Californians intend to “take back control” and invest in a National Health Service rather than send their money to Washington
I do not support the secession movement, but with the poor reasoning we see from the people of the Leftover-states, I can see why intellectual fresh air might appeal to people on the coasts!
California has 12% of the U.S. population and 13.5% of its economy. Its pro-rated share of the U.S. Federal debt (even ignoring unfunded liabilities for the aging and diseased in Leftoverland) is $2.7 Trillion. I’m sure that number is higher than any scare figure you might come up with for California’s own state debt.
Western America would be happy to be relieved of that debt (in the impossible scenarios envisioned in the thread), and to print its own currency. As the exchange rate stabilizes between the new California dollar and the soft dollar of Leftover Trumpland, I’m not at all sure that Trump’s dollar will get the better of it. (Expect Trump to provoke inflation with his fiscal plans, and to appoint patsies to the FRB to prevent interest rate hikes.)
Some of CalExit biggest supporters…
Okay, I’m still not getting this. I don’t know why this thread was more than 10 posts, to be honest.
Does anyone remember the big I-405 repair two years ago (when planking was popular)? That is a very big job. Who paid for it? (Not CA)
Our recent drought has led to threats of mudslides and floods. Later, with the burning sun starting more wildfires will enjoy the new and burnable foliage as kindling. That’s a state of emergency. Who pays for that? (Not entirely CA)
Exactly how will foreigners be vetted and processed by the Country Of California? Are we charging rent to the Navy in San Diego? Who, exactly, is going to lead an investigation in the future when we in need of a bust on some people who have over 2,000 guns and assorted grenades?
FEDERAL MONEY, people. We need it. We will need it and we should be getting it when another juicy quake comes.
I own and live in a condo in Valley Village, CA. I bought it for $151,000 in 2003. If we secede, my place will be worth about 65 cents. And the hell I’d stay. It would be easy moving, the looters would lighten my load as soon as the For Sale sign goes up. :rolleyes:
Ummmm. How many guesses do we get? Arkansas paid for it? The Russian Federation? Warren Buffet? How many guesses do I have left? Oh I know! It was FEDERAL money. I wonder what they means to you? It’s been mentioned in-thread that California contributes more to the Fed Treasury than it gets back, so I assume your comment is based on the idea that FEDERAL money grows on [del]trees[/del] printing presses. Please start another thread if you don’t understand how modern monetary systems work.
An independent California would be tied with France for 6th largest economy (in nominal terms) in the world. In the more reasonable scenario where three Pacific states and seven Northeastern states join California and form Western America, Trump’s Leftoverland might still, barely, retain the #1 slot over #2 China, but Western American would be #3, ahead of Japan.
CalExit would be fraught with difficulties, and would be a thousand times stupider than Brexit. But the idea that California is some underdeveloped state suckling at the federal teat is absurd, almost backwards.Expel Trump’s Dixie states and see how they fare if you want to show by example that some states depend on federal money.
no, his comment is based on the fact that being a “net contributor” doesn’t mean California is fucking self-sufficient. Which has been pointed out more than once, and more than once by me. All that shit that the US federal gov’t takes care of will become a putative independent California’s responsibility. All those federal highway funds? Gone. California now has to pay for that. When the next several years are dry (I’ve seen people on Gizmodo/Jezebel say “the drought is over” which is LOL) you’ll need water. California will have to pay for that.
Even though California is a net contributor to the US economy (which I freely admit it is) that doesn’t mean you can divorce yourselves from the US economy and carry on business as usual. Even though California’s a net contributor, there’s a lot of expensive shit the federal government pays for, and once California has to actually shoulder that burden the outlook ain’t gonna be so rosy.
I think CalExit is crazy, but how do you think 50% of the countries in the world survive? (Use whatever number is correct, but I’m guessing that at least 50% of the countries in the world are smaller than CA pretty much no matter how you measure things.)
I am not following your logic. If you agree California is a net contributor doesn’t that include Highway funds? Doesn’t that include at least most of the expensive shit the federal government pays for? If California was shouldering those costs it would also not be transferring money to the US so wouldn’t it mostly be a wash?
It’s impossible for me to read this without thinking you have somehow overlooked that (in the hypothetical vision) California citizens and companies would no longer be paying income tax to Leftoverland.
:smack: Do you think some of this huge amount of money no longer being sent to Washington could be used to pay the California workers who would continue to maintain roads in California?
#Calexiters sound exactly like a bunch of rich conservatives bitching about their taxes.
Not necessarily. If California cuts itself off from the US, then it loses some of the benefits of economies of scale. It also, at least initially, loses the benefit of trade deals between nations that already exist and other negotiated contracts, etc. that the US has already engaged in. These things will increase California’s costs.
There may also be new barricades to California’s income. Selling agricultural products to the US will now face an international border, potentially decreasing profitability and even volume. Sales/contracts with the US government may well dry up, meaning those CA businesses may either move to the US or fold entirely.
The fact that California is a “donor state” as part of the US may be a good starting point for analyzing how it would do as an independent nation, but it’s far from the end of that analysis.
Well sure. Not necessarily and it’s only a starting point but look at what jz78817 was arguing: “yes California is a donor state but look at all the stuff the feds pay for!” That doesn’t make any sense.
CA has the necessary infrastructure to continue “exporting” it’s produce regardless of whether the US participates. As a free nation, the US wouldn’t stand in the way of CA’s trade agreements. CA has the access to Asian, South American and other Pacific Rim markets, and the shipping port infrastructure to do so. The bottom line is that an independent CA wouldn’t need the US in order to trade with other nations.
:smack: California would become a tiny miniscule itsy-bitsy country. In a set of other tiny economies like {Liechtenstein, Malta, Italy, Canada, Luxemburg, Andorra, Germany, San Marino, Russia, Brazil, South Korea}, California would barely make it to the #2 spot.
There are excellent reasons secession would fail catastrophically. And those serious about secession should probably be focusing on how to take some U.S. military assets hostage in the early part of the rebellion. But the aspects, both pro and con, actually being debated in the thread seem quite … #Alternate. 
CA is the 6th LARGEST GDP in the world. That’s not minuscule.
Why would CA want to seize military assets? You seem really confused about this.
OF course it has the resources to export its goods. But it’s still going to have to set up the trade agreements to do so. It won’t start out with those in place. Produce (at least a good portion of it) is an especially difficult case – as it can both be subject to more intense regulation coming in and has a limited shelf-life.
And while the US wouldn’t likely blockade California (assuming an agreed-upon secession or California wins its traitorous war), there would still be effects from the exit. Other countries are going to have to do a cost-benefit analysis of providing favorable trade terms to California and potentially pissing off the US. (I could especially see Trump as being the vindictive type towards those who help out a fledgling California.)
It’s not a matter of California “needing” the US to trade, as it is a matter of California needing to start over from scratch on many aspects of trade that make it more difficult than just saying, “Hey, I’ve got some good stuff over here. Want it?”
Sarcasm duly noted, but that’s why I said “some” of the benefits. Of course, CA isn’t tiny, but it isn’t the size of the US. It will surely benefit from the economy of scale, but not the the extent that US Federal projects can.
This effect wouldn’t necessarily be crippling, but it would have to be accounted for by those who just want to point out that CA is a “donor state” and think that’s enough to say that it would be fine on its own.
These would be in place before the Rep of CA flag made it to the top of the staff.
I seriously doubt that. CA has goods the world wants. It’s a very minor problem.
3 of the 5 busiest deep water ports are in CA. The US surely won’t screw too much with CA trade least that fact backfires on the US. The infrastructure is already in place, in California.
Article I, Section 10 of the US Constitution would beg to disagree. You rebels will have to wait until you’re an independent nation until trade agreements can be entered into.
So, I googled “is California the 6th largest economy” and what came back is that when you “factor in cost of living” California could be as low as 11th or something and “more like a European nation.” Whatever that means. The cost of living is high in California, and it’s population hasn’t been growing much in recent years, at least in part because housing is so freakin’ expensive.