To get back on topic:

If anyone is stuck in California, then it is best to start thinking about an exit strategy. Taxes are going to have to continue to go up to pay for all the shit that Cali politicians have promised to their constituents. It is best to start saving up a "moving fund" that consists of several months salary that you could live off of if you have to move out of state to look for a job elsewhere. California is already on a "death spiral," and at this point it cannot be stopped. Better to plan for this than be caught off guard and have to scramble when the shit hits the fan.

lol at Americans complaining about California.... try living in the UK. You will be shocked to death.

I've thoroughly read both and I'm not convinced at all. Is the current crisis caused by a business cycle, or by government? In either case, why hasn't the business cycle caused a recovery yet? The conditions are perfect for the business cycle to do its work unobstructed - government is not doing anything, which is what Krugman is whining about it in the first place. Yet the recovery has failed to make an appearance.

Quote:Quote:

The Great Depression was not a crisis for capitalism but merely an example of the downturn part of the business cycle, which in turn was generated by government intervention in the economy. Had the book appeared in the 1940s, it might have spared the world much grief. Even so, its appearance in 1963 meant that free-market advocates had their first full-scale treatment of this crucial subject. The damage to the intellectual world inflicted by Keynesian- and socialist-style treatments would be limited from that day forward.

I fear that I just have no way to respond to this without spamming the "laugh2" gif over and over so I'll just let you write whatever you want about Krugman here. I'm sure he'll lose sleep over it.

Quote: (04-03-2013 04:36 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

Incidentally, the choice isn't, "Cali or Kansas."

If a guy is able to "make it" in Cali, he won't have any trouble elsewhere in the country.

From the sheer perspective of obstacles, cost, and talented competition I'd say the three cities where if you make it there you can make it anywhere in the U.S. are NYC (finance), San Francisco (tech), and Los Angeles (entertainment). I haven't been to D.C., which I am sure is difficult, but I am talking free market and nothing affiliated with government.

Quote: (04-03-2013 04:46 PM)Firestorm Wrote:  

lol at Americans complaining about California.... try living in the UK. You will be shocked to death.

My college roommate just became a British citizen and never wants to return to the U.S.

Quote: (04-03-2013 05:02 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

Quote: (04-03-2013 04:46 PM)Firestorm Wrote:  

lol at Americans complaining about California.... try living in the UK. You will be shocked to death.

My college roommate just became a British citizen and never wants to return to the U.S.

lol I think the Americans who come here just want cheap education or come into a well paid job. I think everyone ahs their reasons for moving, but often it's just for a change/adventure.

UK ain't worth it these days.

Quote: (04-03-2013 04:56 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Quote:Quote:

The Great Depression was not a crisis for capitalism but merely an example of the downturn part of the business cycle, which in turn was generated by government intervention in the economy. Had the book appeared in the 1940s, it might have spared the world much grief. Even so, its appearance in 1963 meant that free-market advocates had their first full-scale treatment of this crucial subject. The damage to the intellectual world inflicted by Keynesian- and socialist-style treatments would be limited from that day forward.

I fear that I just have no way to respond to this without spamming the "laugh2" gif over and over so I'll just let you write whatever you want about Krugman here. I'm sure he'll lose sleep over it.

Alright, I renounce my views. Your bold highlighting on the quote from the blurb written in 1999 has made me see the light.

Quote: (04-03-2013 04:56 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

I've thoroughly read both and I'm not convinced at all. Is the current crisis caused by a business cycle, or by government? In either case, why hasn't the business cycle caused a recovery yet? The conditions are perfect for the business cycle to do its work unobstructed - government is not doing anything, which is what Krugman is whining about it in the first place. Yet the recovery has failed to make an appearance.

-"Government not doing anything" - if you really believe this then there is a bridge in Brooklyn that I could sell you.

-Business cycle "causing" a recovery - The business cycle doesn't cause recoveries or depressions, the business cycle is caused by imbalances in the economy. In the case of the current crisis, I submit that the imbalance in the economy and crash in the business cycle was caused by the Federal Reserve raising the Fed Funds rate after suppressing it for ~6 years. When the tide goes out you see who is swimming naked.

-"Business cycle doing its work" - bad debt has not been written off, zombies have been propped up, so not, even if you anthropomorphize the business cycle it hasn't been doing its work.

Awaiting on pins and needles for another laugh gif...

Quote: (04-03-2013 04:56 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

I've thoroughly read both and I'm not convinced at all. Is the current crisis caused by a business cycle, or by government? In either case, why hasn't the business cycle caused a recovery yet? The conditions are perfect for the business cycle to do its work unobstructed - government is not doing anything, which is what Krugman is whining about it in the first place. Yet the recovery has failed to make an appearance.

Care to extrapolate?

A lot of people make fun of Republican states because they have the most welfare recipients as a total percentage of their population.

But people fail to interpret this stat correctly. Republican states have the most welfare recipients because Republican states have the lowest cost of living. Poor people, including tons of immigrants (both legal and illegal), go to these states since they do not have much money.

Then, once inside of the nice Republican states with a low cost of living, the poor people receive welfare from the Federal government. Most Republican states have very lax welfare programs, so poor people must turn to the Federal government for additional assistance.

Republican states are actually the most affordable, humane, and civil places in America, which is why poor people are attracted to them.

Republicans have many faults, but on this issue they should be praised. They clearly have the most poor-friendly policies.

I read in the NY POST today that in the UK they are making people reapply for disability benefits, can anyone vouch for this??

Quote: (04-03-2013 05:51 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

A lot of people make fun of Republican states because they have the most welfare recipients as a total percentage of their population.

But people fail to interpret this stat correctly. Republican states have the most welfare recipients because Republican states have the lowest cost of living. Poor people, including tons of immigrants (both legal and illegal), go to these states since they do not have much money.

Then, once inside of the nice Republican states with a low cost of living, the poor people receive welfare from the Federal government. Most Republican states have very lax welfare programs, so poor people must turn to the Federal government for additional assistance.

It's also worth noting that all the welfare dollars going to red states are going to the most DEMOCRATIC parts of those states. States like Mississippi and Alabama may be getting a lot of gimmedats, but that money's not going to the "white trash" that liberals snicker about, it's going to the solid blue necropolises of Jackson and Birmingham. Same thing in the Dakotas and Montana; all the welfare dollars going to those states are to the monolithically Democratic Indian reservations.

I think that pension liabilities are going to be the killer, that's where California, New Jersey, and Illinois are in big trouble. If and when this market crashes again they are going to be up the creek...

You can cut welfare and it wouldn't make a big difference in lifestyle. Cut foot stamps in half, most poor people are overweight to begin with. I have never seen a starving person in the United States.

Quote: (04-03-2013 08:12 PM)TheCaptainPower Wrote:  

I think that pension liabilities are going to be the killer, that's where California, New Jersey, and Illinois are in big trouble. If and when this market crashes again they are going to be up the creek...

You can cut welfare and it wouldn't make a big difference in lifestyle. Cut foot stamps in half, most poor people are overweight to begin with. I have never seen a starving person in the United States.

Not starving on a caloric level, but we see ton's of people starving on a nutritional level.

Anyone who is not in an apartment complex and who has a little yard could grow a bad ass vegetable garden year round in virtually all of California if they are willing to put in a little time to water. Sierra Nevada's excluded. In the middle of winter in Colorado I think about all the fresh quality produce available 365 days a year in California from the farmers markets. Damn. Ours farmers market doesn't start up here until May.

The weather, the sun, the food, the ocean, the mountains, the opportunities - I get it. Hell, my desktop background is even a picture of Santa Barbara looking out from Montecito. The problem is the demand to live there is so endless that politicians know they face no consequences for driving people away. Their solution is to keep the borders totally open. In just a few short decades 43% of people in California don't speak English when at home [SFGate]. The ones who stay and aren't driven away are willing to put up with just about anything to continue living there, are insane leftwing progressives who have poor philosophy, are poor immigrants, or some combination of the above.

Isn't Proposition 13 one of the reasons for California's economic problems?

Quote: (04-03-2013 04:36 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

Quote: (04-02-2013 06:34 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

When it comes to California, you get what you pay for. Would you rather live in Kansas? I hear the taxes and gasoline are pretty cheap there.

Ten years ago you'd have been right.

Taxes are high but that'd be fine if the roads were safe and if the government didn't squeeze you at every turn.

You been on the roads lately? Hope you don't throw your back out hitting pot holes on the 101. The state can't even pave the roads.

I joined AAA so that I didn't have to deal with the DMV. (You can renew your car registration and conduct other DMV business at an AAA office.)

So I have to pay more to a private sector company because the state can't run a functional DMV.

Jay walking tickets are common. Why squeeze us with tickets. Don't we pay enough in taxes already?

Parking tickets? You'll need a law degree to understand some of the parking restrictions in downtown LA and SF.

Girls have started wearing Toms shoes and even though the obesity epidemic has hit us per se, the girls are all 10-20 pounds heavier than they should be.

When is the last time you've seen a head turner in Cali? That used to be very common. Now I see a lot of girls who could be hotties, but who are just regular girls.

I hope an illegal immigrant doesn't do a hit-and-run on your car.

Incidentally, the choice isn't, "Cali or Kansas."

If a guy is able to "make it" in Cali, he won't have any trouble elsewhere in the country.

It used to be so common.

My last few years there it seemed less and less.

Where I am at right now, I see more in a week than I would in 6 months in CA. No exaggeration.

Quote: (04-03-2013 07:51 PM)Matt Forney Wrote:  

Quote: (04-03-2013 05:51 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

A lot of people make fun of Republican states because they have the most welfare recipients as a total percentage of their population.

But people fail to interpret this stat correctly. Republican states have the most welfare recipients because Republican states have the lowest cost of living. Poor people, including tons of immigrants (both legal and illegal), go to these states since they do not have much money.

Then, once inside of the nice Republican states with a low cost of living, the poor people receive welfare from the Federal government. Most Republican states have very lax welfare programs, so poor people must turn to the Federal government for additional assistance.

It's also worth noting that all the welfare dollars going to red states are going to the most DEMOCRATIC parts of those states. States like Mississippi and Alabama may be getting a lot of gimmedats, but that money's not going to the "white trash" that liberals snicker about, it's going to the solid blue necropolises of Jackson and Birmingham. Same thing in the Dakotas and Montana; all the welfare dollars going to those states are to the monolithically Democratic Indian reservations.

Link?

Quote: (04-03-2013 09:12 PM)Emancipator Wrote:  

Isn't Proposition 13 one of the reasons for California's economic problems?

Is that the property tax one?

If it is, I think that is part of it.

Pensions are another.

Not legalizing weed is another.

Not legalizing gambling and prostitution are another.

Last call laws are another.

Other alcohol laws are another.

No smoking laws are another.

The place is way too far gone. Loosing too much blood. Pronounce it dead at the scene.

Quote: (04-03-2013 05:51 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

But people fail to interpret this stat correctly. Republican states have the most welfare recipients because Republican states have the lowest cost of living. Poor people, including tons of immigrants (both legal and illegal), go to these states since they do not have much money.

Scapegoating the immigrants. Where's the evidence that a person from Mississippi is twice as likely to be on food stamps than a person from California because of an influx of immigrants? The typical welfare recipient is a white person in the Tennessee and South Carolina area, and a black person around the Mississippi area. Latinos and other immigrants are not really disproportionately represented in collecting handouts in the country overall. It may seem that way in California, but few people in California are on welfare in the first place.

Quote:Quote:

Then, once inside of the nice Republican states with a low cost of living, the poor people receive welfare from the Federal government. Most Republican states have very lax welfare programs, so poor people must turn to the Federal government for additional assistance.

Republican states are actually the most affordable, humane, and civil places in America, which is why poor people are attracted to them.

Republicans have many faults, but on this issue they should be praised. They clearly have the most poor-friendly policies.

Then why does Mississippi have twice the welfare recipient rate as California? Why are people in the South so poor and unhealthy compared to people in the blue states? Shouldn't everyone be getting rich after moving to these glorious Republican states? These areas are cheap for a reason.

By this logic, third world countries should be praised for being poor-friendly for having even lower costs of living.

Quote: (04-03-2013 04:28 PM)Firestorm Wrote:  

Can't believe a guy like creepy eel posts on a website like this or that anyone takes someone with Keynsian economic ideas as serious any more.

Keynesian ideas are just retarded. Take money people will spend anyway on what they want and use it to buy something nobody wants at a terrible price.

Firestorm, I would suggest looking up some standard macroeconomics textbooks, like Greg Mankiw's 'Macroeconomics'. Furthermore a simple but good account of the justification for government spending can be found in Stiglitz's 'Economics of the Public Sector'. Try also reading the Krugman back-catalogue of blog posts, and 'End This Depression Now!', of course. Plus his work 'The Return of Depression Economics'. You will get a better idea of where one of the greatest postwar economists is coming from.

Quote: (04-04-2013 12:17 AM)Atilla Wrote:  

Quote: (04-03-2013 05:51 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

But people fail to interpret this stat correctly. Republican states have the most welfare recipients because Republican states have the lowest cost of living. Poor people, including tons of immigrants (both legal and illegal), go to these states since they do not have much money.

Scapegoating the immigrants. Where's the evidence that a person from Mississippi is twice as likely to be on food stamps than a person from California because of an influx of immigrants? The typical welfare recipient is a white person in the Tennessee and South Carolina area, and a black person around the Mississippi area. Latinos and other immigrants are not really disproportionately represented in collecting handouts in the country overall. It may seem that way in California, but few people in California are on welfare in the first place.

Quote:Quote:

Then, once inside of the nice Republican states with a low cost of living, the poor people receive welfare from the Federal government. Most Republican states have very lax welfare programs, so poor people must turn to the Federal government for additional assistance.

Republican states are actually the most affordable, humane, and civil places in America, which is why poor people are attracted to them.

Republicans have many faults, but on this issue they should be praised. They clearly have the most poor-friendly policies.

Then why does Mississippi have twice the welfare recipient rate as California? Why are people in the South so poor and unhealthy compared to people in the blue states? Shouldn't everyone be getting rich after moving to these glorious Republican states? These areas are cheap for a reason.

By this logic, third world countries should be praised for being poor-friendly for having even lower costs of living.

Yeah, bottom line, Republican areas of the country are sh*tholes with no redeeming qualities. (Unless of course you like fast food and chain joints).

There is really no disputing that.

Quote: (04-04-2013 01:45 PM)Ramon Zarate Wrote:  

Quote: (04-03-2013 04:28 PM)Firestorm Wrote:  

Can't believe a guy like creepy eel posts on a website like this or that anyone takes someone with Keynsian economic ideas as serious any more.

Keynesian ideas are just retarded. Take money people will spend anyway on what they want and use it to buy something nobody wants at a terrible price.

Firestorm, I would suggest looking up some standard macroeconomics textbooks, like Greg Mankiw's 'Macroeconomics'. Furthermore a simple but good account of the justification for government spending can be found in Stiglitz's 'Economics of the Public Sector'. Try also reading the Krugman back-catalogue of blog posts, and 'End This Depression Now!', of course. Plus his work 'The Return of Depression Economics'. You will get a better idea of where one of the greatest postwar economists is coming from.

lol you're joking right?

I have a good understanding of economics. Keynesian thought is just wrong. The only time it works is when government spending adds value, this rarely occurs. Usually government spending is frivolous: it represents a big expenditure that people do not want just to get people working.


I prefer to read Freidman to Krugman. Anyone with an inkling of business knowledge knows that operating at deficits and continual borrowing will cause a problem in the long run.

Greatest economist lol. I suppose you think Marx was a great economist too?

Quote: (04-02-2013 05:46 PM)TheCaptainPower Wrote:  

Did you guys read his NY Times article on California?? I can't believe people take this guy serious. He is the biggest, leftist, democractic hack I have ever seen...

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01...n-surplus/

According to Krugman California is on the rebound, and if it wasn't for the small minority of GOP republicans California wouldn't have been in bad shape.

What is he smoking?

I love California the state, but politically California has:

• The highest unemployment rate in the country
• The highest state taxes
• The highest gasoline prices
• The highest debt liabilities
• 1/3 of all welfare in the United States
  

How can you praise California when the unemployment rate is rated 50 out of 50 states??

What state is run worse? Michigan?

I enjoy reading columnists on both the left and the right, but I can't stand Krugman.

Even though I voted for Obama twice, I'm much more likely to vote Republican in local races. That we are building that ridiculously expensive high speed rail that goes from nowhere to nowhere tells you everything we need to know about this states inhabitants. A bunch of tools.

Quote: (04-04-2013 02:34 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Quote: (04-02-2013 05:46 PM)TheCaptainPower Wrote:  

Did you guys read his NY Times article on California?? I can't believe people take this guy serious. He is the biggest, leftist, democractic hack I have ever seen...

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01...n-surplus/

According to Krugman California is on the rebound, and if it wasn't for the small minority of GOP republicans California wouldn't have been in bad shape.

What is he smoking?

I love California the state, but politically California has:

• The highest unemployment rate in the country
• The highest state taxes
• The highest gasoline prices
• The highest debt liabilities
• 1/3 of all welfare in the United States
  

How can you praise California when the unemployment rate is rated 50 out of 50 states??

What state is run worse? Michigan?

I enjoy reading columnists on both the left and the right, but I can't stand Krugman.

Even though I voted for Obama twice, I'm much more likely to vote Republican in local races. That we are building that ridiculously expensive high speed rail that goes from nowhere to nowhere tells you everything we need to know about this states inhabitants. A bunch of tools.

Did it pass?

Isn't it going from LA to SF?

Quote: (04-04-2013 12:17 AM)Atilla Wrote:  

Quote: (04-03-2013 05:51 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

But people fail to interpret this stat correctly. Republican states have the most welfare recipients because Republican states have the lowest cost of living. Poor people, including tons of immigrants (both legal and illegal), go to these states since they do not have much money.

Scapegoating the immigrants. Where's the evidence that a person from Mississippi is twice as likely to be on food stamps than a person from California because of an influx of immigrants? The typical welfare recipient is a white person in the Tennessee and South Carolina area, and a black person around the Mississippi area. Latinos and other immigrants are not really disproportionately represented in collecting handouts in the country overall. It may seem that way in California, but few people in California are on welfare in the first place.

Read it again bro. No one is scapegoating immigrants.

Quote:Quote:

Then why does Mississippi have twice the welfare recipient rate as California? Why are people in the South so poor and unhealthy compared to people in the blue states? Shouldn't everyone be getting rich after moving to these glorious Republican states? These areas are cheap for a reason.

By this logic, third world countries should be praised for being poor-friendly for having even lower costs of living.

First off, you must remember that much of the south was destroyed in the Civil War, creating a large underclass of whites that persists to this day.

Second, why do poor people who come to America choose to settle in Republican states over Democratic states? No one forces them. People change locations out of self-interest.

And yet almost all the big US Tech and Entertainment companies still put their corporate headquarters in the state. I know that companies like Google have very complex international holdings that lets them avoid most corporate taxation, both federal and state, but it can't be cheap running their "Campus" in an expensive state like CA. And no doubt all head office employees must pay state taxes.

As an outsider CA does indeed sound horrible. For me the banning of Foie Gras would be the straw that broke the camels back. I mean do the good legislators of the state really have nothing better to do than make this ridiculous gesture. It just epitomises what is wrong with modern "liberalism", though I am embarrassed to even call it that. They don't have the guts to actually go after real animal cruelty in everyday slauterhouses, especially those conforming to Kosher/Halaal standards. So what do they do? They pass a completely useless law against an industry that probably treats their animals better than any other Just to give the illusion that they are doing something to fight animal cruelty. Absolutely no substance. All show. I'm sorry for being crude, but if this is the kind of law they pass they may as well bring in contractors to rip out the wood paneling and carpets and install tiles so that they can all sit in a big circle and masturbate during legislative assemblies.

I think what killed California was the 1965 immigration reform + 1986 amnesty. That pretty much turned a solid, Republican, secular state into a live Democrat experimental ground with the third highest levels of inequality in the country, itself a recipe for social unrest. California is becoming more like the rest of Latin America. A small, super-rich elite will control the capital. The question is, will the Democrats reach a tipping point where the capital begins to flee the state at a rate greater than new cpital is generated?

I think it's already reached that point. And the process will only accelerate as Hispanics now account for over half of all childbirths in the Califronia, yet they fail to climb the social ladder even after two generations. This is unprecented and points to two possible explanations:

1) The rate of immigration is so extreme that its preventing dynasties from climbing the social ladder because they're mired in their own cultural adn economic ghettos they can't climb out of.

2) There is something specific about Hispanic culture that just means they are far less adept at amassing wealth than all other previous immigrant groups.

Now, Cubans did very well in Miami. But one has to remember the Cubans that cameto the US in the 60s were probably the most productive Cubans of the lot (obvious given castros policies). If the US were to attract Mexicos elite, we'd probably see the same effect.

Instead, we're getting millions and millions of low-skill laborers who flood the labor market and compete with Blacks and working class whites for low-skilled and unskilled jobs, vastly exacerbating inequality in the US. The scale of immigration the past 50 years has been so immense it's also having an effect on the US middle-class. Median wage rates have fallen or remained constant since 1972.

The first real patriotic and conscientous candidate who truly cares about the plight of America's poor and about Americans as a nation, and that means all ehtnic groups, will be the one who is in favor of reversing that 50-year trend quickly and effectively.

American prosperity, not just for whites, but for all ethnic groups, is dependent on a large white majority. For the Hispanics, their prosperity depends on Mexico getting on top of its game, not on America absorbing Mexico's surpus labor supply.

Quote: (04-04-2013 02:34 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Quote: (04-02-2013 05:46 PM)TheCaptainPower Wrote:  

Did you guys read his NY Times article on California?? I can't believe people take this guy serious. He is the biggest, leftist, democractic hack I have ever seen...

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01...n-surplus/

According to Krugman California is on the rebound, and if it wasn't for the small minority of GOP republicans California wouldn't have been in bad shape.

What is he smoking?

I love California the state, but politically California has:

• The highest unemployment rate in the country
• The highest state taxes
• The highest gasoline prices
• The highest debt liabilities
• 1/3 of all welfare in the United States
  

How can you praise California when the unemployment rate is rated 50 out of 50 states??

What state is run worse? Michigan?

I enjoy reading columnists on both the left and the right, but I can't stand Krugman.

Even though I voted for Obama twice, I'm much more likely to vote Republican in local races. That we are building that ridiculously expensive high speed rail that goes from nowhere to nowhere tells you everything we need to know about this states inhabitants. A bunch of tools.

There is no point voting for a Republican in California, unless you want to perform a symbolic gesture. Democrats now have super-majorities in the Assembly & Senate, so they can do what ever they want. Republicans are the dodo birds of California, if you know what I mean.