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: Alighieri who wrote (698444)	2/11/2013 4:50:21 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574706

So how do you conclude that voters in Ak or other red states are politically better informed? Because they watch Fox News. Duh.

To: Alighieri who wrote (698444)	2/11/2013 5:20:33 PM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1574706

>> The point is that both states, along with nearly every other red state, take back from the feds more than they pay to the feds. Taker states...ok? I do not believe it is important for every state to "get back" from the federal government exactly what they paid in. That obviously would not be a workable policy for any of a large number of reasons. But the point I was making is that it isn't possible to determine which states are "taker" states at any point in time if you don't know how much CA and NY are going to "take" when they go belly-up. It is arbitrary to say, "Well we're cutting it off an annual basis" when it is clear some states pose a bigger risk to federal assets than others do. These issues are not unlike the process of allocating transfer costs within conglomerates. If an oil company "sells" its by-product to a subsidiary, what is the "price" of that sale? Is the seller allowed to make a "profit" at the expense of the buyer? In the case of the states, does Arkansas not get SOME credit for all the wealth it has created in other states by virtue of being the home office for the largest retailer in the world? Arkansas doesn't claim all those jobs as ARKANSAS jobs. Yet, it is inarguable that the success of Walmart is directly attributable to a single Arkansan who was among the most astute and competent businessmen the country has ever seen. And the positive economic consequences of Walmart's presence in other states ought to deliver at least SOME credit to us as a 'taker' state. It is, after all, clear that without Walmart, other states would be bigger "takers" in comparison to Arkansas. I'm sure Alabama has some redeeming characteristics, as well. At the bottom line, your premise just makes no sense at all, and the classification as "taker" states is arbitrary and therefore meaningless, on innumerable levels from an economic point of view.

To: Alighieri who wrote (698444)	2/11/2013 5:38:18 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574706

>> So how do you conclude that voters in Ak or other red states are politically better informed? Well, I don't think one has to be present in the blue states to recognize that many residents there lack some common sense that is found in red states. I may be no intellectual giant like you or CJ, but I do have the good sense to recognize, for example, that Keynesianism has failed every single place it has been tried, and that eventually you run out of other people's money. Some of it is just an attitude of individualism and self-reliance. I believe that if people take care of themselves they'll be better off in the long-run and we wouldn't have all these societal problems that plague the inner cities in the blue states. New Orleans, I think, is a great example. In 2005, NOLA became a ward of the federal government. Since then, hard core crime is rampant, the place is 10x more dangerous than it was before and frankly, I don't feel safe there anymore. Before Katrina I spent lots of time there; now, I seldom visit there because it isn't a safe place to be.