Should California Secede from US? (Stockton, Eureka: fit in, bankruptcy, calculation)

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by expatCA

More people leaving than moving in. That opens the question of desirability. Growth is primarily birth related.

I understand your perspective. But it is flawed.

First off, yes, population is growing as a combined result of in-state births and immigration.

Second, more people should be leaving to find their opportunity elsewhere than are.
THIS reality speaks to desirability: residents for the most part hate to leave, except for feeling pushed out. Which goes back to my foundational statement that California's only universal problem is over population.

California has become a less desirable place to fight for a middle class lifestyle competitive to contemporary materialistic standards - because of its overpopulation pressures.

The essential qualities responsible for California's extraordinary growth are still present. Opportunity to leverage them in the commonly marketed middle class fantasies is collapsing. People still desire what California offers. They simply can't access it in the numbers that are competing.

[bigboibob]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

bob, population density has nothing to do with any of this.
California has the nation's largest population. Period.
California contributes more to the national treasury than any other state. Period.
There are reasons for this.

Also - as before - you fail at logic: "silence and anger" are signs of many things. And not always truth in the slightest.

You know, a ways back I said several times that I thought you had a good noggin you just weren't bothering to dust off. The more of your posts I read the more I am tempted to retract that optimism.

Your personal attacks and judgments are irrelevant

GDP per capita is a better measure of a city's/state's/country's success than GDP or size. Obviously there are more measures we can look into

Is China a better run country than Germany/Finland/UK just because it is bigger?

California's ability to run well is more important than mere size regarding secession

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by bigboibob

Your personal attacks and judgments are irrelevant

GDP per capita is a better measure of a city's/state's/country's success than GDP or size. Obviously there are more measures we can look into

Is China a better run country than Germany/Finland/UK just because it is bigger?

Sorry but you are seriously crackin me up, bob. And you've done it again here.

Your metaphor fails.

We are talking about total value contributed to the nation. Especially relative to cost to the nation. "Per capita" is irrelevant. Get over it.

Now, for fun, if China and Germany were to request statehood, and there was only one slot open, I imagine the US would prefer Germany. China is too fraught with environmental, poor industrial quality control, and population related liabilities and unmanageability. It's growth is also grossly inflationary and most economists are cringing at the reckoning that is just starting to reveal itself there. Whereas Germany is entirely safe and stable in those regards.

But none of that relates to the issues of California's viabilities.

[bigboibob]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Sorry but you are seriously crackin me up, bob. And you've done it again here.

Your metaphor fails.

We are talking about total value contributed to the nation. Especially relative to cost to the nation. "Per capita" is irrelevant. Get over it.

Now, for fun, if China and Germany were to request statehood, and there was only one slot open, I imagine the US would prefer Germany. China is too fraught with environmental, poor industrial quality control, and population related liabilities and unmanageability. It's growth is also grossly inflationary and most economists are cringing at the reckoning that is just starting to reveal itself there. Whereas Germany is entirely safe and stable in those regards.

But none of that relates to the issues of California's viabilities.

GDP per capita is more relevant to a state that is thinking about becoming its own country

you were talking about overall size. I was talking about California's ability to run on its own

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by bigboibob

GDP per capita is more relevant to a state that is thinking about becoming its own country

you were talking about overall size. I was talking about California's ability to run on its own

Um no, bob. You weren't. At least you never said anything that would indicate so. This exchange between us began with post #96. Go back and read it and subsequent. You were responding to a comment I made about someone else's ignorant statement. And you've hopped around, as typical for you, from one attempted false point to another like a frog chasing flies for lunch.

Anyway, just as China has managed to stumble forward same as Germany, California would be quite (better) able to muddle through as any other country with so much to offer.

[bigboibob]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Um no, bob. You weren't. At least you never said anything that would indicate so. This exchange between us began with post #96. Go back and read it and subsequent. You were responding to a comment I made about someone else's ignorant statement. And you've hopped around, as typical for you, from one attempted false point to another like a frog chasing flies for lunch.

Anyway, just as China has managed to stumble forward same as Germany, California would be quite (better) able to muddle through as any other country with so much to offer.

Agree to disagree.

You were saying California contributes a large amount. I'm telling you it doesnt matter for secession or the citizens of California.

You alleged that all of California's problems come from overpopulation yet there are better run states with 3-4 times the population density.

I've hopped around as a result of countering your ideas

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by bigboibob

Agree to disagree.

You were saying California contributes a large amount. I'm telling you it doesnt matter for secession or the citizens of California.

Of course it matters for the citizens of California, bob. In so many ways. But you go ahead and work on that backstroke.

[rosa surf]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

Wrong! the first Californians were the people we now call Native Americans who have been here for the better part of 10,000 years. The second Californians were the Spanish who officially had California for about 70 years. The third Californians were the Mexicans who had California for something like 26 years. the latest Californians are the Americans who have had it for around 160 years. I'm completely bewildered at how Mexicans claim it is more theirs than anyone else's.

No it is not wrong- I did not say the first settlers of this land, I said the first Californians, people designated with that name and with a sense of identity and regionalism to the state of California, which used to be known as Alta California. The first Californians were called californios, and were mainly Spaniards, criollos (Mexicans of Spanish descent), and some mestizo Mexicans who had Native American and even African blood.

[mrazyattic]

Oh yes... CA is the best thing since sliced cheese. Everyone outside of it are miserable losers :/

[bigdumbgod]

Originally Posted by mrazyattic

Oh yes... CA is the best thing since sliced cheese. Everyone outside of it are miserable losers :/

Now yer gettin' it!