On his visit to Israel, Romney made the following remarks:
“As you come here and you see the GDP per capita, for instance, in Israel which is about $21,000, and compare that with the GDP per capita just across the areas managed by the Palestinian Authority, which is more like $10,000 per capita, you notice such a dramatically stark difference in economic vitality,” the Republican presidential candidate told about 40 wealthy donors who ate breakfast at the luxurious King David Hotel.
Romney said some economic histories have theorized that “culture makes all the difference.”
“And as I come here and I look out over this city and consider the accomplishments of the people of this nation, I recognize the power of at least culture and a few other things,” Romney said, citing an innovative business climate, the Jewish history of thriving in difficult circumstances and the “hand of providence.” He said similar disparity exists between neighboring countries, like Mexico and the United States.
I wonder if the Presidential candidate would be willing to apply this kind of analysis to his own country. The traditionally Democratic states all do much better economically than the traditionally Republican states. According to Romney’s approach, this must mean that the Democratic culture is superior to the Republican culture. Then why is he even running?
Jokes aside, is it true that Romney is making these hugely offensive and insensitive statements wherever he goes? It’s like he chooses to say the worst possible thing in any given circumstances. This is starting to sound like the guy is being set up. Who are his advisers?
Clarissa's Blog 
Look on the bright side: At least he didn’t go as far as to promote the bunk theory of “Ashkenazi Intelligence”.
LikeLike
I get an anti-Semitic feel from these comments. “You Jews are all about making money”? This disturbs me on a variety of levels.
LikeLike
You’re not the only one, believe me! Reducing people’s cultures to their economic outputs is very insensitive, especially when there’s a long history of said people being dehumanized and murdered based on this false idea of them having superhuman/unnatural economic prowess.
LikeLike
Is it really *anti* Semitism if he counts “all about making money” as a good thing?
LikeLike
“Is it really *anti* Semitism if he counts “all about making money” as a good thing?”
– Of course. Because behind it is the idea that “all you Jews are the same.”
LikeLike
Kennethuil, yes, because he isn’t being arch or making an ironic joke. He actually is so unaware culturally that he thinks we will either miss this or take this as a compliment. It’s like, “you know, you are good looking for a Black woman.”
LikeLike
I think you guys are reading way too much into this on this one. Romney’s point was that the difference in the culture of the Israelis is what has allowed them to build a thriving economic system and liberal democracy in the Middle East, as opposed to being just another Third World country as all the other countries in the region are.
LikeLike
Kyle, great point. That is EXACTLY what he is saying. A relatively free-enterprise society that focuses on knowledge leads to economic growth and VAST improvement in human life. Like it or not, it is a fact. The vast majority of the Arab world (at least in the middle east.. but i would dare so world wide.. i’m not a scholar on this so perhaps there are 1 or 2 exceptions) is stuck in the 1500’s from a knowledge standpoint writ large as a society and thus their economices suck. Of course dictators and the large amount of oil in these regions play a component, but more radical forms of Arab regimes and islam are not suitable for successful economies. Lest I be labeled a racist, the point, which Romney makes, is that there is nothing inherent about Arabs or muslims that discourages knowledge, but instead their county/culture/system. Plent of Arabs and muslims have succeeded once in suitable cultures like Western Europe or the US.
LikeLike
Comparing GDP of an occupied state which doesn’t even have access to import or export goods without considerable scrutiny and difficulty is moronic. But then referring to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is just plain dangerous. I sure do hope that you guys don’t vote him in his ideas for Iran scare me.
LikeLike
//But then referring to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is just plain dangerous.
Do you mean he has said this and it was a dangerous thing to do?
Btw, Jerusalem IS the capital of Israel, whatever people abroad say. Has been so since 2000 years ago and since Israel’s foundation as a state some ~60 years ago.
LikeLike
I wanted to ask, dangerous to whom and how?
LikeLike
There is nothing moronic about comparing the two countries. The one is a liberal democracy that respects human rights and freedoms and has developed a market economy. The other one is a theocracy with a form of socialist economic system.
LikeLike
Because Romney has a background as an executive officer rather than a politician (Governor, Bain, Olympics) he tends to tell the truth as he sees it and not to talk in lies. Now generally this is an admirable quality, and largely essential in business. Unfortunately, it is not the litany of politics.You would never find Obama for example speaking truths that hurt him politically as he views it.
Hence Romney’s perfectly accurate comments on security at the London Olympics and his comparison between Israel and Palestine. The Palestine situation is worse than Romney mentioned. Almost all of their income comes from subsidies from the UN and elsewhere. They are largely beggars.
Now of course, a liberal may not like Romney’s views. But it is important to distinguish between whether one just does not like the views or does not like to hear unpalatable truths. As an academic, I always prefer to hear the truth, whether I like it or not. At least then I can respect the integrity of the speaker.
LikeLike
He is giving his *views* and not hiding them. But he is also demonstrating ignorance, bigotry, and poor analytical ability.
LikeLike
Calling Romney bigoted is laughable. The man hasn’t said a single bigoted thing.
LikeLike
Yes the Palestinian situation is worse than Romney mentioned they are not allowed to trade with the rest of the world without authorization from their occupiers. Just as occupied France made no money during WWII. Now or course a right wing nut job might think that was a fair comparison but it says nothing for the integrity of the speaker. His time in Israel has largely been spent trying to make the right noises so that the Jewish vote backs him at the next election.
P.S his comments about the London Olympics where laughable, he ran an Olympics in the middle of nowhere. Pretty easy to avoid issues like congestion under those circumstances.
LikeLike
What’s scaring me is that Romney seems to be promising support on Israel’s possible attack on Iran. That will be a humongous mistake that the entire planet will live to regret. This is one thing that really scares me.
LikeLike
Yes that is the scariest part.
LikeLike
//That will be a humongous mistake that the entire planet will live to regret.
Don’t you think Israeli leaders will do what they deem necessary, regardless of US’s support?
I do tend to think so. At least, that’s what they say. I mean, they said that their job is to protect Israeli citizens, not something else.
LikeLike
“Don’t you think Israeli leaders will do what they deem necessary, regardless of US’s support?”
– I hope they will see reason and avoid making this horrible mistake.
” I mean, they said that their job is to protect Israeli citizens, not something else.”
– Haven’t we already had this discussion of whether you can protect by invading and attacking in a different thread?
LikeLike
Just so I’m clear of stance for future reference… is the horrible mistake simply an attack to stop nuclear weapons? Would you at least agree Iran getting nukes is HUGELY destabilizing for the Mid-East and the world.. It would start a nuclear arms race in the most volatile region… and entrench regimes (something we can all agree is not good!)
LikeLike
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexnowrasteh/2012/07/30/president-obama-deporter-in-chief/
LikeLike
Very interesting, David!
LikeLike
David, why the link to the totally unrelated topic? I gave you a thumbs down for your inanity.
LikeLike
I agree, this is only a link for Clarissa.
LikeLike
ignorance is bliss
never fails!
LikeLike
//- Haven’t we already had this discussion of whether you can protect by invading and attacking in a different thread?
No. There people talked about invading as doing Good for the invaded party and caring about other peoples. Here it’s about destroying enemy’s weapons, while caring only about your own country that is being openly threatened by Iran all the time.
Israel has already done something a bit similar:
“Operation Opera was a surprise Israeli air strike carried out on 7 June 1981, that destroyed a nuclear reactor under construction 17 kilometers (10.5 miles) southeast of Baghdad, Iraq.”
No invading there, except the attack on the nuclear reactor.
Besides, arab countries around are very unstable, with numerous terrorists. Imagine a bomb falling into their hands. Israel is already afraid what’ll happen with Syria’s chemical-biological weapons.
LikeLike
“No. There people talked about invading as doing Good for the invaded party and caring about other peoples. Here it’s about destroying enemy’s weapons, while caring only about your own country that is being openly threatened by Iran all the time.”
– Are you suggesting that Israel should go down the same road the US has been traveling in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2003? Here, too, countries were invaded in the name of internal security. Do I need to point out how disastrous the results have been?
“Besides, arab countries around are very unstable, with numerous terrorists. Imagine a bomb falling into their hands. Israel is already afraid what’ll happen with Syria’s chemical-biological weapons.”
– So you advocate invading people based on a likelihood? Even worse, actually, flights of somebody’s imagination. That is exactly what Kyle/Matt were advocating in the “help” thread: invading people because something bad is likely to happen. According to this logic, invading the US makes the most sense since it’s the only country that is known for unleashing a nuclear Holocaust on people. Of course, it was done with the nicest possible intentions and against the nastiest possible likelihoods. 🙂
LikeLike
// Are you suggesting that Israel should go down the same road the US has been traveling in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2003?
Nobody in Israeli newspapers talks of invading Iran, the way US invaded those countries. People talk of possibility of air attack to destroy the reactor, the way Israel did in Operation Opera. We didn’t invade Iraq then.
Operation Opera was on 7 June 1981. US invaded Iraq in 2003. Lots of years between the events, see?
From wiki:
LikeLike
The logic for invading the U.S. doesn’t hold as the U.S. was at war with the empire of Japan at the time, which had attacked it. The U.S. has never used nuclear weapons for purely aggressive purposes (and when they were, very reluctantly, used on Japan, the effects of radiation were not known at the time).
LikeLike
I need to issue periodic warnings, it seems, that anybody who attempts to defend in any form or manner and for any reason the nuclear bombing of Japan (or anybody else) will be off this blog within seconds.
I’m from Ukraine, remember? The country of Chernobyl? You do not discuss nuclear bombings in this tone in my presence. It is in as bad of a taste as telling Jews that Nazi concentration camps were justified.
I hope we can all respect each other’s traumas here.
LikeLike
It is in no way, shape, or form the same as telling Jews that the concentration camps were justified. I don’t even understand the logic on that one.
But I am curious, what would your alternative have been to dropping the atomic bombs on Japan? Conventional invasion would have killed more people then the atomic bombings it was calculated. And the Japanese were fanatics who would not negotiate to end the war. Keep in mind these are the people of the Rape of Nanking, the single worst atrocity of World War II. They tried to outright destroy the Koreans.
So what alternative to the atomic bombings was there?
LikeLike
Imagine what people in charge in Iran may do, if anybody within their country or without it would threaten their regime. With a bomb, the regime would gass Iranians themselves with 100% impunity.
Most important point: Iran is *already* waging war against Israel and the West in general. F.e. by supporting terrorist organizations that kill Israeli Jews at every opportunity. With a bomb in Iran’s hands, Israeli enemies would become much bolder, more aggressive. The bomb would also help Iran move other states under its’ influence, away from the West. It’s a very complex situation and I don’t understand why you’re 100% sure not bombing the Iranian chance at the bomb is the correct reaction. Imagine you’re living in Israel, would you be so sure too? I am NOT talking of US interests here, but of Israeli interests. Myself, I am not 100% sure what is right, especially when none of us have the full information. I hope that decision-makers in Israel will be wise and careful, no matter what they choose at the end in the given situation.
Btw, you have this post request about Iran vs. US and Israel situation, so I (and am sure many others) would be glad to read your pov in general. And, in particular, why you think that for Israel it’s better not to attack, even if Iran creates the bomb.
LikeLike
“With a bomb, the regime would gass Iranians themselves with 100% impunity.”
– So, as I said, you support invading countries to benefit their citizens and preventing imaginary likelihoods? 🙂
” With a bomb in Iran’s hands, Israeli enemies would become much bolder, more aggressive. The bomb would also help Iran move other states under its’ influence, away from the West.”
– If we start proceeding aggressively against people based on what might or might not happen, where will we all end up?
” I am NOT talking of US interests here, but of Israeli interests.”
– And I’m talking about the global interests. If one country starts a nuclear conflict, the entire planet will suffer.
“And, in particular, why you think that for Israel it’s better not to attack, even if Iran creates the bomb.”
– I have a very strong suspicion that Israel has nuclear weapons. If I were completely sure Israel didn’t have them, I’d feel different on the subject.
LikeLike
//If we start proceeding aggressively against people based on what might or might not happen
So, do you disagree with those 2 things I said? Why?
//I have a very strong suspicion that Israel has nuclear weapons. If I were completely sure Israel didn’t have them, I’d feel different on the subject
How is it connected? I wondered what you think is in Israel’s best interests. You said: “I hope they will see reason and avoid making this horrible mistake”. Why would it be a mistake?
Btw, “starts a nuclear conflict” imo means “uses nuclear against another country”, which nobody in Israel talks of doing.
I read the article and saw the sentence:
The status of Jerusalem is a critical issue in peace talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
Nobody in Israel, not even the extreme people on the political map, ever said something about Jerusalem not being a capital, as a result of talks with anybody.
the United States, like other nations, maintains its embassy in Tel Aviv – for political reasons, not because they think Tel Aviv is or will ever be a capital.
What is disputed is giving a part of Jerusalem (which’ll remain Israel’s capital) to the Palestinians, which is a *very* unpopular idea too.
LikeLike
Since everybody is rolling out likelihoods, then what the hell, I will roll out mine. 🙂 Iran is a powerful country driven by extreme religious fanaticism. In case of any strike against it, it is likely to retaliate. It should not be compared with a formerly secular Iraq. Religious fanatics don’t mind dying which is what makes them so scary. We should also remember that there is a bunch of other similarly desperate fanatics in the region. Even if the US stays out of the conflict in the region, the escalation might lead to a conflict that will not be solved any time soon. I find it quite ironic that this enormous danger for the Jews will be created under the banner of bringing greater safety to the same Jews.
“/I have a very strong suspicion that Israel has nuclear weapons. If I were completely sure Israel didn’t have them, I’d feel different on the subject
How is it connected? ”
– People who have nuclear weapons have no moral right whatsoever to prevent anybody else from having them.
LikeLike
//People who have nuclear weapons have no moral right whatsoever to prevent anybody else from having them.
I want to live. If Iran’s bomb will threaten my life (throwing it or “only” letting terrorist organizations kill lots more of us, Israeli Jews), I don’t care about any abstract moral rights. Nobody does. At least, among people who’re afraid to die as a result (shouldn’t their voice count more than yours in this blind justice plane [as in math]?) OR among politicians of any country, including Israel, US, etc.
I don’t understand how the following situation is justice:
A – Let’s say that Israel has an atom bomb. And, as a Western democratic country, doesn’t intend to bomb 1st with it, unless it’s on the verge of destruction (and naturally having all Jewish population slaughtered in the 2nd Holocaust).
B – Iran is going to build the bomb. And fully intends to use it to kill lots of Israeli Jews in various ways. Because of being a “powerful country driven by extreme religious fanaticism” which would become even more powerful. “Various ways” may mean even using the bomb, but having it and frightening Israelis not to react after getting killed by Iran-sponsored terrorist orgs is “good” too.
C – your idea that, according to moral justice, A ~ B and Israel has no moral right to protect itself, by bombing the reactor. Nobody talks of throwing atom bombs on Iran here. This your conclusion I don’t understand.
//Since everybody is rolling out likelihoods, then what the hell, I will roll out mine.
That’s what I asked you to do about the entire US-Israel-Iran (cyber and not) war. To understand where you come from.
You have just talked of “Religious fanatics don’t mind dying” and “Iran is a powerful country driven by extreme religious fanaticism”. Imagine them having this bomb. And then something (may be, not connected to Israel) threatens the regime. Why wouldn’t they use this bomb in your eyes? What would stop them? Why not go down (as a regime, not as a genocide of Iranian people) and in the process do the ultimate jihad, take the hated Zionists to other world with you? Do you think the Iranian regime will go away peacefully, as USSR did, by itself?
LikeLike
All that these preventive invasions and bombings have ever achieved is create more fanatics, more terrorists, more hatred. We all have our fears played on by politicians who use intense propaganda in order to justify involving us in these conflicts. As a result, they all become richer but we do not become safer. I, for one, am sick and tired of this song and dance about how people need to be invaded and murdered for me to be safer. This strategy has defined world politics for decades. And what is the result? Who feels any safer?
LikeLike
When fanatics already exist and already hate you and thus will use whatever means they have to destroy you, then if they’re on the verge of acquiring a nuclear weapon, it doesn’t make much sense to not bomb them on the basis that they will somehow hate you even more. In this instance, Iran’s government is the one who is acting very threateningly in this case.
The politicians will not get rich from bombing Iran. That is something no one, either in the U.S. or Israel, wants to do, and invading Iran would be out of the question even if someone wanted to do it. Iran is not Iraq:
1) It’s about four times larger than Iraq
2) It’s military is in much better condition then Saddam Hussein’s that was already in a decrepit state
3) It would be very difficult to place any troops anywhere to invade Iran
4) Iran can do a lot of nasty things in retaliation that could really mess up the global economy
The idea of either Israel or the U.S. invading Iran is thus out-of-the-question (Israel flat-out doesn’t have the capabilities to do that). Neither country will bomb Iran unless they feel that they absolutely have no choice. For Israel, it is a matter of survival.
LikeLike
//- If we start proceeding aggressively against people based on what might or might not happen, where will we all end up?
Wanted to add that if Iran weren’t already trying to influence other states and to attack Israel in various ways, you would be right. But it’s already doing it. Right now. Has been doing for a long time with no end in sight.
And that when Israel is perceived as weak, it’s attacked (more), can be seen from Israel’s history. Both how our neighbor countries & terrorist organizations behave. I am not making any far-fetched theories here, simply think that the present behavior is the best predictor for the future one.
LikeLike
Israel possesses nuclear weapons. It also has a second strike capacity with nuclear-armed submarines patrolling the Mediterrainian. So if any unhinged group located in Arabia launched a nuclear weapon on Israel – which would destroy the country – every capital city in the Middle East would be automatically obliterated in a nuclear retaliation.
That is why it is important to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. And is why Israel will take out such capacity if the US does not have the courage and wisdom so to do. Such action will avoid Armageddon in the Middle East.
LikeLike
Yes. No one in the Middle East is afraid of Israel having nuclear weapons, because as much as they may hate Israel, they know those nuclear weapons are only for purposes of deterrance. Iran having a nuclear weapon, on the other hand, terrifies many of them.
LikeLike
“I wonder if the Presidential candidate would be willing to apply this kind of analysis to his own country. The traditionally Democratic states all do much better economically than the traditionally Republican states. According to Romney’s approach, this must mean that the Democratic culture is superior to the Republican culture. Then why is he even running?”
Not so much anymore. Nowadays, much of the growth is in the more Republican states, such as Texas, South Carolina, Florida, Arizona, Nevada, and so forth. California was built into a fantastic economy on the basis of more Republican principles, by Democrats who at the time were not so tax-spend-regulate crazy as the ones running California are now. Same with New York state. And Illinois. They are the great developed places they are today because of how they were in the past. Also, they are where most of the major universities and major cities are. Mississippi for example could be as Republican as it wants, but without good quality universities and some major cities to attract an educated, cosmopolitan workforce, they won’t develop into an economy like say Texas has. Massachussettes, on the other hand, may be Democratic-leaning, but they have Boston and universities like MIT and Harvard, so they still maintain a strong economy.
But because of how many of these states are being governed now, their economies are gradually being driven into the toilet. For example, it is almost impossible to open a manufacturing plant in California now. A lot of businesses keep their headquarters in California, but move their work to other states or overseas.
LikeLike
much of the growth is in the more Republican states, such as Texas, South Carolina, Florida, Arizona, Nevada, and so forth.
This is a bit of a myth put forward by the GOP. Here’s the Texas unemployment rate compared to New York and Massachusetts’:
hhttp://www.google.ca/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=unemployment_rate&fdim_y=seasonality:S&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=state:ST480000:ST360000:ST250000&ifdim=country&hl=en&dl=en&ind=false&q=unemployment+rate+texas
LikeLike
Woops, wrong link:
http://www.google.ca/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=unemployment_rate&fdim_y=seasonality:S&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=state:ST480000:ST360000:ST250000&ifdim=country&hl=en&dl=en&ind=false&q=unemployment+rate+texas
LikeLike
I’m not referring so much to the unemployment rates as the economic growth rates. Texas is currently the second-largest economy in the nation now. Massachusettes has a pretty dynamic economy due to Boston. New York and California are stagnating economically not because of regulations, higher taxes, and spending, but because of excessive levels of regulation, taxation, and spending (although this isn’t to say they aren’t still major players economically; but over time, that stuff is really going to start to take it’s toll). One thing that hurts a lot of the “blue” states are the public unions and the fact that they are not right-to-work states (meaning that a worker is required to join the union if the company they work for is unionized). This creates a more hostile business environment.
LikeLike
as the economic growth rates.
The economic growth rates is driven mostly by population growth and immigration trends, which generally favor the southern belt. If we measure states economic success not by size of population, which is what your metric does but by GDP per capita all the states you list are below the USA average.
Again, that the southern republican states are doing better is mostly a myth.
Have a look. Make sure to click on the Per Capita column:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP
LikeLike
“Again, that the southern republican states are doing better is mostly a myth.”
– Exactly. Just take a drive through one of the Southern states and see for yourself.
LikeLike
I didn’t claim the southern states are doing better, just more GOP-leaning ones. In terms of population growth, one reason such states are gaining in population is because the other states, such as California and New York, are gradually losing population. For example, New York has lost two seats in the House of Representatives.
But you’re also missing my argument. The current per capita levels, which are very high still, of the more “blue” states, were developed back when those states were much more friendly to economic growth. California didn’t start out as a state hostile to business in the way it is now. It started off as a very pro-business state that also had great infrastructure, great public schools, great universities, Silicon Valley developed there (albeit that was a good deal due to the space program), Hollywood developed there, etc…the state became great due to Democrats who at the time were much more business-friendly.
Since the late 1970s, when the public-sector workers of California were allowed to start unionizing, the state has become taken over by some really far left-wing people, and as a result they are taxing, spending, and regulating the state into economic oblivion. Same with New York, and Illinois. Massachusettes has a more friendly business environment.
CNBC scored Texas as the Best State for Business for 2012 – http://www.cnbc.com/id/47818860/Texas_Is_America_s_Top_State_for_Business_2012 – they also say it has the best infrastructure, very ironic as it has some low taxes and no state tax.
Here is the CNBC list of the most business-friendly states for 2012: http://www.cnbc.com/id/46414199/
If you look at the different criteria, you will see that states like New York, Massachusettes, and California are still tops for access to capital, education, and technology and innovation. However in terms of things like cost-of-doing business, business friendliness, cost of living, etc…other states are ranked highly.
LikeLike
“cost of living”
– You call that living? 🙂 🙂
“Since the late 1970s, when the public-sector workers of California were allowed to start unionizing, the state has become taken over by some really far left-wing people”
– Yes, like Schwarzenegger who ran the state into the ground. 🙂 That pinko-commie bastard. 🙂
Sorry, I’m in a good mood right now.
LikeLike
Schwarzenegger governed as a leftist in the state, but that was because he had no choice. he tried, initially, to govern to the center-right, and put up I think it was four policy proposals that the people could vote on. This was politically a horrendous move, as the unions turned out their members in droves, and all of the measures were voted down.
Considering the iron grip that the labor unions, trial lawyers, and environmental lobby have over the state government in California, Schwarzenegger decided to pivot to the center-left. Not surprisingly, the state only continued to worsen and he got the blame.
LikeLike
I didn’t claim the southern states are doing better, just more GOP-leaning ones.
I know, and this is false.
Since the late 1970s, when the public-sector workers of California were allowed to start unionizing, the state has become taken over by some really far left-wing people, and as a result they are taxing, spending, and regulating the state into economic oblivion.
You got it backwards. California was a left leaning state throughout its boom, which included the Ronald Reagan years. In fact that was one of his appeals when he run for president: he had been a compromising governor in California who was able to co-exist with the left.
The decline of California started with the GOP supported Proposition 13 which starved the state even of basic funds required to sustain basic operations.
Here is the CNBC list of the most business-friendly states for 2012: http://www.cnbc.com/id/46414199/
These are the same people who scored Ireland as the most business-friendly state in Europe and Sweden as last. How are they doing now?
The current per capita levels, which are very high still, of the more “blue” states, were developed back when those states were much more friendly to economic growth.
The high income levels of blue states continue to grow, though admittedly Texas GDP per capita growth has slightly exceeded that of California by about 0.25% per year for the last 30 years.
But so has the GDP of Mexico
This could be as much the result of GOP policies as the result that it is much easier to post growth when starting from a lower base than when already fully industrialized (as the Mexico example shows).
LikeLike
“I know, and this is false.”
No it isn’t. Doesn’t mean the left-leaning ones are doing terrible, but they are not doing nearly as well as they could.
“You got it backwards. California was a left leaning state throughout its boom, which included the Ronald Reagan years. In fact that was one of his appeals when he run for president: he had been a compromising governor in California who was able to co-exist with the left. ”
It was left-leaning, yes, as I said it was built up by Democrats. But it was not nearly as insanely left-wing as it has since become in recent years.
“The decline of California started with the GOP supported Proposition 13 which starved the state even of basic funds required to sustain basic operations.”
This is a common misconception. Proposition 13 was to cap property taxes so as to stop the state government from constantly increasing them. What has fiscally wrecked the state are the public employee unions.
“These are the same people who scored Ireland as the most business-friendly state in Europe and Sweden as last. How are they doing now?”
I’d say it’s irrelevent. Ireland is a very business-friendly country. But they had a completely un-regulated financial industry which led to a major real-estate and credit bubble in the country, which then popped and tanked their economy. Being business-friendly doesn’t mean having an unregulated financial sector.
“The high income levels of blue states continue to grow, though admittedly Texas GDP per capita growth has slightly exceeded that of California by about 0.25% per year for the last 30 years.”
Sure they continue to. They are still states with large economies, lots of capital available, top-notch universities, and hence good-quality workforces, so they are still going to experience economic growth. But their governments take that economic strength for granted and are over-burderning the states with excessive levels of spending/taxes/regulations.
“This could be as much the result of GOP policies as the result that it is much easier to post growth when starting from a lower base than when already fully industrialized (as the Mexico example shows).”
This is a good point, but I think it would hold better if states like New York and California were also very business-friendly but were not experiencing as much economic growth as the up-and-coming states. Being that states like NY and CA are still growing, and have lots of regulations and taxes, imagine how they could perform if they were reknowned for beihaving a business-friendly environment?
LikeLike
Romney’s latest gaffe:
Praising the single payer, government run health care system in Israel.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/30/romney-praises-health-care-in-israel-where-strong-government-influence-has-driven-down-costs/
I’m going to quote Krugman which is saying pretty much the exact same words I said today during lunch time, except for the “And like everyone else”:
“And like everyone else, I’m really beginning to wonder about him. All he has to do to avoid creating a mess while on this trip is to stay bland and talk in generalities; instead, he’s causing international incidents every step of the way.”
LikeLike
Israel doesn’t have a single-payer system I don’t think, the article says they have a system of four non-profit plans to choose from and vision and dental are covered by private care. However, there is nonetheless heavy governmental influence in the overall system, so it is still a gaffe on Romney’s part.
LikeLike
Israel doesn’t have a single-payer system I don’t think,
It depends on what you mean by single payer. Some people consider the Israeli system single payer as it is back stopped by the government, subsidized if you can’t afford it, and there are only four possible state approved choices (see below), while others consider it multi-payer since in the end you can choose your own insurance company out of those four [i.e. select out of a choice of private insurers not unlike in the system proposed by one Barack Obama].
“The Israeli system combines the advantages of single payer systems, with choice between different providers. [Washington Post, September 24, 2009}”
LikeLike
“The traditionally Democratic states all do much better economically than the traditionally Republican states”
For whatever it’s worth, I pretty much agree with Kyle. California is broke. So is New York. So is Illinois. New Jersey would be broke if Christie hadn’t been elected. North Dakota is doing pretty well. Wisconsin is doing a lot better than it was a short time ago.
“is it true that Romney is making these hugely offensive and insensitive statements wherever he goes”
I hope so, although I don’t see what’s offensive about what he said. As far as I’m concerned if he offends the right people and is insensitive, then that’s a reason to votie for him.
LikeLike
New Jersey would be broke if Christie hadn’t been elected.
Christie’s budget this year was 6.8% larger than last year.
Moreover, New Jersey would be broke if Christie’s proposal of a 10% income tax cut had been enacted.
North Dakota is doing pretty well.
Because of an energy boom that has nothing to do with Republican policies.
Wisconsin is doing a lot better than it was a short time ago.
This one is indeed true. So 1 out of 3 “republican miracles” exist in reality. The rest are just GOP propaganda.
LikeLike
“Wisconsin is doing a lot better than it was a short time ago.
This one is indeed true. So 1 out of 3 “republican miracles” exist in reality. The rest are just GOP propaganda.”
– Just the other day I was talking with a young man from Wisconsin. He is traveling through our state into Missouri selling magazine subscriptions. It’s one of those jobs that don’t even pay. he will only get something out of it if he sells more subscriptions than other similarly desperate people. Lives out of his car. I asked him how things were in Wisconsin. He said, “You don’t want to know how desperate the situation is. I don’t have any future, I don’t know what to do.” Said my students don’t know how lucky they are that they can go to college.
It made me too sad for words.
LikeLike
Is this the same California I keep hearing about that had the most vicious Republican governor for years?
As for Illinois, I happen to live in Illinois and I can tell you that the parts of the state that vote Democratic are a lot richer than the sad Republican hamlets.
And the good life in North Dakota – are you serious? The place is the backside of the universe. I’d rather go anywhere in the country but there. Except South Dakota, Arizona, and Texas. Those are the saddest, nastiest places in the country. Talk to people who had the misfortune of living there. I’m close with a colleague who escaped from North Dakota and moved to Illinois. he said he could never condemn his children to living in that horrible place.
LikeLike
Leon Panetta was just talking on NPR, saying US would attack Iran if it thinks Iran is getting closer to having nuclear weapons. (I cannot stand Leon Panetta, by the way.) I think all nuclear weapons have to go but I have to agree, if you have them, you have no authority or right to tell others not to.
On Japan, it is not at all clear that the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombs were “needed” to end the war, save a net number of lives, etc., etc. They definitely did give us a chance to show what we could do with nuclear weapons, though.
LikeLike