- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: States run by Republican governors boast highest economic growth rates
Posted on 8/20/14 at 1:22 pm to Hawkeye95
Posted on 8/20/14 at 1:22 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
No one wants to live there, which is why they pay so much money.
Of course that is why they pay like they do but point I was trying make earlier is that ND was regulated in terms of O&G like Cali and other blue states, would the state be booming and able to pay people to move there? Solid leadership and regulations have made that possible.
1
Posted on 8/20/14 at 1:26 pm to stevengtiger
quote:
ETA: Ohio and Illinois would also be a good comparison of republican leadership vs. dem leadership in terms of size and median income.
Ohio is too blue to be red vs blue. That's red vs purple. I'll still do it if you need me to.
Posted on 8/20/14 at 1:29 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
resource rich states have done better due to the increase in the price of commodities (thanks fed!).
Resource rich states increase the citizens wealth not because of fed induced price inflation but because of demand price increases.
Inflation infers an increase in price not value.
Demand increases value and prices follow.
Posted on 8/20/14 at 1:31 pm to inelishaitrust
quote:
I'll still do it if you need me to.
You don't have to do anthing. I guess my point was basically to say that IMO, republican lead states and states that deal with their own regulation issues better than others, will tend to produce a stronger economy.
Posted on 8/20/14 at 1:33 pm to shipshoal
quote:
Are Republican governors better for a state’s economy?
Duh
Posted on 8/20/14 at 1:33 pm to stevengtiger
quote:
Of course that is why they pay like they do but point I was trying make earlier is that ND was regulated in terms of O&G like Cali and other blue states, would the state be booming and able to pay people to move there? Solid leadership and regulations have made that possible.
I think there are two questions to answer, and they would just be opinions
a) if california was regulated like ND, would it be booming? I believe the answer is no. California is highly diversified and has a huge petrochemical industry (although more regulated).
b) if ND was regulated like california, would it be booming? I believe the answer is yes but less so than it is now. Fracking is legal in california as of right now but california has a more strict permitting process so it would likely slow growth.
The majority of blue states have little to no natural reserves so its a moot question for anything but California.
Posted on 8/20/14 at 1:35 pm to shipshoal
The funny thing about New York is they are trying like hell to be "Republican" like by giving new businesses HUGE tax breaks for 10 years.
I was thinking man... That must irk the shite out of new york (well, anywhere) democrats who want nothing more to tax the hell out of businesses who make $1 of profit.
I wouldn't live anywhere where Democrats control the majority of the state like CA, MA or NY. Hell, I wouldn't live in NJ either. I like to keep the money I earn. Those places like to remove it from me and spend it on bullshite like illegal immigrants / big digs / gun control.
I like a good mix of the two or independents to be in control.
I was thinking man... That must irk the shite out of new york (well, anywhere) democrats who want nothing more to tax the hell out of businesses who make $1 of profit.
I wouldn't live anywhere where Democrats control the majority of the state like CA, MA or NY. Hell, I wouldn't live in NJ either. I like to keep the money I earn. Those places like to remove it from me and spend it on bullshite like illegal immigrants / big digs / gun control.
I like a good mix of the two or independents to be in control.
This post was edited on 8/20/14 at 1:36 pm
Posted on 8/20/14 at 1:38 pm to GumboPot
quote:
Resource rich states increase the citizens wealth not because of fed induced price inflation but because of demand price increases.
Inflation infers an increase in price not value.
Demand increases value and prices follow.
the fed's low rates have directly increased the price of commodities, through a variety of means.
I do agree demand is the ultimate barometer of the price. But the fed's ZIRP policy has made commodities purchases an attractive alternative investment.
Posted on 8/20/14 at 1:47 pm to BaylorTiger
quote:
What about supply? What your saying is 100% true but it's inherently more complicated than that...that is just one, albeit a primary, factor of many, many factors.
Absolutely. I said "in part" when talking about demand.
In terms of most expensive to least expensive:
High demand; low supply. Like Hawaii And New York
Low demand; low supply. Like Alaska? New England
High demand; high supply. Texas, Georgia, Tennessee
Low demand; high supply. Michigan, Mississippi, Bama
As a capitalist, (albeit a left-leaning one) I believe that high demand, high supply is the best for general economic health. You do however, want to keep supply in check lest you end up with a 2007 housing bubble collapse.
Posted on 8/20/14 at 1:50 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
California is highly diversified and has a huge petrochemical industry (although more regulated).
No doubt they are diversified but it is my undersatnding that there is a potential offshore prospect that could be huge (similiar to GoM). If it is anything like the Gulf, would Cali boom instantly? No, but I can easily say more jobs, more tax income(like they need it) and growth to economy.
quote:
if ND was regulated like california, would it be booming?
There would still be growth but much slower and much more $ being spent in court rooms and lawyers instead of economic spending. Again, all of this is just my opinion and I am not a smart man.
Posted on 8/20/14 at 2:00 pm to shipshoal
There's definately a correlation.
I'm guessing that states that lean red are less open to unions in both the public or private sector and lower taxes which is probably good for business.
Could also be that since the southern states, who were primarily agricultural for a long time, are sort of seeing an interesting industrial expansion in the works at the expense of the northeast and mid west. Southern states are almost all run by republicans. Of course in additionl to the Dakotas, Louisiana and Texas have seen a lot of oil and gas work.
I'm guessing that states that lean red are less open to unions in both the public or private sector and lower taxes which is probably good for business.
Could also be that since the southern states, who were primarily agricultural for a long time, are sort of seeing an interesting industrial expansion in the works at the expense of the northeast and mid west. Southern states are almost all run by republicans. Of course in additionl to the Dakotas, Louisiana and Texas have seen a lot of oil and gas work.
This post was edited on 8/20/14 at 2:03 pm
Posted on 8/20/14 at 2:04 pm to stevengtiger
quote:
No doubt they are diversified but it is my undersatnding that there is a potential offshore prospect that could be huge (similiar to GoM). If it is anything like the Gulf, would Cali boom instantly? No, but I can easily say more jobs, more tax income(like they need it) and growth to economy.
California's tourism industry is pretty big. They, like Florida, are going to be very concerned with any drilling activity off shore....especially after the high profile BP incident off the coast of Louisiana.
It's interesting though. In many ways, parts of California were established by mining natural resources, including oil.
This post was edited on 8/20/14 at 2:06 pm
Posted on 8/20/14 at 2:09 pm to shipshoal
I think that governors can only hurt an economy. First, it starts with what your economy produces. North Dakota has something of value it's producing. So their economy is booming. Mississippi has very little of value it's producing, so their economy is not booming.
Now, if the governor is hands-off with the economy, it will allow maximum growth.
When governors start adding a bunch of red tape, regulations, laws, rules, etc.. that puts burdens on the economy and restricts it's growth.
Republican governors are better at letting the economy function with less red tape. Democratic governors restrict the economies in their states.
Now, if the governor is hands-off with the economy, it will allow maximum growth.
When governors start adding a bunch of red tape, regulations, laws, rules, etc.. that puts burdens on the economy and restricts it's growth.
Republican governors are better at letting the economy function with less red tape. Democratic governors restrict the economies in their states.
Posted on 8/20/14 at 2:13 pm to inelishaitrust
quote:That had to do with artificial demand created by government-backed loans.
You do however, want to keep supply in check lest you end up with a 2007 housing bubble collapse.
Posted on 8/20/14 at 2:17 pm to PrimeTime Money
quote:
That had to do with artificial demand created by government-backed loans.
Thats another good example of democratic government leadership regulation. Regulations on banks to give loans for homes people couldn't afford in the first place.
Posted on 8/20/14 at 2:54 pm to shipshoal
Like California, right?
Posted on 8/20/14 at 3:43 pm to PrimeTime Money
quote:
That had to do with artificial demand created by government-backed loans.
Which came first? The chicken or the egg? Who do you think lobbied for those loans? Poor people? or the builders and banks?
They wanted to sell the houses, collect on the mortgages, forclose on those who couldn't afford the homes giving them the money and the property. The problem is that everybody was playing dirty, and when everybody cheats the system breaks and all the banks got caught with their hands in the cookie jar. Then the taxpayers bailed them out, and nearly nobody went to jail.
So the banks fricked our economy and got a slap on the wrist for it.
Posted on 8/20/14 at 3:47 pm to stevengtiger
quote:
No doubt they are diversified but it is my undersatnding that there is a potential offshore prospect that could be huge (similiar to GoM). If it is anything like the Gulf, would Cali boom instantly? No, but I can easily say more jobs, more tax income(like they need it) and growth to economy.
right but the lack of the boom would likely be due to the diversified very large economy. Not b.c it wouldn't work.
And we don't know what ND would do about off shore drilling as they don't have off shore. I would assume they would be for it, but if they had a coastline, then more people would live there and thus might change policy.
quote:
There would still be growth but much slower and much more $ being spent in court rooms and lawyers instead of economic spending. Again, all of this is just my opinion and I am not a smart man.
I don't think its court room time, i think its bureaucratic process that is the issue. And I agree.
Posted on 8/20/14 at 6:51 pm to stevengtiger
quote:
No doubt they are diversified but it is my undersatnding that there is a potential offshore prospect that could be huge (similiar to GoM). If it is anything like the Gulf, would Cali boom instantly? No, but I can easily say more jobs, more tax income(like they need it) and growth to econom
True, but unlike in ND it would also come with some massive trade offs as California's off shore stuff is near offshore so extracting it would devastate tourism and other local income sources.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News