• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

The collapse of California

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,632
25,683
136
I just went by this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state

They look the top to me. No need to split out to median to make your argument, techs didn't, so I didn't either. He's treating the entirety of CA as an individual, I can't help that. As such, that "individual" looks to me (unless they've slipped down since 2007, quite possible), to be "the 1%". Following lib "logic", that means they need to pay more. Heck, pay more than even they're paying now.

Since we're targeting the 1% - or, 2% as you point out - and we're treating states as individuals, then you'd jack up the state income tax since it's the state that needs to pay more.

So, start paying CA! Jack up those state tax rates so you "rich" 2%'ers can "pay your fair share" to the rest of the poor states!

Haha, love it... :D
Even you need to realize how utterly absurd your point is, and you're not using your own link well. If you look at per capita federal contributions you will once again see that California is nowhere near the top. Why would you look at total contributions? By your logic a million homeless people each with a dollar to their names are really part of the top 1% in America, far richer than a single man with $500,000 in his bank account.

Really, this is embarrassing.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
Look, take it up with techs, I'm not the one that made the state an individual. I realize you need to twist to get out of the lib logic, but facts are facts. CA was the top (at least in 2007), therefore it is the "1%" (or 2% as you correctly point out). You trying to break it down into per capita is just trying to weasel out of the analogy to disprove it. Per capita has zero to do with techs compliant, he said CA, not CA per capita. If you want to somehow make a different argument that's fine, that's certainly acceptable.

For techs though, he said CA in the singular, meaning the state as a whole. Why you'd try to break it down into per capita, which clearly he did not mean or suggest, is perplexing.

Really, this is embarrassing.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
Oh good, PJABBER's back. We didn't miss you.

Nothing in my post made any judgment on what his accomplishments might be in the field of military history. I simply questioned that as being relevant credentials to analyze California's economy.
Hi eskimopie! I've been working out of the US for quite some time, back to take care of some business affairs, eat some barbecue and sample some quality rye whiskey.

Sitting in airports and waiting for flights has me back to ATPN for the typically light amusement on offer. Not much seems to have changed in the old neighborhood.

BTW, have you picked up your poli sci undergrad degree yet? Good grade point average, I hope. Where is it that you are taking your studies again?

Hanson is the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. Stanford is a California university, isn't it?

Hanson was a National Endowment for the Humanities fellow at the Center for Advanced Studies in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford (1992–93), a visiting professor of classics at Stanford (1991–92), and alumnus of the year of the University of California, Santa Cruz (2002), as well as being a Fellow in California Studies at the Claremont Institute.

I kinda get the impression he knows something about life and troubles in California.
 

berzerker60

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2012
1,233
1
0
Look, take it up with techs, I'm not the one that made the state an individual. I realize you need to twist to get out of the lib logic, but facts are facts. CA was the top (at least in 2007), therefore it is the "1%" (or 2% as you correctly point out). You trying to break it down into per capita is just trying to weasel out of the analogy to disprove it. Per capita has zero to do with techs compliant, he said CA, not CA per capita. If you want to somehow make a different argument that's fine, that's certainly acceptable.

For techs though, he said CA in the singular, meaning the state as a whole. Why you'd try to break it down into per capita, which clearly he did not mean or suggest, is perplexing.

Really, this is embarrassing.
How about we all agree it's an incredibly stupid and meaningless line of argument to talk about states as individuals and leave it at that? There's absolutely nothing to be gained other than some empty snide comments on either side.

Hi eskimopie! I've been working out of the US for quite some time, back to take care of some business affairs, eat some barbecue and sample some quality rye whiskey.

Sitting in airports and waiting for flights has me back to ATPN for the typically light amusement on offer. Not much seems to have changed in the old neighborhood.

BTW, have you picked up your poli sci undergrad degree yet? Good grade point average, I hope. Where is it that you are taking your studies again?

Hanson is the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. Stanford is a California university, isn't it?

Hanson was a National Endowment for the Humanities fellow at the Center for Advanced Studies in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford (1992–93), a visiting professor of classics at Stanford (1991–92), and alumnus of the year of the University of California, Santa Cruz (2002), as well as being a Fellow in California Studies at the Claremont Institute.

I kinda get the impression he knows something about life and troubles in California.
Albert Einstein wouldn't be a good source to ask about the biological habits of German toads just because he was smart, a German, and a scientist.
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,632
25,683
136
Look, take it up with techs, I'm not the one that made the state an individual. I realize you need to twist to get out of the lib logic, but facts are facts. CA was the top (at least in 2007), therefore it is the "1%" (or 2% as you correctly point out). You trying to break it down into per capita is just trying to weasel out of the analogy to disprove it. Per capita has zero to do with techs compliant, he said CA, not CA per capita. If you want to somehow make a different argument that's fine, that's certainly acceptable.

For techs though, he said CA in the singular, meaning the state as a whole. Why you'd try to break it down into per capita, which clearly he did not mean or suggest, is perplexing.

Really, this is embarrassing.
Actually he most certainly did mean and suggest per capita. There is no rational way to look at this except as a per capita exercise and it has literally everything to do with tech's complaint. This is most certainly embarrassing, but only because you're doubling down on something so obviously wrong.

Techs complained about red states being welfare recipients. Red states are generally welfare states because they contribute low amounts per capita and consume high amounts per capita. It is not in an absolute term; if it was your point would make even less sense as California is also the largest recipient of federal spending. That is why Delaware is #35 on that list, putting it in the bottom half of all states, despite being the largest contributor per person on the whole list. (corporate taxes hooray!)

Using absolute numbers was unquestionably dumb. Not only was it not addressing tech's point, but now you've dishonestly mischaracterized his argument. Time to pull the ejection seat on this one.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
How about we all agree it's an incredibly stupid and meaningless line of argument to talk about states as individuals and leave it at that? There's absolutely nothing to be gained other than some empty snide comments on either side.
Not a problem. What we could talk about is even where techs was going with that line or argument. To me it sounds like he's saying that if the individuals of CA didn't have to pay Fed taxes to the degree they do when that money goes to other states, that their Fed tax burder could be lower so the money stays in CA to be used for CA.

If that is correct, then how is CA going to get that money? Just be sales tax income? Or is techs suggesting that CA could raise their state/local taxes once the Fed taxes were lowered?

I'd like to hear from techs how he envisions this working...
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,632
25,683
136
Hi eskimopie! I've been working out of the US for quite some time, back to take care of some business affairs, eat some barbecue and sample some quality rye whiskey.

Sitting in airports and waiting for flights has me back to ATPN for the typically light amusement on offer. Not much seems to have changed in the old neighborhood.

BTW, have you picked up your poli sci undergrad degree yet? Good grade point average, I hope. Where is it that you are taking your studies again?

Hanson is the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. Stanford is a California university, isn't it?

Hanson was a National Endowment for the Humanities fellow at the Center for Advanced Studies in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford (1992–93), a visiting professor of classics at Stanford (1991–92), and alumnus of the year of the University of California, Santa Cruz (2002), as well as being a Fellow in California Studies at the Claremont Institute.

I kinda get the impression he knows something about life and troubles in California.
I didn't know that simply living in California gave you an insight into economics and state budgets! That's a very exciting development, who knew!? It's especially interesting that you believe teaching classics and military history would provide additional budgetary insight. Since his skills are so easily transferrable and he's close to Stanford, I'm sure they would appreciate his assistance with a number of computer programming projects they undoubtedly are undertaking at the moment. I mean he's a decorated classics professor, I'm sure he'll pick it right up. I mean why have schools at all?

As for your questions about my education, I'm doing quite well! I graduated with a politics degree from UC San Diego. Notably I didn't lean anything about public policy from my degree, I learned it all by osmosis from living in California. I then finished my grad degree in political economy and international relations over at NYU and have been working in policy for a good while now. I know it's no classics professorship, but we all can't be such experts so quickly.

Best wishes to you not posting here anymore, I hope your next trip takes you somewhere without internet access!
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
Actually he most certainly did mean and suggest per capita. There is no rational way to look at this except as a per capita exercise and it has literally everything to do with tech's complaint. This is most certainly embarrassing, but only because you're doubling down on something so obviously wrong.

Techs complained about red states being welfare recipients. Red states are generally welfare states because they contribute low amounts per capita and consume high amounts per capita. It is not in an absolute term; if it was your point would make even less sense as California is also the largest recipient of federal spending. That is why Delaware is #35 on that list, putting it in the bottom half of all states, despite being the largest contributor per person on the whole list. (corporate taxes hooray!)

Using absolute numbers was unquestionably dumb. Not only was it not addressing tech's point, but now you've dishonestly mischaracterized his argument. Time to pull the ejection seat on this one.
Here's the only fact you need to sink in.
California is paying HUGE sums of money every year to the failed states that practice low taxes, low regulation.
If California only got back from the Federal Government what it paid in there would be no deficit and California would be doing great.

So any article about California's problems should start:

California is being crushed by the enormous amount of money it is paying to keep low tax, low wage, low benefits states from collapsing.
Bolded.

Really, how you can continue to argue in the plural when clearly techs was posting in the singular is beyond...well, beyond any rational reading of techs post. I get you need to make that subtle change to "win" the debate you're trying - and failing, neh, failed - to win, but one would think at some point you'd abandon your failure and move on. berzerker60 gets it, why can't you?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,632
25,683
136
Bolded.

Really, how you can continue to argue in the plural when clearly techs was posting in the singular is beyond...well, beyond any rational reading of techs post. I get you need to make that subtle change to "win" the debate you're trying - and failing, neh, failed - to win, but one would think at some point you'd abandon your failure and move on. berzerker60 gets it, why can't you?
That argument is entirely based on the per capita needs of each state. There's no other rational way to look at it.

It's not about winning, if that were the case I would have just stopped because I already won about 3 sentences into my reply when I demolished your point. It's about people making absolutely stupid, ridiculous arguments that they know are stupid and ridiculous.
 

berzerker60

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2012
1,233
1
0
Christ, the argument is simple:

California makes lots of money because it's a huge state with tons of people. It has its own problems, but pays its share of the federal budget.

Mississippi has little money because it's a shitty place, takes lots of federal money, then bitches and moans because "oh the damned government is taking all my money that must be the explanation for why my shitty life is so shitty. And those damned Californian liberals wasting all their money!!!"

It's not a suggestion of making sweeping changes, just making a point that California pays its share of federal taxes and takes care of its citizens so federal dollars don't have to, and it would be nice if the red states would too. Then federal outlays might get evened out across the nation in terms of federal investments - science funding, infrastructure, needed public jobs, etc.

Also, please familiarize yourself with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
That argument is entirely based on the per capita needs of each state. There's no other rational way to look at it.

It's not about winning, if that were the case I would have just stopped because I already won about 3 sentences into my reply when I demolished your point. It's about people making absolutely stupid, ridiculous arguments that they know are stupid and ridiculous.
It's not my point though, it's techs. That was established when techs made his/her post.

How can this be your profession and you're so bad at it???
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,632
25,683
136
It's not my point though, it's techs. That was established when techs made his/her post.

How can this by your profession and you're so bad at it???
I'm actually quite good at it. You did not understand techs' point and so you responded badly to it. There's no shame in that, it happens to the best of us. There is shame in continuing this though.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
Albert Einstein wouldn't be a good source to ask about the biological habits of German toads just because he was smart, a German, and a scientist.
Wouldn't it depend on his personal interests to a great extent?

For example, I regularly go to meetings of the American Philosophical Society and am always impressed and delighted by the breadth as well as the depth of interests and knowledge that the highly distinguished membership has outside their fields of specialized expertise.

Of course, not everyone does have broad interests, but you would like to claim that a guy like Hanson cannot possibly comment on the state of the State of California without some piddly undergrad poli sci or economics degree to validate his observations and opinions? After all, what does holding a Fellowship in California Studies at the Claremont Institute since 2002 really mean?

I take note that Hanson received a BA at the University of California, Santa Cruz (1975) and his PhD in classics from Stanford University (1980).

Gee, all of these California university credentials. You would think from some of the comments here that he lives in the East Village of NYC and has never crossed the Hudson River.

Perhaps you should read some of his writings before coming to more uninformed judgments? You might even consider reading several years of his contemporary writing to see if your knee jerk presuppositions bear out.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,632
25,683
136
Clearly you should read several years of someone's writing before looking at the current hilariously poorly written article under discussion and determining perhaps his total lack of education on the issue might have something to do with it.

I mean to do otherwise would just be nuts.
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
192
106
Clearly you should read several years of someone's writing before looking at the current hilariously poorly written article under discussion and determining perhaps his total lack of education on the issue might have something to do with it.
How about separating education from first hand knowledge.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
I'm actually quite good at it. You did not understand techs' point and so you responded badly to it. There's no shame in that, it happens to the best of us. There is shame in continuing this though.
No, I understand techs - wrong - point perfectly. Which is why I made fun of that type of logic at his posts expense. You of course can't accept that, so you need to change CA in the singular - which is wrong, but that's techs problem - to CA in the plural - which is right, but not what techs meant when he posted - to try and "win" the debate against raising taxes on the 1/2%'ers.

I get it. It's OK you want to do that, you need to so you can defend that tax raise at all costs. Why you are not understanding that I'm not arguing that CA pays taxes in the singular but citizens from CA pay Fed taxes in the plural, but simply making fun of the 'raise taxes on the 1%' logic at techs post expense (since he clearly means CA in the singular), is what I cannot grasp. If you are quite good at your job, then how are you failing to grasp that?
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,632
25,683
136
No, I understand techs - wrong - point perfectly. Which is why I made fun of that type of logic at his posts expense. You of course can't accept that, so you need to change CA in the singular - which is wrong, but that's techs problem - to CA in the plural - which is right, but not what techs meant when he posted - to try and "win" the debate against raising taxes on the 1/2%'ers.

I get it. It's OK you want to do that, you need to so you can defend that tax raise at all costs. Why you are not understanding that I'm not arguing that CA pays taxes in the singular but citizens from CA pay Fed taxes in the plural, but simply making fun of the 'raise taxes on the 1%' logic at techs post offense (since he clearly means CA in the singular), is what I cannot grasp. If you are quite good at your job, then how are you failing to grasp that?
Because that's not what techs was actually arguing. He was arguing outlays vs. receipts which is entirely based on per capita incomes, tax expenditures, and service receipts. You are very welcome to believe whatever you want, and I've indulged you far longer than I should have. If you can't at least make fun of someone well maybe you should just leave it to other people.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
Because that's not what techs was actually arguing. He was arguing outlays vs. receipts which is entirely based on per capita incomes, tax expenditures, and service receipts. You are very welcome to believe whatever you want, and I've indulged you far longer than I should have. If you can't at least make fun of someone well maybe you should just leave it to other people.
Sigh...you got caught trying to make a subtle switch in meaning to make your argument, and this is how you handle it. Oh well, it was funny while it lasted...
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,632
25,683
136
Sigh...you got caught trying to make a subtle switch in meaning to make your argument, and this is how you handle it. Oh well, it was funny while it lasted...
No, I caught you trying to dishonestly misrepresent an argument and I busted you. Unfortunately your posts were never funny. :(
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
In your mind, I'm sure that's exactly how you understand it. Good going, you "won" an argument with yourself! :thumbsup:
 

etrigan420

Golden Member
Oct 30, 2007
1,723
1
71
California will be fine.

I know, because I lived there for a while in the early '90's.
 

manimal

Lifer
Mar 30, 2007
13,560
8
0
I didn't know that simply living in California gave you an insight into economics and state budgets! That's a very exciting development, who knew!? It's especially interesting that you believe teaching classics and military history would provide additional budgetary insight. Since his skills are so easily transferrable and he's close to Stanford, I'm sure they would appreciate his assistance with a number of computer programming projects they undoubtedly are undertaking at the moment. I mean he's a decorated classics professor, I'm sure he'll pick it right up. I mean why have schools at all?

As for your questions about my education, I'm doing quite well! I graduated with a politics degree from UC San Diego. Notably I didn't lean anything about public policy from my degree, I learned it all by osmosis from living in California. I then finished my grad degree in political economy and international relations over at NYU and have been working in policy for a good while now. I know it's no classics professorship, but we all can't be such experts so quickly.

Best wishes to you not posting here anymore, I hope your next trip takes you somewhere without internet access!
post of the month!! Thank you!
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
I graduated with a politics degree from UC San Diego. Notably I didn't lean anything about public policy from my degree, I learned it all by osmosis from living in California. I then finished my grad degree in political economy and international relations over at NYU and have been working in policy for a good while now. I know it's no classics professorship, but we all can't be such experts so quickly.
Sorry to hear that public education has failed you as it has so many others. I imagine there is still time to jump off the ivory tower and into senior learning though. Perhaps a survey course or two might be called for? Yes, indeed, a bit of broadening and tolerance wouldn't hurt.

Best wishes to you not posting here anymore, I hope your next trip takes you somewhere without internet access!
Thank you! Internet access immerses one into an artificial reality where the things that are learned are seldom of much importance. Only through immersion into the flow of life are we able to gain understanding and the transcendent path that offers a chance at true happiness! :thumbsup:
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,632
25,683
136
Sorry to hear that public education has failed you as it has so many others. I imagine there is still time to jump off the ivory tower and into senior learning though. Perhaps a survey course or two might be called for? Yes, indeed, a bit of broadening and tolerance wouldn't hurt.
Oh I don't work in academia and NYU is private, not public. Alas, it appears that our education system has been a failure with you as well despite the fact that it has undoubtedly been augmented by a great deal of senior learning. Don't worry though, friend PJABBER, I still believe in you. If you ever have questions about public policy I would be more than happy to answer them for you, as like you I am a strong proponent of lifetime learning.

Thank you! Internet access immerses one into an artificial reality where the things that are learned are seldom of much importance. Only through immersion into the flow of life are we able to gain understanding and the transcendent path that offers a chance at true happiness! :thumbsup:
More than anything I wish for your happiness as well as my own. It appears that you not using the internet accomplishes both of these so perfectly that I daresay it appears to be the work of divine providence. It fits like a key in a lock, or a coveted 4 square long piece in Tetris. You not posting here is all that stands between us and that long awaited bonus.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY