3 ms·

Yes, and it is hard to buy wheat when the price skyrockets due to interstate conflict. It's even harder to buy wheat when no one will sell to you.

ceejayoz 2y ago
> Yes, and it is hard to buy wheat when the price skyrockets due to interstate conflict. Even harder to grow it in meaningful quantities on a subsistence farming basis. > It's even harder to buy wheat when no one will sell to you. Which, unless your plan is to blockade the blue states, Canada and Brazil will happily do.
- LetMePostMore 2y ago
  There's a big reason why the US subsidizes domestic food production, and you'd be throwing that all out by relying on other countries for food. Good luck, let's hope Brazil and the US always see eye to eye on everything.
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    > There's a big reason why the US subsidizes domestic food production… Yes, and your proposed plan - the subsidized states refusing to sell the food to the subsidising ones - removes that reason entirely. Blue states would see inflation. Red states would see an economic collapse.
    - LetMePostMore 2y ago
      National security doesn't stop being a thing if the US splits into two countries. It's just the national security interest of Blue America would not directly align with the national security interest of Red America. Blue America would probably still choose to maintain domestic food production for national security interests, but would just pay a whole lot more to subsidize the production than they are currently paying.
      - ceejayoz 2y ago
        Maybe! And blue states will retaliate. Need medical care? Johnson & Johnson, Merck, and Bristol-Myers Squibb are all HQed in New Jersey, Pfizer in NYC, AbbVie in Chicago… We know who wins in trade wars. No one.
        LetMePostMore 2y ago
        That was basically my original point - OP made it sound like red states only exist via the largesse of blue states. I'm not really sure why my points have received so much push back, but OP received basically none at all for offering essentially a symmetrical argument to my own.
        ceejayoz 2y ago
        > OP made it sound like red states only exist via the largesse of blue states. They are quite well subsidized, yes. https://apnews.com/article/north-america-business-local-taxes-ap-top-news-politics-2f83c72de1bd440d92cdbc0d3b6bc08c https://apnews.com/article/north-america-business-local-taxe... > Connecticut residents paid an average of $15,643 per person in federal taxes in 2015, according to a report by the Rockefeller Institute of Government. Massachusetts paid $13,582 per person, New Jersey paid $13,137 and New York paid $12,820. > At the other end, Mississippi residents paid an average of $5,740 per person, while West Virginia paid $6,349, Kentucky paid $6,626 and South Carolina paid $6,665. > Mississippi received $2.13 for every tax dollar the state sent to Washington in 2015, according to the Rockefeller study. West Virginia received $2.07, Kentucky got $1.90 and South Carolina got $1.71. > Meanwhile, New Jersey received 74 cents in federal spending for tax every dollar the state sent to Washington. New York received 81 cents, Connecticut received 82 cents and Massachusetts received 83 cents. We like this setup, but I suspect blue states have more options for grain than red states have for doctors.
        LetMePostMore 2y ago
        Poor countries, that make the poorest US state look like Monaco, have no problem producing doctors. Also, as a general point, merely looking at total subsidy amount means nothing without looking at the reason for the subsidy. For example, if America builds a $10B early ICBM detection facility in Alaska, it will look like America is heavily subsidizing Alaska. Except, Alaska isn't actually a real threat to be nuked - NY, SF, LA, and DC are the ones that benefit.
dragonwriter 2y ago
> Yes, and it is hard to buy wheat when the price skyrockets due to interstate conflict. Not if you have the money. > It's even harder to buy wheat when no one will sell to you. Yeah, but the world is more than the US, and as well as money, the blue states have ports.

ceejayoz 2y ago

> Yes, and it is hard to buy wheat when the price skyrockets due to interstate conflict. Even harder to grow it in meaningful quantities on a subsistence farming basis. > It's even harder to buy wheat when no one will sell to you. Which, unless your plan is to blockade the blue states, Canada and Brazil will happily do.

LetMePostMore 2y ago
There's a big reason why the US subsidizes domestic food production, and you'd be throwing that all out by relying on other countries for food. Good luck, let's hope Brazil and the US always see eye to eye on everything.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  > There's a big reason why the US subsidizes domestic food production… Yes, and your proposed plan - the subsidized states refusing to sell the food to the subsidising ones - removes that reason entirely. Blue states would see inflation. Red states would see an economic collapse.
  - LetMePostMore 2y ago
    National security doesn't stop being a thing if the US splits into two countries. It's just the national security interest of Blue America would not directly align with the national security interest of Red America. Blue America would probably still choose to maintain domestic food production for national security interests, but would just pay a whole lot more to subsidize the production than they are currently paying.
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      Maybe! And blue states will retaliate. Need medical care? Johnson & Johnson, Merck, and Bristol-Myers Squibb are all HQed in New Jersey, Pfizer in NYC, AbbVie in Chicago… We know who wins in trade wars. No one.
      - LetMePostMore 2y ago
        That was basically my original point - OP made it sound like red states only exist via the largesse of blue states. I'm not really sure why my points have received so much push back, but OP received basically none at all for offering essentially a symmetrical argument to my own.
        ceejayoz 2y ago
        > OP made it sound like red states only exist via the largesse of blue states. They are quite well subsidized, yes. https://apnews.com/article/north-america-business-local-taxes-ap-top-news-politics-2f83c72de1bd440d92cdbc0d3b6bc08c https://apnews.com/article/north-america-business-local-taxe... > Connecticut residents paid an average of $15,643 per person in federal taxes in 2015, according to a report by the Rockefeller Institute of Government. Massachusetts paid $13,582 per person, New Jersey paid $13,137 and New York paid $12,820. > At the other end, Mississippi residents paid an average of $5,740 per person, while West Virginia paid $6,349, Kentucky paid $6,626 and South Carolina paid $6,665. > Mississippi received $2.13 for every tax dollar the state sent to Washington in 2015, according to the Rockefeller study. West Virginia received $2.07, Kentucky got $1.90 and South Carolina got $1.71. > Meanwhile, New Jersey received 74 cents in federal spending for tax every dollar the state sent to Washington. New York received 81 cents, Connecticut received 82 cents and Massachusetts received 83 cents. We like this setup, but I suspect blue states have more options for grain than red states have for doctors.
        LetMePostMore 2y ago
        Poor countries, that make the poorest US state look like Monaco, have no problem producing doctors. Also, as a general point, merely looking at total subsidy amount means nothing without looking at the reason for the subsidy. For example, if America builds a $10B early ICBM detection facility in Alaska, it will look like America is heavily subsidizing Alaska. Except, Alaska isn't actually a real threat to be nuked - NY, SF, LA, and DC are the ones that benefit.

dragonwriter 2y ago

> Yes, and it is hard to buy wheat when the price skyrockets due to interstate conflict. Not if you have the money. > It's even harder to buy wheat when no one will sell to you. Yeah, but the world is more than the US, and as well as money, the blue states have ports.