Hacker News Reader

Comment by trendia | Hacker News Reader

If California secedes, it will no longer be in the US' best interest to give them water for free. Who knows what the price will be!

View on HN

California will be fine.

California economy is on the order of France and UK.

Country like Israel, with much less people and smaller economy, manages to desalinate and recycle its water in the middle of desert, surrounded by hostile neighbors.

Of course, the angriest neighbor of California might install an energy blockade rather than providing California with resources, Israel may not be instructive.

They stop giving us water, we stop giving them food. Agriculture is 2% of the state GDP, 20% of the US food supply, and 80% of state water use.

Oh no, the US will starve relying on the enormous strip of super fertile land between Texas and Idaho.

Point is, the US needs to consume the food more than we need to grow it. The water is not that great a threat.

Actually if California stopped producing food we would still be fine. Most of what is produced is fruits.

Most likely the US could halt 1/2 of its food production and still have plenty of food. We have no shortage of arable land, we have a greater shortage of people actually wanting to be farmers/ranchers :(

20% in terms of dollars, perhaps.

Not in terms of calories.

The rest of the US could live just fine without out-of-season artichokes or whatever.

Water is rather more important. You can live a long time on a plain diet (especially if you have vitamins available). Without the water, things in California would get very, very ugly, very, very quickly. ]

Also: what are you planning to do if (or maybe "when" would be better) Mexico decides that it wants to take back its former territory (i.e., all of California)?

Even in drought, California has a lot of water. Imported water is only necessary so long as we irrigate the central valley. We wouldn't need it just for residential use.

I think an independent California would have a good relationship with Mexico. Though I'm interested in why you think we wouldn't.

Desirable land, no longer defended by the US military, and a fair number of their citizens here. I'm not sure I agree that it'd happen, but I can see some reasons.

There's no way Colorado is keeping the water rights as is, the whole state hates that California has them.

The savings from not having to pay federal taxes would go a pretty long way to paying for water.

Until California creates even more generous welfare programs and state taxes go higher than federal ones. It's not as though Medicare, social security, Medicaid, the military, copyright enforcement, etc will all still be funded by the remaining 49 states for California's benefit.

Doesn't California, alongside most other "blue" states, contribute more to those welfare programs than they take in?

I'm not sure about that. But remember that once CA is its own government there's little to stand in the way of ever more generous programs. There's no telling what could get passed. But seeing the basic income debates rage here on HN it doesn't seem implausible that a huge BI experiment might take place. That could easily cost double the programs it's ostensibly replacing and or augmenting.

>But remember that once CA is its own government there's little to stand in the way of ever more generous programs

There's nothing standing in the way of that now. Colorado just had the opportunity to vote in a single-payer healthcare system.

You're saying "what if a government spent more than they had", but that's hardly unique to a seceded California. I don't see how it's at all relevant.

A state having the option to design new programs from the ground up, while simultaneously also needing to implement something to replace federal programs is literally unprecedented in the US. Yes of course the programs could end up being very stingy. I strongly suspect (though I can't prove) that a politically progressive CA would end up passing some politically progressive social programs. Would there be an obstructionist state legislature that actually managed to oppose effectively? Maybe, I don't know. I don't live in CA. My suspicion is no, however.

But that still isn't any different, fundamentally. Any state could come up with such programs now. This dynamic of legislature vs governed liberal populace vs fiscal responsibility exists now, so I don't get your point about how it would somehow be a deathknell for the finances of such a seceded state but not the one still in the union.

Because when there are federal programs in place there is much less pressure to do something, anything to fix the problems. Obviously anything is possible and restraint could win the day also. I won't deny that such an outcome is possible. But is it likely?

>Doesn't California, alongside most other "blue" states, contribute more to those welfare programs than they take in?

California is not a net payer. According to wikipedia (and I realize these are from two different years, but they're the easiest numbers to find), California pays $7,690.66[1] in taxes on a per capita basis and receives $8,967[2] in federal spending on a per capita basis.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state#F... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_taxation_and_spending_...

Regardless of where money is going now, how much of californian industry would not exist had it not been for the US military industrial complex bootstrapping the computer industry?

California is a net receiver of federal spending, with the feds spending $1.18 in California for every $1.00 paid by Californians in taxes. Federal spending amounts to 15% of California's GDP.

Where are you getting your data from?

This map / story from 2014 says otherwise. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-st...

Wikipedia has pages for federal tax dollars paid[1] and federal spending[2]. The spending data matches this publication from the state of California[3].

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state#F...

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_taxation_and_spending_...

3. http://www.lao.ca.gov/LAOEconTax/Article/Detail/131

Sounds like a suitable problem for Musk to address after he's done with cars, space and solar.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com