BS: California Slips

Subject: RE: BS: California Slips
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 16 Jan 07 - 02:55 PM

Recent news is that China is "suffering" from an adjustment of the exchange rate - i.e. a change in "purchasing power" - so maybe things will even out eventually and a better assessment can be made.

(And I note that another thread has been started on the "merger proposals.")

John

Subject: RE: BS: California Slips
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 16 Jan 07 - 12:51 PM

It depends, JiK.

Official exchange rates (UK and France; China)
4.27 Trillion : 2.22 Trillion

Purchasing parity power
3.6 billion : 8.88 trillion

$ figures from 2005, via CIA world factbook

Anybody else think the Chinese official exchange rate is slightly rigged?


BTW, California GDP 2005 = 1.62 trillion $ (wikipedia)

Subject: RE: BS: California Slips
From: fair maiden of nottingham
Date: 16 Jan 07 - 07:23 AM

As an oldie from England, i spent 10 yrs running freight East to West, and California was the biggest pain in the rectum, for trucking/freight rules.What ever happened to the Texas Independent Dream, at least they were civilised. I cannot speak about present laws, but as an ex-trucker I passed through many states that wanted independence....
Looks like you boys are due another civil war......but keep us Brits out of it.
fisheye

Subject: RE: BS: California Slips
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 16 Jan 07 - 06:51 AM

BritanceOrFratain?: Jan. 15, 2007 | 3:37 p.m. ET

From the Blog for "Regular Joe," an NBC TV show I think.(?)

[quote]
The united union of France and Britain?
(Kellyanne Dignan, "Scarborough Country" producer)

Viva la Britain? Not a phrase that's exactly sweeping the streets of Paris or London for that matter; but according to the BBC it was almost a reality. Recently uncovered secret British government documents from the 1950's show Britain and France considered a "union" in the 1950's.
...
While I doubt the world was ever that close to "Britance" or "Fratain;" the documents show the French Prime Minister suggested a merger with Britain in 1956. Shock of shocks, the Brits put on their stiff upper lip and rejected the idea. The French Prime Minister then proposed admitting France into the British Commonwealth with the British monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, as head of state. I can only imagine the medieval Norman ancestors turning in their graves. Today's Brits are filling the message boards at London's Telegraph with their own take on the long forgotten merger. The consensus seems to be it wasn't such a hot idea.

That said, an Anglo-French union isn't exactly new. The International Herald Tribune dug up examples of British interest in France including a World War II appeal in June of 1940 by Winston Churchill for a full union of the two countries.

So how close did the French come to singing "God Save the Queen"? The French proposed the merger while they were having troubles with the Suez Canal; and tensions in Israel and Jordan could have led to British and French soldiers facing each other on the battlefield. France went on to join the European Union's predecessor, the Common Market and; apparently kept no records of the proposed merger.

The rest, as they say, is history.
[endquote]

But would combining the Gross Domestic Product of Britain and France catch up with the Chinese?

John

Subject: RE: BS: California Slips
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 16 Jan 07 - 03:14 AM

The NAFTA treaty currently gives trucks with Mexican registry freedom to operate in any part of the US virtually exempt from all NHTSA regulations and not subject to mechanical, safety, registration, operating hour limits, or loading limits imposed on US operators. Trucks with Mexican registry are not generally subject to any of the inspections by local, state, and federal inspectors to whom domestic operators must submit.

I think Richards suggestion is a "done deal" in many cases, regardless of whether California is allowed (or forced) to secede.

I suspect that the commonly held opinion (by US drivers) that 30% of the trucks and 80% of trailers operating under Mexican registry are stolen in the US may be a slight overestimate, but have been informed, by name, of at least a half-dozen who say they've seen their own stolen rigs operating in the US under Mexican registry and have been told that there's nothing that can be done (by US authorities) about it¹, because the treaty exempts them from inspection in the US.

¹ (They can go to Mexico and try to steal it back, but gringos in Mexican jails don't fare well.)

John

Subject: RE: BS: California Slips
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Jan 07 - 06:34 PM

Trucking no problem. Set up non-Californian subsidiary, register trucks there. They drive into California, collect cargo, drive to (eg) Canada, etc. Profits get expatriated to California.

Subject: RE: BS: California Slips
From: Slag
Date: 15 Jan 07 - 05:17 PM

And the prize goes to--- Mr. RED, China!

Subject: RE: BS: California Slips
From: Mr Red
Date: 15 Jan 07 - 07:58 AM

China is coming up on the rail - by 2008 it will be ahead by a short head - if you see what I mean.

Subject: RE: BS: California Slips
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 15 Jan 07 - 07:48 AM

Slag is right, the San Andreas is dextral, not sinstral. When will I remember not to rely on my memory?

Subject: RE: BS: California Slips
From: Bert
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 06:03 PM

Thanks for the clarification Slag. I thought we were going to lose a few Mudcatters for a moment there.

Subject: RE: BS: California Slips
From: Slag
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 02:51 PM

The San Andreas fault is a strike/slip fault with the western side moving NORTH, not down into the ocean. Subduction of the Pacific plate is actually lifting the landmass upward. We just tell the outta staters that it's going into the ocean so they will go home.

Subject: RE: BS: California Slips
From: Rapparee
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 02:37 PM

Idaho respects the military. Heck, in our county of about 75,000 there are about 9,000 veterans. Idaho even respects those from California who are in the military.

But then there are those others....

Subject: RE: BS: California Slips
From: Bert
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 02:28 PM

I thought this thread was going to continue with ...into the ocean...

Subject: RE: BS: California Slips
From: Slag
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 02:17 PM

If you travel to ANY other state and mention that you are from CA watch the reactions. God help you if you happen to be in the military. And if you are a true native!!! Talk about stereotyping. Talk about prejudice! Or jealousy?

Subject: RE: BS: California Slips
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 01:42 PM

Golly Gee Whiz Guys and Gals -

I thought it interesting that California is as "big" as many countries, and it's obvious that it's "different" than other parts of the US. My speculation was that it might help some who haven't thought about it to see just why we in the US never seem able to really get together on anything. There are several other "clusters" of states just as big, I'd think, with totally different "ways."

I really didn't realize that the opinion that we "need to do something about California" was such an internationally popular subject. (I thought it was more localized in the Californicated states near there i.e. west of Colorado, - - or west of Missouri at least.)

John

Subject: RE: BS: California Slips
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 12:43 PM

Hell, I think we should take Arizona and Nevada along with us. That way, we get the literates,techies, innovators, all the solar power we can eat, and a place to both gambol and gamble. Plus the Pacific coast for a water supply as soon as we develop Very Low Cost Desalination (VLCD) using nano-scale disassembly (NSD).

A

Subject: RE: BS: California Slips
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 12:28 PM

From memory, California is slipping south at 3-4 cm a year, so we can safley say you'll have a new Governor by the time you seperate..

Subject: RE: BS: California Slips
From: Slag
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 12:45 AM

2/3 of Arizona have relocated from CA (my statistics) and NV depends on CA gamblers for it's existence. There will be no troulble there. The political climate is such, though, that we could never muster a credible army for offense or defense so I see Mexico coming out on top of this scenario and that may not be bad. It would boost the IQs of both countries to have a Mexican takeover. Barter would reign, the resturants would improve and at last our borders would be more secure to keep the Easterners OUT!

Subject: RE: BS: California Slips
From: Rapparee
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 06:19 PM

The Water deals are intrastate and interstate, not international.

Subject: RE: BS: California Slips
From: Rapparee
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 06:18 PM

Well, we can re-route that first part. Probably should anyway, it's lettin' folks Californicate Idaho.

Subject: RE: BS: California Slips
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 06:17 PM

Most of the shipping on routes that go through California are to or from California destinations. The Mexican truckers aren't necessarily interested in going to Canada.

The point is that there is already an existing international treaty that a separate California could join into, that already MANDATES that the rest of the US MUST PERMIT traffic from member nations.

I'll agree that the water supply is a major obstacle to survival of California as a separate country; but there also are existing international agreements there as well. It's just that nobody can agree on what the agreements are, so only the lawyers get rich over them.

John

Subject: RE: BS: California Slips
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 06:09 PM

I-15 runs from downtown San Diego (not Mexico) and North and East through Las Vegas, Orem, Ogden, Pocasomething, Helena, Great Falls, and crosses the Canadian border just north of Sweetgrass, Montana.

A

Subject: RE: BS: California Slips
From: Rapparee
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 05:11 PM

I dunno, JiK. There's a lot of unhappiness about NAFTA. And should California become a seperate nation there is no reason why the states surrounding it would permit "Pacific Corridor" traffic. It might be easier just to go around -- take I-15 from Mexico to Canada, for instance.

But that's a minor point compared to water rights!

Subject: RE: BS: California Slips
From: Cluin
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 04:52 PM

But if California separates, the Arnie could run for prez there.

Subject: RE: BS: California Slips
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 04:50 PM

To quibble in a minor way:

there would be no treaties in place allowing the use of the US road system

Approximately 80 per cent¹ of interstate truck tonnage on the "Pacific corridor" is currently carried by trucks registered in Mexico, under the existing NAFTA treaty.

¹ Published industry opinions, neither confirmed nor refuted by official (government) sources.

California would have no difficulty entering into that treaty on the same basis as Mexico - and/or Canada(?).

John

Subject: RE: BS: California Slips
From: Rapparee
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 03:05 PM

What is missing from the equation is the dependency that California has upon the rest of the US.

Assume for a minute that California suddenly became a seperate country.

First, water. If you think that Arizona, Nevada and Oregon are going to cede water to another nation you'd best think again. And there are no Great Lakes, such as the US shares with Canada, to create treaties about.

Second, transportation. California would have seaports and airports, but no other way in place to move goods out of the country since there would be no treaties in place allowing the use of the US road system. And you might as well not have the goods if you can't bring them to market.

Third, the Interstate Commerce clause of the US Constitution would no longer be effective for California. What industries would be left (and I think they'd bail out long before California declared nationhood) would not be in a position to market effectively to anyplace outside California, or at least for some time to come.

I suspect that if California became a seperate nation it would sink way, way down the list.

Subject: RE: BS: California Slips
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 02:31 PM

probably not...but *shrug*

Subject: BS: California Slips
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 05:16 AM

A frequently, and recently repeated mantra of California politicians alleges that if separated from the US as a separate country, California would be the "sixth largest economy" among nations of the world.

Not quite, apparently, although Gov Arnie repeated this "statistic" quite recently.

California economy really isn't 6th largest, an AP report, cites:

"State's economy drops to 8th-largest in world, despite conventional wisdom."

... ... ...

"California's economy no longer ranks No. 6, but rather is the eighth-largest economy in the world.

"The state, with about 37 million residents, ranks behind the United States, Japan, Germany, China, the United Kingdom, France and Italy, according to U.S. Commerce Department and World Bank figures. Spain and Canada complete the top 10."

Actually, California had slipped to 7th place before Gov Arnie was first elected governor, but apparently no one pointed it out to him that the state was in such pitiful decline when he took over.

Personally, I was a bit surprised at a couple of countries with "larger economies" than Canada, but I guess those beaver pelts just aren't moving like they used to. I guess I wasn't paying any better attention than Arnold.

One also must wonder - would the US still hold the #1 place if we got rid of California?

John