Rebane's Ruminations
April 2015
S M T W T F S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  

ARCHIVES


OUR LINKS


YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

George Rebane

The State of Jefferson movement was started over a year ago to offer northern Californians and the citizens of its thinly populated rural counties an alternative to being ignored by the social engineers, central planners, and bureaucrats in Sacramento.  The cry from these people has been ignored for over a generation, and working within ‘the system’ of a state dedicated to serving the populous coastal urban areas which have totally different interests and goals has not worked, and shows no signs of working in the future.  If anything, the urban voters have sent more legislators to Sacramento to double down on the regulations and strictures they have already imposed on the rural north.


When the SoJ movement started, our collectivist neighbors could not contain their mirth at the foolishness of those of us who supported such a separation and creation of the 51st state (full disclosure, I was on the leadership committee of Nevada County’s SoJ contingent).  They pointed out what in their minds was the total infeasibility of creating such a jurisdiction – its finances would not work out, its economy would be in permanent shambles, and its citizens would become the nation’s poorest of the poor.

The problem with all those dismissive critiques is that they assume that SoJ would come to be and then dwell in a cocoon of eternal stasis – an environment where commerce, industry, resource harvesting and management, education, relationships, money flows, and ongoing government intrusion would remain as it is now.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

But the development I draw your attention to today is the sudden formation of a new ‘non partisan’ PAC called ‘Keep it California’ (KiC).  Something seems to have happened during these past months that has given pause to the smug voices of confident collectivists and nay-sayers, they are beginning to see the never-to-be-admitted possibility that SoJ may actually come to pass.  And even if it does not, then the growing debate surrounding SoJ, and other similar movements in states with unrepresented populations, would draw unwanted attention to the nation’s progress toward a command society that has adopted but not acknowledged the goals and objectives of Agenda21.  In the case of northern California, SoJ's growth and development must be stopped, and the region must be retained as a repository of natural resources inhabited by a docile and compliant shrinking population of the politically powerless.

The 17apr15 Union reports that KiC is now in a frenzy to quickly establish their chapters in all the counties where SoJ is active.  Their stated aim is “to monitor and respond to any incursions by Jefferson proponents.”  (emphasis mine)  They will begin these activities at the upcoming 12may15 Board of Supervisors meeting at the Rood Center during which the NC SoJ committee will be allowed one hour to present the merits of forming the new state.  KiC will be there to counter SoJ during the Q&A and public input segments of the gathering.

It is interesting that KiC also claims to support more representation and a louder voice in Sacramento for northern California, but they have not told us what things they would say with such louder voice.  In this regard they have presented nothing other than the intention to continue doing the same ol’ same ol’.  The only thing new about KiC is that it is the Left's belated and somewhat embarrassing recognition that SoJ is a real, visible, and dangerous movement which should be quashed in its cradle lest it change socialism's course in California and thus infect the rest of the nation.

Yes, the SoJ movement is putatively also non-partisan, but you have to be pretty dim not to understand that the overwhelming number of SoJ supporters are of the conservetarian bent, and that those now speaking for KiC are liberals.  And this is as it should be to explain the ideological foundations of both efforts.  One side is for ever larger government and control, and the other side is for smaller, less intrusive government and more individual liberties.

This is confirmed by SoJ opponents who base their arguments on the Left’s well-established notion of stasis.  They do not believe that a new state with a reinvigorated approach to constitutional governance can do better, or can recover from our country’s increasing pace toward socialism.  However, historically such sclerotic thinking is not and has never been in the American mindset.  In this most exceptional country the world has ever seen, the new and never-been-tried has always served as a beacon to innovation and a better life.

[19apr15 update]  We are fortunate in this post to have the enthusiastic participation of Mr Steven Frisch who joins his fellow liberals in opposition to the SoJ movement while contending that in California all is well.  In fact, according to Mr Frisch, under the load of the nation’s most strict and encumbering environmental regulations that burden us, he sees their impact as having provided a “wildly successful” environment in which these regulations have become “huge drivers of economic development and benefit in California.”  Mr Frisch’s participation in this debate provides considerable value to the reader along several avenues, all revelatory of today’s progressive mindset and methods.

For those new to these pages, Steven Frisch is one of this region’s leading liberal intellectuals who daily labors in the vineyards of collective thought as a career apologist for the Left’s consolidation of their overwhelming influence and power in the Golden State.  For the lightly read, Mr Frisch operates under the perfectly camouflaged canopy of a grant-fed NGO fortuitously (cynically?) named the Sierra Business Council.  As its CEO and public voice Mr Fisch promotes the progressive agenda both in the local councils of electeds and in our public forums.  He and his SBC minions busy themselves in assembling programs and delivering lectures to explain to our commissions and governing jurisdictions how best to comply with and enjoy the glories of policies and regulations pouring forth from Sacramento and Washington, and how higher taxes serve to benefit one and all.

With this background we may examine the course of the debate in the comment stream below.  And true to form, Mr Frisch does not recognize the economic disaster that has befallen California since 2007.  Here he rejects all reports and attendant evidence of what the nation and the world now recognize as the Great California Exodus.  For him and his, large corporations have not moved their plants and offices to greener climes.  And such enterprises have not chosen to locate their growth in other states.  There is no stream of productive Californians going to live elsewhere, to be replaced by the indigents and illegals making the state home for a third of the nation’s welfare recipients.  With more than one eighth of America’s economy, California’s fall in the Great Recession was deeper than that suffered by the nation overall, all due to its stifling regulatory environment and perversely skewed tax structure.  And for the same reasons the state has been a drag on the country, contributing to its tepid recovery.  However, Mr Frisch sees none of this, nor does he recognize the data, analyses, and reports that have made such crippled economic performance known worldwide.

Instead, the astute reader will recognize Mr Frisch presenting data that he considers to not only counter all that, but instead prove that California's economy is wildly successful.  To do that he dredges up analyses of gasoline prices in the state, and the number of increased jobs, and other figures to invite into the weeds the unsuspecting reader who may not recognize the irrelevancy of his specifics, and the presentation of baseless statistics (the raw numbers mean nothing, it’s the base-relative ratios that tell the tale).

The Left, as illustrated by Mr Frisch, does not want to look at the aggregates that impact and illustrate California’s dire straits within the nationwide context.  Our public schools’ performance, our relative GDP growth, our population dynamics and growth, rate of business formations, unemployment rate, … .   To the state’s progressive contingent all is well, all is well.

Finally, it is in recognition of all these truths that an organized, formidable, and well-funded opposition is now necessary in the form of a new PAC named ‘Keep it California’.  It is because we live in two different Californias, where we observe and experience two different realities, that the SoJ movement is not only alive and well, but has become the clear and present danger to achieving the larger objective to make California into the Potemkin posterchild of progressive governance and socialist success.

Posted in , , ,

259 responses to “Suddenly SoJ has become real (updated 19apr15)”

  1. Gregory Avatar
    Gregory

    Restoring the California Senate representation to being by County rather than by population would be better than SoJ… in fact, if the past court decision(s) saddling us with the current Sacramento monstrosity would be reversed, Democrats would probably help with SoJ to help rid Sacramento of those pesky rural NorCal counties themselves.
    ” … you have to be pretty dim not to understand that the overwhelming number of SoJ supporters are of the conservetarian bent”
    “Conservetarian” has a grand total of 631 web hits; while I applaud conservatives who lean libertarian, that label hasn’t caught on for good reasons… libertarianism isn’t very popular among conservatives in the GOP.

    Like

  2. George Rebane Avatar

    Gregory 1205pm – … and the course of the SoJ debate may be just the ticket to get us back to regional representation in California.
    I use ‘conservetarian’ in these contexts as a shortcut to any ideology of the Right that is some amalgam of conservative and libertarian thinking. It doesn’t have to have the specifics of my own conservetarianism.

    Like

  3. Barry W. Pruett Avatar
    Barry W. Pruett

    Can someone refresh my memory as to when the BOS will hear the State of Jefferson presentation. I think that I may go watch…and hang out with George and Russ. So busy lately with work that I have not time to see my friends.

    Like

  4. Barry W. Pruett Avatar
    Barry W. Pruett

    Forget it. May 12th. Caught on my second scan.

    Like

  5. Russ Steele Avatar

    Here is some information on the Keep It California leadership. It will be interesting to see what the political back grounds are of this group.
    The Principal Officers for the Keep It California PAC include:
    Cindy Ellsmore Campaign Chair Sierra County
    Kevin Hendrick Vice Chair, Spokesperson Del Norte County
    Rob Rowen Vice Chair, Campaign Headquarters Shasta County
    Dolly Verrue Secretary Siskiyou County
    John Mertes Treasurer Del Norte County
    Larry Marks Assistant Treasurer Siskiyou County
    “Keep It California is forming Local Coordinating Committees in every county where State of Jefferson proponents are active and has volunteers in 20 counties building these committees to monitor and respond to any incursions by Jefferson proponents,” stated Vice Chair, Kevin Hendrick.
    Has anyone identified any coordinate committee members in Nevada County? My guess they will be the usual suspects.

    Like

  6. Don Bessee Avatar
    Don Bessee

    Russ, Heidi Hall has been in the mix. You are correct Sir! The usual suspects. Heidi’s been running her campaign for supervisor for a bit now.

    Like

  7. Jon Avatar
    Jon

    Quite the Heidi Hall obsession there Don. I do know she has an incredible work ethic and a great track record of success in her life.

    Like

  8. Russ Steele Avatar

    Writing at Jeff’s blog Margaret Joehnck claims to be the Nevada County Coordinator for Keep It California. According to LinkedIN Margaret is a central figure in the Nevada County Democrat Central Committee.
    Rural Caucus Treasurer, Ex.Bd Member
    California Democratic Party
    2009 – Present (6 years)California
    Recording Secretary,
    Nevada County Democratic Central Committee
    2005 – Present (10 years)Nevada County, California
    Chair
    Nevada County Democratic Central Committee
    2005 – Present (10 years)Nevada County, Ca
    Another one of the usual suspects.

    Like

  9. Jon Avatar
    Jon

    Wow, what a revelation you’ve uncovered. Supporters of California are progressive. Who knew?

    Like

  10. Gregory Avatar
    Gregory

    “Supporters of California are progressive. Who knew?”
    No, the point was “Keep it California” activists are partisan Democrats (arguably more regressive than progressive) who enjoy being the party in what has become a one party state.
    Global warming has been the central theme of California Democrats for about a decade and the scientific consensus facade AB32 is based upon is crumbling. From the high speed train to how we generate electrical power, the state is being operated on the principle that we must exorcise carbon dioxide from our lives, short of ceasing to breathe (iirc gases from exhalation are about 40,000ppm CO2). What happens to political power in California if (meaning when) the AGW meme collapses?

    Like

  11. Joe Koyote Avatar
    Joe Koyote

    Why the big deal about “the usual suspects” as if you all are not “the usual suspects” when it come to tea party causes like Jefferson. So what?

    Like

  12. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    Gregory hit the nail on the head. The democrats are big government lovers and they like to be told how to live their lives and we on the right don’t. If you want to see the future of the whole country look at our once wonderful state.

    Like

  13. Gregory Avatar
    Gregory

    “they like to be told how to live their lives and we on the right don’t”
    What you mean “we”, Kemosabe?
    Democrats want to have Democrats in charge of coercing others to do what Democrats know is right. Coercive utopians incarnate. Republicans want all Americans to be free to live like upstanding conservative Republicans. Republicans are from Mars, Democrats are from Venus.

    Like

  14. Steven Frisch Avatar
    Steven Frisch

    I don’t think reasonable people need to debate you about climate change Gregory, because regardless of the cause of climate change, the policies we have put in place to mitigate the impacts of climate change are proving wildly successful and to be huge drivers of economic development and benefit in California.
    According to recent studies released by UC Davis “Status Review of California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard – April 2015 Issue” the LCFS accounted for about one-third of one cent per gallon of gasoline used for blending in 2014.
    The reported average fuel carbon intensity (AFCI) of all alternative fuels included in the LCFS program declined 15 percent from 86.4 gCO2e/MJ the first year of the program (2011), to 73.5 gCO2e/MJ in 2014.
    Even the Oil industry is saying the Low Carbon Fuel Standard had no impact on prices, despite the huffing and puffing here:
    “California gasoline prices didn’t jump when the state’s cap-and-trade program first expanded to include motor fuels because oil sellers continued making healthy profits, an oil business representative said yesterday.
    Oil distributors in January were able to eat most costs associated with fuels falling under the carbon emissions cap, Jay McKeeman, a vice president at California Independent Oil Marketers Association (CIOMA), told a joint hearing of the state Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee and Transportation and Housing Committee.
    “If you look at fuel prices as of Jan. 1 — between Jan. 1 and through the middle, later part of January — you would expect to see a 10-cents-a-gallon increase because that’s basically what the fuels under the cap assessment is on gasoline,” McKeeman said. But “you don’t see it.” http://www.eenews.net/login?r=%2Fclimatewire%2Fstories%2F1060015617
    National analysts see prices dropping in the future: “Gas prices to drop to lowest level in six years this summer, agency predicts – An ongoing glut of crude oil will give U.S. drivers this summer the lowest seasonal gasoline prices in six years, the government predicts. Even in California — where prices recently surged a dollar above the national average, sparking accusations of collusion by oil refineries — analysts expect gasoline to be the cheapest it’s been in years.” LA Times article<“>http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-gas-prices-20150408-story.html?track=rss&gt;
    And according to the California Energy Commission the state currently gets just shy of 25% of its energy from renewable sources, and is solidly on track to get 33% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020.
    According to Bloomberg: “The race for renewable energy has passed a turning point. The world is now adding more capacity for renewable power each year than coal, natural gas, and oil combined. And there’s no going back.
    The shift occurred in 2013, when the world added 143 gigawatts of renewable electricity capacity, compared with 141 gigawatts in new plants that burn fossil fuels, according to an analysis presented Tuesday at the Bloomberg New Energy Finance annual summit in New York. The shift will continue to accelerate, and by 2030 more than four times as much renewable capacity will be added….
    The price of wind and solar power continues to plummet, and is now on par or cheaper than grid electricity in many areas of the world. Solar, the newest major source of energy in the mix, makes up less than 1 percent of the electricity market today but will be the world’s biggest single source by 2050, according to the International Energy Agency.”
    Almost 11 million customers of the California’s for-profit electric utilities will be getting credits averaging $27 per household on either their April or May bills. All of the proceeds of the Cap and Trade program coming from electrical generation are REBATED to customers to offset any increased costs. These credits to offset costs started last year and will begin place at least until 2020….but of course by then we may actually be seeing reductions in energy pricing as renewables are reduced in cost according to many market analysts.
    In addition this year solar manufacture and installation passed natural gas production as the number one energy related employment area in the California economy. California now has more installed utility scale and distributed generation solar than all of the other 49 states combined. The rise of distributed solar is an important hedge against catastrophic events such as “the big one” finally hitting or wildfire taking out trans-Sierra-Cacade transmission lines.
    California maintained and expanded its lead as the #1 place for venture capital investment in the country in 2014. A large minority of that VC investment is in the energy field.
    “California-based companies received about 56 percent of all U.S. venture capital dollars in 2014, the state’s highest share of venture activity since the dot com boom of the early 2000s. Over the past 15 years, investment activity has steadily become more concentrated in California and a few other states. In 2009, about 67 percent of all deals and 74 percent of venture capital dollars flowed to the top five states. By 2014, those states’ share of venture dollars grew to 80 percent, according to NVCA/Pricewaterhouse Coopers data. A recent Harvard Business Review article, however, suggests that startups are receiving first-round funding in more metropolitan areas than ever.” http://ssti.org/blog/useful-stats-share-us-venture-capital-investment-state-2009-2014
    And finally, new research about both public views about Climate Change and its causes (see Yale polling) and extreme weather events is moving clearly to the SGW side. Even conservatives are now talking about a Carbon Tax as a means of mitigating the impacts of climate change.
    We have been waiting for your predicted “collapse of the AGW meme.” for a few years now and it ain’t coming. Seems like the market is deciding and your side is losing…every damn day.
    Instead of sitting on our back porches pontificating places like Nevada County should be rushing to the opportunity to become renewable energy leaders and take advantage of the capital flowing to solving the problem.
    But that’s OK buddy, your howl will be lost in the wind here, while other pragmatic people do the heavy lifting. We will look back on the dinosaurs quite fondly.

    Like

  15. fish Avatar
    fish

    Posted by: Steven Frisch | 18 April 2015 at 09:30 AM
    Wow…….another intensity 5 Frischian Sirocco! So much typing to say nyah, nyah, nay!

    Like

  16. Jon Avatar
    Jon

    Just because a minority of people don’t like the majority progressive policies of CA does not mean they can take their marbles, go home and secede. I didn’t like the racist, regressive policies of the southern state where I used to live, but there was no progressive movement to secede. For folks constantly spouting FREEDOM at every breath, we again remind you- you have the right to move to Idaho or Arizona, places more in keeping with right wingers.

    Like

  17. Jon Avatar
    Jon

    Steve nailed it this morning with facts and reality. The US and the World is rapidly moving toward renewables, while the denier dinosaurs stick their heads in the sand and try to imagine returning to the 50s, where life was supposedly better. Just amazing, sad and funny at the same time.

    Like

  18. MikeL Avatar
    MikeL

    Wow that is great, the great all powerful government lords will refund back “all” of the proceeds of the crap and trade scam back to the rate payers. I find it odd that you do not see a problem with this. I guess it depends on what your definition of all is.

    Like

  19. Steven Frisch Avatar
    Steven Frisch

    Posted by: fish | 18 April 2015 at 09:38 AM
    Typical Fish–comment on the length or complexity of a post rather than its content 🙂 You sound kind of like Todd who thinks that data is elitism.
    That’s OK Fish, I don’t expect ideologically driven inferior intellects to actually read and source data; but, as your superior, I will source mine, so people can see it is not just the ravings of an armchair bound lunatic.

    Like

  20. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    Progressives want to be ruled so they don’t have to think. Frisch and “jon” prove it. When a “jon” makes fun of people calling for less intrusion we all know they will be the commissars of their communist beliefs.
    Cap and trade for a gas we all breathe out and plants need for life cracks me up. If you are dumkof like the progressives it makes sense. If you are for freedom it is anathema.

    Like

  21. fish Avatar
    fish

    Posted by: Steven Frisch | 18 April 2015 at 09:55 AM
    BURN!

    Like

  22. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    LOL! Fish cracks me up!

    Like

  23. George Boardman Avatar

    A small group of nervous Nellies on the left wringing their hands hardly makes SoJ real. The May 12 supes meeting will make for good theater, and nobody in Sacramento or Washington will care if the supes endorse SoJ.

    Like

  24. Steven Frisch Avatar
    Steven Frisch

    I would be happy to debate Gregory head to head in a Team Policy Debate (standard collegiate debate format) modified to include teams of 3 and some direct cross examination and questions form the audience.
    Greg can bring his science guys and I will bring mine.
    I think I would want to recruit Ben Santer and Peter Gleick. Gregory could bring Rose Koire and Anthony Watts (I’m sure Russ could introduce you).
    This could be in the spirit of the great Buckley debates (I loved Bill Buckley for those).

    Like

  25. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    Hey I would live to see Gregory take your arguments apart and expose the lies of the “global warmers” like you. That would be fantastic! I am afraid you would be defeated handily though. Gregory s much smarter.

    Like

  26. fish Avatar
    fish

    Posted by: Steven Frisch | 18 April 2015 at 10:15 AM
    That’s an event I might drive up the hill to attend. Let us know when you can pull it together.

    Like

  27. Steven Frisch Avatar
    Steven Frisch

    I would make Greg’s little head explode. He does not have the temperament. In a real debate with there are actual rules of evidence, and decorum and behavior standards.

    Like

  28. MikeL Avatar
    MikeL

    Steve, the first link requires a login….please provide the login info..
    The LA times article states that the drop in fuel prices are a result of the glut of oil in the market…nice try to say that the crap in trade scam is having no effect on fuel prices.

    Like

  29. fish Avatar
    fish

    I would make Greg’s little head explode.
    So your debate proposal is theoretical only?
    Pity.

    Like

  30. Steven Frisch Avatar
    Steven Frisch

    No Fish, totally real, I would take him on any time. But only if the rules and moderation is done by a trusted third party under actual formal debate rules.

    Like

  31. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    Fish I am afraid Frisch is really just afraid to debate Gregory. So as all liberals do they start fine tuning the rules. What a hoot!

    Like

  32. fish Avatar
    fish

    Posted by: Steven Frisch | 18 April 2015 at 10:29 AM
    Then this is something we’ll hear more about in days to come?
    As I said….that’s one that would merit a drive up the hill. Put Nevada Citys gadfly on it……I’m sure that organizing this is right in jeffys wheelhouse.

    Like

  33. Steven Frisch Avatar
    Steven Frisch

    Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 18 April 2015 at 10:29 AM
    Todd, I ain’t ‘fine tuning’ the rules, see my original comment, it clearly stated “Team Policy Debate” standards and I suggested some modifications to make it more interesting.

    Like

  34. Steven Frisch Avatar
    Steven Frisch

    Mike here is the direct link, perhaps you can to it through a third party news site. My subscription just ran out this morning ……kind of bummed now I own another $60 bucks.
    I will poke around and see if I can cli the text and the author.
    http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/stories/1060015733/print

    Like

  35. Steven Frisch Avatar
    Steven Frisch

    Posted by: MikeL | 18 April 2015 at 10:23 AM
    “….nice try to say that the crap in trade scam is having no effect on fuel prices.”
    Oh, and perhaps you missed the nuance of my post: I used one source to back up the fact that bringing fuels under the Cap is having no real impact on prices, and another source to back up the fact that prices are dropping. I did not connect the analysts statements in the LAT article to the UC Davis study.

    Like

  36. MikeL Avatar
    MikeL

    But it is having an effect on price…if the requirement was not there then the price could be lowered by the amount that the producers are paying for the crap and trade scam. Of courses than the non needed government employees who supposedly refund ALL of the proceeds that I and everyone else are paying wouldn’t be out of a job. Sad really.
    I will look at the other info you sent.

    Like

  37. MikeL Avatar
    MikeL

    Would not wouldn’t…

    Like

  38. Steven Frisch Avatar
    Steven Frisch

    Mike, the UCD study pegs the price of Cap and Trade so far at 3/10th of a cent per gallon. The point of posting the LAT article was to show other market factors are much more influential in the price.

    Like

  39. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    Cap and trade. Hmmm. I see PG and E and SCE are the biggest traders. They are utilities who can get increases to their rates as they are forced to “trade”. Amazing!
    Looks like we can’t see that debate fish. Mr. know-it-all appears to be hedging.

    Like

  40. fish Avatar
    fish

    Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 18 April 2015 at 11:13 AM
    We’ll see Todd. I think this one might have legs.
    Give it a little time.

    Like

  41. George Rebane Avatar

    StevenF 930am – Thank you for the extended exposition on current (progressive?) attitudes about the impact of government mandated and subsidized alternative sources of energy. Many of the points you about the economic progress of California due to the state’s having upped the ante on federal mandates for renewables are diametrically opposite that the data presented by more skeptical scientists and students of climate change on sites like Anthony Watt’s blog.
    I think it’s important not to confuse achievement with analysts’ predictions of what is to come. This is the same crowd that is famous for always missing the mark and being surprised by reality. Your discussion of the marginal components of California gasoline prices (from your cited UC Davis study) is both confusing and, I believe, irrelevant. We need none of that to divert us from the plot of California prices at the pump vs that of, say, Arizona or Nevada over time.
    But even that doesn’t get to the heart of the matter that really centers around your claim that “the policies we have put in place to mitigate the impacts of climate change are proving wildly successful and to be huge drivers of economic development and benefit in California.” That claim needs to be examined in light of how California’s economy is actually developing, given the market mangling government subsidies received by the state’s ‘sustainable energy industry’.
    Venture capitalists are not dummies about where they invest their money. If they believe that government will continue to mangle the markets guaranteeing the profits of certain companies, then they will invest in them. That says nothing about the surety that Sacramento, or Washington for that matter, will be able to sustain such subsidies and policies under their respective guns.
    Please don’t confuse any of this as denying the benefits of renewable energy and the technology developments that are making it more affordable. And I’m not reopening the debate on the reality and dimensions of AGW and the unsubstantiated claims that man knows how to control any of those dimensions. But I am looking for any metrics of California’s economy that reflect the wild successes that give rise to your joy. And I would view the mandated contributions to, say, the state’s recent GDP numbers with a somewhat gimlet eye, since we have countless examples over the years as to what happens when governments suddenly decide to no longer subsidize and thereby strand the succored enterprises to the mercies of the market. Some of the realities that continue to describe our state are that –
    1. Unsubsidized private businesses continue to either leave the state or expand their operations elsewhere, no large employer will build their new plant in the state;
    2. California has a nationally recognized and admittedly defective tax policy that simplistically just burdens its financially successful citizens;
    3. California has the highest number and fraction of the nation’s poor, welfare recipients, illegals, and other demographic deficits;
    4. California has the nation’s largest amount of unfunded liabilities;
    5. A large cohort of the successfully retireds continue to leave the state to financially greener pastures thereby depleting this tax base;
    6. Sacramento continues its insane eco-policies such as to amplify the effects of our cyclical drought and cause us to import lumber while nurturing the growth of fire-prone forests.
    You also are among those who continue to believe that a good fairy will bring subsidized industry to Nevada County that will take hold here despite economic realities and other quality of life factors that mitigate against such business decisions. However that may be possible if Sacramento passes a ‘Renewable Energy Development in Rural Counties Act’ that by fiat requires at least 50% of all such technology and manufacturing be done in counties with a population under 100,000. Such a law is not beyond the progressive mavens that today populate California’s policy makers.

    Like

  42. Stevenfrisch Avatar
    Stevenfrisch

    Re: Todd’s 11.14 am
    I am not hedging one bit you big dummie. Read my original post. It’s right there. Team Debate Rules. No one is interested in yet another venue for an unsourced throw down. They are a waste of time. Real debates are anchored by facts with cited sources.

    Like

  43. Stevenfrisch Avatar
    Stevenfrisch

    Wow, there is so much that is either inaccurate or deserves longer rebuttal in George’s 11:22 post that I’ll have to wait till I’m not on my I-phone. 😇

    Like

  44. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    As a professional and prolific bloviator Frisch, please don’t hols back

    Like

  45. Steven Frisch Avatar
    Steven Frisch

    Posted by: George Rebane | 18 April 2015 at 11:22 AM
    “extended exposition” George, really? Et tu Brute? Your posts are long enough to read, rebuttals should have facts, which I provide.
    “subsidized alternative sources of energy” Conventional fossil fuel energy is subsidized as well to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars a year. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. We subsidize things to receive social goods. You may not agree with the social good, but subsidizing solar is no different than subsidizing oil, coal or natural gas.
    “diametrically opposite that the data presented by more skeptical scientists” Cite your sources, I cited mine.
    “….like Anthony Watt’s blog.” The weatherman?
    “I think it’s important not to confuse achievement with analysts’ predictions of what is to come.” I did no such thing. We are already at 19% renewable, 5% of that solar, with California the number on solar producer in the nation. Present day, not yet to come.
    “We need none of that to divert us from the plot of California prices at the pump vs that of, say, Arizona or Nevada over time.” once again who is confusing apples with oranges? The price of gasoline in California is a function of many other factors such as limited pipeline capacity from the midwest, using primarily Alaskan crude for refining, and the change between winter and summer blend gasoline. We could go back to never being able to see the San Bernardino and Santa Monica Mountain but then you would be paying $6000 per year for increased incidents of childhood asthma.
    “That claim needs to be examined in light of how California’s economy is actually developing,” California is progressing faster than any other state economy in the nation right now except Colorado, according to Business Insider magazine.
    http://www.businessinsider.com/state-economic-growth-rankings-2014-8#2-california-49
    “Venture capitalists are not dummies about where they invest their money” Yes, and that is why California has been in the top 5 VC investment states every year for the last 10 years, recession or boom. You may be worried about ‘sustaining’ but VC sure as heck is not.
    “But I am looking for any metrics of California’s economy that reflect the wild successes that give rise to your joy.” See Business Insider above–high tax or not California is booming.
    “…we have countless examples over the years as to what happens when governments suddenly decide to no longer subsidize and thereby strand the succored enterprises to the mercies of the market.” Perhaps you do not fully understand Cap and Trade, it is a permanent market mechanism for the foreseeable future, baked in until at least 2030 after this years legislative session, and probably 2050.
    According to the California Department of Finance it will be raising $4-$5 Billion per year in one to re-inevest in de-carbonizing our economy. The revenues are tracking ahead of DOF estimates. The allowance market has been rock solid and stable, suffering none of the volatility of the EU or Chicago Climate Exchange markets and has been operating rock solid for three years.
    n the interest of not popping the little heads of Todd and Fish who seem to loath reading I will respond to your numeric points in another post.

    Like

  46. Steven Frisch Avatar
    Steven Frisch

    http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-california-jobs-20150307-story.html
    “California added 150,000 more jobs last year than previously believed, signaling that economic growth in the state far outpaced the rest of the nation.
    The new numbers, released Friday by the state, show California added a total of 471,200 jobs in 2014 — more than 47% higher than the previous estimate of 320,300 new jobs. The revisions boosted California’s rate of job growth to 3.1% last year, much faster than the rate of 2.3% for the nation.”

    Like

  47. fish Avatar
    fish

    In the interest of not popping the little heads of Todd and Fish who seem to loath reading I will respond to your numeric points in another post.
    I love to read Steve….I just find myself nodding off to some of your longer screeds. No offense but I daily bulldoze through bureaucratese and many of your longer posts are similar in structure and tone.
    Let me know how the debate is shaping up….wouldn’t miss it.

    Like

  48. George Rebane Avatar

    StevenF 152pm – you continue to cite large numbers that do not compare California’s performance with that of the nation. Calling out prices of gasoline and percent of subsidized renewables is not the point. And most certainly claiming that fossil and renewables are equally subsidized is a bit specious – especially of how you define fossil subsidies. But remove such subsidies from both and then see what happens to renewables.
    But the bottom line is still how has California done relative to the other states. There the US Bureau of Economic Analysis is pretty direct with its data. California’s raw per capita GDP ranks 18th in the nation, and when adjusted for cost of living then we drop to 39th. That goes a long way to explain the hurt that California imposes on its citizens.
    And from the vantage of relative GDP, California has lagged the national growth rate since 2007, and thereby has been a drag on the nation’s economic recovery since are about 1/8 of the nation’s economy.
    The data you present falls somewhere between irrelevant to diversionary. It is common practice to attempt rescuing a losing point concerning quantitative data streams to cite a more favorable higher derivative when the actual amount (zeroth’s derivative) doesn’t serve. So if, say, the price is too high, one talks about the rate at which the price is dropping, and if that rate is not adequate, then the argument reverts to how the rate is coming down (i.e. the rate of the rate), and so on.
    In addition to stifling laws, regulations, and codes, our tax rates are among the nation’s highest for both personal, corporate, and sales. And quoting raw numbers instead of relative percentages is really a bamboozle for the uninitiated in these matters. Who care that an absolute number of new jobs in 2014 were “47% higher than the previous estimate of 320,300 jobs.” Having dived deeper into the recession, we would expect some recovery rates to also be higher, that is natural behavior economies that don’t imply that such economies were superbly managed.
    In sum, your arguments are based on the most curious conclusion that more regulatory roadblocks to business creation and operation, and higher taxes on everyone (save government picked winners)is the route to economic growth and prosperity. The comparative data show otherwise.

    Like

Leave a comment