What a bunch of idiot lawmakers in California.
I guess they don't understand that their state is a TAKER of U.S. dollars, not a MAKER. The maker would be the Federal gov't itself.
It would be like car owners withholding cars from Ford or General Motors. Those companies MAKE the fucking cars!
If I were Trump I would laugh in those Cali lawmakers' faces.
At the end of the day we'll see who are the bigger idiots--these California lawmakers or Congress and the Administration. Washington may actually feel threatened by this. Because, you know, the Federal gov't "needs" the money.
Idiots everywhere.
9 comments:
I don't think people in the West and South West feel as connected socially, economically and politically to the USA. I'd be curious to see some polling and questions asked of population in different ways to gauge how people think about it.
I suspect getting a handle on the government in DC is viewed more as an east coast problem since it seems pretty detached, distant, and unhelpful from their vantage.
The importance of this threat is not in the fact that the federal government has no need of the dollars held by Californians but in that it would be a blatant rebellion against the Trump administration. Also, if one accepts that the state power of taxation underlies the currency (as do many MMT'ers), then I'd think those in Washington wouldn't be so quick to laugh....
Jim
Preparing for Calexit? Yeah, not happening, but that's what this reminded me of.
Texas was the one threatening to secede under Obama, now California under Trump.
These states are polar opposites in the US and this underscore the notions of state sovereignty and states' rights, which are founding principles and still very much alive in the US.
The polar opposition among political forces in the US is between those that emphasize self, personal freedom, and individual incentive and personal responsibility and those that emphasis society, harmony, the common good and the general welfare. Basically, it is a conflict between the foundational principles, "Every man for himself," and "We are all in this together."
This illustrates another paradox of liberalism in the US. It's not child's play integrating and harmonizing liberty, egality, and solidarity in living a good life as an individual and as a citizen in a good society to craft a civilization based on a harmonious culture.
All in all Americans are not doing too bad a job of overall, but there are some deep pockets of dysfunction, many rough edges and a lot of whining.
The basis for reconciling freedom and fairness is egality, and getting that right is the tough one now.
Oregon is the big wild card. Oregon already has enough signatures to place a referendum on the next ballot.
The politics in Oregon are Silicon Valley on steroids and it's a small homogeneous state.
From what I've read, the activists envision an eventual BC/Oregon/Washington/Alaska maybe Idaho as a general outline of a country. Sort of makes sense culturally, economically and socially as their needs are very similar.
Hopefully Putin provides them with some financial support too, which might help move the process along from the fringes to the mainstream.
The basis for reconciling freedom and fairness is egality, and getting that right is the tough one now. Tom Hickey
How can there be egality with government subsidies for private credit creation since the rich are the most so-called worthy of what is, in essence, the PUBLIC'S CREDIT but for private gain?
@ AA
Hyman Minsky: “Today’s narrowly focused financiers do not conform to Schumpeter’s vision of bankers as the ephors of capitalism who assure that finance serves progress.
Today’s financial structure is more akin to Keynes’ characterisation of the financial arrangements of advanced capitalism as a casino.”
Minsky, Hyman P. 1992. “Schumpeter and Finance.” Hyman P. Minsky Archive, Paper 280
It's a casino in which the dice are loaded and the cards marked.
We should let them go from north of Orange County ...
It's a casino in which the dice are loaded and the cards marked. Tom Hickey
It's accounting with largely* sham liabilities toward the non-bank private sector.
But hey, what could possibly go wrong with sham liabilities? /sarc
*If/when physical fiat is abolished, then bank liabilities toward the non-bank private sector will be ENTIRELY a sham since it will then be impossible for the non-bank private sector to redeem bank liabilities, i.e. try to cash a check when cash no longer exists!
Post a Comment