Britain leaves EU. Brexit happens.

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
Roman Snow said:
There are the giver nations. And the taker nations within the EU.
Click to expand...

That happens in the US as well, as well as any other state or country or provence. There are always areas that make more money and areas that need help.

giversvstakers.jpg
 
bluecoconuts said:
That happens in the US as well, as well as any other state or country or provence. There are always areas that make more money and areas that need help.

giversvstakers.jpg
Click to expand...
Sure. And that is going to happen within each STATE. but we are talking about sovereign countries that are feeding slugs like Greece, etc. That has to get old.

California is bountiful as a producer of produce. We feed half the world. Silicon Valley, tourism, industry, etc. most of this map does not surprise me. But I am curious the source? And what is this based in? Federal dollars? GDP?
 
Roman Snow said:
Sure. And that is going to happen within each STATE. but we are talking about sovereign countries that are feeding slugs like Greece, etc. That has to get old.

California is bountiful as a producer of produce. We feed half the world. Silicon Valley, tourism, industry, etc. most of this map does not surprise me. But I am curious the source? And what is this based in? Federal dollars? GDP?
Click to expand...

It's based on how much a state gets from the federal government vs how much they give. For example, the most dependent states will put in a dollar to the federal government and get a little over three dollars in return, while the "giver" states will put in a dollar and get less than a dollar in return. The idea is that the "giver" states prop up the "taker" states, because the "taker" states don't make enough money to fund everything they need while the giver states would have a surplus because they make more than they need. California and other states would have a lot more money if they weren't busy "feeding slugs" like Alabama, etc but it's seen as better for the collective whole.

The EU was designed to be similar to the United States, and in many way the United States acts like 50 countries, each with unique laws, customs, etc... Hence why it's the United States and not the United Provinces... We have a common central government that makes laws that apply everywhere, and we have a common currency, we allow free movement between states, but each state has their own police force, their own "military" (other than the National Guard, many states have their own State Defense Force which is completely separate) their own local government and make their own laws.. We used to have separate currencies before we adopted a uniform one. The EU wanted to be similar to that, mostly in order to maintain peace after WWI and WWII.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Roman Snow
bluecoconuts said:
It's based on how much a state gets from the federal government vs how much they give. For example, the most dependent states will put in a dollar to the federal government and get a little over three dollars in return, while the "giver" states will put in a dollar and get less than a dollar in return. The idea is that the "giver" states prop up the "taker" states, because the "taker" states don't make enough money to fund everything they need while the giver states would have a surplus because they make more than they need. California and other states would have a lot more money if they weren't busy "feeding slugs" like Alabama, etc but it's seen as better for the collective whole.

The EU was designed to be similar to the United States, and in many way the United States acts like 50 countries, each with unique laws, customs, etc... Hence why it's the United States and not the United Provinces... We have a common central government that makes laws that apply everywhere, and we have a common currency, we allow free movement between states, but each state has their own police force, their own "military" (other than the National Guard, many states have their own State Defense Force which is completely separate) their own local government and make their own laws.. We used to have separate currencies before we adopted a uniform one. The EU wanted to be similar to that, mostly in order to maintain peace after WWI and WWII.
Click to expand...

Blue I need a better explanation because CA is a mess and is seemingly always facing massive budget issues.

Can this map be considered a strong source because I live in Florida and the only reason I can come up with for this state being in the purple is because of the amount of retirees receiving benefits. There is loads of money here and a pretty healthy economy.

I'm not sure how to make heads or tails out of that map.
 
LesBaker said:
Blue I need a better explanation because CA is a mess and is seemingly always facing massive budget issues.

Can this map be considered a strong source because I live in Florida and the only reason I can come up with for this state being in the purple is because of the amount of retirees receiving benefits. There is loads of money here and a pretty healthy economy.

I'm not sure how to make heads or tails out of that map.
Click to expand...
Exactly what I was thinking, re: Florida, Les. (Arizona for that matter) and no doubt Stu makes a killing at his place, but it's hard to believe it's enough to float that great economic engine called Oregon.
 
LesBaker said:
Blue I need a better explanation because CA is a mess and is seemingly always facing massive budget issues.

Can this map be considered a strong source because I live in Florida and the only reason I can come up with for this state being in the purple is because of the amount of retirees receiving benefits. There is loads of money here and a pretty healthy economy.

I'm not sure how to make heads or tails out of that map.
Click to expand...

Map is good, there are better ones that show how close or far from a net 0 a state is, CA is 8th I believe. The California economy is actually doing well now, they're back to being the 6th largest (could move up to 5th with the Brexit) in the world, by far the largest in the United States, and is outpacing the US economy at this point. A few years ago it was struggling, but now it's doing pretty well. At any rate, the amount of money CA makes is absurd, so the state will almost always be a "net giver" state.

I believe Florida's economy relies heavily on tourism since it's the place most tourists visit in the world, which typically means a lot of service jobs that pay minimum wage. As the US economy improves, so should Florida, as tourism picks up. But with a lot of minimum wage jobs and a lot of retirees it probably makes it a net taker. Those who are making more than minimum wage and more than service industry are probably doing much better, but I don't really know details. I'm not an economist, so someone else would be better served to explain.
 
bluecoconuts said:
Map is good, there are better ones that show how close or far from a net 0 a state is, CA is 8th I believe. The California economy is actually doing well now, they're back to being the 6th largest (could move up to 5th with the Brexit) in the world, by far the largest in the United States, and is outpacing the US economy at this point. A few years ago it was struggling, but now it's doing pretty well. At any rate, the amount of money CA makes is absurd, so the state will almost always be a "net giver" state.

I believe Florida's economy relies heavily on tourism since it's the place most tourists visit in the world, which typically means a lot of service jobs that pay minimum wage. As the US economy improves, so should Florida, as tourism picks up. But with a lot of minimum wage jobs and a lot of retirees it probably makes it a net taker. Those who are making more than minimum wage and more than service industry are probably doing much better, but I don't really know details. I'm not an economist, so someone else would be better served to explain.
Click to expand...
I am not an economist. (But I play one on TV) and while much of what you say is true, there are other dynamics involved. "States" don't have money. Except or until they confiscate it from the producers. (Tax payers).

There becomes an arrogance that takes over government, seeing all this wealth, like a leach sees an animal- cling, and suckle. It would take too long to list all I see. But suffice to say:
  • I live in the Capitol city area of this fifth largest economy in the world. I work in the home improvement industry. My richest clients, consistently, are mid level state workers. Especially if one is married to another.
  • Those thinking that the answer is to raise the minimum wage are misguided. It is an awesome way to raise the unemployment rate, though. (y)
  • Small and medium sized businesses still employ more people than large corporations. The unfunded mandates placed on these businesses KILL businesses, hurt low income people, (by raising the cost of living) and drive many of those surviving businesses to places like Nevada, Texas, and Arizona. ( :coach: "Thanks California!".......idiots. )
  • The number of Ca. State workers grew exponentially as this state shifted so far to the left. Both in size, salary and benefits. It used to be that someone working in a profession (say an accountant) sacrificed a little bit in salary for the job security and benefits of working for the state. Now they make more money than in the private sector. And there is zero accoutability. (No pun intended). The inmates truly run the asylum.
The great wealth of California, thanks to farms, computer firms, Hollywood, tourism, etc. "mask" the economic reality in California. The lefties love to use the word "sustainable" -usually related to organic food, or hemp, or something. But they don't have a clue how unsustainable their socialist dream is on the average citizen. Their top-heavy tax and spend system works for them, while they heap bricks on the useful idiots that continue to vote them back into office.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fearsomefour
Roman Snow said:
I am not an economist. (But I play one on TV) and while much of what you say is true, there are other dynamics involved. "States" don't have money. Except or until they confiscate it from the producers. (Tax payers).

There becomes an arrogance that takes over government, seeing all this wealth, like a leach sees an animal- cling, and suckle. It would take too long to list all I see. But suffice to say:
  • I live in the Capitol city area of this fifth largest economy in the world. I work in the home improvement industry. My richest clients, consistently, are mid level state workers. Especially if one is married to another.
  • Those thinking that the answer is to raise the minimum wage are misguided. It is an awesome way to raise the unemployment rate, though. (y)
  • Small and medium sized businesses still employ more people than large corporations. The unfunded mandates placed on these businesses KILL businesses, hurt low income people, (by raising the cost of living) and drive many of those surviving businesses to places like Nevada, Texas, and Arizona. ( :coach: "Thanks California!".......idiots. )
  • The number of Ca. State workers grew exponentially as this state shifted so far to the left. Both in size, salary and benefits. It used to be that someone working in a profession (say an accountant) sacrificed a little bit in salary for the job security and benefits of working for the state. Now they make more money than in the private sector. And there is zero accoutability. (No pun intended). The inmates truly run the asylum.
The great wealth of California, thanks to farms, computer firms, Hollywood, tourism, etc. "mask" the economic reality in California. The lefties love to use the word "sustainable" -usually related to organic food, or hemp, or something. But they don't have a clue how unsustainable their socialist dream is on the average citizen. Their top-heavy tax and spend system works for them, while they heap bricks on the useful idiots that continue to vote them back into office.
Click to expand...

That's getting into a completely different argument though, a political one at that, so I don't want to go there. Again I'm not an economist, and those numbers make my brain shut off... So rather than try to go into the nuances of it I would rather defer to those who are economists.. I was just going off what they were saying and I'll leave it there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Roman Snow
@Roman Snow as someone who completely agrees with what you last said, I also have to echo what @bluecoconuts is saying here. You are going the route of turning this into a political left vs right thread. I like to talk politics as much as the next guy and probably more than most but we don't carry it over here.

Cheers and just say no to Hilary :hiding:
 
  • Like
Reactions: hotanez and Roman Snow
RamFan503 said:
@Roman Snow as someone who completely agrees with what you last said, I also have to echo what @bluecoconuts is saying here. You are going the route of turning this into a political left vs right thread. I like to talk politics as much as the next guy and probably more than most but we don't carry it over here.

Cheers and just say no to Hilary :hiding:
Click to expand...
I seem to have a knack for shutting threads down. :snicker: Just trying to keep it real. Sorry. Oh, and Cheers:cheers:
 
  • Like
Reactions: RamFan503
Well, the "sky is falling" scenario with my funds has dissipated and I have recovered all but 4 or 5 grand so I'd imagine most of the Pound's value will return soon. Sovereignty isn't such a bad thing. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: fearsomefour and shaunpinney
Europe don't want to hang about and they won't do any agreements unless we've signed article 50. However, whoever the PM is will need 75% of MP support to enable him to sign article 50 and I doubt that will happen. The Brexit's Campaign has been built on lies, as they have admitted post winning - there should be an ombudsman on this and go for a second vote, or quash it all together. I know if i went for a job interview and lied through my teeth just to get the job and on day 1 i told the boss, ohh yeh, by the way that wasn't true - I'm sure I'd get shown the door...

I can tell you that things ARE changing right now, an EU funded programme that I was part of, helping young businesses people and entrepreneurs get their business ideas off the ground is now not likely to be re-instated in September. People that think things are going to stay the same are just being naive.
 
"The Brexit's Campaign has been built on lies, as they have admitted post winning - there should be an ombudsman on this and go for a second vote, or quash it all together."

If this is the case we might as well have a second vote after every general election as well then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back