r/news Jan 14 '22 Helpful 19 Wholesome 18 Evil Cackle 3 Silver 19 Gold 1

Shkreli ordered to return $64M, is barred from drug industry

https://apnews.com/article/martin-shkreli-daraprim-profits-fb77aee9ed155f9a74204cfb13fc1130
54.9k Upvotes

View all comments

Show parent comments

108

u/milk4all Jan 15 '22

If ever there was a state financially and socially ready to leave the union, it’s us. If it could be done without closing borders or too big a disruption to transport and trade, i wonder what that would look like with a few decades of preparation.

116

u/Splice1138 Jan 15 '22

With our ~54 electoral votes gone, the US would never elect another left president. It'd be Jesusland for real

53

u/fersure4 Jan 15 '22

If CA ever tried to leave the country many other states would follow suit.

I honestly wouldn't hate America splintering into several different countries.

14

u/trahoots Jan 15 '22

I bet the New England states would stick together and that’d be a pretty cool place to live.

12

u/fersure4 Jan 15 '22

I'd imagine New England+

New England, New York, New Jersey merged together.

9

u/RiversKiski Jan 15 '22

It'd be the OG one three. PA's a powerhouse, Maryland for the ports, and Virginia for Norfolk and that sweet, sweet meth coal production.

7

u/wakenbacons Jan 15 '22

Wow I’m from New England and TIL New York isn’t part of it!

13

u/Splice1138 Jan 15 '22

Absolutely there are other states just as liberal as California, but we're so large we have more votes than even the next two combined (NY (28) + PA or IL (19), if I'm reading correctly).

California leaving would be the dam bursting.

Of course that's partly because the electoral college is loco any way you slice it.

28

u/JT99-FirstBallot Jan 15 '22

I would immediately move from the south east States, AKA SECountry.

It would be the worst country immediately.

42

u/Andromansis Jan 15 '22

You mean the states that would be financially reliant on the northern states because they haven't been revenue positive in the previous 100 years?

30

u/CamJongUn Jan 15 '22

Yeah they go on about not needing the blue states but other than Texas most republican states don’t make any money, which makes it even better when the vote against aid for people then beg for it when they need it because they’re poor

11

u/Splice1138 Jan 15 '22

"State's rights!", not "state's responsibilities"

2

u/milk4all Jan 15 '22

I oh lived in one of them. MO is a train wreck and it’s conservative population is proud of being poor, under educated, over worked, and “Christian”. When i lived there (not super long ago) whole communites depended on plants and call centers that paid $8-11/hr. When i lost a good job there thanks to corporate restructuring after the bubble burst, i found the best paying job i could - a manual job in a filthy plant that turned the inside of your car yellow, eve parked down the street, just from what came through the cabin filter. It paid 10/hr and had some shitty incentive pay, but i worked 9-18 hours a day for 2 years just to cover housing, healthcare, transportation, and actually have money to both save and spend. Most buddies of mine either worked a straight 40 for between 8 and 12 and hour, or didnt work much and relied on odd jobs and selling weed to get buy. There’s churches across from churches, and extremely obvious extremes in wealth between all the rural ranchers and pretty much everyone else who wasnt a doctor or in reality. And my god they hated obama, and generally made no pretense about why.

1

u/aboycandream Jan 15 '22

Texas is also a welfare state, they take more in revenue than they bring in

-14

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '22

Wow chill out, it’s not you support welfare. If you do then it’s just welfare on a larger scale, which you support? If you support welfare then you support propping up southern states and allowing them to become reliant on handouts instead of making their own money. Just like you support people doing the same.

4

u/That_Bar_Guy Jan 15 '22

I'm sure you're referring to strong peer reviewed studies establishing a trend for this, could I see em? Very strong words if this is just a personal opinion.

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '22

I’m just using what the guy above me says to start my reasoning and taking it from there.

2

u/That_Bar_Guy Jan 15 '22

Yes and there's plenty of hard evidence that red states tend to take more from the national budget than they contribute, even as they vote against disaster relief measures for other states. I would like to see the evidence that social support structures lead to forming worse habits around work and people remaining destitute with assistance longer than they would without.

→ More replies

0

u/Zaper_ Jan 15 '22

I mean you're right but in return the southern states have all of the industry energy production and food...

4

u/madmoomix Jan 15 '22

I was curious, so I ran the numbers on this. (Well, the food part anyway! I live in a liberal state that is also a huge food producer, and I knew California was the largest, so I wondered what the actual numbers are.)

Using this source, I came up with Democratic-voting states producing 41.41% of the food and Republican-voting states producing 58.59% of the food. So, definitely a difference, but not as large of one as you might expect. I wouldn't be surprised if the difference in energy production is quite slanted, though.

1

u/Zaper_ Jan 15 '22

Pure numbers don't tell the whole story look at what is actually grown in California versus the red states.

0

u/pmolmstr Jan 15 '22

What’s the math on food consumption?

-9

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '22

You support welfare and socialism that’s the result. Those states (or people) become reliant on the handouts instead of using them as a crutch to become self sustaining.

12

u/Andromansis Jan 15 '22

Ironically its the states with robust social welfare programs that are self sustaining.

Its almost like the entirety of everything that has been said by the Republicans since Nixon has been nothing but falsehoods and lies.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '22

I’m saying that those states are on a welfare program from the other states and have become reliant on it with no need to change their behavior because welfare supports them.

1

u/peoplejustwannalove Jan 15 '22

Okay, but many of those states believe in an ideology that is anti socialist. That’s the irony. The blue states, which are a net gain on the US’ finance’s, believe in free handouts for the disadvantaged, or at least strong social programs on some level, and have the money to do so, and they provide money to the federal government, or at-least don’t need their money.

The red states don’t believe in any much of any handouts, favoring instead to preach about personal responsibility and the like, and yet, they lack the ability to run their own state without going into the red.

Given, wether or not a state is “profitable” is pointless, as they aren’t buisnesses, but generally it is more economically healthy to not be losing money.

However given that it seems like the US federal economy runs on black magic, who knows if debt on the state level even matters anymoee

1

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '22

Well, if you believe in welfare, you believe in supporting them regardless of their beliefs and ability to run their state. If they didn’t receive money to prop them up, they’d be forced to change. But they aren’t because blue states are ok with welfare and social programs, which is exactly what red states are on from the blue states.

1

u/KnightsWhoNi Jan 15 '22

Yet their social programs are absolute shit. Almost like it’s not that and might just be corruption and idiocy instead

1

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '22

I’m saying that those states are on a welfare program from the other states.

5

u/TucuReborn Jan 15 '22

This is basically what ended up happening to the Roman Empire. They expanded too far, social and political issues arose, and eventually were brought down by only themselves and fragmented into many smaller nations. The USA is on a similar path. We're trying to be the world peacekeeper and failing, we are rife with so many social and political issues it's staggering, and we are more divided than anyone alive can remember. We're the late stage Roman Empire, and we probably will crumble soon unless sweeping, major changes occur. And even then, those changes even if good may speed it up or just postpone it for a few decades.

5

u/Dultsboi Jan 15 '22

The Balkanization of America is more likely than most people hope. As an outsider, America feels like a crumbling empire waiting for the one spark to set the whole thing up in flames

11

u/quietguy_6565 Jan 15 '22

Neither would china and Russia. Balkanization would be bad....for everything and everyone

12

u/allanb49 Jan 15 '22

The former U.S.A

The former U.S.S.R

It's plausible

7

u/godisanelectricolive Jan 15 '22 edited Jan 15 '22

Use Canada as the connector. Most blue states are either connected to another blue state or to Canada. If Colorado can be persuaded to join then New Mexico and Colorado would also be connected to Greater Canada. So if they all join Canada then the coastal and blue Midwestern states can stay together (Hawaii can also join if they want) and still be basically tied with China in terms of GDP.

Canada's economy is close to that of Texas so that'd be a consolation for losing the wealthiest red state. Canada also has a lot of land and untapped natural resources.

8

u/Splice1138 Jan 15 '22

That's what the Jesusland map is. Basically the west coast, New England, north Midwest, and Hawaii join "The United States of Canada", and the rest of the states become Jesusland.

6

u/Kittamaru Jan 15 '22

And the name is incredibly ironic, as Jesus would be absolutely APPALLED at how much of that area treats others and tries to weaponize his teachings...

4

u/Hubers57 Jan 15 '22

I'm pretty sure north dakota at least would be red. Maybe montana and Minnesota is a coin flip either way but it leans blue

3

u/CJ_Guns Jan 15 '22

NY here. Grew up in VT with the secession push. Ready to dip as a package deal.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '22

[deleted]

11

u/Splice1138 Jan 15 '22

I agree that it wouldn't be a better situation for anyone overall, but I do think it's a case of "you need us (California) more than we need you"

2

u/fersure4 Jan 15 '22

What country are you from?

1

u/OohYeahOrADragon Jan 15 '22

Yeah but think about citizenship shit. If you make a new country, does its current population get papers saying they're automatic citizens of seceded California? What about people who were born there but have since moved? What about green card/naturalized Americans, do they need to go through another immigrant process to get citizenship in New California?

2

u/wakenbacons Jan 15 '22

And they would liberate you and your resources IMMEDIATELY.

48

u/Hotshot2k4 Jan 15 '22

The last time some states were serious about leaving the union, it didn't end well though.

27

u/erc80 Jan 15 '22

Yeah even in the capacity that they’re talking about it; it would still be a territory (which would still be wild). “Union let’s it’s best earner go independent”; is a headline that’s never going to happen.

4

u/Haughty_n_Disdainful Jan 15 '22

Frankly, my dear…

1

u/SaltLakeCitySlicker Jan 15 '22

Think of all the fashionable neckties that southern trees got to wear

1

u/Leto_ll Jan 15 '22

And we STILL pick on South Carolina for trying. Fort Jackson is right there just in case....

1

u/milk4all Jan 15 '22

But practically speaking, communities appreciate a significant economic boon from local military bases. Im not saying everyone likes having soldiers off duty on base leave all the time, just that the people who make money from them certainly do

1

u/Leto_ll Jan 16 '22

No denying. Yet that particular base is located there for the same reason Sherman got extra nasty in Columbia.

1

u/milk4all Jan 15 '22

Yeah im not advocating for it, to be clear. I am interested in what alternate reality Republic of California would look like

7

u/jwmosher Jan 15 '22

I was under the impression that a good amount of infrastructure was based off power generation and water from the Colorado river?

-2

u/ShadowSwipe Jan 15 '22 edited Jan 15 '22

You are correct, not that that alone would matter because the entire idea is ridiculous; people often have only a very shallow understanding of the topics they speak on around Reddit and that is on full display here.

2

u/milk4all Jan 15 '22

Obviously it’s complicated, and shaking a stick at any concept that is doesnt make someone any wiser. It’s clearly a matter of curiosity and nowhere did I advocate for it, but i did allow it would be fun to imagine what “decades of preparation” could be seen to make possible.

1

u/milk4all Jan 15 '22

Firstly i didnt say we should, i say we are probably most able to, and secondly i said “with decades if preparation”, and that certainly includes a massive divestment from traditional power sources. Which Californian is already doing, i mean drive anywhere and youll pass substantial solar and wind farms - this is going to be expanded and will probably only improve over time in efficiency and mainly storage, and possibly huge gains will be seen in tidal power as well. But even ignoring my last point, states already trade power, Californian could easily trade for energy so long as it was considered in the imaginary exodus, and do doubt it would be if it had to be.

4

u/allharveybman Jan 15 '22

Can Massachusetts come to?

1

u/milk4all Jan 15 '22

Speaking hypothetically, if california could somehow do this, it would almost certainly need allies to do so. Potentially Colorado and Washington. But i mean, the main reason we’d need allies is because without significant internal support, it just wouldnt be allowed by the federal government. And boy howdy would a lot of middle americans jump at the chance to put down a “california rebellion”, i can almost picture it.

4

u/Pack_Your_Trash Jan 15 '22

California has two major trade ports for international imports. The trade balance between Calofornian and the rest of the US is heavily in favor of California. I guess the price of corn might go up... but who gives a shit?

1

u/milk4all Jan 15 '22

Our main weakness might be energy but it’s likely it wont be for too long. And it could conceivably be traded as it is now with little disruption. I know that in a vacuum we’d be ok, i dont think average quality of life would improve though, and clearly it would never be tolerated

1

u/Pack_Your_Trash Jan 15 '22

Considering the percentage of our taxes that go to the boated federal defense budget, farm subsidies for corn and soy, and the shit hole republican states that can't pay their own bills Californian would have a whole lot of extra income to fund schools and healthcare. Quality of life might just improve significantly.

1

u/milk4all Jan 16 '22

What we contribute to the Feds annually is substantially more than china’s entire military budget (by contrast the entire US k-12 and university spending was just 64b in 2021). That is fucking crazy. We spent at least 3/4 trillion to keep 10 carriers, 500 various other vessels, 5400 aircraft, 6300 tanks, 11,000 drones, and 2.2 million operators all hard at work, while 50 million public school students are only allotted less than 1/10th of the military budget and its actually much worse because the spending also goes to college/university programs but the 50 million students is just k-12 students so i dont have a figure for what k-12 public schools actually receive (be careful looking it up, you will get a ton of misquoted, misunderstood figures that neglect important details like this).

3

u/thegroucho Jan 15 '22

I think you can pull it off and good luck if you do (non sarcastically).

But, equally, see Brexit.

In fact, fuck Brexit, sideways, with a cactus (the ones I see only in American movies in a desert) set on fire, wrapped in barb wire, garnished with broken glass and nettle.

1

u/milk4all Jan 15 '22

I think it would stand on it’s own, i mean. With enough planning and preparation it could probably thrive being it’s own republic. Im not suggesting we should or that lives of it’s citizens would improve suddenly or at all. Im suggesting no other state could.

Realistically, we wouldnt be allowed to leave - we occupy most of the pacific coast and gate to North America - we border Mexico and produce vast resources for the rest of America. We have silicone valley and if lost the US would no longer have any controlled stake in a vital chunk of future and current tech. Our contribution to federal taxes equals almost 1/6th of total nationwide contributions, the lion’s share of total US revenue. Just basic reasons why California wouldn’t be allowed to succeed, and why this is just made as a statement of passing curiosity

1

u/myrddyna Jan 15 '22

It's illegal. Your government would be imprisoned, and marital law would be implemented.

3

u/SweatyToothed Jan 15 '22

But I don't want to get married again... /s

2

u/milk4all Jan 15 '22

Thank you redditor #10; we’re exercising imagination, not writing a declaration for succession. There will be no brexit, no succession, no civil war, no political takeover… but we could manage. Feel free to find more informative replies regarding this.

-11

u/nocturnal111 Jan 15 '22

CA has a ton of problems and has the most debt way more than any other state in the USA. Why don't you fix your homeless population and debt first?

"California, the most populous state, has the largest amount of total debt, at $507 billion. Conversely, Wyoming has both the lowest amount of total and per capita debt, at about $2 billion or $3,437 per person."

1

u/GrafZeppelin127 Jan 15 '22

Population and debt go hand in hand, but it’s much more relevant to mention that California is currently running a budget surplus. Per capita debt, which you neglected to mention, is 14th in the Union.

Not advocating California leaving the union by any means, that’s just deranged, but there are leeches of federal funds and those that contribute more than they receive, and California is the latter, not the former. It gets $.99 for every dollar it sends, whereas the average state gets back $1.22 for every dollar it sends. This puts it at 42nd in per capita federal expenditures.

1

u/nocturnal111 Jan 15 '22

That's fine if reddit wants to believe California's some incredible Utopia. I lived in California for over 5 years it's not as great as people think it is. I lived in many states all across the country California is probably one of the most problematic States I lived in between their tax rate how horrific traffic is the amount of homeless people and crime. But you do you reddit, feel free to downvote it's not the Utopia you think it is.

Also as for Budget surplus that's probably a little misleading cuz it's probably mostly Hollywood and silicon valley paying taxes that pay California. I could be wrong but that's just my guess. Maybe the state of California does make $75 billion a year and would be fine if all those massive companies left when they secede from the US.

1

u/GrafZeppelin127 Jan 15 '22

No one is seriously suggesting California has no problems. It’s massive, it’s bound to have problems if for no other reason than sheer weight of numbers.

I’ve lived in California all my life. Do we have problems? Absolutely. NIMBYs, high housing demand driving up prices, the homelessness that those high prices engender, etcetera. But I’d take those problems any day over the problems one would face in many other states.

If we had ranked choice voting here like Maine and Alaska, then we’d really be on the cutting edge as far as the individual states go. As it stands, though, California is definitely ahead of the curve in a huge variety of ways.

1

u/nocturnal111 Jan 15 '22

It's really not I'd rather live in New York or Colorado in California California was probably one of my least favorite states to live in. Being that you lived in one state your entire life you sound a little biased on this. I've traveled across the country and have lived in multiple places California specifically Santa Monica was probably the worst issues I was dealing with on a day-to-day basis. Between heroin needles on my front yard that I was paying $3,000 a month for crime my house getting broken into. Traffic horrific public transportation then after they open the fucking Metro everybody was there all the time it got way too crowded. Id take nyc any day over LA both have high housing issues but the standard and quality of living is way better in New York.

1

u/GrafZeppelin127 Jan 15 '22

That’s your subjective experience. Perhaps your part of Santa Monica was just bad? There are certainly parts of New York and Colorado that aren’t pleasant either. You may have lived in more states, but your perspective is just as limited and subjective as mine, compared to the weight of objective data.

1

u/nocturnal111 Jan 15 '22

No I lived in multiple places in California too, I can also talk about watching homeless people shit in the street in San Francisco (never had that happen in New York or Denver) living by the plam springs area, but that was actually really shitty area so I'm not going to hold that against California. No living on the beach in Santa Monica is not shitty it was a very nice part of Santa Monica right by the Victorian. It got worse and worse as the years went on my friends tell me now it's a complete and total shit hole filled with garbage cuz they don't even clean it up during Corona and the beach is now disgusting.

1

u/milk4all Jan 15 '22

There are probably more Californian residents in total and per capita who have lived or been born elsewhere than any other state. California has a huge population in part because so many people move here.

And homeless, too. Theyre gonna live somewhere and it makes sense youd prefer to travel to a place with a warm climate and better public services. america has a homeless problem and california foots the bill by making a conscious decision to not starve them or criminalize them outright. It’s definitely not like being homeless in california is somehow easy or ideal, just that homeless people choose california for obvious reasons.

Anyway, despite you being just another murican who hates on california, youve made no relevant points. No one is advocating succession, just posing an interesting concept, and suggesting california may be best able to accomplish it. Relevant factors include spending power, man power, social progress, energy production, climate policies, agricultural production, shipping access, and preference for emigration. All of these are imperfect but most of them are adapted which is more than i can say about other states ive lived or worked in. Most of middle america, for example, is a black hole who’s primary contribution is that the population is so poor, corporations might agree to build a plant or center there, and populations are most likely to enlist in armed service. The former would benefit california, the latter not so much. But compare the ability for independence of CA with TX. Not a fair comparison. Ok, how about any state on the East coast? Doubt it. Most northern states simply lack man power and sometimes infrastructure and absolutely market power. Leaves very few contenders. Any ideas or did you just want to shit on a whole state because you paid inflated rent in a place you felt uncomfortable in?