July 11, 2009

The Economist: California v. Texas

The Economist has an editorial comparing California and Texas combining its usual unthinking prejudices with some actual insights (likely drawn from my stuff).

It's not surprising that a lot of the politicians most responsible for the Minority Mortgage Meltdown in California -- such as George W. Bush, Karl Rove, and Clinton's HUD Secretary (and later Countrywide director and frontman on its trillion dollar pledge of lending to the "underserved") Henry Cisneros -- are Texans. Their policies weren't incredibly harmful in Texas, which they understood fairly well, but were in California, which they didn't.

Do keep in mind that California was much more impacted by immigration over the last generation than Texas: in the 2000 Census, 26% of California's residents were foreign-born versus only 14% of Texas's.
AMERICA’S recent history has been a relentless tilt to the West—of people, ideas, commerce and even political power. California and Texas, the nation’s two biggest states, are the twin poles of the West, but very different ones. For most of the 20th century the home of Silicon Valley and Hollywood has been the brainier, sexier, trendier of the two: its suburbs and freeways, its fads and foibles, its marvellous miscegenation have spread around the world. Texas, once a part of the Confederacy, has trailed behind: its cliché has been a conservative Christian in cowboy boots, much like a certain recent president. But twins can change places. Is that happening now?

It is easy to find evidence that California is in a funk (see article). At the start of this month the once golden state started paying creditors, including those owed tax refunds, business suppliers and students expecting grants, in IOUs. ...

Plenty of American states have budget crises; but California’s illustrate two more structural worries about the state. Back in its golden age in the 1950s and 1960s, it offered middle-class people, not just techy high-fliers, a shot at the American dream—complete with superb schools and universities, and an enviable physical infrastructure. These days California’s unemployment rate is running at 11.5%, two points ahead of the national average. In such Californian cities as Fresno, Merced and El Centro, jobless rates are higher than in Detroit. Its roads and schools are crumbling. Every year, over 100,000 more Americans leave the state than enter it.

... Not that Californian government comes cheap: it has the second-highest top level of state income tax in America (after Hawaii, of all places).

Why is it surprising that the state with the nicest climate and the state with the second nicest climate have the highest and second highest state income taxes? California's income taxes are intended to exploit people willing to pay heavily to live in California. For example, golfer Freddie Couples lives in Santa Barbara because he can afford to live anywhere. In contrast, a skinflint like Tiger Woods officially moved from his native California to income-tax free Florida on the day he turned pro in 1996 to evade the California income tax.
Indeed, high taxes, coupled with intrusive regulation of business and greenery taken to silly extremes, have gradually strangled what was once America’s most dynamic state economy. Chief Executive magazine, to take just one example, has ranked California the very worst state to do business in for each of the past four years.

By contrast, Texas was the best state in that poll. It has coped well with the recession, with an unemployment rate two points below the national average and one of the lowest rates of housing repossession. In part this is because Texan banks, hard hit in the last property bust, did not overexpand this time. But as our special report this week explains, Texas also clearly offers a different model, based on small government. It has no state capital-gains or income tax, and a business-friendly and immigrant-tolerant attitude.
... And as happens to fashionable places, some erstwhile weaknesses now seem strengths (flat, ugly countryside makes it easier for Dallas-Fort Worth to expand than mountain-and-sea-locked LA ...

That's connection between topography, home prices, and politics is straight out of my stuff.
Texas also gets on better with Mexico than California does.

Let's unpack that "immigrant-tolerant" idea a bit. California is clearly more liberal than Texas, so ideologically Californians are supposed to be more "pro-diversity," but that works out as true mostly in theory and in public pronouncements. As I've long pointed out, elite Californians feel very little cultural connection to their Latino servitors. California's elites find nothing more boring than Mexicans. In contrast, Texas has a more rough-hewn culture, including at the elite level, so Texans tend to feel more in common culturally with immigrants from culturally-backward Mexico.

Also, there are some old elite Mexican-American families in San Antonio who fled the Mexican Revolution of a century ago who are part of the Texas Establishment. In California, there aren't any elite old money Mexican-American families that I can think of. (There are WASP families in Pasadena who have one or two land grant Californio grandees in their family trees -- enterprising Bostonians and New Yorkers were already taking over California by marrying the daughters of rich landowners before the U.S. military made it official -- but that's about it.)

And, it's not uncommon for rich Mexicans from Monterrey to visit Houston for shopping and surgery, although they are most likely to move to Miami. In contrast, rich Mexicans avoid Los Angeles like a plaguespot -- too many poor Mexicans here, I guess.

In general, Texas and northeastern Mexico, the most advanced part of Mexico, aren't particularly divided by topography, so there are more business contacts, whereas California is separated from the bulk of the Mexican population by an unpopulated desert in northwestern Mexico.

So, the political dynasties of Mexico and Texas, such as the Salinases and the Bushes, are quite friendly with each other, while Mexican political corruption in California is largely home-brewed.
American conservatives have seized on this reversal of fortune: Arthur Laffer, a Reaganite economist, hails the Texan model over the Gipper’s now hopelessly leftish home. Despite all this, it still seems too early to cede America’s future to the Lone Star state. To begin with, that lean Texan model has its own problems. It has not invested enough in education, and many experts rightly worry about a “lost generation” of mostly Hispanic Texans with insufficient skills for the demands of the knowledge economy.

Actually, Hispanic Texans do much better on the National Assessment of Educational Proficiency exams than California Hispanics: 26% of Texas Hispanics score Proficient or Advanced on 8th Grade Math versus 11% of California Hispanics.

In general, Mexican-Americans appear to thrive more in a cultural and economically conservative Republican state. Liberal policies, in contrast, works best in a high IQ / highly cooperative state with few NAMs, such as Minnesota.
Now immigration is likely to reconvert Texas from Republican red to Democratic blue; Latinos may justly demand a bigger, more “Californian” state to educate them and provide them with decent health care. But Texas could then end up with the same over-empowered public-sector unions who have helped wreck government in California.

The problem is that, as traditional tax-and-spend voters, Mexicans subvert conservative politics in a state, both adding Democratic voters and driving out Republican voters. Thus, California, which voted GOP in 9 of 10 Presidential elections from 1952 through 1988 has voted Democratic five elections in a row. Over 90% of Hispanic elected officials are Democrats.

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

75 comments:

curious said...

steve, i've, as i'm sure you have, always wondered how many media/intellectual/"important" and influential types regularly read your site.

i wonder if there's anyway of estimating.....

anonymous poll?

Anonymous said...

Thus, California, which voted GOP in 9 of 10 Presidential elections from 1952 through 1988 has voted Democratic five elections in a row.

Actually, California moved left because white voters started to vote Democrat during the Clinton administration. Immigrants had little to do with California's recent drive left.

For instance, McCain actually lost the white vote in California to Obama by 5 percentage points.

The truly important difference between politics in California and Texas is that white Texans are smart enough not to vote Democrat.

Svigor said...

That's connection between topography, home prices, and politics is straight out of my stuff.

Sometimes I'm "eh" about your claims of having your stuff swiped. Usually I agree with you. But this one's pretty blatant.

Anonymous said...

Actually, Hispanic Texans do much better on the National Assessment of Educational Proficiency exams than California Hispanics: 26% of Texas Hispanics score Proficient or Advanced on 8th Grade Math versus 11% of California Hispanics.

This probably has more to do with white admixture in Texan Hispanics than culture.

Ronduck said...

Actually, a lot of the politicians responsible for the mess are not texans. Most of the politicians responsible for the mess in California are from California. This includes decades long support for the Democratic party, liberalism in general and a political class that is blind to the failures of both Blacks and Hispanics. Texas has some of these flaws, but the Californios were setting themselves up for failure over the long term, even without the Texans.

Anonymous said...

In California, there aren't any elite old money Mexican-American families that I can think of
umm santa barbara? they often intermarried with new england sea captains and merchants...Guiterez, (sp) and others

Anonymous said...

ps by old mexican you mean old spanish families...no? because very few if any had any metizo blood

Anonymous said...

Steve, you write as if things will just go on - with things getting slightly worse or slightly better depending on the politics of the people voting. Surely you can see the we are accelerating to an end. The numbers of dollars borrowed are increasing at an increasing rate. In NJ there was an income tax raise a few years ago, then another a year ago, then one announced now retroactive to a half year ago. We are due for another in about 15 minutes.

Europe managed to have practically unlimited governments without the state taking everything, but I think that after WWII Europe was basically a vassel of the US. We pay all their defense and buy a good portion of their goods. Now that the good ol USA is going all out for looting, expect Europe to squirm more under the American umbrella, and when it sees we are unable to do anything, expect them to indulge in their proclivity.

Chris Anderson said...

Yep, that's a pretty blatant rip-off of your theories. I hope there's some satisfaction in a kind of "sincerest flattery" way.

If you're taking requests I'd like to see you write more about trust/cooperation and how it works with different political orientations.

Richard Hoste said...

"its marvellous miscegenation"

WTF?

Anonymous said...

I support immigration control but let me play devil's advocate.

If the GOP is not going to do anything about immigration control, isn't it smart to pander to Hispanics (by supporting amnesty, quotas, hate crime double standards, bilingual education ...)?

Whites/conservatives are nowhere close to starting a third party and have nowhere else to go. The GOP has wisely given up on blacks but perhaps they can get 50% of the Hispanic vote (and maybe more of the Asian vote) if they pander on a few issues.

Anonymous said...

If the GOP is not going to do anything about immigration control, isn't it smart to pander to Hispanics (by supporting amnesty, quotas, hate crime double standards, bilingual education ...)?



No, because Hispanics don't give a crap about that nonsense. If the GOP wants the Hispanic vote it will have to buy it via new spending programs on education and health care.

The GOP supports amnesty, quotas, etc because the Chamber of Commerce wants them, not because Hispanics do.

Anonymous said...

If the Church was socializing Mexicans to get married before having babies, instead of serving as a vehicle for La Raza indoctrination, your clever plan might work. No population of single mothers and visitor males is going to vote for anything but handouts, however.

Anonymous said...

The ECONOMIST magazine wrote:


" its suburbs and freeways, its fads and foibles, its MARVELLOUS MISCENEGATION have spread around the world."



I wonder how MARVELLOUS that MISCENEGATION would be if the editors of the ecnomists all seen their precious daughters marry non-white men who were not their fellow members of the elite? I have a feeling they wouldn't like it.


M

Anonymous said...

Good lord. I couldn't get past the first paragraph. I have nothing against California, but I don't need some dude in England telling me that's where I want to live.

Silicon valley and Hollywood? Yea, they are there and they are cool. Most people in California aren't actors or internet pioneers (or whatever). And most people know this. Except for opinion writers in the MSM. This is just shamefully ignorant.

Anonymous said...

"Why is it surprising that the state with the nicest climate and the state with the second nicest climate have the highest and second highest state income taxes? "

This is what I try to explain to Democratic morons that like in Ohio and Michigan. They like to look at San Francisco and say, "We should try that in Detroit". But San Francisco can have a $12 an hour living wage or whatever, but in Detroit that just drives all retail out to the suburbs. I tell people that places like Dayton and Toledo compete with the Ft. Wayne's and Ft. Worth's of the flyover country, where business is dictated by where costs are cheapest. Then I get bashed for not appreciating all the unique qualities that obviously bring so many people to the region like Toledo's old houses and "neighborhoods with character".

Stopped Clock said...

Minnesota's public schools are now 23% nonwhite, and the under-5 population has crossed over 25%.

Anonymous said...

"California's elites find nothing more boring than Mexicans. In contrast, Texas has a more rough-hewn culture, including at the elite level, so Texans tend to feel more in common culturally with immigrants from culturally-backward Mexico."

I think there is some truth to the generalization that Germanic tribes advanced themselves by ethnic cleansing and genocide, whereas Celtic tribes advanced themselves by assimilation.

Scotch-Irish Americans, who were the dominant group in creating the Texas culture, have innate skills both for warfare and for assimilation.

Think of the soldiers Andrew Jackson commanded at New Orleans. Try to imagine a German general attempting to lead that same mixed medley.

One key to this is that the Scotch-Irish have a Celtic concept of social equality. That's the concept that made King Arthur's round table so round.

Coming from this background, I recall one time, in the early days of personal computing, when I was asked by a reporter from Le Monde, "What class of people uses online services in the U.S.A.?"

"We do not have classes of people in this country," I said.

PeterW said...

Depressing thought from Economist's Texas article: small government->prosperity->redistributive interest groups->big government->stagnation.

Steve Sailer said...

"Minnesota's public schools are now 23% nonwhite, and the under-5 population has crossed over 25%."

Well, that's the problem -- you don't have much of an intellectual immune system in the far north. That's why places like Minnesota and Maine are always signing up to take loads of people from some country that has torn itself to pieces through general nastiness, such as Somalia. "Sure, we'll take the entire cast of 'Road Warrior' as refugees. What could possibly go wrong?"

TangoMan said...

Actually, Hispanic Texans do much better on the National Assessment of Educational Proficiency exams than California Hispanics: 26% of Texas Hispanics score Proficient or Advanced on 8th Grade Math versus 11% of California Hispanics.

Maybe this nugget of information, as well as associated lifestyle and economic data points, can be leveraged by Republican Presidential candidates to wedge Hispanics away from the Democrats. The usual modus operandi of Republican strategists is to craft policies that they think will appeal to Hispanics, and this always fails to be the "breakthrough" that is hoped for. Why dilute the conservativism for no gain?

Better to point out the success, relative as it is, of Texas Hispanics in terms of income, lifestyle, academics, etc and tell all the Hispanics around the country that this success is the result of Republican policies. Imagine a campaign rally in LA where the candidate tells the audience how well the Texan Hispanics are doing in relation to the ones in California and then lays the blame on the Democrats for keeping the Hispanics bound to a low station in life in order to further the careers of Democratic politicians. Isn't it time to break free and follow the Republican road to prosperity?

IOW, Don't change the message, make people want to gain the benefits that flow from following the message.

Rhett Butler said...

The left leaning writers at the Economist should add the Karl Denninger website to their browser bookmarks next to iSteve. Because if they read Denninger then they'd be likely to grasp that the following statement is complete nonsense:

"Now immigration is likely to reconvert Texas from Republican red to Democratic blue; Latinos may justly demand a bigger, more “Californian” state to educate them and provide them with decent health care."

HERE'S THE NEWS: America has entered a period of extreme economic collapse and in the aftermath there will be no "bigger, more “Californian” state(s)" anywhere in the USA. The future will bring the opposite ugly eventuality: much smaller government at the federal, state and local levels. It will be ugly because the teat has run dry and the welfare junkies will not behave when forced to go cold turkey. But it will happen. Because we as a nation are financially overextended like never before in history (no the post ww2 period is not comparable to today's situation) and there will be much lower tax revenues available because we will be paying the humongous levels of public and private debt for many years henceforth.

And what the hell does "justly demand" mean anyway? Oh yeah, the Economist wants open borders and global socialism.

And immigration? We are going to have mass deportations and a total immigration timeout in this country beginning in 2011-2012 due to massive civil unrest and extreme discontent throughout the land.

Political anxiety over the 10% unemployment level is today's news (by the way that number is the government's bogus U-3: we are near 20% real unemployment right now if the number is U-6 which is calculated with pre-1990's era methodology). Tomorrow (circa 2012) there will be political anxiety over hittting the 20% level using the bogus U-3 number which will equate to an insane 35%+ percent U-6 reading. This is going to happen. Karl Denninger has explained in detail why this worst case scenario is unfolding and why the process can no longer be prevented from coming to mathematical fruition.

Anonymous said...

"I support immigration control but let me play devil's advocate.

If the GOP is not going to do anything about immigration control, isn't it smart to pander to Hispanics (by supporting amnesty, quotas, hate crime double standards, bilingual education ...)?


Since when do humans vote according to policy? Here's a rare smart person's take on the matter:

The British came here, never gave me democracy, except when they were about to leave. But I cannot run my system based on their rules. I have to amend it to fit my people’s position. In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion. Supposing I’d run their system here, Malays would vote for Muslims, Indians would vote for Indians, Chinese would vote for Chinese. I would have a constant clash in my Parliament which cannot be resolved because the Chinese majority would always overrule them. So I found a formula that changes that.


-Lee Kwan Yew. Pay this man a billion dollars a year plus bonuses to be dictator and America's problems are largely mitigated. Democracy blows.


Whites/conservatives are nowhere close to starting a third party and have nowhere else to go.


I see some options:

-Secession of one or more states
-Start a colony: a few thousand Americans with enough money could buy land, or just say "boo!" to the Canadians, they'll get scared and run away, and take their land, lots of land there.
-Run. Get the hell out of America and live your life somewhere else, it's a big world and if you have education and a bit of money you can live well.
-Wait for the revolution to begin.

I see no political solution to America's problems.

Rhett Butler said...

Rant part 2: It's typical that another politically correct mainstream media publication cannot grasp the unfolding reality (this crisis is happening in the UK also) and extrapolate today's events into the future to any extent whatsoever.

No. According to the Economist there will be no long term national political repercussions from the outrageous California meltdown. No sea change. No reality check. No reversing of course. It's blue state momentum until the end of time. So it follows that then other large American states will soon be adopting the California model (from here to eternity) just because Economist writers can't really imagine any other politically acceptable outcome than destructive left wing progressive policies.

Remember this idiotic intellectual output from the Economist is being broadcast after the total ass-whooping the left wing establishment took in the recent elections in the UK last month. In other words: they never ever learn. They do get that high taxes bring on civic destruction but extrapolating any further than that will call into question their entire progressive globalization project from hell.

So yes the California immigration driven welfare and real estate nightmare is troubling...but of course the same program will have to be adapted nationwide as part of the "just demands" of the New Americans. How very Tony Blair-Gordon Brown. Yes the country is being destroyed but we must proceed anyway. With the Left the poison of global socialism is always presented as fait accompli.

Luckily as an antidote to this sickness there are several excellent American economic bloggers immune to political correctness and free from Fabian Socialist editorial control who correctly warned of this economic collapse and steered their readers to safety. The Economist can make no such claim.

Read Karl Denninger, Mike Shedlock, Zero Hedge, Calculated Risk et al. These bloggers have blown away staid and clueless establishment voices like the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times and the New York Times and the Economist during this crisis. Save yourselves and ignore the lapdog mainstream media bleating about the "magical skittles-****ting unicorns" and a progressive global economic New World Order that really, really loves you.

CJ said...

This article is actually better than most of the drivel in The Economist these days. A lot of the younger readers here will find it hard to believe, but there was a period when The Economist was an excellent magazine -- regularly puncturing the politically correct cant of the time, enunciating timeless wisdom in pithy prose, and providing visual information in the form of graphs and maps of a high standard. Just when the hell was that, you might ask? It was for about a decade from approximately 1975 to 1985. I believe that Norman Macrae was the editor at the time, although I'm not an authority on its personnel. Today's pathetic effort is barely above the pulp fiction level of Time or Newsweek. Perhaps this is an illustration of Robert Conquest's maxim that all organizations that are not specifically conservative eventually tilt liberal. In any case, it's sad and pathetic.

John Seiler said...

Laffer left California 3 years ago for Tennesser, which like Texas has no state income tax. He told me at the time that he thought California's political and economic situation was hopeless.

Flashreport from May 9, 2006: "California legislators were slapping themselves on the back last week for having passed a $35 billion infrastructure bond measure that will go before the voters in November [which dumb voters did pass]. Predictions filled the air that all the building would spur job creation. Aides to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger say his success in pushing the bond package may help seal his re-election this year.

"But one of the 16 members of Mr. Schwarzenegger's council of economic advisers isn't nearly as optimistic. Supply-side economist Arthur Laffer says the biggest threat to the national economy -- which he is generally optimistic about -- is the failure of California's political class to tackle the state's high tax and bloated regulatory cost structure. Given that California represents one-eighth of the nation's GDP, he views the failure of reform in California as a serious impediment to future growth."

Link: http://www.flashreport.org/blog0a.php?postID=2006050922484840&authID=2005081622025042

Laffer was wrong, in general, in predicting a strong U.S. economy; as is shown by YouTube videos of his debates back in 2007 with Peter Schiff. But he was right to be gloomy about California.

The Golden State has become the Pyrite State.

John Seiler said...

N.B. Despite not seeing the current economic collapse when he debated Peter Schiff a few years ago (as mentioned in my earlier post), Art Laffer remains one of the greatest political economists of our time.

He was a major architect of Reagan's tax cuts AND tax indexing. The top tax rate was cut from 70% in 1981 to 28% in 1986(today it's 35%). And without indexing, the middle class today would be paying that 70% -- plus 15.3% Socialist Security/Medicare tax, plus 10.55% top state income tax in California. Total: 95.85%.

Think you could survive on 4.15% of your income? Even Soviet zeks got more while digging uranium by hand.

Laffer also, back in 1971, as a young Treasury official, argued against Nixon going off the gold standard, the most fatal economic decision in American history.

Wayne Jett wrote: "Arthur Laffer, then working in the Office of Management & Budget, and Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Paul Volcker argued against closing the gold window. But Treasury Secretary John Connolly and other economic advisors overruled them. In August, 1971, President Nixon signed an executive order closing the gold window, thus ending dollar convertibility for European nations under the Bretton Woods agreement."

Since then, gold's price has risen from $35 to $912 on July 11, 2009. And we've had equivalent inflation.

More here from Jett: http://www.supplysideforum.com/archive/20060826/ssf20060826.html

When in California, Laffer also long argued for a 5.5% flat income tax, which would be revenue neutral (it would bring in the same amount of lucre to the government). So the top tax rate would have been effectively halved, thus encouraging rich people to stay here and invest their money in business and jobs creation.

The great idea went nowhere, even with Republicans.

testing99 said...

Anon -- Until recently Germans were pretty motley. Tilly's crew in the Thirty Years War was made up of Italians, French, Spanish, Swiss, and Austrian mercenaries as well German ones. People think Germans = organized, but you go back before Bismarck, that was not the case. It was a place of a bunch of principalities who could not get their act together.

I'm not sure someone swiped Steve's theories, as much as synchronicity. It's pretty obvious, after all, that geography constrains LA and California.

Middle class Whites started fleeing California with Clinton's budget cuts, on top of G HW Bush's cuts right after the Gulf War. Defense spending was the only game in town then, and the replacement Whites were SWPL professionals serving the Hollywood and Silicon Valley industries, to a lesser extent tourist and wine places. Very different kinds of people from those who voted for, say Prop. 187.

Rhett -- You are broadly correct but it's a "mancession" ala Instapundit, and that means that solid female voting for Government services (which employs a lot of female social workers and such) equals more Democrat victories. They only need "plus one" and cheating, media on their side, female bloc voting, "racism" accusations and the like make narrow victories over outraged, out of work White guys likely. Over 82% of layoffs have been of men.

Of course the kicker is American vulnerability to attack by "nuclear car bomb" by folks unimpressed with our resolve, and looking to make their own marks. Unforeseen (by pundits/political class anyway) events can act like bricks dumped on jeweler scales. Obama's AG Holder wants to prosecute Bush officials for authorizing, waterboarding 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and others, probably also the CIA officers who did it. This pretty much guarantees an attack (no CIA officer will do squat about jihadis) and lots of time-wasting, a nasty fight with the CIA which will fight back for it's own interests, and total discrediting. Obama could stop it but he doesn't want to -- he needs a distracting show trial.

ricpic said...

"Marvelous miscegenation."

Yee-Ha.

ricpic said...

"We do dot have classes of people in this country," says Anonymous.

Ha bloody ha.

RKU said...

A lot of the younger readers here will find it hard to believe, but there was a period when The Economist was an excellent magazine -- regularly puncturing the politically correct cant of the time, enunciating timeless wisdom in pithy prose, and providing visual information in the form of graphs and maps of a high standard. Just when the hell was that, you might ask? It was for about a decade from approximately 1975 to 1985. I believe that Norman Macrae was the editor at the time

Yes, this is exactly correct. Macrae was actually Deputy Editor, but heavily influenced the coverage since the Editors themselves came and went over the years. I can't remember what year Macrae retired, but in his salutary column he suggested that readers should open their minds to the possibility that HBD factors were actually real, and had a major impact on the world.

I think The Economist was mostly a victim of its own success. Its exceptional quality attracted an increasing number of American readers, such as myself, and after a time, these dominated, then overwhelmingly dominated, the subscriber base. Gradually, this put more and more pressure on the editors not to say anything that was too "discordant" with what those same affluent subscribers were reading every day in their NYT and WSJ.

Simultaneously, their American staff was beefed up and become far more influential---e.g. their current top editor had previously been their DC bureau chief---and since these people hung around with all the DC/NYC neocons, they became neoconized, as eventually did the entire publication.

In some respects, the old Economist always struck me as something of a holdover from a former era, perhaps even a Victorian echo, when English thought and men were much freer than today.

Henry Canaday said...

Very good column by John Makin on the housing bubble (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124631486277570583.html). Briefly, the corruption of home loan standards to meet ethnic goals in home ownership was merely an extension of long-standing Federal policies to favor and subsidize home ownership. If the government subsidizes a market, and this subsidy disproportionately benefits the well-off and white, isn’t it inevitable that the government will have to even out ethnic effects by altering eligibility standards?

Moreover, if the corruption of loan standards to meet racial goals created or contributed to the present economic catastrophe, this is not the first time Federal housing policy helped cause an economic disaster. Remember the hyper-inflation and slow growth of the 1970s? It happened because the Federal Reserve, ultimately responsive to political pressures, found the majority of the American people were more tolerant of inflation than of the recessions necessary to cure it. And that was due at least partly to the fact that the home-owing middle class long benefited from inflated valuations of their homes, which were paid for with cheap and fixed long-term mortgages and tax deductions made available by government. It was only when interest rates on new mortgages began to reflect high inflation in the late 1970s and early 1980s that the Fed was allowed to get tough on inflation.

There is an analogy here with the corruption in entry standards to subsidized higher education. Suppose admission standards were made strictly on race-blind merit. Then the well-off and white would gain admission in disproportionately high numbers. But higher education is largely subsidized by government, that is, all taxpayers. Is it fair to subsidize an educational advantage for the already fortunate? And why is the public still subsidizing an activity, liberal arts education of millions of already fortunate kids, who will themselves capture the benefits of this education in a lifetime of higher wages.

Perhaps the most basic problem is not so much racial goals, but the government’s pervasive manipulation of and subsidies for private activities. These will inevitably be corrupted by interest groups, which happen to be mostly ethnic at present but have been otherwise in the past and may be so again.

stari_momak said...

He was a major architect of Reagan's tax cuts AND tax indexing. The top tax rate was cut from 70% in 1981 to 28% in 1986(today it's 35%). And without indexing, the middle class today would be paying that 70% -- plus 15.3% Socialist Security/Medicare tax, plus 10.55% top state income tax in California. Total: 95.85%.

Think you could survive on 4.15% of your income? Even Soviet zeks got more while digging uranium by hand.


Uh, the middle class may (or may not) be in the 70% marginal tax bracket, and in the 10.55% in state income tax bracket, but that doesn't mean they would be paying anything close to 80.55% total tax on their income. That's why they are called 'marginal' tax rates. Not to be snarky but I suggest you review your Econ 101 and Finance 200.

Anonymous said...

2 things in the Economist article are intellectually insulting:

-"marvelous miscegenation": what's marvelous about it? Maybe the adjective was necessary to positively color a phenomenon which, before the left took control of the media, was frowned upon.

- The Economist actually sez that Immigrants bring their problems with them. So Texas is the Calif. of tomorrow. Wow, what insight!!. How long did it take them to figure that one out? This has been happening for about 30 years, and if they actually took the trouble to figure out what was happening in South Africa, and not just rant against Apartheid, they could have recognized a blueprint for the West 30 years ago. But the MSM is too busy peddling ideology to bother doing some serious research.

That they peruse Steve’s site to get some ideas is not surprising. If anything, the MSM will be remembered for their uncreativity, their mindless, vacuous and bone-headed opinionating, and their decrepit laziness and inability to actually find out what-'s really cooking.

Anonymous said...

"Whites/conservatives are nowhere close to starting a third party and have nowhere else to go."


Mistake. Same thing happening in Western Europe. Whites just don't go to the voting booth anymore. That's their third party. Conservatives are no longer willing to be dragged to the voting booth with the threat that they have to vote GOP or Tory just to keep those evil socialists out. Don't work anymore. Conservatives realize that voting for a fake conservative party gets you nothing but malware. That game is not playing in Europe either. The conservatives have dwindling numbers in proportion to their outreach to Muslims and Turks (blacks are being shoved to the back of the bus again). In Germany for instance Merkel's party only garners 35% of the vote. And only about 45-50% of the population votes. That means they effectively only have 17.5% overall support. How can theses people claim to be a legit gov.? That is the percentage of a minority party!! In England or France it ain’t better. Many people are just beginning to ignore the government, which is why so many western governments are beginning to crack down on the people with repressive laws. It’s not a new phenomenon and we know from history where this sort of vicious circle ends.

Anonymous said...

"I think there is some truth to the generalization that Germanic tribes advanced themselves by ethnic cleansing and genocide"


This type of statement plays on the general Hollywood-driven prejudice which exists against Germany since WWII. And which comes so cheap because the defeated Germans could not be bothered to fight back. But I guess it’s OK to drive the Porsches. WWII has been made over to stand for a big ethnic cleansing campaign and nothing else. This only becomes obvious when we have the yearly Normandy get-together and none of the young pop-politicians understand anymore why they should go there. What started the war was not concentration camps but traditional European power games (in which the Brits and French had a heavy hand) which continued where they had left off after WWI. When the thing blew up in their faces the Brits and French got the Americans to bail them out once again. I wish intelligent people would just bother to study history seriously and not just watch 5 min. of Hollywood TV and then prepare their script on an epoch.

Apart from WWII, when else did Germany ethnically cleanse? How much ethnic cleansing were Britain and France involved with in Africa or SEA, most of it flying under the radar? What about the 26000 Afrikaner women and children murdered by Brits in concentration camps during the Boer wars, about which the British MSM is silent like a grave to this day? I guess its all part of that assimilation thing you are talking about?

Anonymous said...

Wow, testy has a new one, the "nuclear car bomb". Till now it was suitcase nukes in planes and in containers. Now it’s in a car. When are we going to hear about that miniature nuclear device been worn as jewelry by a luscious, leggy blond? I'm sure the tech is there.

As for all your wisdom about the Germans. May I remind that there existed such a thing as the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation (Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation) in the year 1000. It lasted for about 1000 years, which is where Hitler got his idea from, and not from the Bible. And that the second Reich came to an end in the early nineteenth century during the Napoleon wars. So there has always been a form of political and military organization in the realm now known as Germany and its bounds. Local principalities were stronger than they are today, mostly because the royalty saw them as their property and tried to suppress the meddling of the central governments and the Vatican, which I think was a sensible thing to do. In fact, I think we should begin debating the merits of democracy. Obviously it is not working. Wasn't royalty a better idea?

Concerned Netizen said...

"This includes decades long support for the Democratic party, liberalism in general and a political class that is blind to the failures of both Blacks and Hispanics"

Ha. California was ruled by Republicans for decades. California has had more Republican governors than Dem since WWII.

The illegal immigration mess was brought to us by the Republican party, which wanted an army of cheap labor to replace blacks, who were supposed (in theory) to move up the ladder.

Of course it didn't work out that way, but don't blame the Dems.

Look, I do not argue for the Democrat Party. In some respects they are The Loathsome Party. But until you guys look at The Man In The Mirror and make him change his ways you are doomed.

stari_momak said...

Celtic tribes advanced themselves by assimilation.

Yeah, that's why Celtic languages are so widespread these days.

Anonymous said...

t99 is never right.

While Germany pre-Bismarck was politically disunited, German villagers were famously punctual, clean, orderly, and hardworking. How do I know? Because there is a substantial German minority where I'm from in Eastern Europe, and that's what they were like for the entire written history of the region - some 700 years. It goes without saying that these villagers never lived in Germany proper until after the Second World War, when some fled there with the Communists snapping at their heels.

There's a local saying to the effect that "an idle German will break his house so he has something to fix."

It's not that we liked the Germans. They certainly didn't like us. But their honesty, orderliness, organization, and work ethic were really extraordinary.

Not many are left today, more's the pity.

-bushrod

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...
"Whites/conservatives are nowhere close to starting a third party and have nowhere else to go."

-------------


Mistake. Same thing happening in Western Europe. Whites just don't go to the voting booth anymore. That's their third party. Conservatives are no longer willing to be dragged to the voting booth with the threat that they have to vote GOP or Tory just to keep those evil socialists out. Don't work anymore. Conservatives realize that voting for a fake conservative party gets you nothing but malware. That game is not playing in Europe either. The conservatives have dwindling numbers in proportion to their outreach to Muslims and Turks (blacks are being shoved to the back of the bus again). In Germany for instance Merkel's party only garners 35% of the vote. And only about 45-50% of the population votes. That means they effectively only have 17.5% overall support. How can theses people claim to be a legit gov.? That is the percentage of a minority party!! In England or France it ain’t better. Many people are just beginning to ignore the government, which is why so many western governments are beginning to crack down on the people with repressive laws. It’s not a new phenomenon and we know from history where this sort of vicious circle ends.



That right there is some rare truth. Rare to see that kind of insight on the Net.

Now let's go one step further.

You call yourself a conservative.

I call myself a leftist.

Yet we agree on a LOT of things.

I think that unless the policies of a nation cater to majority, then that nation is not a leftist nation.

Right now the countries of western europe are still the most leftist nations ever, even though they are growing much less leftist.

Leftism can only survive in homogeneous communities.

A high degree of racial integration, homogeneity and mass immigration kills leftism.

That is why W. europe is going downhill, the way of america.

When you import heterogeneity and cater to the minority, you destroy democracy and you destroy leftism.

Whites of America would agree to a solid social safety net if america were all white.

Same goes for any other race, if they were the dominant majority, and the elite were pumping in cheap labor scabs of another race and culture.

So what is the path forward?

America was set up by the Founding Fathers to thwart democracy and take power from the people.

How do we change things?



-cryofan

Svigor said...

But higher education is largely subsidized by government, that is, all taxpayers. Is it fair to subsidize an educational advantage for the already fortunate?

Uhm, taxpayers ARE the already fortunate. Maybe you should show us how the two diverge?

Svigor said...

And by fortunate, I mean "worthy."

Svigor said...

Hey Steve, I have a request. Why don't you look into how much of the cost of filmmaking is real cost. That is, strip out the union- and celebrity-inflated salaries (lion's share I suspect), the inflation from Californian (or American) prices, distribution costs, etc.

I for one would be very interested in some firm numbers on this sort of thing.

Anonymous said...

-Lee Kwan Yew. Pay this man a billion dollars a year plus bonuses to be dictator and America's problems are largely mitigated. Democracy blows.

You think too small. Betroth one of his grandsons to Piper Palin and crown them Global Emperors.

Simon said...

RKU - thanks for that, now I feel guilty about giving my American in-laws an Economist subscription, back in the mid '90s! I was wondering why it went down the tubes, especially since ca 2005. Had to cancel my subscription eventually. :(

steve wood said...

Coming from this background, I recall one time, in the early days of personal computing, when I was asked by a reporter from Le Monde, "What class of people uses online services in the U.S.A.?"

"We do not have classes of people in this country," I said.


You know how ridiculous that made you look, right? Of course we have social classes in America, and a reporter from France apparently knew that better than you.

much smaller government at the federal, state and local levels. It will be ugly because the teat has run dry and the welfare junkies will not behave when forced to go cold turkey.

Who is not a welfare junkie?

You can rule out anyone over 65 or who has parents over 65 because all but the very rich rely at least in part on Medicare and Social Security.

You can rule out children and people with children of school age because the education systems of this country - public, private, and university - are largely dependent on government largesse, if only in the form of tax breaks and subsidized student loans.

You can rule out anyone who works in education for the same reason, and you can eliminate anyone who works in any part of the vast health care system because the entire system is dependent on Federal and state money.

You can rule out anyone who is connected in any way with the military and defense industries.

Let's see, who's left? Oh, right - employees of the American automobile and financial industries, which are also now Federal extensions.

The fact is, most of us are "welfare junkies," often multiple times over. When the rebellion that some claim to foresee actually happens, it will be the "junkies" rebelling, and they won't be demanding LESS spending. People who are cheering for the day when Americans "finally wake up," or whatever, should ponder that; the status quo might not look so bad after all.

silly girl said...

"People who are cheering for the day when Americans "finally wake up," or whatever, should ponder that; the status quo might not look so bad after all."

It looks bad because it creates a debt that cannot be repaid. It looks bad because it is bad. Printing money is the current status quo.

Anonymous said...

The macho cowboy culture of Texas has a strong appeal to Mexican immigrants. In California, the major subcultures (preppy/surfer/valley girl in San Marino, SanFrancisco artiste liberal) come across as elitist and, in the case of the SF liberal, bizarre. Here in the Pacific Northwest, you don't see Mexican immigrants very ethusiatic to adopt the white liberal urban culture of Seattle or the white suburban culture of the outlying cities. They are, however, very interested in urban black and rural white redneck subcultures.

Anonymous said...

"Leftism can only survive in homogeneous communities."


Yep, as a traditional conservative I personally have no problem with a solid welfare state if the borders are under control, and if the gov. is very picky about who to let in. I'm also comfy with public control of the phone companies, railways, post office, water supply and electricity. That these need to be in private hands in order to stimulate business is rubbish. These institutions were traditionally in gov. hands until well after WWII and in all western countries provided the framework for economic growth. There are many good reasons to keep these services in public hands. And since the liberalization wave of the 90’s, which was designed to enrich a few individuals with publicly paid for goods, we have had multiple examples of private incompetence and downright malfeasance in that they save at the wrong ends in order to increase profit and basically ceased investing in infrastructure. The profit motive should not play a role in these services. Now that these robber barons are broke, they are trying to get the government to help them out again. So what are they doing owning this former public property in the first place!!

But all this is moot if the governments don't care about who enters the country, illegally and legally.

steve wood said...

It looks bad because it creates a debt that cannot be repaid. It looks bad because it is bad. Printing money is the current status quo.

Printing money and unpayable debt are bad, yes. There are two ways to cure them: Cut spending or raise taxes.

The point of my post is that, if there is some sort of rebellion or even any serious effort to fix the problem, it is more likely to end up with much higher taxes than with spending reductions because 21st century Americans are too dependent on government money to tolerate the latter.

Thus, people who are fanatics about small government and low taxes might actually prefer to remain in a state of near-catastrophe, with a few patches here and there to prevent total collapse, than to implement any real fix that is likely in modern society.

Lucius Vorenus said...

Anonymous: You think too small. Betroth one of his grandsons to Piper Palin and crown them Global Emperors.

List of countries and territories by fertility rate
en.wikipedia.org

Singapore, UN 2000-2005: 1.35
Singapore, UN 2005-2010: 1.26

Singapore, CIA, 2000: 1.16
Singapore, CIA, 2008: 1.08

After another ten or fifteen years of that trend, Singapore will be effectively extinct - a walking ghost of a nation.

Interestingly enough, it looks as though Lee has two sons and a daughter, with seven grandchildren total:

Lee_Kuan_Yew#Family_background

On the other hand, it looks as though his daughter, Wei Ling, born in 1955, never married, and had no children.

And it also appears that of the seven grandchildren, maybe only one of them is female, a "Xiu Qi", born in 1980.

BTW, the daughter appears to be a career woman and a pretty hard-core nihilist:

Who is Lee Wei Ling
January 5, 2009
chemgen.wordpress.com

...I am not a particularly spiritual person. I don’t believe in the supernatural and I don’t think I have a soul that will survive my death...

The writer is director of the National Neuroscience Institute...


This appears to be pretty much in line with Spengler's old observation [at the Asia Times] that only the religious are continuing to breed in the face of the relentless onslaught of modernity.

It also jibes with a really depressing new study:

Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media
Scientists and Politics
July 9, 2009
people-press.org

...just 6% say they are Republicans...

Anonymous said...

Whites of America would agree to a solid social safety net if america were all white.


America has a solid social safty net now.



America was set up by the Founding Fathers to thwart democracy and take power from the people.



It was not. It was set up specifically to give power to the people.

Anonymous said...

One of the best quotes I've ever read. Treasury bonds are not going to be paid back in real terms. That's fine with me.

"I am in favor of Federal deficits, if the alternative is higher taxes. I am in favor of lower taxes, even if these lead to higher deficits. I think the Federal government will not cut spending for any reason but one: bankruptcy. So, as long as the beast is going to spend money, it might as well raise it by borrowing. Let the people who trust the government wind up as creditors to the government. When the government defaults, one way or the other, those hurt most will be those who trusted politicians the most. This is as it should be. There is a kind of raw justice in the arrangement."
-Gary North

David Davenport said...

Scotch-Irish Americans, who were the dominant group in creating the Texas culture, have innate skills both for warfare and for assimilation.

Think of the soldiers Andrew Jackson commanded at New Orleans. Try to imagine a German general attempting to lead that same mixed medley.


Wrong. Heavily Scotch-Irish states = Confederacy.

Slave owner Andrew Jackson ethnically cleansed Native Americans from the mid-South, etc.

Jackson's army in New orleans wasn't very ethically mixed at all.
All white, almost all Prtestant plus [ history book sez ] 500 free blacks of New Orleans and a temporary alliance with Jean Laffites's pirates.

No long term multi-kulti diversity in the Scotch Irish south after 1814.

Mr. Anon said...

The best thing about "The Economist" are it's movie reviews.

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

You call yourself a conservative.

I call myself a leftist.

Yet we agree on a LOT of things.

I think that unless the policies of a nation cater to majority, then that nation is not a leftist nation.

Right now the countries of western europe are still the most leftist nations ever, even though they are growing much less leftist.

Leftism can only survive in homogeneous communities."

With respect, I don't think you are a leftist. You are an old fashioned socialist. What we now call 'The Left' is something entirely different.

The left is no longer about liberating workers or equitable (their word, not mine) distribution of resources or any other such thing. The left is now about the task of destroying western civilization. If they are successful, many who are now well off will be poor, many who are now poor will be well off, and many (if not most) of those who are rich.....will remain so. But the west - white, european civilization - will end up humiliated and vanquished. It will be made, figuratively and literally, to eat crap.

Now, you may not like this. You may say 'that isn't leftism'. But most people who call themselves leftists do believe that (and they would probably call you a fascist). What you think doesn't matter. You're not driving that train - they are.

I say this only to put this thought in your head - maybe you should rethink why it is that you're a leftist.

Henry Canaday said...

Svigor -

I understand that the white, well-off and fortunate both pay most state taxes and receive the larger share of benefits of taxpayer-subsidized higher education. Maybe there is no net cross-subsidy between income classes or ethnic groups going on. Still, it is odd to be using the state to transfer future wealth to fortunate young people, even if it comes mostly from their fortunate elders. And any time the state becomes involved, the pressure for equalizing the distribution of benefits becomes much more intense.

Black Sea said...

"When the rebellion that some claim to foresee actually happens, it will be the "junkies" rebelling . . ."

That's what's called "getting clean."

Toadal said...

Texas transplant, UC President Mark G. Yudof favors a Marxist, race-based University of California admission policy. He and the UC faculty senate have devised a plan to ensure equal outcomes for all races in California. Their aim is to change the ethnic composition of the UC student body by eliminating high performing Asians and Caucasians and replacing them with low performing Hispanics and blacks.

The three major effects of the plan are:

1) Increase role of high school class rank as an admissions criterion.

2) Reduce the importance of standardized tests by eliminating the requirement to take two SAT II subject tests and reducing the role of the SAT I tests will be also diminished.

3) Much more reliance on “comprehensive” or “holistic” reviews that include highly subjective, non-academic criteria such as “life experiences,” greater importance for many students than before.

Of course Yudof's system would extinguish one of the remaining guiding lights California and our high tech employers have to attract and retain mentally gifted Asian and European graduates. However, Yudof's philosophy has created for himself a protagonist in San Jose congressional representative Mike Honda. The John William Pope Center can provide more information here.

Anonymous said...

Who is not a welfare junkie?

Who is John Galt?

Anonymous said...

I don't actually think we have social classes in the United States, or at least often the class you end up in is not where you started. I work with lots of very high paid professionals whose fathers worked in factories or were farmers with little education. Nixon, Reagan, Clinton were all from poor backgrounds, and really most recent presidents other than the Bushes were from pretty modest backgrounds. On the other hand I know of preppy children who are clearly downwardly mobile because they are not that smart. They would have been carried along two generations ago.

Anonymous said...

"But the west - white, european civilization - will end up humiliated and vanquished. It will be made, figuratively and literally, to eat crap."


Yep. Ask any Rhodesian or white South African. Whites were humiliated in southern Africa. And it was painful. You really don’t want to go there if you can avoid it. The only joy left for them is watching blacks destroy themselves. But it’s a small comfort.

Simon said...

I don't really see any evidence that Germans are more genocidal than Celts. But there are no modern Celtic peoples who weren't dominated by Germanic peoples (Gauls-Franks; Britons-Saxons, Irish-English, etc); that the Germans didn't wipe out the Celts in these cases seems to give the lie to that claim.

There does seem a case that Anglo-Celtic cultures such as the Scots-Irish of Texas or Tennessee are often more assimilationist than purer Anglo cultures such as southern England or New England. That may be linked more to their hybrid nature than to a particular Celtic genius.

headache said...

Professions are sometimes tied to epochs. Journalism for instance is inseparably tied to liberalism as practiced in the West since WWII. The modern symbiosis is multiculturalism and the MSM.
A deeper issue is the future of journalism as a profession. Outfits like the Economist or the NYT (ST Trademark), who are still rolling on momentum and the emotional need of the elite to protect themselves from reality, have done a massive disservice to their profession. Journalism is basically just a byword for peddling ideology, idiocy or outright lies.
Guys like Steve and Denninger are the new face of journalism. Working with facts and clear arguments, and not being able to bludgeon people with monopolistic distribution tactics, threats or boasting. These guys also held down proper jobs where they had to work with numbers, not just ideology or ideas. The internet simply won't allow any other style. I think that the professional training at these so-called journalism schools needs to change as well. Obviously whatever they have been turning out there has been useless. Better yet just dump these courses outright. Once liberalism starts to wane, journalism is the first profession that needs a complete reset.

Lucius Vorenus said...

steve wood: Printing money and unpayable debt are bad, yes. There are two ways to cure them: Cut spending or raise taxes.

If you had been paying attention during the 1980s [and, to a certain extent, during the 1990s, when the GOP Congress cut the capital gains tax, and again, in the early 2000s, when Dubya had some limited success in cutting taxes], then you'd know that there's a third way to beat the problem: Ensure that the private sector grows at a much faster rate than does the public sector.

Unfortunately, this is the looming catastrophe we face on the demand side of the equation:

2009 Statistical Abstract of the United States
Section 1, Population
pop.pdf

Table 8. Resident Population by Race, Hispanic Origin, and Age
July 2007

Not Hispanic White alone

00 to 04 years old: 11,175
05 to 09 years old: 11,255
10 to 14 years old: 11,866
15 to 19 years old: 13,006
20 to 24 years old: 12,930
25 to 29 years old: 12,497
30 to 34 years old: 11,425
35 to 39 years old: 13,272
40 to 44 years old: 14,597
45 to 49 years old: 16,109
50 to 54 years old: 15,363
55 to 59 years old: 13,736

That 31-million cohort in 2007's 45-54 bracket was 20-29 years old in 1982, when the Reagan tax cuts went into effect, was 35-44 years old in 1997 when the Capital Gains Tax was lowered to 20%, and was 41-50 years old in 2003 when the Capital Gains Tax was lowered to 15%.

In other words, the Reagan tax cuts - in combination with the looming bulge in population demographics represented by the [Caucasian] Baby Boomers - represented a perfect storm of both supply side & demand side circumstances necessary for an historical explosion in economic growth.

Our problem now, of course, is that the children just aren't there for a repeat performance.

If a Sarah Palin were elected circa 2012, then a Palin tax cut circa 2013, in combination with that 25-million cohort in 2007's 15-24 bracket [which would be 21-30 in 2013] would give be capable of giving us just a little bit of a bump.

[CONTINUED]

Lucius Vorenus said...

[CONTINUED]

But long term [heck, even short-term], our economy is going to be annihilated by the kinds of demographics we are facing:

Of U.S. Children Under 5, Nearly Half Are Minorities
By D'Vera Cohn and Tara Bahrampour
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
washingtonpost.com

Whites will be minority group by 2042, Census predicts
By Kat Glass
Thursday, August 14, 2008
mcclatchydc.com

...Non-Hispanic whites will drop below 50 percent of the population as early as 2042, according to U.S. Census Bureau projections to be released Thursday. That's about 10 years earlier than demographers previously had predicted, said Grayson Vincent, a demographer for the Census Bureau...

The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Households to the U.S. Taxpayer
by Robert Rector, Christine Kim and Shanea Watkins, Ph.D.
April 4, 2007
heritage.org

...The net fiscal deficit of a household equals the cost of benefits and services received minus taxes paid. As Chart 5 shows, if the costs of direct and means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services alone were counted, the average low-skill household had a fis­cal deficit of $22,449 (expenditures of $32,138 minus $9,689 in taxes). The net fiscal deficit of the average low-skill household actually exceeded the household's earnings. If interest and other financial obligations relating to past government activities were added as well, the average deficit per household rose to $27,301...

The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Immigrants to State and Local Taxpayers
by Robert Rector
May 21, 2007
heritage.org

...The average low-skill household had a fiscal deficit of $19,588 (expenditures of $30,160 minus $10,573 in taxes)...

Senior benefit costs rise 24% since 2000
By Dennis Cauchon
Updated 2/14/2008 9:00 AM
usatoday.com

The cost of government benefits for seniors soared to a record $27,289 per senior in 2007, according to a USA TODAY analysis...

Medicare paying out more than it takes in
By Martin Crutsinger, AP Economics Writer
Updated 5/12/2009 5:41 PM
usatoday.com

WASHINGTON - The financial health of Social Security and Medicare, the government's two biggest benefit programs, have worsened because of the severe recession, and Medicare is now paying out more than it receives.

Trustees of the programs said Tuesday that Social Security will start paying out more in benefits than it collects in taxes in 2016, one year sooner than projected last year...

Anonymous said...

"The future will bring the opposite ugly eventuality: much smaller government at the federal, state and local levels. It will be ugly because the teat has run dry and the welfare junkies will not behave when forced to go cold turkey. But it will happen."

Seriously, why is this ugly?

"And immigration? We are going to have mass deportations and a total immigration timeout in this country beginning in 2011-2012 due to massive civil unrest and extreme discontent throughout the land."

Faster, please!

Anonymous said...

Good old Lucius Vorenus. Just when I start to think a positive thought, he throws a nice dose of nasty unpleasant reality in my face! Seriously, thanks. Whenever I start to think I'm slacking on my preparations for the gigantic, fiery train wreck this country is headed for, his comments motivate me to buy more Mt. House food, ammo, stack the wood, check the solar panels, feed the chickens, water the garden, hit the range, buy a little more silver, etc...at my little place in the hills.

Anonymous said...

Germans were integral in the creation of "Tejano" music - which is basically bastardized polkas.

German Texans also tend to predominate the central texas regions around San Antonio, the only place where any real assimilation has occurred.

Peter A said...

Apart from WWII, when else did Germany ethnically cleanse?

Prussia was originally named after the original inhabitants - a tribe of Balts, related to Lithuanians, called the Prussians. You won't find any today, and it's not because the Russians wiped them out. But for the most part you're right - the Germans were content to be landlords and craftsmen in places like Poland, Bohemia, and the Baltics and let the Slavs and Balts do the farm work.

PRCalDude said...

Formula for Journalism Success:

1. Plagiarize Steve, but remove HateFacts.
2. Call for more diversity/affirmative action in the conclusion of plagiarized article.
3. Profit!

Anonymous said...

Peter A.
No, you've got it wrong.In pre-war Poland, Russia and Czechoslovakia for example, there were many, many ethnically German families who had been living thre for centuries, but clung on to their German identity.
Most of the families were in fact farmers and agriculturalists.

Svigor said...

Germans were integral in the creation of "Tejano" music - which is basically bastardized polkas.

OMFG is that true? A friend has a Mexican brood in her neighborhood and we call the music they blast at night "Mexican Polka"!

David said...

Svigor said

"how much of the cost of filmmaking is real cost."

It ranges from near-$0 (YouTube) up to whatever quality you want. Local theatre actors and a RED ONE camera (=35mm quality i.e. 4K) can be got, respectively, for $0 and about $80K. Film outdoors in natural light on friends' personal property. Add Final Cut on a Mac with Snow Leopard (out soon), $2.5K.

Would add distro but you requested those figs stripped out...

Are you making a film? Call this dude (no, I am not him but did attend a lecture of his earlier this year):

http://americana-pictures.com/team.php