Go, Economy!

What about poor Florida?

Florida's on its own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

Who cares? JPMorgan's losses are someone else's gains. The money doesn't vanish.

---

Large losses means inefficient investing, which leads to resources moving towards less productive companies.

Ultimately, it does mean we are losing products.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anthony

Large losses means inefficient investing, which leads to resources moving towards less productive companies.

Ultimately, it does mean we are losing products.

---

:wtf: If JPMorgan had made $2B, then someone else had lost it. Based on this mess, would you assume the alternative is less productive?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fe 26

You know what average is, right? Average is another word for stupid.

---

I like your dad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by icarusfall

I actually think the US should be divided into something like 5 countries.

It's too large and diverse for a one size government.

---

That's why the role of federal government should be minimized. The states can handle diversity that Washington can't.

We tried that shit already. It doesn't work.

Based on what? What magic do the Feds have that is so critical aside from interstates and the military that it needs to be centralized? And when (recently) did we try this?

We tried it, obviously, from about 1776-1789, and it was an unmitigated disaster. Then we tried it again, in a modified form, from 1789 through 1861, and it was another unmitigated disaster. Then certain states started to assert their rights to maintain, functionally, an apartheid state from 1865 through the 1960's and that was another unmitigated disaster.

This isn't even in question. The Constitution and Bill of Rights (yes, there are more Amendments than the 1st, 2nd, and 10th) guarantee people rights and we need someone to enforce them. Some states have made it abundantly clear they have no interest in doing so. I don't see the need to keep trying failed ideas.

There are also other issues. Texas may want to give their political contributors the right to dump toxic waste and spew poison into the air indiscriminately, but air and water do not respect state borders.

I think your last point is a fair one and that the line should probably drawn where one state's laws impact other states directly. Otherwise, I support strictly interpreting and enforcing the Constitution and Bill of Rights (all of them). And that's essentially the end of the list of powers the Feds should wield. You seem to be the one selectively picking which parts of the Constitution should be followed and which not, not me.