Cognitive Dissonance

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In 2021, the government and government enterprises industry added the most real value to the gross domestic product (GDP) of the District of Columbia, amounting to around 41.93 billion U.S. dollars. Comparatively, the manufacturing industry contributed around 281 million U.S. dollars to the districts real GDP.

I am assuming that of you want to be a state you don’t get to keep the entire government and government enterprises.

From there I’m looking at the 2 states comparable by population (you said, we can support ourselves just like these similar states). Well their GDP is 5-6x less but they in fact have something to produce. We not so much. So we’d have to find other ways to attract the producers.

It’s nuts to me to demand statehood first and then we’ll figure if out.

So 75%+ of the GDP is dependent on DC status as the federal district? Then we also get at least 25% of the budget and the free judiciary. Plus the multiplier effect. Good luck.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:In 2021, the government and government enterprises industry added the most real value to the gross domestic product (GDP) of the District of Columbia, amounting to around 41.93 billion U.S. dollars. Comparatively, the manufacturing industry contributed around 281 million U.S. dollars to the districts real GDP.

I am assuming that of you want to be a state you don’t get to keep the entire government and government enterprises.

From there I’m looking at the 2 states comparable by population (you said, we can support ourselves just like these similar states). Well their GDP is 5-6x less but they in fact have something to produce. We not so much. So we’d have to find other ways to attract the producers.

It’s nuts to me to demand statehood first and then we’ll figure if out.

Are you just trolling now? Surely your expectation that our GDP would drop by 5x just on the basis of population is not meant to be serious. I really don't know where to start with your analysis. First, the plan for statehood envisions a Federal District. The Congress and Whitehouse are not going anywhere. Whether government departments stay in the area is really unrelated to statehood. There is an effort to move them elsewhere already. Don't you remember that Trump moved the USDA?

DC's most valuable asset is its highly educated population. Our GDP is high because of our demographics. Those folks are not going to suffer 80% income reductions because we become a state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, I would appreciate your opinion, because I really can’t find enough on this and know you are a committed and it seems an informed supporter: what are the likely scenarios of winning the statehood?

What gets taken away?
What gets gained?
Can our economy support the state?
Etc.

There are a lot of unknowns involved here. I personally believe that the most likely scenario for DC statehood is a simple Congressional vote. I think the impetus will be a realization among Democrats that the Senate is increasingly undemocratic and unrepresentative. Adding two senators for DC will rectify that to some extent.

What gets taken away are services for which the Federal government is currently responsible, most notably our court system. DC would have to pay for that. Presumably, some DC program such as DC TAG might lose support, but who knows?

What we gain is more control over our affairs. We are less vulnerable to federal government shutdowns, don't have to worry about our laws being overturned by Congress, and our governor will have control of the DC National Guard. Most importantly, we get two Senators and a House member.

Yes, our economy can support being a state. States with smaller populations are able to do so.

I’m sorry I just looked up the numbers, and posted on it plus added a video that I think tells the story, and I don’t think the numbers add up at all.
Maybe if we negotiate some magical deal with the federal government. But to go 5x down in GDP (as you said there are other states) with all of our problems and then also pay for the judiciary and a bunch of other things (the federal grants are a quarter of the revenue and some things are paid for directly). There’s no world in which this could work? I’d love to be set straight. Love. Truly. Because I want to support it.

My analysis is a 2 minute wiki google, so must be wrong. But? Can’t find any analysis at all saying otherwise

Instead I support, based on the evidence to date, turning DC into a fully privileged federal district and a tax haven. Where we all become rich and the city is a gorgeous haven. Highly doable with a smarter set of folks at the helm. This too would require a study first.

I am not sure how you determined that our GDP would be reduced 5x. That makes no sense. Why would GDP decrease? We wouldn't be producing less.

You want Singapore. Do you really believe that "the world's greatest democracy" should have a tax-haven that is only affordable to the richest of the rich as its capital? Exactly why do you believe the same politicians that oppose statehood for DC would support making it a tax haven?

What is your proposal for the poor of DC who can't afford to live in your Singaporized DC?

No I don’t. I imagine DC as the first social utopia in the US. Mixed zoning. Affordable housing. Universal basic income, means tested. Free quality healthcare or universal coverage. Great schools. It’s been done.

Denmark meets Zug on the Potomac. Lift every single resident up.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In 2021, the government and government enterprises industry added the most real value to the gross domestic product (GDP) of the District of Columbia, amounting to around 41.93 billion U.S. dollars. Comparatively, the manufacturing industry contributed around 281 million U.S. dollars to the districts real GDP.

I am assuming that of you want to be a state you don’t get to keep the entire government and government enterprises.

From there I’m looking at the 2 states comparable by population (you said, we can support ourselves just like these similar states). Well their GDP is 5-6x less but they in fact have something to produce. We not so much. So we’d have to find other ways to attract the producers.

It’s nuts to me to demand statehood first and then we’ll figure if out.

Are you just trolling now? Surely your expectation that our GDP would drop by 5x just on the basis of population is not meant to be serious. I really don't know where to start with your analysis. First, the plan for statehood envisions a Federal District. The Congress and Whitehouse are not going anywhere. Whether government departments stay in the area is really unrelated to statehood. There is an effort to move them elsewhere already. Don't you remember that Trump moved the USDA?

DC's most valuable asset is its highly educated population. Our GDP is high because of our demographics. Those folks are not going to suffer 80% income reductions because we become a state.

No. Happy to not say anything more. I genuinely am flummoxed that there is no content behind either the case for or the case against.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Here you go: 1-5 are highly dependent on DC being a federal
district.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1065920/district-of-columbia-real-gdp-by-industry/

There will still be a federal district. Do you think the Whitehouse and Congress will be moved to Wyoming?

[Anonymous]

Sorry, one more thing. Why on Earth would the other states (let’s imagine Ron is the Pres) let us keep anything more than what they must? Federal District? The White House and the State Department maybe. Historically the entire social contract was special status which went both ways.

[Anonymous]

Yes, I do, there’s nothing keeping either here. Look at the EU — it’s spread out over several cities and states even though Brussels has a lot of the institutions.

[Anonymous]

If I were Gavin I’d say I’m the biggest state by far, I want the Senate. Texas goes we want the Supreme Court. Whatever. It’s not like DC is Barcelona. It’s historically been a hardship post in terms of QoL for many diplomats.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In 2021, the government and government enterprises industry added the most real value to the gross domestic product (GDP) of the District of Columbia, amounting to around 41.93 billion U.S. dollars. Comparatively, the manufacturing industry contributed around 281 million U.S. dollars to the districts real GDP.

I am assuming that of you want to be a state you don’t get to keep the entire government and government enterprises.

From there I’m looking at the 2 states comparable by population (you said, we can support ourselves just like these similar states). Well their GDP is 5-6x less but they in fact have something to produce. We not so much. So we’d have to find other ways to attract the producers.

It’s nuts to me to demand statehood first and then we’ll figure if out.

Are you just trolling now? Surely your expectation that our GDP would drop by 5x just on the basis of population is not meant to be serious. I really don't know where to start with your analysis. First, the plan for statehood envisions a Federal District. The Congress and Whitehouse are not going anywhere. Whether government departments stay in the area is really unrelated to statehood. There is an effort to move them elsewhere already. Don't you remember that Trump moved the USDA?

DC's most valuable asset is its highly educated population. Our GDP is high because of our demographics. Those folks are not going to suffer 80% income reductions because we become a state.

No. Happy to not say anything more. I genuinely am flummoxed that there is no content behind either the case for or the case against.

By your own admission, you spent 2 minutes researching this. There are people who have been working on this issue for decades. It has gone to the Supreme Court. There is a ton of content supporting statehood. Go here and start reading:

https://statehood.dc.gov

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, one more thing. Why on Earth would the other states (let’s imagine Ron is the Pres) let us keep anything more than what they must? Federal District? The White House and the State Department maybe. Historically the entire social contract was special status which went both ways.

They are doing that anyway. Don't you read the news?

[Anonymous]

Of course it’s a stupid 2 minute analysis, but it seems to me equally naive to assume we declare statehood and give nothing up. When and where has that ever happened?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, one more thing. Why on Earth would the other states (let’s imagine Ron is the Pres) let us keep anything more than what they must? Federal District? The White House and the State Department maybe. Historically the entire social contract was special status which went both ways.

They are doing that anyway. Don't you read the news?

Yes. So what are the statehood scenarios? I see one viable one, I’m in.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In 2021, the government and government enterprises industry added the most real value to the gross domestic product (GDP) of the District of Columbia, amounting to around 41.93 billion U.S. dollars. Comparatively, the manufacturing industry contributed around 281 million U.S. dollars to the districts real GDP.

I am assuming that of you want to be a state you don’t get to keep the entire government and government enterprises.

From there I’m looking at the 2 states comparable by population (you said, we can support ourselves just like these similar states). Well their GDP is 5-6x less but they in fact have something to produce. We not so much. So we’d have to find other ways to attract the producers.

It’s nuts to me to demand statehood first and then we’ll figure if out.

Are you just trolling now? Surely your expectation that our GDP would drop by 5x just on the basis of population is not meant to be serious. I really don't know where to start with your analysis. First, the plan for statehood envisions a Federal District. The Congress and Whitehouse are not going anywhere. Whether government departments stay in the area is really unrelated to statehood. There is an effort to move them elsewhere already. Don't you remember that Trump moved the USDA?

DC's most valuable asset is its highly educated population. Our GDP is high because of our demographics. Those folks are not going to suffer 80% income reductions because we become a state.

No. Happy to not say anything more. I genuinely am flummoxed that there is no content behind either the case for or the case against.

By your own admission, you spent 2 minutes researching this. There are people who have been working on this issue for decades. It has gone to the Supreme Court. There is a ton of content supporting statehood. Go here and start reading:

https://statehood.dc.gov

Where are the economics? It’s all political. And assuming more or less a status quo

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:If I were Gavin I’d say I’m the biggest state by far, I want the Senate. Texas goes we want the Supreme Court. Whatever. It’s not like DC is Barcelona. It’s historically been a hardship post in terms of QoL for many diplomats.

You guys are all bonkers. Have you ever heard of a thing called the "Constitution"? Here, look into it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States

Pay special attention to Article 1, Section 8 where it discusses a Federal District.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Of course it’s a stupid 2 minute analysis, but it seems to me equally naive to assume we declare statehood and give nothing up. When and where has that ever happened?

I'm going to have to retire from this discussion because it really is not worth my effort to continue spending time trying to convince someone who doesn't even know the basics of US history. How do you think we manage to get 50 states?