why "no one is opening up businesses there". When I pointed out that that's just not true, California and NYC actually have a lot of very successful and profitable businesses, the response was that "tech" and "finance" don't count, for undefined reasons. > My point is that they also didn't really directly benefit much from tech, or international trade, or global finance. So they really didn't have a big stake in being right or wrong. I mean, they have some stake though; presumably most of them have a 401k or some equivalent if they have government jobs, which probably invests in a diversified S&P500 fund or something similar, and most of the biggest businesses in those are tech companies. They should care a little about those business; their retirements probably depend on them.
NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
> that Texas is somehow able to be self-sufficient in a way that other states cannot be. I think I dispute that. The world is filled with states similar in size to Texas (or smaller), by whatever measurement you want to use, all of which seem perfectly self-sufficient. Even those in Europe didn't join the EU out of concerns about self-sufficiency, but rather about efficiency and synergy. I see no reason why Texas would be different in this regard. It might be unwise for Texas to attempt such, as there are benefits to remaining, but the idea that it couldn't be is nothing short of absurd. For the record, I don't think this opinion is unique to Texas, most of the other states in the US could do so just as well.
- tombert 2y ago
  I wasn't saying it wasn't possible for Texas to be self-sufficient in a vacuum, I'm saying that I don't think Texas is uniquely qualified to be self-sufficient. I think there are several other states that are comparably qualified (e.g. California) if they wanted to be self-sufficient. I mostly think Texas would not be able to win a civil war against the US, and so splitting off would be impossible. If they were somehow able to convince the federal government to let them secede, I think they'd probably survive, though I also think it would be a downgrade to Texas citizens. ETA: Rereading your comment, I actually don't think we really disagree on anything here, I just chose some poor wording making what I said ambiguous.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
    > I'm saying that I don't think Texas is uniquely qualified to be self-sufficient. Oh. I'll do you one better then. Texas is uniquely unqualified to be self-sufficient. They tried it once and went bankrupt in 10 years. > I mostly think Texas would not be able to win a civil war against the US, I don't know why one would or should be fought. The people who think that the US has the right to prevent secession are pretty weird... ask them if they think divorce should be illegal or if the husband should be allowed to murder a wife who tries.
    - tombert 2y ago
delfinom 2y ago
>The Civil War made it pretty clear that states cannot leave the union, and doing so would probably be treated as an act of war, and while Texas does have a pretty impressive economy, it's still not enough to take on the entire rest of the United States. Except there's more than one state that would probably side with Texas out of culture war spite. Also, we just so happen to have the majority of military manufacturing located in said states because defense contractors spent decades relocating for that sweet savings on taxes.
- tombert 2y ago
  I think the first point is fair enough, but I take issue with: > we just so happen to have the majority of military manufacturing located in said states because defense contractors spent decades relocating for that sweet savings on taxes. Most of the financing for these companies is funded by the US military. I doubt Texas (or Texas and the few surrounding states that also left) would be able to maintain the nearly infinite military budget that the fed has, and the military manufacturers would move to a Union state as soon as possible. I guess the physical factories would still be there, but there's a lot more to manufacturing than just the factories.

ethagnawl 2y ago

I do somewhat seriously wonder if we'd all be better off at this point. Let the so-called libertarians all flock there (as they're happy to suggest other do, e.g. when local laws are passed to restrict reproductive rights). It'd be a release valve for lots of the tension which has arisen over the last few years. They can deregulate everything, roll the dice and enjoy the flaky electric grid, fire ants, modified AR-15s, tornadoes, floods, etc. They can do whatever they want with their new southern border and we can do the same in turn.

olsonjeffery 2y ago
Fort Sumter. You want to let Texas have nukes?
- ethagnawl 2y ago
  Would that really be worse than North Korea? As dumb as it is, mutually assured destruction has worked so far.
digging 2y ago
Sure, as long as we fully subsidize relocation the millions of vulnerable people who would like to leave, and who will otherwise be forced into slave labor for the likes of Paxton and the other criminals running the show.