California legislators study Texas job growth

Page 2 of 2 [ 23 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

09 Jun 2011, 8:25 am

ruveyn wrote:
pandabear wrote:
MarketAndChurch wrote:
We have 50 states that can experiment with different ways of doing things so we can see what works and what doesn't. From health care to taxation to ways of approaching crime, etc.


The problem with this approach is that if one state decides to do something to benefit its people, then businesses can move very easily to another state. Hence, low-wage, pollution-friendly, anti-union states like Texas will end up attracting businesses. Then, other states will have to compete with Texas by offering even lower standards to businesses.

It is much more effective to establish policies that benefit people at the national level.


The Obama regime is doing just that. Are you better off?

ruveyn


Yes I am, thank you very much.



dionysian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2011
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 921
Location: Germantown, MD

10 Jun 2011, 1:50 pm

I'll just leave this here...

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7604112.html


_________________
"All valuation rests on an irrational bias."
-George Santayana

ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL
BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS


mcg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jan 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 538
Location: Sacramento

10 Jun 2011, 11:04 pm

dionysian wrote:
You leave that there as if CA weren't home to eight of the ten smoggiest cities in the US.



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

10 Jun 2011, 11:22 pm

Does a "commodities boom" mean anything to anyone here? And is anyone here aware of the economic strength displayed in Norway, a country ruled by a Red-Green Coalition to the left of California's Democrats?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... L79EHB.DTL


_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/


Jojoba
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 7 Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 260

11 Jun 2011, 1:20 pm

Saw this today about a study on states that are doing well, growing in business and personal freedom, verses blue states like California, New York, Massachusetts, etc that are less successful.

"Lights Of Liberty"
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysi ... iberty.htm

Excerpt:

Quote:
Freer Pastures: A scholarly study confirms what we already know — Americans want to live where they're free and able to maximize their efforts and talents at work. There's a lesson here for state lawmakers.

The Mercatus Center at George Mason University has for three years compiled "An Index of Personal and Economic Freedom" that "comprehensively ranks the American states on their public policies that affect individual freedoms in the economic, social and personal spheres."

The rankings are based on fiscal policy, regulations and personal freedoms. Gun control, the latitude to home school, alcohol and tobacco laws, and asset forfeiture rules are among the standards used to determine personal freedom.

Based on these criteria, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Indiana, Idaho and Missouri are the freest states, while New York is the least free "by a considerable margin," followed from the bottom up by New Jersey, California, Massachusetts and Hawaii.

The researchers say there's no wide gap separating states that have a libertarian disposition from those that are statist in nature. It seems that while differences exist, the extremes aren't as far apart as might be perceived. The study found that the "variance in liberty at the state level" in our country "is quite small in the global context."

But this narrow variance hasn't stopped a demographic shift. One "of the most intriguing findings of our statistical analysis," the authors say, is "that Americans are voting with their feet and moving to states with more economic and personal freedom."

This finding is consistent with what we've documented before on these pages:

Due to their anti-freedom policies, New York, California and New Jersey are losing their best people in large numbers as well as the wealth and talent that belongs to those who are fleeing.



MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland

11 Jun 2011, 4:33 pm

Master_Pedant wrote:
Does a "commodities boom" mean anything to anyone here? And is anyone here aware of the economic strength displayed in Norway, a country ruled by a Red-Green Coalition to the left of California's Democrats?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... L79EHB.DTL


California's economy is 5 times with a population 10 times larger then Norway's. Norway's economy might be exportable on a smaller scale to the LA area where there's 5 billion gallons of oil off-shore that is off-limits in southern california(10billion when you include central and northern california).

Americans, specifically the half that votes Democrat, would be more friendly towards diesel, nuclear, oil, and natural gas if they weren't private energy companies, and rather, state-owned and backed like many in Europe and the rest of the world. Or at least I think they would be... perhaps not in the case of Nuclear but maybe for the other 3. Take issue if reality is otherwise.


_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.


mcg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jan 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 538
Location: Sacramento

11 Jun 2011, 8:09 pm

As for the commodities boom, that means interest rates are too low.