Comments | jonsonite: Too big to fail? Too big!

jonsonite

Too big to fail? Too big!

May 22, 2009 09:40

Here's the NYT editorial page advocating a bail-out for California, because it is too big to fail. (you may have to sign in--try bugmenot.com to make that problem go away forever)

Sure, if we're going to give California money, there should be conditions. But not conditions that just make California a vassal of D.C. Here's my condition: If California ( Read more... )

Comments 21

bayashi314 May 22 2009, 17:03:34 UTC

Well, if one of the six becomes too big to fail again, isn't that a good thing? Whichever one (here's looking at you Shasta!) becomes that large and economically viable has succeeded in the short term at least, right?

I mean, when they get to the "fail" part of the equation, that is a bad thing. However, by then, many things will be failing, so we're screwed anyhow.

What about tying some various subunits together? Create an economy that is less likely to fail as a whole? Simplified example: A company that makes both bicycles and tricycles - whether the current trend is 2 or 3 wheels, they're set!

jonsonite May 23 2009, 04:38:11 UTC

Diversification of economy doesn't seem to do California any good. Diversification of political power might, I suppose.

boopsce May 22 2009, 17:23:58 UTC

To preserve the current balance of the senate, 60% would have to be Democrat.

aelius27 May 22 2009, 19:24:12 UTC

And there is no way not to disrupt the state of the electoral college, since it is all or nothing, you are (presumably) just taking votes from the democrat to give to the republican.

jonsonite May 23 2009, 04:39:06 UTC

That's a good point--breaking up states that lean one way always tilts the college the other way.

Maybe if we break up Texas at the same time...

tweetxor May 26 2009, 21:55:17 UTC

538 had an article recently that considered the possibility of breaking up Texas. Turns out Texas is explicitly allowed to subdivide itself, unlike the other states:

Thread 6

sonofzeal May 22 2009, 17:35:08 UTC

Can't we just bail out SoCal and the Bay, and leave the rest of them to fend for themselves?

jonsonite May 23 2009, 04:39:36 UTC

I thought SoCal and the Bay were the root of these problems...

sonofzeal May 23 2009, 21:50:01 UTC

They produce a lot of the money, but ballot measures notwithstanding, Sacramento decides how to spend it. The "how" tends to be recklessly, but you already knew that.

jonsonite May 24 2009, 08:53:23 UTC

Who is it, again, who votes for the people in Sacramento?

Thread 5

ranethor May 22 2009, 20:07:31 UTC

Then we'd have to deal with making a new 56-state flag ;-)

jonsonite May 23 2009, 04:39:53 UTC

This, clearly, is the insuperable barrier I've been looking for!

troglodyteking May 23 2009, 07:19:57 UTC

Don't you mean 55 state flag? If you take one state, and break it into six states, you've got a net gain of five. ( 50 - 1 = 49; 49 + 6 = 55 )

boopsce May 23 2009, 09:16:05 UTC

This is America and we don't take kindly to you and your mathematics. Go back to France!

Thread 8

zabrahl May 23 2009, 10:56:25 UTC

How about we don't stop with just California? Let's redraw the map to follow the current distribution of folks that vote conservative and folks that vote liberal. I'm pretty sure the results would be amusing ( ... )

jonsonite May 24 2009, 08:55:53 UTC

I'm not sure regional powers (of which I am a strong advocate) are the answer here. The problem seems mostly to be at the statewide initiative and constitutional levels--you'd have to figure out a way to insulate the units from state-level shenanigans. If you could, that'd be an answer.

I'm all about switching up Washington and Oregon to create Cascadia and Upper Columbia. It'd be better that way.