|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 5:55 am Post subject: The Next President of the United States |
 |
|
Well, why not?
"The current political climate is so volatile�who could have imagined, one year ago, that states� rights, secession, and the New Deal would be part of the debate?�that it is hard to tell what is mainstream and what is extreme. But it is safe to say at this point in the race to 2012, that since Sarah Palin resigned the governorship of Alaska, no Republican in elected office is more outspoken than Rick Perry when it comes to criticizing the federal government and the culture of Washington.
If Perry�s presidential prospects hinged solely on exploiting the populist rage that has exploded inside the Republican ranks, that alone would not be enough to make him a serious contender. But unlike Palin, another tea party darling, Perry can make an entirely different case for why he should be elected, to an entirely different constituency. That case is how Texas has become the best economic success story in the country and what the rest of America can gain by following Texas�s example. People vote with their pocketbooks. If Texas�s economy continues to lead the nation�and if Perry is able to claim credit for this while at the same time whipping up populist anger�watch out.
Texas has been a low-tax, low-service state for at least half a century, most of that time under conservative Democratic leadership. Then, as now, a good bidness climate was the first objective of state fiscal policy...
What Perry did not mention was that he was able to avoid a tax increase by shifting the cost of higher education and highway construction to Texas families by deregulating tuition and building toll roads...
There is another side to this record, of course: the most adults without a high school diploma of any state, the most children without health insurance, tuition deregulation that has made college unaffordable for the middle class. But Perry�s record touches the bases a Republican candidate for president�s has to touch.
Right Place, Right Time
http://www.texasmonthly.com/2010-02-01/feature-1.php
And we can have secession on top of it all. Yipee! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 8:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
The 5 major metro areas in Texas have been very strong during this crisis. They are the top 5 for job growth etc.
http://www.newgeography.com/content/00745-large-cities-ranking-2009-new-geography-best-cities-job-growth
Pick. The California model or the Texas model. Big government/little government.
http://blog.american.com/?p=9079
| Quote: |
| Both states have similar demographics (although California has many more Asians). But California has what should be significant advantages�it is much richer ($42,102 per capita GDP to $37,073) and it spends 12% more on educating each student than Texas. Despite this, Texas kids are one to two years of learning ahead of California kids of the same age. And blacks, whites, and Hispanics all do better in school in Texas than they do in California. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 2:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Small government = "What Perry did not mention was that he was able to avoid a tax increase by shifting the cost of higher education and highway construction to Texas families by deregulating tuition and building toll roads...
There is another side to this record, of course: the most adults without a high school diploma of any state, the most children without health insurance, tuition deregulation that has made college unaffordable for the middle class. But Perry�s record touches the bases a Republican candidate for president�s has to touch." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 3:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
Pick. The California model or the Texas model. Big government/little government.
|
Ya-Ta may not respect the choice, he's ready to say goodbye to Federalism.
Anyway, I agree. Pick your state. I wouldn't want 50 Texases any more than I'd want 50 Californias. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 4:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
The 5 major metro areas in Texas have been very strong during this crisis. They are the top 5 for job growth etc.
http://www.newgeography.com/content/00745-large-cities-ranking-2009-new-geography-best-cities-job-growth
Pick. The California model or the Texas model. Big government/little government.
http://blog.american.com/?p=9079
| Quote: |
| Both states have similar demographics (although California has many more Asians). But California has what should be significant advantages�it is much richer ($42,102 per capita GDP to $37,073) and it spends 12% more on educating each student than Texas. Despite this, Texas kids are one to two years of learning ahead of California kids of the same age. And blacks, whites, and Hispanics all do better in school in Texas than they do in California. |
|
I think you're painting an overly rosy picture of Texas. Doesn't Texas still have a budget deficit? Hasn't Texas still received a fair share of economic aid in the stimulus? And how much of Texas' growth is actually the result of it's comparatively more business-friendly laws leeching potential growth from other states? Further, how much of Texas' situation can be attributed to natural resources? Once in a discussion where I was complimenting the Norweigan system, I believe it was you who said something along the lines of part of Norway's system working because "It won the natural resources lottery," wasn't it? Well, in a comparison of Texas and California, didn't Texas win that same lottery?
Finally, with regards to educational spending, while Texas might do better than California, my own state of Wisconsin (which is another at least moderately "social welfare" oriented state) does better than either. I think a lot more than spending needs to be considered when we talk about why Texas' educational system does better than California's. California is a mess for reasons that go far beyond simply being "big government." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 5:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I think you're painting an overly rosy picture of Texas. Doesn't Texas still have a budget deficit? Hasn't Texas still received a fair share of economic aid in the stimulus? And how much of Texas' growth is actually the result of it's comparatively more business-friendly laws leeching potential growth from other states? |
How's the job market in Milwaukee? Yes, budget deficit and aid. Neither help growth outside of a small blip. Yes, it sucks business from other states. That's the point.
| Quote: |
| Further, how much of Texas' situation can be attributed to natural resources? Once in a discussion where I was complimenting the Norweigan system, I believe it was you who said something along the lines of part of Norway's system working because "It won the natural resources lottery," wasn't it? Well, in a comparison of Texas and California, didn't Texas win that same lottery? |
That explains San Antonio and Austin?
Capitalism and limited government work. That's the bottom line. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 5:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
Pick. The California model or the Texas model. Big government/little government.
|
Ya-Ta may not respect the choice, he's ready to say goodbye to Federalism.
|
American liberals taught me that Federalism = slavery. Isn't that the case? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 5:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
Pick. The California model or the Texas model. Big government/little government.
|
Ya-Ta may not respect the choice, he's ready to say goodbye to Federalism.
|
American liberals taught me that Federalism = slavery. Isn't that the case? |
Well, the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was a Federal law mandating that runaway slaves be returned to their masters, whether they be in a free-state or a slave-state. So Federal power has been used to extend slaveholders' property rights into free states.
Therefore, a strong national government without Federal partitions must be equal to slavery. Q.E.D.
----------------
Anyway, the Federalism = slavery thing is a weak justification for using a broken Commerce Clause to enforce Civil Rights in the South. Now, I support Federal enforcement of Civil Rights, but they couldn't use the 14th Amendment to make private Southerners respect African-Americans, so they had to use the Commerce Clause. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 6:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I think you're painting an overly rosy picture of Texas. Doesn't Texas still have a budget deficit? Hasn't Texas still received a fair share of economic aid in the stimulus? And how much of Texas' growth is actually the result of it's comparatively more business-friendly laws leeching potential growth from other states? |
How's the job market in Milwaukee? Yes, budget deficit and aid. Neither help growth outside of a small blip. Yes, it sucks business from other states. That's the point. |
I agree it's the point, but if it's sucking business from other states rather than actually creating business that otherwise wouldn't have existed, their policies aren't actually creating economic activity, just relocating it. This is, incidentally, one reason why I prefer business regulation, taxation, and so forth to occur at the federal level rather than the state level. If businesses can simply relocate within the United States to avoid it, it's not very effective.
| mises wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Further, how much of Texas' situation can be attributed to natural resources? Once in a discussion where I was complimenting the Norweigan system, I believe it was you who said something along the lines of part of Norway's system working because "It won the natural resources lottery," wasn't it? Well, in a comparison of Texas and California, didn't Texas win that same lottery? |
That explains San Antonio and Austin?
Capitalism and limited government work. That's the bottom line. |
It certainly works for business owners. Whether it works for the citizen base in general is more questionable. I'm not sure if being below the national average in terms of GPD per capita, having among the highest number of uninsured individuals in the States, and having inferior educational results to higher spending states (note that in proficient and above, Texas often merely equals or even goes below the national average, while Wisconsin is usually above it and never below it) "works" as I'd like it to. And remember, they're in that position despite having won the "national resources lottery" you referred to. So far what I see is that we've got a state whose legislation favors businesses over individuals that is successfully luring businesses away from other states in economically difficult times, but whose citizens don't seem particularly all that well off in a long-term sense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 6:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I think you're painting an overly rosy picture of Texas. Doesn't Texas still have a budget deficit? Hasn't Texas still received a fair share of economic aid in the stimulus? And how much of Texas' growth is actually the result of it's comparatively more business-friendly laws leeching potential growth from other states? |
How's the job market in Milwaukee? Yes, budget deficit and aid. Neither help growth outside of a small blip. Yes, it sucks business from other states. That's the point. |
I agree it's the point, but if it's sucking business from other states rather than actually creating business that otherwise wouldn't have existed, their policies aren't actually creating economic activity, just relocating it. |
How would it be sucking business from other states? Would it be taking Milwaukee's beer brewers, janitors, or insurance salesmen?
Anyway, there's a zero-sum premise in your logic that needs a bit of evidence to substantiate.
| Quote: |
| This is, incidentally, one reason why I prefer business regulation, taxation, and so forth to occur at the federal level rather than the state level. If businesses can simply relocate within the United States to avoid it, it's not very effective. |
Right, you would prefer every state be California, for the good of California. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 6:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I agree it's the point, but if it's sucking business from other states rather than actually creating business that otherwise wouldn't have existed, their policies aren't actually creating economic activity, just relocating it. |
You don't know that. It is assuredly a mixture of both. Texas is a very good place to start a business. If I were to open a firm in the USA today, it would be in Texas. I'm trying to get transferred there now.
| Quote: |
| This is, incidentally, one reason why I prefer business regulation, taxation, and so forth to occur at the federal level rather than the state level. If businesses can simply relocate within the United States to avoid it, it's not very effective. |
So, the whole ship goes down at once, and everybody suffers equally? Nah. The states can do their own thing and learn what to and not to do from the success and failures of their peers. For one example, do the opposite of California. That's a solid rule of thumb. It would be a disaster of Nancy and her minions ran the entire USA. Which they kinda do.
The beauty of the US is that one country has all you could want. Dallas, Salt Lake, San Fransisco, Miami, New York, New Orleans all exist in the same union. They have strengths and weaknesses. No sense, and no benefit, in treating them all the same.
| Quote: |
| It certainly works for business owners. Whether it works for the citizen base in general is more questionable. |
You can be unemployed in California or not unemployed in Texas. The liberal looks at "services" and I look at employment. We're not going to agree.
| Quote: |
| I'm not sure if being below the national average in terms of GPD per capita, |
Cost of living is much lower. Look for the prices of middle class houses in LA or NYC or Miami and compare with Dallas. It's incredible. Even if you earn on average 4k less, you're much better off in Texas.
| Quote: |
| having among the highest number of uninsured individuals in the States, |
A nice problem caused by federal regulation, eh? All those laws passed by DC. Seems every state has the same problem with that.. Hmm.
| Quote: |
| and having inferior educational results to higher spending states |
Gotta look at "who", dude. No sense in comparing Swed-er-Minnesota with Texas. Best comparison in California. NJ and DC spend the most and can't get their students to write a sentence. Would it be reasonable to compare DC with Portland?
| Quote: |
| while Wisconsin is usually above it and never below it) "works" as I'd like it to. |
What are the demographics of Wisconsin. I checked. 90% white. Texas is almost majority-minority. Have you seen the educational results for Israel and Hong Kong? Should we compare that with DC too? Please don't deny reality.
There is no solid correlation between spending and educational outcome.
| Quote: |
| And remember, they're in that position despite having won the "national resources lottery" you referred to. So far what I see is that we've got a state whose legislation favors businesses over individuals that is successfully luring businesses away from other states in economically difficult times, but whose citizens don't seem particularly all that well off in a long-term sense. |
They're employed at a greater rate and have a lower cost of living. That is well off, in a long-term sense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I agree it's the point, but if it's sucking business from other states rather than actually creating business that otherwise wouldn't have existed, their policies aren't actually creating economic activity, just relocating it. |
You don't know that. It is assuredly a mixture of both. |
I'm sure it is a mix of both. But only one of these things is really "job creation"; the other is just job relocation, and from a national perspective isn't praiseworthy at all. We'd need to know exactly how much can be attributed to either before coming to a truly informed judgment. Do you have reliable statistics on the matter?
| mises wrote: |
| Quote: |
| This is, incidentally, one reason why I prefer business regulation, taxation, and so forth to occur at the federal level rather than the state level. If businesses can simply relocate within the United States to avoid it, it's not very effective. |
So, the whole ship goes down at once, and everybody suffers equally? |
Sound, reasonable regulation and taxation need not end in that. We can have relatively free markets for non-essentials while still socializing when it comes to the necessities of life or matters of human safety. We can have socialized primary and secondary education without glutting unnecessarily on college degrees. We can have financial regulation without having bank bailouts. It just takes a populace that actually gives a damn. But if the populace doesn't give a damn, nothing can protect them.
| mises wrote: |
| For one example, do the opposite of California. That's a solid rule of thumb. It would be a disaster of Nancy and her minions ran the entire USA. Which they kinda do. |
California isn't a failure of government services, it's a failure of fiscal responsibility. Government services and fiscal responsibility can co-exist. Norway is an example.
| mises wrote: |
| The beauty of the US is that one country has all you could want. Dallas, Salt Lake, San Fransisco, Miami, New York, New Orleans all exist in the same union. They have strengths and weaknesses. No sense, and no benefit, in treating them all the same. |
Do they really all have strengths and weaknesses? What, in your opinion, are the strengths of San Fransisco? And bear in mind I'm speaking with respect to business, as the topic of this subsection of the conversation is the regulation and taxation of businesses.
| mises wrote: |
| Quote: |
| It certainly works for business owners. Whether it works for the citizen base in general is more questionable. |
You can be unemployed in California or not unemployed in Texas. The liberal looks at "services" and I look at employment. We're not going to agree. |
Yes, but the either the economic crisis will end and employment will stabilize, or the economic crisis won't end and even Texans will be screwed. For example, California and Texas had the same unemployment in 2006 (both over the national average), and began diverging in 2007. Even then, Texas was pretty close to the national average. Now, in 2004 and 2005, Texas was also over the national average. I'm not seeing the shine of the system on this account. What we can agree on is that Texas' system has availed it in the economic crisis. That doesn't necessarily demonstrate a long-term benefit, though.
| mises wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I'm not sure if being below the national average in terms of GPD per capita, |
Cost of living is much lower. Look for the prices of middle class houses in LA or NYC or Miami and compare with Dallas. It's incredible. Even if you earn on average 4k less, you're much better off in Texas. |
Cost of living is lower in Korea than the States too. Would you apply the same logic? Personally, I think one is better off earning a lot and paying a lot to live than earning less and paying less, as that extra wealth still has meaning if one moves.
| mises wrote: |
| Quote: |
| having among the highest number of uninsured individuals in the States, |
A nice problem caused by federal regulation, eh? All those laws passed by DC. Seems every state has the same problem with that.. Hmm. |
The introduction of a uniform, non-profit public health care system could be applied equally to each state while still benefitting some states more than others.
| mises wrote: |
| Quote: |
| and having inferior educational results to higher spending states |
Gotta look at "who", dude. No sense in comparing Swed-er-Minnesota with Texas. Best comparison in California. NJ and DC spend the most and can't get their students to write a sentence. Would it be reasonable to compare DC with Portland? |
Actually this plays into one of the points I was making elsewhere. Disparity in educational result can often be the result of culture rather than simply spending. I suspect there are cultural reasons why Texans preform better than Californians, just like there are cultural reasons why Wisconsinites perform better than Texans. The only reason I mentioned this here is because their system certainly doesn't seem to be helping them from an educational standpoint. And while you might want to compare Texas and California in terms of racial demographics, I think it would be hard to liken them culturally. There's a reason they have such disparate governmental philosophies, after all, and their differing cultures play a role.
This should address your response about Wisconsin being white as well.
| mises wrote: |
| Quote: |
| And remember, they're in that position despite having won the "national resources lottery" you referred to. So far what I see is that we've got a state whose legislation favors businesses over individuals that is successfully luring businesses away from other states in economically difficult times, but whose citizens don't seem particularly all that well off in a long-term sense. |
They're employed at a greater rate and have a lower cost of living. That is well off, in a long-term sense. |
Except them being employed at a greater rate has come in on the coat-tails of the economic crisis. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Doesn't Texas still have a budget deficit? |
No Texas has a surplus. In fact, it is one of three states with a surplus. Montana and N. Dakota are the other two states with surpluses. Also, look at employment in TX, MN and ND and you'll see comparatively low jobless rates. Then look at FL, NV, CA and MI. Those four states were the epicenters of the RE catastrophe that took place. Subsequently, they are also the states with the highest unemployment rates. Mises, I'm surprised you missed this. NV, like TX is a low tax, low reg state too. Although, yes, NV is the state best positioned to rise out of the slump among the four "problem" states. The principle problem is debt. Still, I do agree with you and Hayek. Taxes and regs should be analogous to the rules of the road. They should be easy to understand and should apply to everyone equally. No gimmicks, no subsidies, no tax penalties. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pluto wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Doesn't Texas still have a budget deficit? |
No Texas has a surplus. In fact, it is one of three states with a surplus. |
You're right. It will have a budget deficit, but has avoided it so far.
| Pluto wrote: |
| Also, look at employment in TX, MN and ND and you'll see comparatively low jobless rates. |
According to the data I've just posted Texas spent at least 2004 to 2006 over the national average in terms of unemployment. Looking further back, from 1995 to 2003 they were also above the national average in terms of unemployment (I stopped looking at that point, feel free to go back further if you like). Texas' history of below average unemployment levels seems to have begun fairly recently.
| Pluto wrote: |
| The principle problem is debt. |
I agree. I may feel that the government should engage in certain regulations and services, but not at the cost of going into debt. Fiscal responsibility is important.
| Pluto wrote: |
| Still, I do agree with you and Hayek. Taxes and regs should be analogous to the rules of the road. They should be easy to understand and should apply to everyone equally. No gimmicks, no subsidies, no tax penalties. |
And this need not turn every state into a California, either. I'm also inclined to think that simplified, universal business regulations and tax schemes would be a move business owners would find favorable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| We need someone from Virginia to be President. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
