What Caused the Rise and Fall of California?

[Vic]

California cycles a housing boom-and-bust about every 15-20 years.

 

[Vic]

Actually, the USA has strict requirements, too. I remember learning about them intimately when immigrating here. The problem is simply they are not enforced. They are if you go through formal channels via USCIS but since immigration control allows so many to hop the border all those people get a pass.

Immigration is strictly enforced in the US. It's the volume of illegal immigration that is the problem, making enforcement more or less logistically impossible. It's kind of like the war on drugs in this regard. Or speeders on the highway.

 

[Avvocato Effetti]

he reason California is in dire financial straits is simple:

First, remove all federal government subsidies from the equation, then;

Gap between sales and cost of sales in the formative years of California was large.

Gap between sales and cost of sales today is very, very narrow.

Someone asked me why the above has happened?

That's very simple as well. It is because Liberals/Democrats/Heathens have convinced the citizens of California that they can have more goodies and produce less.

Does everyone understand now?

 

[Jaskalas]

The "Fall" of California?

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

California has the most educated, productive, and innovative workforce in the US. The technologies and businesses that will drive the US economy out of the recession and into the next economic book will be largely based in this state.

Mark this post.

I don't want a state that can't speak English driving the rest of us anywhere.

 

[Vic]

Someone asked me why the above has happened?

That's very simple as well. It is because Liberals/Democrats/Heathens have convinced the citizens of California that they can have more goodies and produce less.

Does everyone understand now?

I stubbed my toe getting out of bed this morning. Goddamned Liberals/Democrats/Heathens! They made me do it! D:

 

[Avvocato Effetti]

Someone asked me why the above has happened?

That's very simple as well. It is because Liberals/Democrats/Heathens have convinced the citizens of California that they can have more goodies and produce less.

Does everyone understand now?

And then someone asked me, how do we fix it?

I have the answer. Since giving the answer to that question is considered proselytizing, which I agreed not to do here under the threat of banishment, I can't tell you.

You'll just have to continue on in misery.

 

[BigDH01]

Yes, but my point was to counter Craig's worship of govt, that govt is NOT necessary for private business to exist, but govt needs private business in order for IT to exist.

I think that's a stretch. People don't realize how they are subsidized by the government (and thus other businesses, taxpayers). What if I create a business that sells GPS units? I didn't pay for the satellites. I didn't pay to launch the satellites. I couldn't afford to maintain the satellites on my own. Do I then depend on collective ownership?

In a situation involving toll roads, let's imagine that Walmart built the most extensive and efficient interstate road system to distribute their goods. They were able to pay landowners asking prices and had the capital reserves required to build the roads. Let's say now that they exclude competitors from both using and building over these roads. Because they have the most efficient system in my theoretical model, they can deliver goods more efficiently than a new competitor could ever hope. The barrier just became impossibly high to reach. Now, collectively owning roads doesn't absolutely solve this problem (Walmart can still use its size and capital reserves to build better computer systems, warehouses, etc), but it does eliminate one barrier to entry.

You have to remember, even Coase himself told us that there are transactional costs in the real world and that means initial resource allocation matters. Your ideal of toll roads and competitive bargaining is just idealistic given the massive disparities in current resource allocation.

I think it would be correct to say not all businesses need the gov't (when the gov't really just represents collective ownership and affected resource allocation). But I think it would be a huge mistake to assume that the elimination of public ownership and adoption of a society where everything is owned privately is going to result in some Pareto superior alternative. I have a feeling I would move from being a servant of the gov't to a servant of whatever corporation owns my street, my water, my air, etc, etc.

 

[Craig234]

I don't want a state that can't speak English driving the rest of us anywhere.

You confuse bilingual with "can't speak English". Reminds me of the American who speaks pssable English only telling someone whose sixth language is English, 'you're an idiot, you got the word wrong'.

 

[Craig234]

Someone asked me why the above has happened?

That's very simple as well. It is because Liberals/Democrats/Heathens have convinced the citizens of California that they can have more goodies and produce less.

Does everyone understand now?

You seem awfully passive-agressive, responding to a post by not quoting it, but quoting your post, paraphrasing the other and removing the persons name to 'someone'. Are you that troubled?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Yes, but my point was to counter Craig's worship of govt, that govt is NOT necessary for private business to exist, but govt needs private business in order for IT to exist.

I think that the government really is necessary for the existence of private businesses, at least as we know them today (as opposed to a simple barter economy). The government regulates the use of physical force and runs the courts, which businesses need in order to survive.

Do you really think that private businesses could survive under anarchy? Perhaps people could organize into syndicates and enforce rules in their locale, but that's really no different than their becoming mini-governments.

This mantra that some people have latched onto, not saying you're one of them, that government is completely or almost completely worthless and serves no legitimate function in a free society is lunacy. It's almost as though some people have taken that belief to heart as though it were a religion--that government is always bad.

 

[Craig234]

I think that the government really is necessary for the existence of private businesses, at least as we know them today (as opposed to a simple barter economy). The government regulates the use of physical force and runs the courts, which businesses need in order to survive.

Do you really think that private businesses could survive under anarchy? Perhaps people could organize into syndicates and enforce rules in their locale, but that's really no different than their becoming mini-governments.

This mantra that some people have latched onto, not saying you're one of them, that government is completely or almost completely worthless and serves no legitimate function in a free society is lunacy. It's almost as though some people have taken that belief to heart as though it were a religion--that government is always bad.

Agreed. JS80 is that lunatic, and his post a straw man. This is a strain of lunacy.

 

[piasabird]

Cheap slave labor. They want the Mexicans to work for nothing and they dont want to pay for their health care or education. Cant have one without the other. If you love the cheap labor then pay their bills.

 

[Jaskalas]

You confuse bilingual with "can't speak English". Reminds me of the American who speaks pssable English only telling someone whose sixth language is English, 'you're an idiot, you got the word wrong'.

Very few of those people flooding in are bilingual.

Must be some fantasy of yours to see English speaking natives replaced by superior bilinguals. Unfortunately that's not the case, because if they DID speak English I wouldn't have an issue.

 

[bfdd]

You confuse bilingual with "can't speak English". Reminds me of the American who speaks pssable English only telling someone whose sixth language is English, 'you're an idiot, you got the word wrong'.

No there are plenty that "can't speak English." I think you're being to lenient with the term "bilingual." I can speak a few words of Spanish, Japanese, German and Chinese. I'd hardly call myself multilingual.

 

[sandorski]

I fail to see how requiring a 2/3 majority is a recipe for disaster while 51:49 isn't.
2/3 majority would require everyone to sitdown at the table together and pass a bill that makes better sense than either party can pass alone. No one party has the right solutions to all problems.
51:49 would only result in whichever party is in power ramming bills down everyone's throats without regard to talking or paying any attention at all to the other side. This kind of thing is what has happened in the US House of Representatives the past 15 years from Newt Gingrich to the current leadership of Nancy Pelosi.

There's a Business Management principle that basically says that when you can't make a decision it is best to flip a coin, roll some dice, spin a wheel, or some other simple way to use as a decider. The reason for this is elementary, it is because you can't succeed by ignoring an issue. 51/49 is infinitely better than holding out for a near impossible 60/40 on matters that are vital to good Management.

 

[Craig234]

No there are plenty that "can't speak English." I think you're being to lenient with the term "bilingual." I can speak a few words of Spanish, Japanese, German and Chinese. I'd hardly call myself multilingual.

Don't take it too literally. He was posting a misguided broadside at the whole state and I responded somewhat less than literally to criticize his error. I'm not saying there's no truth to it.

 

[Craig234]

Very few of those people flooding in are bilingual.

Must be some fantasy of yours to see English speaking natives replaced by superior bilinguals. Unfortunately that's not the case, because if they DID speak English I wouldn't have an issue.

My recollection ofy our post is of an absurd broad attack against the state as it not speaking English. It doesn't deserve much more than getting called absurd. Yes, there is a sub population who don't.

 

[ahurtt]

Plate tectonics.

 

[Zebo]

Cheap slave labor. They want the Mexicans to work for nothing and they dont want to pay for their health care or education. Cant have one without the other. If you love the cheap labor then pay their bills.

Heh - One of my dad's favorite sayings growing up if we got bad grades, did something stupid, didn't invest 10% of earnings, etc, was "pay now or pay later, but you will pay"

I think California is simply paying today for the cheap labor they got yesterday.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Honestly, I think that a 'fall' for California would still leave it in better overall shape than most US states.

 

[squirrel dog]

Cali is like , what bigger than France ? WTF , Arnold as gov would be a pres anywhere else . The economy of scale is out of wack . Fix that and cali is back on .

 

[ebaycj]

Not quite - Prop 13 freezes valuation and thus taxation at 1976 levels or when you bought it, which ever is later. And freezes maximum rate at 1% of appraisal.

I pay 2% - 2.25% in IL. I also am paying on the 2008 valuation.

I don't feel taxed out of my home.

 

[JS80]

I pay 2% - 2.25% in IL. I also am paying on the 2008 valuation.

I don't feel taxed out of my home.

What about grandma who bought her house in 1960 for $5k and lives off a small fixed income?

 

[Craig234]

What about grandma who bought her house in 1960 for $5k and lives off a small fixed income?

It's funny, if the left wants to spend a dollar on her needs, the right says "put her in the gutter", but if the issue is cutting her taxes, the right is very concerned for her well-being.

What happened to all the right-wing ideology about her having no "right" to live in a house she can't affprd and pay taxes below what others pay for the same house?

Anyway, I said previously, I'm open to measures to relive her of tax burden.

 

[shortylickens]

The opinions here are pretty interesting, but I already read the book "whats the matter with California?" a year or so ago and I agree with many things said in it.
After I read that I stopped crapping on CA and their way of life and stuff. It was no longer necessary for me to hate.