Solved: Why Poor States Are Red and Rich States Are Blue

Forbes ^ | 01/05/2015 | Tim Worstall

[SeekAndFind]

One of the great conundrums of the American political scene is why the poorer states, colloquially known as “red” states, tend to vote Republican or conservative, while the richer states, the “blue” ones (and let it be said that this is very confusing for this European, for over here the colours tend to work the other way around, red is Labour, or left wing) tend to vote Democrat. We would think that it should be the other way around, the poor people voting for more from that Great Big Pinata which is government. But it seems that there’s a simple solution to this: the red states aren’t actually poorer in terms of the way people live.

If we measure by consumption patterns then it’s the blue states that are poor, the red states that are rich:

Blue states, like California, New York and Illinois, whose economies turn on finance, trade and knowledge, are generally richer than red states. But red states, like Texas, Georgia and Utah, have done a better job over all of offering a higher standard of living relative to housing costs. That basic economic fact not only helps explain why the nation’s electoral map got so much redder in the November midterm elections, but also why America’s prosperity is in jeopardy.

Red state economies based on energy extraction, agriculture and suburban sprawl may have lower wages, higher poverty rates and lower levels of education on average than those of blue states — but their residents also benefit from much lower costs of living. For a middle-class person , the American dream of a big house with a backyard and a couple of cars is much more achievable in low-tax Arizona than in deep-blue Massachusetts.

[Blue Ink]

Nope, not an urban legend. The exploits of the Motion Picture Patents Company (formerly the Edison trust) are well-documented.

By the turn of the twentieth century, Thomas Edison owned nearly every motion picture camera patent in America. His MPPC “licensed” seven or eight companies to use his cameras. Everyone else was shut out. And they had courts on their side. Hired MPPC thugs would go to shoots of independent producers and break stuff and rough people up. Some producers/camera operators resorted to building false camera housings from wood and pasteboard to disguise equipment.

So the independents fled to California, as far from the goon squads as possible. They were aided by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, which had jurisdiction, but which for some reason didn’t enforce the East Coast court patent rulings.

Certainly it was providential that California had good weather for outdoor shooting, and varied topography that could stand in for anyplace in the word, which made California a better locale than New Jersey... but that was a happy coincidence.

The founders of Hollywood were fleeing the Edison patent police.

[DiogenesLamp]

So the independents fled to California, as far from the goon squads as possible. They were aided by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, which had jurisdiction, but which for some reason didn’t enforce the East Coast court patent rulings.

So the Ninth Circus was screwing up Federal law even back then? :)

The founders of Hollywood were fleeing the Edison patent police.

Was pondering the other day Adam Smith's admonition that Monopolies should be discouraged, and then thinking further "what is a patent but a government enforced monopoly"?

Yeah, i've read that Edison was a pretty cut throat businessman and what you say sounds consistent with other things i've read about him.

[TurboZamboni]

Recall that the core promise of liberalism and collectivism is equality. The promise is equality of outcome and not equality of opportunity.

The concept of equality has been the rallying cry of politicos from Lenin to Robespierre to Pelosi.How interesting that while the size and scope of government has grown, inequality has grown.Interesting that the states that most vigorously practice the politics and policies of “equality” are experiencing just the opposite.

Conversely, the coefficient also shows that nearly every state in the top 20 in 1979 has fallen down the scale.While California, Connecticut and Massachusetts have skyrocketed UP the scale, states like Alabama, Kentucky, and Arkansas have tumbled Down the scale.

It doesn’t at all surprise me at all that the capitalism practiced in Arkansas has resulted in more equality (and an increased standard of living for the middle class) than the socialism practiced in New York.

Then again, let’s recall that “equality” isn’t truly a liberal goal. It’s merely propaganda to entice the unwashed masses to buy into the concept of governance by the elites.
We have wind towers in rural North Dakota but none on Martha’s Vineyard. Nearly every wealthy kid in Washington, DC attends private school, nearly every poor black kid attends public school.

ObamaCare is for the masses, but not the Harvard Faculty that wrote the legislation.The simple answer to the question of prosperity, equality, and wealth is unfettered capitalism, not collectivism.