[p2p-research] Post-Depression first: Americans get more money from government than they give back | csmonitor.com

Ryan Lanham rlanham1963 at gmail.com
Wed Nov 25 14:40:21 CET 2009

On 11/24/09, J. Andrew Rogers <reality.miner at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Now a lot of systems are collapsing.  The question in the US will be a
> > libertarian right response or a stable North European styled market
> > socialism or green capitalism, etc.  Right now there is stalemate, but
> the
> > numbers and time lean toward a social solution.  As usual, I suspect
> > California will lead it.  I never worry much about California.  No place
> so
> > beautiful with so many gifted people can ever be down for very long.
> Your optimism is misplaced. Also, California is socially conservative
> outside of the medium-sized city of San Francisco -- it is easy to
> confuse the politics of the government with the politics of the state.
> I've lived in California a long time, and among all the friends and
> acquaintances I've had over the years here I am one of the last to
> leave. There is a slow but apparently irreversible exodus in key
> industries that has been in motion for many years. The "gifted people"
> are bolting and there is little evidence that the government is
> interested in fixing the problems that are causing it.

I know California well.  Have done business there for over 25 years and have
many many long-term friends and acquaintances all over the state...and
family in LA.

Calling California conservative doesn't quite fit.  Eureka?  La Jolla?
Santa Barbara?  Pasadena?  The power in California has always been left.
Fiscally conservative until late, but left.  It was the classic left US
state.  There was the Hollywood conservative movement, but that was not
Californian...it was midwestern.  Reagan was from the Midwest and was about
as Californian as I am.

I'd make you a bet of everything you will ever earn versus everything that I
will ever earn that California will be a top 10 state in most social
measures for the next 100 years.

San Francisco is the hub of the West.  LA is the sickest in the state and
with good reason...it didn't have a plan.  Indeed it is LA (and the
right--with their real estate booms) that has done the damage.   If SF is
medium sized, I hope the rest of America can grow into a medium sized

BC is well left of San Francisco.  It would be interesting to hear about
anti-socialists and anti-union people moving to Canada...as someone who
works all day with Canadians, I can tell you they will be disappointed.
Canada is moving left faster than almost any nation on earth.  I'd consider
it now to be virtually Nordic.

The biggest winner in all this is probably the Pacific Northwest,
> which has seen a steady influx of businesses normally associated with
> California, like technology and television/movies.

Oregon has far worse budget conditions than California and Washington is
close behind.  Washington is terrified because Microsoft is clearly starting
to die.  Oregon doesn't have the bones on which to recover as well.  But
they're all great places.  The real losers are the hell holes inland where
the middling panickers and low taxers are headed--Nevada, Arizona, and the

The Mormons are interesting.  David Wiley is a leader in open systems and
P2P as far as I am concerned and spouts Mormon PTL stuff on his Facebook
page.  Curious to watch that play out.  In general, I view Utah as a hotbed
of corruption--but of the legal sort...croney capitalism really.  I've
always seen them as very corrupt.  Maybe they'll surprise me.

I think you might be conflating the myth of California with the
reality of California, though they were not all that different half a
century ago.

The boom in California was San Francisco, obviously.  What great firms has
LA produced?  San Diego?  Arnold is about as left wing for a Republican as
you can be.  It isn't even debateable.  The facts are obvious.  California
was first, aerospace.  Then movies.  Then software.  It moved right up the

The reality is that it is a socially conservative state
run by deeply corrupt unions that are fiscally irresponsible in the
extreme. It might have nice scenery, but the business, social, and
cultural environment are pretty toxic. There are other places I would
much rather live and work now.

You should move.  People should align where they belong.  California is
going to lurch left hard.  I'd bet on that.  I suspect your frustration and
unhappiness is seated in the fact that you sense that move occurring.  Texas
sounds like a fit.

> I worry about the desertification and aging of the hellish states in the
> middle that still command two senators much more than I do about

Which states are those?  Here is an interesting fact for you: the
least religious states in the United States are the so-called
"sagebrush" States. The most socially liberal states in terms of
actual laws on the books?  The sagebrush states. Demographically
youngest region? Sagebrush again. These flyover states are also the
second most urbanized regions of the US after the New York City
corridor. The Midwest states (the other flyover states) are in steep
decline, so they will evaporate on their own.

Yeah, Kansas...liberal.  I love Lawrence.  It's an outpost and if you talk
to anyone from there, they'll tell you that if you leave the county your
in Jesus land.  Read What's the Matter  with Kansas.  Nebraska...yikes.
Omaha is actually fairly left, but the state is a mess.  Oklahoma...Jim
Inhofe?  Probably the worst state in the nation.  Montana has hope...not
much...but hope.  Wyoming is fifty people and an oil well with some cattle.
Most who think leave.  Arizona is probably the sickest state financially in
the Union...and moving left to boot.  New Mexico is interesting...but
carries so much immigration and native American weight...it will be hard for
it to thrive.  Texas...well, Texas is a whole other email.  It really should
have been a separate country.  It is the last place in the US where
conservatism is really admired by people other than the Big Gulp and PTL
set...both of which are dying.

The US has five or six distinctive demographic regions, and the
demographic statistics are interesting in that they violate most
stereotypes.  Due to long-term demographic trends, the centers of
gravity in the US are moving toward the South and the Sagebrush
states.  People are familiar with the political characteristics of the
South (20th century Democrats, Bush Jr. administration).  Sagebrush
politics are very different from anything Americans are used so you
will likely see something new and different as their influence

I couldn't disagree more.  They are dying fast.  I see no rise from Texas,
etc. only rapid decline.  I see a very diverse country with many nuances.
Obviously California alone has several nuances from Fresno to San Jose to
Eureka to Orange Co and Palm Springs.  NM could hardly be more different
than Texas.  Colorado is very different from Ft. Collins to Colorado
Springs...radically different.  Boulder is unlike Denver...30 miles away.
Vermont differs a great deal from NH next door.  Florida?  Miami is a whole
different thing from Orlando and both are radically different from
Talahassee.  America's strength is its diversity.  To me, it is Europe and
Asia that are becoming homgenous.  What are the different political regions
of China?  How does Finland differ meaningfully from Iceland or Denmark?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20091125/72d8943a/attachment.html>

More information about the p2presearch mailing list