[p2p-research] Abundance Destroys Profit [was: Tick, tock, tick, tock… BING]

[Ryan Lanham]

On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 1:33 PM, J. Andrew Rogers
<reality.miner at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 6:59 AM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I'd rate that as a highly improbably outcome.   Frankly, I'd be for it.
> It
> > isn't going to happen. If it did happen, the center of the country would
> be
> > impoverished in a generation.
>
>
> The Great Plains has been depopulating for decades. I don't know about
> impoverished though, the demand for agricultural products hasn't been
> waning and they produce a lot of export goods.
>
>
>
The Midwest and the South rely heavily on Federal flows and transfers.
Always have.  Take away the Federal money flows and poverty ensues.  See...

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html


>> Non sequitur.  The President has no jurisdiction over individuals,
> >> only the States. Even though the States have equal representation in
> >> the Senate, the votes for President of the States is *still* weighted
> >> for population.
> >
> > Each state is winner take all...that makes puny places matter
> > disproportionately to their votes.
>
>
> Each state is not winner takes all, though most are after a couple
> centuries of trying just about every method you can imagine for
> selecting electors. There are exceptions (e.g. Nebraska and Maine),
> and it is up to the individual states to democratically decide how to
> apportion their votes. The current system is a democratic outcome.
>
>
I can see the argument.  But it is winner take all and even Nebraska and
Maine have stilted formulas.  It isn't national.  The truth is that voters
in New York and California (almost always Democrat) are washed away by
strong majorities.  Hence states like Nevada and New Hampshire matter.  If
you see that as democratic, you'd have made a great Russian (just kidding).
Really, there is no justification for states in the modern world.  What role
they play, constitutionally, is so screwed up after Wickard (1942) that the
whole discussion becomes crazy.  Wickard is the 3rd US Constitution.  No
other court case mattered as much in all history.  It has defined the modern
world.  Without WW2...really the Great Depression, it wouldn't have
happened.  It is the most important court case in world history...and it is
about chicken feed...literally.



>
 > These issues were settled in 1865 and in the Supreme Court.  These are
> > standard parts of any constitutional law text in the US...long settled.
> Not
> > sure what you are getting at...but it isn't the case and hasn't been
> since
> > the 19th century.
>
>
> If you live in New England or some place like that, most people have
> never heard of such a thing.  In the western US, it is better known
> because it is exercised every decade or so by state and local
> governments. Since so much land in the west is under Federal control,
> there is a lot more friction and it comes up more. A "home rule"
> county has an inordinate amount of legal authority in the US. Federal
> agents in western states will often have a representative of the local
> sheriff in tow. You also have States like Nevada denying access to
> basic utilities to Federal facilities on Federal land to impede
> Federal activity it disagrees with, possible because the State has
> regulatory authority over these things within its borders. (The
> perpetual Sagebrush Rebellion saga is littered with strange powers
> being exercised by the states and counties in regard to land under
> Federal control.)
>
> This is one of the major headaches for FEMA. One of the reasons FEMA
> did not operate in Louisiana during Katrina is that they did not get
> immediate permission from that State. Contrary to widely held belief,
> the Federal government can't just waltz into a state and setup shop,
> Hollywood notwithstanding. Some locales pride themselves (perhaps
> misguided) on the fact that they severely restrict the Federal
> government from operating, so as a practical matter agents can't just
> walk into any region and automatically expect that they will get
> permission to operate.
>
>
Again, I see the argument.  It isn't the constitutional history I know and
love.  States are tolerated by the Feds...truth is, they are hated and
thought to be backward and slovenly.  Very few are respected as
administrations.  California was one that was respected.  Mostly the states
are seen as headaches to Washington.




>
> > But the bribe part is right.  It is pork flows from big states to small
> > states arranged by local senators.  The recent healthcare circumstances
> > showed Louisiana selling a vote for 310 million.  This is old and
> standard
> > Senate politics. Ever wonder why so many big military bases are in the
> > South?  So many national parks in the West?  The sale was always a bribe
> for
> > some national policy or other.
>
>
>  Pork is one of the few points of leverage the Federal government has
> over the States.  Look at how much weird stuff is tied to things like
> the highway funds, and how the Federal government reacts when States
> threaten to leave the highway fund reservation.
>
> Over the long term, which military bases remain open is sometimes a
> pork barrel decision, though most were created under pragmatic
> war-time reasoning.
>
>
Sure it was.  And the national parks too.  And we named aircraft carriers
after John Stennis because he was a great guy.
The armed services committee of the Senate has moved more pork than the
Union Pacific railroad.  The whole purpose of the modern Senate is to
distribute pork.   Really, what else does it do?  Think about it...what else
would it do?  When was the last time the Senate led on major legislation
that wasn't a boondoggle for the states or for an industry?  I can't think
of a time...education, healthcare, etc...always the follower...never the
leader.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20091213/dbd04f57/attachment.html>