Would you vote for Calexit?

[Commodore]

Once Americans start paying the costs of that at the grocery store they will reconsider the water blockade.

Only for fruits and nuts. Neither one of which are huge parts of the average American diet, so the increase in prices on those goods would be a minor annoyance at most.

Plus, the effects of water shortages would be much more acute and would happen much more rapidly than the effects of more expensive produce.

 

[BvBPL]

Lets say Califonia actually were to leave the Union, would it be a viable country?

No. It doesn't have enough water to be sustainable by itself.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Only for fruits and nuts. Neither one of which are huge parts of the average American diet, so the increase in prices on those goods would be a minor annoyance at most.

This is why CalExit could work. The uninformed of middle America can be counted on to not bother getting facts...or even acknowledging them when they are provided. Yes "just fruit and nuts" covers the foods that are exclusively grown in California, but that's hardly all we provide. But please keep on saying "minor annoyance" until we make our escape.

 

[Farm Boy]

Oh no, we get way more than that from our mightiest state. We get uber, we get the expensive healthful and premium calories, we get sin taxes, cheap screens and excellent programming to watch on them, we get homegrown illicit weed imports, a trial run on environmental regulations, and every now and then, something truly fantastic like proof that treating noncis people like actual people works better than screaming about meteors from the sky and superAIDS. All it costs is jobs, purpose, some of your kids, and constant grinding scorn. It's like the best possible sort of volcano god squatting on the west coast.

Must be frustrating to have the burden of constantly carrying the torch. Anyone want me to find that old avatar? Seems like some of you are finally on board with the sentiment.

 

[Esperr]

"How would you find the purchasing power to import? And how would you be able to continue to export?" I mean, I figured you'd want the "oh... yeah" moment for yourself. Nobody's going to stop buying California produce or tech or movies or education or cars or solar panels or apps or wine or... whatever... just because it's an import. The entire infrastructure to import/export and ship goods is already mature. You want avocados? We want water.

You answered your own question, the exports finance imports. The exports continue because the foreign (rest of USA) demand remains.

And I cant see a nation that we just seceded from being so friendly and compassionate to our cause. The rest of the U.S is...well the rest of the U.S. They would still have all the political power and monetary muscle to acquire whatever they want elsewhere and can afford to foot the bill. We would be a new sovereign state, without our own currency and a severe water shortage. And we have the single largest avacado producer right on our border, politically the rest of the U.S can go to them out of spite.

The other issue I think people are glossing over is the military. We would save money by not helping foot the bill for our nations budget...but what are we going to do about ourselves? We would lose the entire social security system overnight. We could still back ourselves with U.S bonds and if we just assume the dollar like Ecuador we would pretty much be at the mercy of the Fed still, but would have no backing in economic crisis. There would be no bailouts for us. Theres a million and one economic issues with a secession, and I think it mostly comes down to how the rest of the U.S takes it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I think it mostly comes down to how the rest of the U.S takes it.

This is why it is more useful to consider dissolution than one state secession. Especially since dissolution is more likely, because while letting one state go makes most things worse dissolution makes everyone happy. The people in the middle America states hate the people who have been successful, so they can be rid of us. The northeast is just as screwed by the anchors as we are, so they can go their own way as well. The Pacific northwest would certainly fit better with us. Dissolution causes no hard feelings, because everyone is "freed" from their problems. The resulting smaller countries can have a mutual defense alliance, much like NATO, and at least initially a common currency. No reason to start a bunch of trade wars and nonsense when everyone is getting what they want.

 

[warpus]

Is it even possible for a state to exit the union constitutionally? I didn't think it was possible

 

[Arwon]

Australia is water rich compared to the privately owned parts of California. Drowning. Try Israel.

J

I'm not sure this is really true. The rainfall and runoff in the parts of Australia where Sydney and Melbourne and Adelaide are roughly comparable in total runoff to California. My maths gets coastal South East Australia having roughly 1/3rd more average runoff available per capita.

SE Australia's roughly 42000 GL of average runoff means it's available to the roughly 12m people of Victoria and coastal NSW at about 3.2GL per million people. That's compared to about 95 000 GL for California (including its share of the Colorado River as well as all the CA basins, or about 2.5 GL per million people.

The critical difference, though, is that variability and unreliability is way higher here. We can easily get a fifteen year period where rainfall just doesn't happen very much, so oftentimes the actual available water is far below the average over prolonged periods. That's what happened between 1996 and 2012 and why we got a lot smarter about water conservation. California is only now starting to think about the consequences of variability and climate change because historically, the western US climate has been more regular than Australia's, being dominated I think by a decadal oscillation rather than so much by ENSO.

 

[sophie]

Is it even possible for a state to exit the union constitutionally? I didn't think it was possible

Apparently the Supreme Court only ruled unilateral secession illegal. Secession with the consent of the federal government or some plurality of states agreeing is untread waters.

 

[tetley]

Do you know the SCOTUS decision off-hand? Seems to me that seceding would fall under 10th amendment. Except that SCOTUS explicitly said it doesn't.

 

[Hygro]

Oh no, we get way more than that from our mightiest state. We get uber, we get the expensive healthful and premium calories, we get sin taxes, cheap screens and excellent programming to watch on them, we get homegrown illicit weed imports, a trial run on environmental regulations, and every now and then, something truly fantastic like proof that treating noncis people like actual people works better than screaming about meteors from the sky and superAIDS. All it costs is jobs, purpose, some of your kids, and constant grinding scorn. It's like the best possible sort of volcano god squatting on the west coast.

Must be frustrating to have the burden of constantly carrying the torch. Anyone want me to find that old avatar? Seems like some of you are finally on board with the sentiment.

If we build taller we can accelerate the process.

And I cant see a nation that we just seceded from being so friendly and compassionate to our cause. The rest of the U.S is...well the rest of the U.S. They would still have all the political power and monetary muscle to acquire whatever they want elsewhere and can afford to foot the bill. We would be a new sovereign state, without our own currency and a severe water shortage. And we have the single largest avacado producer right on our border, politically the rest of the U.S can go to them out of spite.

The other issue I think people are glossing over is the military. We would save money by not helping foot the bill for our nations budget...but what are we going to do about ourselves? We would lose the entire social security system overnight. We could still back ourselves with U.S bonds and if we just assume the dollar like Ecuador we would pretty much be at the mercy of the Fed still, but would have no backing in economic crisis. There would be no bailouts for us. Theres a million and one economic issues with a secession, and I think it mostly comes down to how the rest of the U.S takes it.

During the financial crisis California issued IOUs that the banks took as money. That's crazy when you think about it, we're not a sovereign currency issuer so it's like printing money against gold—risky—and they took it like it was ours to print. That's the strength of the fundamentals of the Californian economy.

We could use the dollar, but we could also print our own money. It would be stronger than the dollar, which would cost us employment, but it'd have more purchasing power, which would keep imports flowing. And we could deficit spend pretty comfortably.

California is currently running a trade deficit of $240 billion, with about ~150 in exports minus ~400 in imports. That's a sign that people want our stuff so bad they will sell us for cheap just to get access to our markets. As long as top tier industry wants to remain here, where the best trained people go to the freest most exciting-to-relaxing cities with the best weather to make the highest order goods (the most nutricious food, the most useful apps, the most professional media, the best weed) then we continue this virtuous cycle.

Worst case scenario would be that after running a trade deficit for a bit, they dump our bonds fearing we won't make dope stuff in the future. This reduces the purchasing power of our currency which boosts employment, which in turn boosts future productivity as more people learn how to make these highest order goods everyone else wants and the rate of innovation spurs.

 

[tetley]

US Constitution Article 4, Section 3.

Looks like a mere majority of the California and U.S. legislatures is required.

 

[warpus]

So it's actually possible? The feds wouldn't show up with an army?

I mean, California is like 15% of the American GDP I think. And has 40 million people. And silicon valley. And Hollywood. And the American military probably has a bunch of strategically important military bases there. And then there's places like Yosemite and the golden gate bridge, which seem very closely entangled with American history and/or identity. I think there's also a lot of natural resources in California... and don't forget all the celebrities that help export American culture.

Would the feds really give up all of that without a fight? It seems like it would completely change the country and take a bit of sting out of the whole superpower thing. 10-20% of sting depending on how you look at it, but either way.. wouldn't it also create precedent for other states to follow suit?

Personally, I don't think they would allow that to happen.

 

[sophie]

So it's actually possible? The feds wouldn't show up with an army?

I mean, California is like 15% of the American GDP I think. And has 40 million people. And silicon valley. And Hollywood. And the American military probably has a bunch of strategically important military bases there. And then there's places like Yosemite and the golden gate bridge, which seem very closely entangled with American history and/or identity. I think there's also a lot of natural resources in California... and don't forget all the celebrities that help export American culture.

Would the feds really give up all of that without a fight? It seems like it would completely change the country and take a bit of sting out of the whole superpower thing. 10-20% of sting depending on how you look at it, but either way.. wouldn't it also create precedent for other states to follow suit?

Personally, I don't think they would allow that to happen.

You've identified precisely the problem. Unilateral secession is illegal, and in what bizarro world is the Federal Government chill with letting 13% of their economy (17% if OR and WA join in) walk away?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Hey Tim,

Stop calling the rest of the country dead weight and anchors. They are our neighbors and partners in crime.

Thanks

 

[BirraImperial]

It would be a nightmare to say the least...Trade deals with other countries would have to be remade, specially with tech companies based in California, then there's the water issue, massive immigration to and from other states, border agreements, the US military bases currently in California, etc...

 

[tetley]

The nightmare of leaving is less than the nightmare of staying.

 

[Commodore]

Yes "just fruit and nuts" covers the foods that are exclusively grown in California, but that's hardly all we provide

Did I say that's all California provides? No. The comment I was responding to was taking specifically about agriculture, which is why I only mentioned agriculture.

 

[BirraImperial]

California could very well be a country of their own and do just fine, with a lot of issues, of course...But why seceed from the Union just because of an election?

 

[Commodore]

The feds wouldn't show up with an army?

They wouldn't have to. The army is already there in the form of numerous Army, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy facilities throughout the state. If necessary, the soldiers stationed at those facilities could move very quickly to secure California National Guard facilities and armories to prevent the state's National Guard units from mobilizing against them. They could also probably move fast enough to disarm California law enforcement as well to prevent any resistance from them. And while all that is going on, reinforcements would be flooding in from bases in Washington, Arizona, and Nevada to help secure the major urban centers.