Danivon, some of the numbers and terms you're throwing out are silly. Arizona is NOT more urban than Connecticut. I don't care what measure they're using.

Secondly, a snapshot of one presidential election is a silly analysis to make. Go by county. See how it affects the data then.

For example, let's look at Pennsylvania. Do you think if we were to look at Philadelphia, would it match your data? I can almost guarantee not. Half the schools are going broke. THey've been cutting sports programs since I was in high school. Pensions are falling apart.

Third: The data is skewed because of government workers. To say that a government worker pays 15-30% tax is a lie. They pay zero. The rest is just accounting fraud. Readjust your figures and see how it comes out.

Fourth: Income disparity and cost of living. Since higher costs of living aren't factored into federal tax codes, people who make "more" pay more. But again, it skews the data. Check this out

And finally, a description needs to be made as to what the federal dollars are going to. If its not the taxpayers in the red-states, or even the red voters, An adjustment needs to be made.

This isn't to say that I think Republicans are honest and consistent.

I am wondering if Federal programs might have a little bit to do with it as well. For example, some states may have state run health insurance for low income families while other states may rely completely on medicaid (which is partially funded by the Federal Government). For example, Pennsylvania ran a program called Adult Basic Care which provided subsudized free or low cost health insurance to adults 19-64 who met the income requirements. It was completely funded by state money and therefore kept people off the medicaid rolls. However, a state like Kansas doesn't have that type of program so people in need of that kind of help rely solely on Federal funded programs.

guapo

Danivon, some of the numbers and terms you're throwing out are silly. Arizona is NOT more urban than Connecticut. I don't care what measure they're using.

really? Even by US Census data? Is there any particular authority more than your own mind that could be used as a valid source to check Danivons claim? Are you as infallible as the Pope?


According to the US census for 2000 79.2% of Americans live in urban areas and 20.7% in rural. You live in an urban area if you live in an urban cluster which is defined as 2,500 plus. of the total urban 10.5% live in what iIwould call a small town (from 2,500 to 50,000 people)
58.2 % live in cities of 200K plus and 10.3 % in small cities from 20 to 200 K.

I couldn't quickly find the 2000 census breakdown by state, but i found 1990 census by state with the rural urban breakdown.
Connecticutt is 79.1% urban by the above defintion.
Arizona is 87.5% urban.
My guess would be that the inhospital desert in Arizona is part of the reason. Acessibility to water being vital to intensive farming ...
source: http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/37 ... nd_by.html

Yes, even by Census data. My authority is common sense. Have you ever been to Arizona? Phoenix, the most densely populated area in the state is more spread out than most of the suburbs on the east coast. Their definition of urban is arbitrary. 90% of Phoenix is easily suburban. Urban and suburban are not the same. Because people have larger plots of land (as well as native reservations), the numbers are left off.

Connecticut is a suburban state. Many of CTs residents work in another state. Because it doesn't have 1 huge city to skew the data, doesn't make it more rural than Arizona. Sorry. The data is stupid.

You do have to distinguish between urban vs. rural and population density. Having been in both states, no doubt about it, CT is more densely populated. But I guess that is different than urban / rural split.

You also have to distinguish between the nature of their urban areas. Phoenix is very different than CT's urban areas

3,071.8/sq mi phoenix's density

7,025.5/sq mi Hartford's density

12,530.02/ sq mi Bridgeport's density

And Phoenix--the 5th largest city in the US--is nothing like the other 10, with the exception of Houston. Houston and Phoenix are similar in that way.

That's why I think any correlation should be brought down to the county or even congressional district level. Anyone wanna take a stab at those numbers?

I think there is a deeper truth here than just a urban.rural distinction though that is part of it. Early in our history there was a fight between Jeffersonians and the Hamiltonians about the proper role of government. Jefferson lauded the farmers as being the foundation of society whereas Hamilton wanted the government to be more actively involved in promoting commerce, including the foundation of a National Bank and spending on internal improvements. The Democrats were the ones that were against government intervention in the economy whereas the Federalist and then the Whigs supported government funding of canals, roads, railroads, etc. and a National Bank. These ideological differenced tended to break along geographical lines (North and South)

Apart from slavery, one of the biggest bones of contention between the South and North was the protective tariff the North wanted to protect its factories against competition from Europe while the South was irritated by the higher prices that it had to pay for goods it wanted to import from overseas. This lead to the Nullification crisis of 1832 where South Carolina at least talked about seceding from the union.

The Civil War was fought between a mostly rural, highly stratified hierarchal society in the south versus a more industrialized north. The interesting thing about Lincoln was that, though he was a Republican, he was a former Whig and supported government spending on internal improvements (government intervention in the economy) His administration passed laws sponsoring the foundation of agricultural colleges (when you see a college called State such as Michigan State there is a good chance that it was created due to that legislation or Texas A&M--Texas Agricultural and Mechanic), gave financial inducements to building the transatlantic railroad, and passed the Homestead Act, allowing settlers to claim 60 acres.

So you have a very long tradition of the South being suspicious of government involvement in the economy, the South being slow to industrialize, and a society being highly stratified. You also have the fact that the South suffered economically due to the Civil War.

So I think the explanation of why Blue states act against their economic self-interest by supporting high taxes whereas Red States vote against their economic self-interest by opposing taxeshas to do with beliefs about government that are deeply ingrained in their respective cultures. The reason Blue states do better is that they invest in their people through government subsidies of education, through infrastructure spending, etc. Because these states are not as hierarchal they are more likely to have state spending on the social net.

So to sum up, there is more of a tendency in Blue states to believe in government intervention to promote the economy and to spend on the safety net whereas in Red States there is a less of a belief in government intervention and spending on the safety net. Clearly, on a federal level at least there has been a tendency for more government intervention and more spending on the safety net, as the ideology more espoused in Blue states has at until the last 30 years attained ascendancy on a federal level. But even though Blue states pay more than they get their citizens are not going to change their deeply held views regarding government’s role in the economy and the safety net, nor are Red states going to change their beliefs about government intervention in the economy and spending on the safety net. Deeply held cultural beliefs trump mere expediency. Of course, if you are poor in a Red State that is not going to stop you from taking government benefits, now is it? The reality is that the complexity of economics makes it possible for anyone to rationalize their political beliefs about government intervention in the economy, regardless of what the facts appear to show.

In the end, I think what this data really does is prove the liberal contention--government spending on roads, bridges, education and other investment in people appears to promote a higher standard of living then in areas where a more laissez-faire system prevails. You may disagree with that contention but I do think the role of culture overriding self-interest is a contention harder to dispute

Guapo wrote:Danivon, some of the numbers and terms you're throwing out are silly. Arizona is NOT more urban than Connecticut. I don't care what measure they're using.

It's about where the people live, not what the land looks like.

I would say that there should be a distinction made between 'urban' and 'suburban', but we were looking not just at urbanity, but where the poor where. I suspect that the suburbs are less likely to contain masses of the poor, while rural and heavily urban areas are more likely to.

Secondly, a snapshot of one presidential election is a silly analysis to make. Go by county. See how it affects the data then.

If you look back at the history of presidential elections over the past 20 years, and look at polls for the upcoming one, I don't think you'll see that there hasn't been a major change.

For example, let's look at Pennsylvania. Do you think if we were to look at Philadelphia, would it match your data? I can almost guarantee not. Half the schools are going broke. THey've been cutting sports programs since I was in high school. Pensions are falling apart.

I don't know. It wasn't 'my' data, by the way, but let's see if someone has managed to do a county-by-county or congressional district based analysis.

Third: The data is skewed because of government workers. To say that a government worker pays 15-30% tax is a lie. They pay zero. The rest is just accounting fraud. Readjust your figures and see how it comes out.

False. The wages of the government workers are already included in the figure for tax spend in the state. So the effect of the workers is already accounted for.

Fourth: Income disparity and cost of living. Since higher costs of living aren't factored into federal tax codes, people who make "more" pay more. But again, it skews the data. Check this out

We did look at income disparity within states as well. It seems to be uncorrelated to voting, but I'm willing to accept looking at a combination of factors.

And finally, a description needs to be made as to what the federal dollars are going to. If its not the taxpayers in the red-states, or even the red voters, An adjustment needs to be made.

Why? It usually ends up in the local economy regardless, it affects people that taxpayers know directly, and it affects everyone indirectly.

This isn't to say that I think Republicans are honest and consistent.

Which is also not the point of the thread.

Which I'm not sure if you have grasped.

“In Texas, we understand that high-tech companies don’t just happen overnight but are a product of forethought, sound vision and planning, and strategic investments by both the public and private sectors. Through our Emerging Technology Fund, we are bringing the best scientists and researchers to Texas, attracting high-tech jobs and helping start-up companies get off the ground faster.”

Governor Rick Perry

Freeman, when you read the above, does it make you wonder about the generalizations? Romney was also a practitioner of state involvement in economies in Masachusetts.
The idea that poltiicians want to be seen as responsible for "creating jobs" seems directly contradictory to the idea of non-involvement in govenrment. And thats what seems to be the requirement for candidates for the Republican nomination... (And probably for president)
How can a government that does nothing, then take responsibility for accomplishing such a concrete thing as "creating jobs"?
One of the disarming statements Perry now makes is that as President he wouldn't conduct these kinds of investments, but he sees nothing wrong with States competing with other states with initiatives like his Emerging Technology Fund. (Its all right to intervene on behalf of your state, but not for the country as a whole?)
The capacity to find differences without distinction is enormous.
Although you note a lot of the historic and cultural reasons that the red states and Blue States are different .. perhaps one simple component explains more. One group contains more people who can look at evidence and discount it, irrationally. Hence the comparison of fundamental religions concentration in red states.)

Ricky you make a very valid point. It is amusing to watch former Republican governors disavow their former intervention moves when they were governors. The reality is what you have executive power you have to show your constitutents that you are doing something and a lot of times that means having the government do something. There is an inherent contradiction in being a politician and being against government anyway, but at the end of a day when you have executive power you tend to use it to promote additional governement programs. It is quite easy to be anti-government when you are in opposition, not so easy to do so when you have the reins of power

Ricky:

“In Texas, we understand that high-tech companies don’t just happen overnight but are a product of forethought, sound vision and planning, and strategic investments by both the public and private sectors. Through our Emerging Technology Fund, we are bringing the best scientists and researchers to Texas, attracting high-tech jobs and helping start-up companies get off the ground faster.”


Governor Rick Perry

Some of this may turn out to be Perry's Achilles heel. This Emerging Technology Fund has been accused of awarding moneys to political cronies. Politicians are just not good at picking winners and losers since it is not what they do for a living. Solyndra is a good example; through in the corruption of picking companies who are partially owned by political contributors, and you have a huge problem.

Politicians do what they do, but a true conservative (classical liberal) deplores this sort of government intervention as wasteful at best and corrupt at worst.

ray

Some of this may turn out to be Perry's Achilles heel. This Emerging Technology Fund has been accused of awarding moneys to political cronies. Politicians are just not good at picking winners and losers since it is not what they do for a living. Solyndra is a good example; through in the corruption of picking companies who are partially owned by political contributors, and you have a huge problem.

Politicians do what they do, but a true conservative (classical liberal) deplores this sort of government intervention as wasteful at best and corrupt at worst.

Like Ron Reagan and his support for the US semi-conductor industry? Even the sainted Ron involved himself in direct govenrment subsidy ... Picking the winners who made up the US consortium over foreign competition.

Investment in start up busineses is always difficult. There are, no matter who invests, usually more losers than winners.
The idea that governments get involved in starting up industries usually occurs because there isn't sufficient momentum from the private sector by itself to start an industry. Perhaps the opportunity requires resources and risk and a long term window for return that private sector can't justify but the country as a whole can... ? Examples: turning the oil sands in Alberta into a viable industry, making South Korea a leader in the development of internet techologies, .
US Railroads were bulit with govnerment involvement. So are airports, ports etc. Mining and lumber harvesting have always involved picking winners and losers...
America's competitors around the world in a lot of sectors exist only because their governments got involved. Without those govenrments involving themselves in the early stage industrial polciy, America wouldn't have lost those industries .The reaction, while this was happening, was to let the international companies take their production, and eventually most other parts of their American born industries, to the subsidized nascent technology centres in Korea, Taiwan,. Japan and china.
The general idea that you espouse that "government shouldn't be involved" resulted in this hollowing out... The governmetns stood nby and watched corporations decide to turn away from their domestic roots to entrench entire industries in foreign centres.

More importantly. without the American government involving itself in the automobile indistry, the US auto industry would be a shell of itself today.

In August, GM announced that its second-quarter profits had nearly doubled, to $2.5 billion. To put that in context, in April 2010, GM reported losses of $4.3 billion. Revenue at GM rose 19 percent, to $39.4 billion.
This month, the United Auto Workers and GM reached a tentative four-year contract that will add or save some 6,500 jobs, provide workers with a $5,000 signing bonus and enhance a profit-sharing agreement.
Note that increase in profit sharing. The union and the company are seeking to align the interests of workers and shareholders. The idea should be as American as a Chevy or a Ford: When a company does well, its employees should do well, too

. Washington Post Sep 28

The point being that general rules like," governments shouldn't be involved', that corporations should make decisions unfettered by policy designed to act in the national interests of a company leads to international companies making decisions againat the national interests of a nation.
This is not a defence of Perry's cronyism. Only a rejoinder to your generalization Ray.
I think the objectives of his fund made sense... Did he have to involve the govenrment? I would guess that in his estimation at the time without the government invovlement the market would never have decided to invest thpse jobs in Texas. They might have taken tennessee up on their competitive offer...
Or maybe Taiwan.
The point being that sometimes the investments work out, and sometimes they fail. Whether its government investment or private - nothing is guaranteed. For every reinvigorated GM, or Oil Sands, its likely that there are two Texas ETF or Solyndra.

haven't we had this conversation before? There is a vibrant venture capital sector in the US; there are several firms that are focused on alternative energy. If you have a good business plan that makes economic sense, you will get funding. You will also get an investor who knows about business and how to be successful.

If you cannot get funding from the private sector, then you go to the government. You trade a knowledgeable private sector investor for a public sector investor whose motivation is political. Why would a business make that trade? It is generally because they cannot get funding from the private sector because there are holes in the business plan. Your assumption:

Perhaps the opportunity requires resources and risk and a long term window for return that private sector can't justify but the country as a whole can

is a possibility. But my real world experience is that the business plan is just not up to snuff. The company has a political connection and tries to capitalize on it because the market bet is one that the VCs aren't will to make based on the economics.

Ray Jay, is it really the case in the current economic climate that the private lending sector is looking for ventures? It seems to me that they are far more happy to lend to the US government than to companies - even established companies are finding it very difficult to borrow from banks, and the venture capital sector has gone very quiet.

In a 'normal' environment, during a period of stable growth, your argument about business cases holds. In a difficult economic environment, it may not be the 'business case' that stops private investment. There's more than one 'real world' issue here.

And ricky does make a very good point - long term investment is not something that the private sector really likes to do, unless it is very low risk. Hence they will buy 30-yr US bonds because the US is highly rated. An individual company, even in a growing sector, over a 30 year period is not the same level of risk, so will not get the same level of take-up. What people who invest in new companies and enterprises want is to be able to take out a return within years, not decades.

There are a lot of components of the "private lending sector". There are big commercial banks, average sized banks, investment banks, venture capitalists, and private equity firms. They all have their functions and markets.

I have heard that commercial banks are being very careful in their lending. (I haven't looked into it, but it is not credible to me that these banks are doing no lending at all. They do have entire groups of employees devoted to making loans. Whatever the issue, the press does insert its hyperbole.)

But getting back on point, the venture capitalists are always looking for good ideas. Sure they will take 30 - 50% of your company, but if it is a new idea that can make it big, it is certainly worth it. The funding that Perry is doing in Texas, and that the US did with Solyndra, and what Massachusetts has done as well is being sold as future profitable technologies with high paybacks. The VC's are very skilled at evaluating risk and reward. Yes, they like payouts sooner rather than later, but if the idea is good, and it works in the marketplace, these greedy bastards will fund it.

Al Gore is on the board of Kleiner Perkins. Take a look at their website. Check out Generation Investment Management on your side of the pond. There is so much activity going on. On the whole, these government interventions are not helpful.