[p2p-research] Post-Depression first: Americans get more money from government than they give back | csmonitor.com

[J. Andrew Rogers]

On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Greed wasn't good.


Right, except in the case of California the pathological greed was to
be found in the government unions.


> Now a lot of systems are collapsing.  The question in the US will be a
> libertarian right response or a stable North European styled market
> socialism or green capitalism, etc.  Right now there is stalemate, but the
> numbers and time lean toward a social solution.  As usual, I suspect
> California will lead it.  I never worry much about California.  No place so
> beautiful with so many gifted people can ever be down for very long.


Your optimism is misplaced. Also, California is socially conservative
outside of the medium-sized city of San Francisco -- it is easy to
confuse the politics of the government with the politics of the state.
I've lived in California a long time, and among all the friends and
acquaintances I've had over the years here I am one of the last to
leave. There is a slow but apparently irreversible exodus in key
industries that has been in motion for many years. The "gifted people"
are bolting and there is little evidence that the government is
interested in fixing the problems that are causing it.

The biggest winner in all this is probably the Pacific Northwest,
which has seen a steady influx of businesses normally associated with
California, like technology and television/movies. Most of the people
I used to know in Silicon Valley or Los Angeles back in the day are
now in Seattle or Portland or British Columbia. And for obvious and
good reasons -- I am in the process of moving my tech company from
Silicon Valley to Seattle at this very moment. California has
poisoned itself. Since California mismanaged their water supplies for
many decades, I expect agriculture will be on the decline as well.

I think you might be conflating the myth of California with the
reality of California, though they were not all that different half a
century ago. The reality is that it is a socially conservative state
run by deeply corrupt unions that are fiscally irresponsible in the
extreme. It might have nice scenery, but the business, social, and
cultural environment are pretty toxic. There are other places I would
much rather live and work now.


> I worry about the desertification and aging of the hellish states in the
> middle that still command two senators much more than I do about California.


Which states are those?  Here is an interesting fact for you: the
least religious states in the United States are the so-called
"sagebrush" States. The most socially liberal states in terms of
actual laws on the books?  The sagebrush states. Demographically
youngest region? Sagebrush again. These flyover states are also the
second most urbanized regions of the US after the New York City
corridor. The Midwest states (the other flyover states) are in steep
decline, so they will evaporate on their own.

The US has five or six distinctive demographic regions, and the
demographic statistics are interesting in that they violate most
stereotypes.  Due to long-term demographic trends, the centers of
gravity in the US are moving toward the South and the Sagebrush
states.  People are familiar with the political characteristics of the
South (20th century Democrats, Bush Jr. administration).  Sagebrush
politics are very different from anything Americans are used so you
will likely see something new and different as their influence
increases.


-- 
J. Andrew Rogers
realityminer.blogspot.com