[extropy-chat] Redistribution of wealth

[Matthew Gingell]

Nicholas Anthony MacDonald writes:

 > But yes, in general, the "blue states" are the ones with the most
 > advanced production and information economies (and high-wage jobs),
 > while the "red states" are still primarily driven by agriculture
 > and natural resources (and lower-wage jobs). So, naturally, the
 > government ends up sending more wealth in the direction of the red
 > states, to keep our resource economy from drying up. 

 What doesn't make any sense though, and what makes US political
 rhetoric so completely surreal, is the electorate's bizarre
 insistence on arguing against it's own interest. Why do the blue
 states fight so hard to maintain federal spending they largely don't
 benefit from, and why are the red states so interested in cutting
 taxes they largely don't pay?

 > I see it all the time here in SD- farm subsidies, ethanol
 > subsidies, water projects, infrastructure, etc- all to keep our
 > low-yield, marginal agricultural economy running. Though I'd be
 > egged for saying it in front of about anyone in this state, I say
 > let the dirt farmers fold up- the future of this state is bison,
 > indians, and windmills- and a few tech companies and credit
 > processing operations in Sioux Falls.
 
 Maybe you can understand how us East Coast rate-payers are a little
 irked by the lack of gratitude we're shown by the deeply subsidized,
 money loosing, interior colonies? Is there any popular conception
 among you God fearing, real American folk of what SD would look like
 if you could no longer get $3 for a $1 worth of alfalfa? (Or whatever
 the hell it is you people grow out there.) :)

 Matt