What An Independent Texas Would Look Like

[FaninAma]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/pascalemmanuelgobry/2012/11/14/what-an-independent-texas-would-look-like/

[BigTip]

Interesting read.
The point of it is at the end of the article.
Less government regulation would lead to a more prosperous state. It is a simple fact.
Yes, "Let's try it" for the good old USA.

[yermom]

yeah, less regulation sure worked for the banks

without fear of a federal response, how would the cartels treat the border of Texas?

Texas would be Mexico Norte in 20 years

[FaninAma]

yeah, less regulation sure worked for the banks

without fear of a federal response, how would the cartels treat the border of Texas?

Texas would be Mexico Norte in 20 years

Doubt it. The article seems to propose that an independent Texas banking system would offer an alternative to the TBTF entrenched, incestuous DC-Wall Street rigged system that dominates the banking and investment sector of this country currently.

[diverdog]

1. They ain't got no water.

2. It could turn out to be north mexico.

[okie52]

yeah, less regulation sure worked for the banks

without fear of a federal response, how would the cartels treat the border of Texas?

Texas would be Mexico Norte in 20 years

Yea, texans should be really thankful for all of the border security the Feds have provided....

Texas economy is larger than all of Mexico's...what would be more likely to happen is Texas would wipe out ****holes like Juarez and expand its borders to the south....you know, just for border security.

[okie52]

1. They ain't got no water.

2. It could turn out to be north mexico.

I'm sure Okies would be glad to sell water to north Texas.

I'll take the texans over the border rats when texans can actually protect their own border.

[cleller]

Lets suppose Texas wanted us to secede with them, so they could have water.

Obviously we've got that football thing between us, but other than that we're about as similar politically as two big states with real working people can get.

Should we go?

[diverdog]

Lets suppose Texas wanted us to secede with them, so they could have water.

Obviously we've got that football thing between us, but other than that we're about as similar politically as two big states with real working people can get.

Should we go?

I do not think Texas would fair as well as they think. They would lose a crapload of funding from infrastructure to the military. There are a lot of retirees to take care of and defending that massive border would be expensive. Taxes would go up!

[FaninAma]

1. They ain't got no water.

2. It could turn out to be north mexico.

The water shortage issue is actually a legitimate concern.

Build desalinization plants on the coast and power them with part of their immense natural gas resources. They should be doing this anyway.

If Oklahoma manages their water resources properly it could be a huge catalyst for economic growth in the future.

[FaninAma]

I do not think Texas would fair as well as they think. They would lose a crapload of funding from infrastructure to the military. There are a lot of retirees to take care of and defending that massive border would be expensive. Taxes would go up!

The amount of taxes the citizens of Texas paid into the federal system would have to be accounted for. Perhaps Texas could buy their way out of the USA conference.

[jkjsooner]

The article misses on several key factors.

1. It's very likely that some key metropolitan areas would not go along with Texas independence or break away from Texas and rejoin the U.S. While the U.S. might not force Texas to stay, this could likely lead to an internal confrontation and the U.S. would be willing to fight for these metropolitan areas.

No matter how it plays out, I don't see Texas being able to break away without some internal conflicts.

2. There could easily be a brain drain from Texas if this came to pass.

3. Related to #2, Texas universities are very good now but there's no guarantee that they would stay that way.

4. There are a lot of reasons for the success of the U.S. but you can't ignore the role of the size of our country. Being such a large country gives us a level of power and influence. Texas might do fine but they would be throwing away the advantage of being part of such a large nation.

[cleller]

Well, its hard to admit in this forum, but if Texas really did break away, I'd be willing to go with them. Maybe we could push for Texhoma.

The possibility of being free to tell the Feds to blow it with some of their lefty big gov regulations, court rulings, and crap would be too much to pass up.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

It could turn out to be north mexico.That will happen if/when they start voting democrat. Yes, it could happen after amnesty, much faster than without it. Until then, Tx is one of the few bastions of hope for America as it was established. (even if not called America any more)

[yermom]

Well, its hard to admit in this forum, but if Texas really did break away, I'd be willing to go with them. Maybe we could push for Texhoma.

The possibility of being free to tell the Feds to blow it with some of their lefty big gov regulations, court rulings, and crap would be too much to pass up.

you should probably learn Spanish, just in case

[TAFBSooner]

Well, its hard to admit in this forum, but if Texas really did break away, I'd be willing to go with them. Maybe we could push for Texhoma.

The possibility of being free to tell the Feds to blow it with some of their lefty big gov regulations, court rulings, and crap would be too much to pass up.

If Texas did invite Oklahoma, most Oklahomans would be happy to go along. And Texas would be smart to invite Oklahoma. The new nation as a whole would have a greater percentage of conservative voters than Texas by itself. That means that conservative Texans would put off their demographic day of reckoning for several more decades.

[XingTheRubicon]

yeah, less regulation sure worked for the banks

without fear of a federal response, how would the cartels treat the border of Texas?

Texas would be Mexico Norte in 20 years

The banks did quite well, actually with less regulation. We just need less stupid citizens, that's all...that includes stupid gov't (barney frank).

[TAFBSooner]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/pascalemmanuelgobry/2012/11/14/what-an-independent-texas-would-look-like/

Interesting article, from the point of view of the 1%.

Right now the League of the South has much less of a following in the Deep South than secessionists do in Texas. Would Texas consider trying to bring along their former confederates (so to speak)?

Either way, the rest of the country would, as the article stated, turn more liberal. In such a climate would Wall Street maintain the control it has today? If so, the middle and working classes there would be screwed worse than today.




As the guy said, never going to happen. I always like thought experiments, though. My favorite is, what would have happened if the South hadn't fired on Fort Sumter? My understanding is that Lincoln did not have the support to invade the South until the South shot first.

Cuba has lived with Gitmo for over a century. The South couldn't handle Fort Sumter on their territory for five months (counting from the election). But if the South hadn't had the particular characters that responded to that "insult," they wouldn't be the South we know and <sarcasm>love today. </sarcasm>

[BigTip]

But Oklahoma doesn't have the option to leave the Union like Texas does. As part of Texas' deal of becoming a state it retained that right. That's why these discussions come up.

[TAFBSooner]

The banks did quite well, actually with less regulation. We just need less stupid citizens, that's all...that includes stupid gov't (barney frank).

Dang straight the banks did alright. None of them dancing in the air, and only a very few of the Lynndie Englands among the banksters had any punishment at all.

The rest of the country, not so much.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Dang straight the banks did alright. None of them dancing in the air, and only a very few of the Lynndie Englands among the banksters had any punishment at all.

The rest of the country, not so much.What Xing said is that the forcing of lending institutions to make stupid mortgage loans to unqualified folks is the regulation by govt. that began the financial breakdown.

[TAFBSooner]

What Xing said is that the forcing of lending institutions to make stupid mortgage loans to unqualified folks is the regulation by govt. that began the financial breakdown.

Nobody forced lending institutions to make bad loans. Letting them sell bad loans to other institutions, after taking big commissions, gave them all the motivation they needed to make stupid mortgage loans.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Nobody forced lending institutions to make bad loans. Letting them sell bad loans to other institutions, after taking big commissions, gave them all the motivation they needed to make stupid mortgage loans.Well congress did. But, I guess you don't count that?

[stoopified]

you should probably learn Spanish, just in caseIsn't it already mandatory to learn Mexican now? :)
I have heard Spanish is mandatory in many school systems.

[TAFBSooner]

Well congress did. But, I guess you don't count that?

No, you were lied to. The CRA never said to make bad loans.

If you have documentation that says otherwise, and doesn't come from "your clone," post it.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

No, you were lied to. The CRA never said to make bad loans.

If you have documentation that says otherwise, and doesn't come from "your clone," post it.haha. shonuf, tiger. Srsly, you guys need to come to grips. Lending institutions didn't benefit from, nor were they intending to make those stupid subprime loans. Congress promised sanctions to those that didn't do it. That's how the whole sordid disgraceful financial failure of the economy began. I know you won't admit it, since you would rather demonize the banks, and the privte sector, but it's the genius democrat politicians who began the whole mess. We have gone down and gotten worse from that point, with the country in shambles. Oh wait! We are supposed to believe that the economy is improving now. Oh, hail yeah!

[diverdog]

haha. shonuf, tiger. Srsly, you guys need to come to grips. Lending institutions didn't benefit from, nor were they intending to make those stupid subprime loans. Congress promised sanctions to those that didn't do it. That's how the whole sordid disgraceful financial failure of the economy began. I know you won't admit it, since you would rather demonize the banks, and the privte sector, but it's the genius democrat politicians who began the whole mess. We have gone down and gotten worse from that point, with the country in shambles. Oh wait! We are supposed to believe that the economy is improving now. Oh, hail yeah!

Subprime loans and CRA are two different animals. For like the billionth time I have done CRA loans...just did one two weeks ago....and I have never had one fail. We are not required to make bad loans. Anyone who thinks so does not know what they are talking about. Most of the subprime loans that failed were made by institutions like Countrywide which was not held to CRA standards.

[TAFBSooner]

Subprime loans and CRA are two different animals. For like the billionth time I have done CRA loans...just did one two weeks ago....and I have never had one fail. We are not required to make bad loans. Anyone who thinks so does not know what they are talking about. Most of the subprime loans that failed were made by institutions like Countrywide which was not held to CRA standards.

DD, you have been arguing this longer than I have (here). Have Clone or his clones ever produced documentation that claims that CRA is to blame?

[TAFBSooner]

haha. shonuf, tiger. Srsly, you guys need to come to grips. Lending institutions didn't benefit from, nor were they intending to make those stupid subprime loans. Congress promised sanctions to those that didn't do it. That's how the whole sordid disgraceful financial failure of the economy began. I know you won't admit it, since you would rather demonize the banks, and the privte sector, but it's the genius democrat politicians who began the whole mess. We have gone down and gotten worse from that point, with the country in shambles. Oh wait! We are supposed to believe that the economy is improving now. Oh, hail yeah!

Lending institutions did benefit from bad loans - when they packaged those loans and sold them on to the next dupes in line.

[FaninAma]

Lending institutions did benefit from bad loans - when they packaged those loans and sold them on to the next dupes in line.

Exactly. Goldman Sachs was actually shorting the garbage they sold to their clients. Now ask yourself: Why have none of the upper echelon management of the big banks ever been held accountable by the federal regulatory agencies? Because they have fallen victim to regulatory capture by these banks and the federal government, especially the executive branch, is nothing more than a form of corporate fascism.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Lending institutions did benefit from bad loans - when they packaged those loans and sold them on to the next dupes in line.They got rid of the toxic loans they had to make. That is what anyone would do in that situation. The loan originators who had to comply with congress either got rid of them, or faced failure themselves. This is common knowledge, but the Lefties apparently will never admit it. I don't expect you to, either. It's just ugly when the wrong entity is blamed for creating the problem.

Hey, you guys won. The country is now being run into the ground, and there is no likely turnaround anytime soon. You oughta be rejoicing for getting what you want, instead of complaining.

[TAFBSooner]

They got rid of the toxic loans they had to make. That is what anyone would do in that situation. The loan originators who had to comply with congress either got rid of them, or faced failure themselves. This is common knowledge, but the Lefties apparently will never admit it. I don't expect you to, either. It's just ugly when the wrong entity is blamed for creating the problem.

Hey, you guys won. The country is now being run into the ground, and there is no likely turnaround anytime soon. You oughta be rejoicing for getting what you want, instead of complaining.

Actually we all lost.

I want to see the big banks broken up. I want to see tight regulation of derivatives. I want to see Lloyd and Jamie and their ilk being perp-walked on national TV. Obama told the banksters he was the one standing between the torches and pitchforks, and the banksters. (They say "lead, follow, or get out of the way." In that case option three would have been best.)

I want to see Keynesian stimulus in the form of CCC and WPA-style jobs, not QE 1 thru infinity. Complain all you want about WPA jobs, they were better than welfare for nothing - people got self-respect, a roof over their heads, and a job history. We got out of the Depression, and some nice football stadiums*, parks, and aircraft carriers out of the deal.

No, I didn't get what I wanted. I don't see how I will get what I want through the existing "two"-party system, at least as long as corporations are people and money is speech.

* Capitol Hill (now C B Speegle) Stadium was built by the WPA. Northsiders can chime in about Taft.

[FaninAma]

Actually we all lost.

I want to see the big banks broken up. I want to see tight regulation of derivatives. I want to see Lloyd and Jamie and their ilk being perp-walked on national TV. Obama told the banksters he was the one standing between the torches and pitchforks, and the banksters. (They say "lead, follow, or get out of the way." In that case option three would have been best.)

I want to see Keynesian stimulus in the form of CCC and WPA-style jobs, not QE 1 thru infinity. Complain all you want about WPA jobs, they were better than welfare for nothing - people got self-respect, a roof over their heads, and a job history. We got out of the Depression, and some nice football stadiums*, parks, and aircraft carriers out of the deal.

No, I didn't get what I wanted. I don't see how I will get what I want through the existing "two"-party system, at least as long as corporations are people and money is speech.

* Capitol Hill (now C B Speegle) Stadium was built by the WPA. Northsiders can chime in about Taft.:applause:

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Keynesian doesn't get people excited and motivated to achieve. It's socialism, and never turns an economy to prosperity. World War II, with the fear for our very lives did get the country motivated, however. I would think even you wouldn't want that again.

Glad you agree that QE is damaging.

[bluedogok]

But Oklahoma doesn't have the option to leave the Union like Texas does. As part of Texas' deal of becoming a state it retained that right. That's why these discussions come up.
That is a falsehood, when being readmitted to the US after the Civil War that clause in the original adoption of the Republic of Texas into the US was cancelled. They no longer have that option, the option available to them via the readmission agreement is to break up into 5 or 7 states.

As to the military retirees comment, why would an independent Texas be responsible for funding US military retiree benefits? The US could still pay them as they do with many of the ex-pats in other countries.

[diverdog]

Exactly. Goldman Sachs was actually shorting the garbage they sold to their clients. Now ask yourself: Why have none of the upper echelon management of the big banks ever been held accountable by the federal regulatory agencies? Because they have fallen victim to regulatory capture by these banks and the federal government, especially the executive branch, is nothing more than a form of corporate fascism.

My biggest disappointment with Obama is that none of those guys heads were put on a pike as a warning to others.

On a different note the former heads of my bank that failed are getting the sh*t sued out of them and more than a few are going to jail for bank fraud. You don't screw with Delaware banking laws....lol

[TAFBSooner]

Keynesian doesn't get people excited and motivated to achieve.

Nonsense. All those people with wages to spend make a market. When there's a market, there will be entrepreneurs to tap it.



It's socialism,

Meh.

I work for a socialist military. We drive our capitalism-provided cars on socialist highways. I enjoy socialist national and state parks, eating my capitalism-provided steak and potatoes. The point is, we have a MIXED ECONOMY (as does every nation in the world, just with different mixes). Some things are done by the government, and some things are done by the private sector. We adjust what those things are, sometimes empirically, but all too often politically.

If you are afraid of socialism cooties, you need to leave the US. I hate to tell you there aren't any places with no socialism, though.

We've always had some degree of socialism, and have managed to grow from some very small colonies (populated by SicEm's ancestors) to the world's only superpower. Now, I agree with you that our free market system has been the basis for that growth, but the collective, or socialist, things we've done haven't kept us from coming out on top.



and never turns an economy to prosperity. World War II, with the fear for our very lives did get the country motivated, however.


Sure, people were motivated to win the war, but it was all that government spending that turned the economy around. You don't think Rosie worked for free, do you?


I would think even you wouldn't want that again.



Agreed, I don't want war of any size, unless our own security is threatened. However, WWII does show that massive government deficit spending did spark the economy, leading to 30 years of prosperity. (Yes, I know, with the additional factor of the rest of the world being flattened.)

[champions77]

Well, its hard to admit in this forum, but if Texas really did break away, I'd be willing to go with them. Maybe we could push for Texhoma.

The possibility of being free to tell the Feds to blow it with some of their lefty big gov regulations, court rulings, and crap would be too much to pass up.

+1 From what I can tell, texans have got "it" figured out way more than knuckleheads in DC do. It it makes sense, then just expect Congress to do it the opposite way.

[bluedogok]

Lending institutions did benefit from bad loans - when they packaged those loans and sold them on to the next dupes in line.
What's old is new again, the same thing happened when Penn Square Bank failed and those they (and others) had sold bundled energy loans to were on the brink of failure. Bankers never seem to learn from history, they just figure out a new way to package something. That is what happens when you no longer hold onto loans that you underwrite. The responsibility for making viable loans is lost so it all becomes about how much fee can be made off of them and not about how the life of the loan will play out. Fractional bank reserves has also made the problem bigger than in the past.

[jkjsooner]

What's old is new again, the same thing happened when Penn Square Bank failed and those they (and others) had sold bundled energy loans to were on the brink of failure. Bankers never seem to learn from history, they just figure out a new way to package something. That is what happens when you no longer hold onto loans that you underwrite. The responsibility for making viable loans is lost so it all becomes about how much fee can be made off of them and not about how the life of the loan will play out. Fractional bank reserves has also made the problem bigger than in the past.

I'm with you except on the last sentence. What exactly is a fractional bank reserve? If you're referring to fraction reserve banking, then, well, that's existed forever.

The only alternative to fractional reserve banking is to force banks to hold 100% of cash on hand. That means banks can't be involved in lending at least not with deposit accounts. That means you would have to pay the bank a significant amount to hold on to your money since they can't make money on it. And for anyone who happens to be against too much government regulation, forcing 100% reserve on banks is the ultimate regulation.

And, of course, this all would cause a deflationary spiral like we've never seen before.

[TAFBSooner]

What's old is new again, the same thing happened when Penn Square Bank failed and those they (and others) had sold bundled energy loans to were on the brink of failure. Bankers never seem to learn from history, they just figure out a new way to package something. That is what happens when you no longer hold onto loans that you underwrite. The responsibility for making viable loans is lost so it all becomes about how much fee can be made off of them and not about how the life of the loan will play out. Fractional bank reserves has also made the problem bigger than in the past.

The bankers know exactly what they're doing. It's the rest of us that haven't learned from THEIR history of "mistakes."