First, in line with the rules (https://www.warzone.com/wiki/Rules#Politics_.2F_Religion), here is a warning that the contents of this comment [debatably] relate to politics. Stop reading now if you do not consent to reading about or discussing these topics.
@berdan: California HDI is above the US average and comparable to that of Finland or Singapore. Texas HDI on the other hand is below average and along the lines of Slovenia's.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_Human_Development_IndexYou might notice other trends here.
@Georg:
TL;DR*:
Where the hell is the Californian government getting all the money it's dishing out?
Mostly from state income tax (~60%).
Also, just because California is the 5th largest economy in the world, does not mean it would succeed on its own.
Indeed. There are a number of factors that suggest an even more positive outlook for California once you move past just state GDP (
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-06-14/california-defies-doom-with-no-1-u-s-economy).
I'm not sure how or why Democrats give away so much money, but eventually the barrel will be empty, and you'll be left with an inhuman amount of dept.
This is not a Democratic vs. Republican government issue: Missouri and California have roughly the same state debt per capita (ca. $3000).
As far as giving away money, California's economy- unlike the economies of rural red America- does not require or request protectionist measures to keep itself alive. We do not have to pay off companies to build facilities here (indeed, we have an unfavorable tax regime, so they choose to pay the premium for operating in California). Our goods and services and labor are actually competitive on the global market, and we don't even need to get tariffs or tell people to "buy American" because they already buy our stuff- because it's actually good!
Meanwhile, you can't even buy a Tesla in Texas because car dealers lobbied their government to prevent car manufacturers from cutting out the middlemen. Texas consumers pay the premium for this anti-competitive measure and give up money to prop up car dealers, the same way consumers all over the US pay premiums to prop up corn farmers, coal miners, and others who can't pull their weight in the global economy and have to resort to political measures instead.
California's spending is
not giving money away: between 2010-2019, CA real GDP grew at an annualized rate of 3.49%/yr while the state debt shrank. In contrast, Texas state real GDP growth has been 3.43%/yr but state debt has outpaced this growth (+5.3%/yr).
This year, California runs a budget surplus of tens of billions of dollars, while Texas faces a deficit.
Yes, Texas is affordable. What exactly makes that bad?
Affordability in and of itself isn't bad. Affordability as your main selling point, though, especially at the cost of compromise? Texas is pitching to the people who
can't afford to live in better states, the same way Walmart lets you save a few bucks if you're willing to pay the price of shopping at Walmart.
By us I mean the successful people
Aren't you a kid still in education? A little bit early to claim success.
We aren't a cash flow.
Sure, you're not worth less; you just contribute less. It's like the breadwinner(s) of the house: they're not
better people, but you probably shouldn't suggest kicking them out of the house when they own it more than you do.
how about they each take 50% of their wealth and actually help people
Net worth != liquid cash.
Vlad Tenev, for example, has a net worth of about $1B. The bulk of this is tied to securities, probably mainly Robinhood stock. In other words, his $1B is the approximate value of his ownership/control in various companies. He cannot spend this money without dispensing with his ownership. Logistically, it's complicated.
Moreover, these assets appreciate. Jeff Bezos could have given away half his net worth to charity in 2010 (about $6.3B of $12.6B), but those $6.3B instead grew to become about $94B today. $94B in 2021 can do a lot more good than $6.3B in 2010. If you- like many American billionaires, who have pledged to give away much/all of their wealth to charity- are interested in using your wealth to help people, then if you want to do so
effectively you may choose to reap investment growth (especially when keeping your stake in Amazon also lets you better steer that growth).
Finally, it's worth considering that investments themselves can do a lot of good. A competitive and free market, by design, creates individual financial incentives aligned with societal growth. This is not to say that making more money necessarily helps society (rent-seeking exists), but that there are ways in which investing money- e.g., by funding pharmaceutical research, businesses that improve financial access, startups that make education accessible- generate immense societal value. Market transactions tend to be positive-sum interactions (e.g., if I buy an apple for $1, it means that I value the apple more than $1; consequently, both the seller and I gain value from the transaction), so often these billionaires through the market have already created immense value (of which they reap a portion); of course, again, the rent-seekers exist (e.g., real estate developers and Disney heirs). But engaging in capitalism can itself be beneficial.
Of course, billionaires are not necessarily altruistic or moral so some probably accumulate wealth for its own sake and keep it because they want to.
Fix up the primary schools and have them teach more effectively, while also teaching these things called core subjects, not all that emotional/sexual/racial/wellness crap that doesn't get you through life.
Education in the United States is not a money problem in general. It's mainly a problem of political will to enact policies, which ironically get rejected at home based on arguments similar to what you're making (which presume you have some idea of how education should operate). Meanwhile, countries like Finland have implemented the products of American pedagogical research to great success instead of deciding they know better about what should and shouldn't be taught in school.
A lot of your arguments hinge on your own credibility, especially your suggestion that you know how education should properly work, so I suggest researching and proofreading your next comments so you can actually build some.
Republicans don't tell us how to spend our money, Democrats do.
Could you name examples of Democrats telling you how to spend your money? Are you talking about taxes? I've never had issues spending my money on whatever I want to, except when trying to buy alcohol in Texas on a Sunday.
* for the (unfortunately necessary) edification of one specific person: this is in (rather blatant) jest and not directed as a personal dig at anyone
Edited 9/9/2021 01:43:27
