Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (527632)	11/12/2009 2:06:43 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575187

Let me make it simple......those states doing well are states that attract creative, well educated people.....and that's because the climate they provide is attractive to those kinds of people. Without those people, growth is not likely. That's why states like MISS and SC which have spent billions to attract industry never seem to get out of the starting gate. A state like CA also has attracted a significant illegal population. That has put a lot of additional pressure on the infrastructure, requiring bigger gov't while at the same time, wingers in that state have reduced the state's revenue base. The interfacing of the two has resulted in a fiscal nightmare and political gridlock. If you continue to ignore these pertinent details, you can continue to talk your book of smaller gov't but it makes little sense except maybe in an academic context. It was that way when I was there in the late 1980s and mid 90s. CA's government was smaller even at that point. With that many people, the gov't has to be large. Not on a per capita, or as a percentage of state gross product basis, only in absolute terms. NY's been living off the financial sector, which started to get established in Manhattan in the 1700s, So what? So it has been able to be a wealthy state despite all of its anti-growth measures in modern times. The foundation for its growth was set before big government became the way of life in NY. NJ is as blue as the midday sky. Now (although it did just vote in a Republican), but not all the time in recent decades. It voted for Republican presidential candidates a number of times (not that this determines state policies but it also had some Republican governors, and in any case my point is more about smaller government than party affiliation) Yes, 30 years ago, their gov'ts were smaller because they had less people. The governments have grown as a percentage of state product, or on a real per-capita basis. On such basises you don't need a bigger government when you have more people. And then there is WA state HW, NH and CT. They also had smaller governments when the foundation for their wealth was created. NH still has remnants of that the idea of supporting freedom and smaller government.