freeman3 wrote:California would be easily be #1 under that measurement. Not even close.

What shows that?

GDP-state and local government spending, right?

California in fiscal 2016 had a GDP two trillion over state and local spending. It had a GDP two trillion over state and local debt. I think Texas is closest at somewhere around 1.35 trillion with those numbers.


http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/com ... g_2016bZ0H

GMTom wrote:I am not going to bother looking up what we here in the states already know.

1) I am not "here in the States"
2) I don't believe things are true just because someone asserts them
3) Neither do I believe things are true because someone asserts that "we all know" them to be.

Sorry to be a pain in the ass liberal whatever, but evidence and data are more valuable that opinion and "we already know"

First off, I am talking about a long term growth pattern over several decades, second, no doubt you can find some outlier examples but the overall growth has been to Red states over these many decades.

Some Red states, but not necessarily all. After all, the likes of Alabama, Mississippi are in the toilet economically.

Texas has grown tremendously over the past several decades, if it's slow NOW, it doesn't really change much now does it?

It might be an indicator of the end of the longer term trend. After all, if more oil is being sourced from other places (shale and fracking), then the price may go down, along with demand for Texan oil.

the "Rust Belt" is called that for a reason
...just saying

here's a chart showing state population increases by decade.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U ... population
Outside of California, the big growth is overwhelmingly to the Blue states (California being more a cultural reason, and my own daughter is moving back home from California today)

So, what I did is look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U ... tes_by_GDP , which shows the states by GDP/GSP. The 2015 and 2014 figures are in 2015 dollars, and the 2002-2006 figures are in 2006 dollars, but a comparison of the values between 2002 and 2015 would show relative growth including inflation, and inflation based on the value of a USD is the same in such analysis.

Also, the ranking changes might show something.

So. the to 10 growth states (not including DC simply because it's not a state and is largely government)

1. North Dakota [R]
2. Texas [R]
3. Utah [R]
4. Oregon [D]
5. Washington [D]
6. Nebraska [R]
7. Montana [R]
8. New York [D]
9. Wyoming [R]
10. Maryland [D]

I make that 6 "Red" and 4 "Blue"

And the bottom 10

50. Delaware [D]
49. Maine [R]
48. Nevada [R]
47. Michigan [D]
46. Rhode Island [D]
45. Vermont [D]
44. Florida [R]
43. New Mexico [D]
42. New Hampshire [D]
41. West Virginia [R]

I make that 6 "Blue" and 4 "Red".

So yeah, there appears to be a correlation, but it is weak and close to 50/50.

And ranking changes?

The climbers are:

North Carolina +3 (12th to 9th) [R]
Massachusetts +1 (13th to 12th) [D]
Minnesota +1 (17th to 16th) [R]
Colorado +4 (22nd to 18th) [R]
Oregon +3 (28th to 25th) [D]
Kansas +1 (32nd to 31st) [R]
Utah +1 (33rd to 32nd) [R]
Nebraska +1 (36th to 35th) [R]
Hawaii +1 (39th to 38th) [D]
New Hampshire +1 (40th to 39th) [D]
West Virginia +1 (41st to 40th) [R]
Rhode Island +1 (44th to 43rd) [D]
North Dakota +3 (49th to 46th) [R]

8 "Red" States (up 15 ranks) to 5 "Blue" States (up 7 ranks)

And the fallers:

Michigan -4 (9th to 13th) [D]
Indiana -1 (16th to 17th) [R]
Tennessee -1 (18th to 19th) [R]
Arizona -2 (19th to 21st) [R]
Missouri -1 (21st to 22nd) [R]
Alabama -1 (25th to 26th) [R]
South Carolina -1 (26th to 27th) [R]
Kentucky -1 (27th to 28th) [R]
Nevada -2 (31st to 33rd) [R]
Mississippi -1 (35th to 36th) [R]
Idaho -3 (38th to 41st) [R]
Maine -1 (43rd to 44th) [R]
South Dakota -2 (46th to 48th) [R]
Wyoming -1 (48th to 49th) [R]

13 "Red" (down 21 ranks) to 1 "Blue" (down 4 ranks)

Now this is the reverse - the Red States are over-represented in the falling states, compared to the rising ones.

My guess? It's not actually that simple and neither party is really doing better or worse than the other. Some notable States are seeing bigger variation than others, but most are actually growing at about the same rate. And of course, local policies do not necessarily determine growth either - national and international trends will have an effect. Is North Dakota doing well because of political acumen, or the growth in oil there?

GMTom wrote:the "Rust Belt" is called that for a reason
...just saying

Yes, but is the decline of heavy industry (a phenomenon seen across Europe as well as the US) caused by state-level politics, or by global trends?

Well, DF I responded to what Brad asked for. He asked for GDP minus expenditures. I am not sure what expenditures could be other than government spending.

And the data you posted was old. In 2015 California was up to 10th in per capita GDP--basically behind some small states with oil (Wyoming, Alaska, North Nadota), DC (high-paying jobs linked to working for the government, lobbyists, etc.), and states linked to financial centers (Connecticut, New York/New Jersey), Delaware. Pretty good listing of blue states (if you take out small states with large oil reserves.)

https://www.statista.com/statistics/248 ... -by-state/

As for the rankings of financical solvency I think the the fact that our GDP is 2 TRILLION over state and local debt makes it much more solvent than 44th. That ranking is ridiculous. We have easily rebounded from the state budget crisis after 2008.

And San Francisco is a great city. Most people who spend any time there love it. Apparently not you.
Anyway, on the ranking front it made US News and World Report's top ten places to live.

http://www.usnews.com/info/blogs/press- ... e-rankings

I realize California is a big problem for conservatives. They want it to fail so badly. It's liberal, it has a lot of immigrants, a great public college educational system , people are free to be who they are (rather than being square pegs squeezed into round holes to suit some societal or religious dogma). You let people be free, let them develop their talents, build a societal infrastructure that allows them to develop their talents...and you get great things. Or you cannot you do those things, crush the human spirit...and you get Red States (some of them)

And Danivon the growth of Wyoming, Texas, Montana, and North Dakota is largely due to oil and I don't know that's a great underlying basis to have since oil reserves run out. (In fact those states have been hit hard by lower oil prices). Nebraska has done well in agriculture and has a more diverse economy and Utah also benefited from oil but also has had a huge population boom and has a more diverse economy. I don't believe that any of the four blue states are linked to natural reserves like that. So I think has to be incorporated in assessing the top ten growth states and the link to liberal/conservative economic policies.

With such a high GDP and wonderful expense numbers, why is California having budget shortfalls?

The short answer is...we're not! We're projected to have 11.5 billion in reserve to deal with any contingencies.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.scpr.org ... ent=safari

freeman3 wrote:And San Francisco is a great city. Most people who spend any time there love it. Apparently not you.

Great . . . if you love homeless people urinating in the background of your evening walk.

This is the city that had to pass an ordinance to make going naked into restaurants illegal.

It's also a wonderful sanctuary city where you can go for a walk with your family on the boardwalk . . . and get shot to death by a twice-deported illegal alien. You might leave your heart in San Francisco--and your blood on the boardwalk.

Doctor Fate wrote:

freeman3 wrote:And San Francisco is a great city. Most people who spend any time there love it. Apparently not you.

Great . . . if you love homeless people urinating in the background of your evening walk.

This is the city that had to pass an ordinance to make going naked into restaurants illegal.

It's also a wonderful sanctuary city where you can go for a walk with your family on the boardwalk . . . and get shot to death by a twice-deported illegal alien. You might leave your heart in San Francisco--and your blood on the boardwalk.

It's a wonderful city. But very expensive. Those things are probably related, as any good conservative can tell you about supply and demand. But I guess that they're not catering to you Fate.

Strange. I've been to San Francisco a couple of times, walked on the boardwalk, in the dodgy part of Mission, through the Tenderloin, in Golden Gate Park. And yet managed to survive. Odd.

There you go, if you can "survive" it's "good enough" and the system "works"

GMTom wrote:There you go, if you can "survive" it's "good enough" and the system "works"

San Francisco's murder rate is lower than Rochester NY's. Is your local area good enough for you to live there?