5 ms·

Or people just don't trade with California and California doesn't have any pork.

HWR_14 4y ago
> Or people just don't trade with California and California doesn't have any pork. That's not how it works in the real world. See how California sets the entire US auto policy.
PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
This is not how it normally works, and I suspect you know that.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  That's how it works for San Francisco, which is turning out to be not so good for the SF citizens: https://www.wsj.com/articles/san-francisco-to-consider-tolerating-opposing-views-11666809076 https://www.wsj.com/articles/san-francisco-to-consider-toler...
  - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
    The toleration of intolerance has always been a thorny philosophical problem. The WSJ article is clearly written as an homage to The Onion. Finally, San Francisco is not a big enough market to swing anything (or almost anything). California is, particularly if there are at least a few producer states whose sympathies lie in the general direction the CA is trying to push (e.g. with vehicle emissions).
  - jquery 4y ago
    Was the WSJ always this bad or did Rupert Murdoch’s purchase take it in a far right direction?
    - tdehnel 4y ago
      Oh knock it off. Having a conservative opinion =/= “far right”
      - 3836293648 4y ago
        You're talking about Americans. The democrats are far right and the republicans are extremely far right. Look at the rest of the world
        knewter 4y ago
        The opinions of rest of the world are irrelevant to us as regards our political debates. You literally don't matter.
    - Regnore 4y ago
      The linked article is from their opinion section which is always hit and miss depending on how you lean politically. The actual reporting done by WSJ is still top tier imo.
- edmcnulty101 4y ago
  What will most likely happen is that the prices of pork will go up in Cali to accommodate for their laws and stay the same everywhere else. Regulation simply equals increased prices which is essentially a tax on the middle class and poor. Whatever was regulated will become a luxury. The rich will have it but the middle class and poor will not. See car prices, gas prices, food prices, liquor licenses, etc. Anything the government gets it's hand on to regulate increases prices. The rich don't notice the increased cost of regulation but the middle class and poor suffer.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
    > What will most likely happen is that the prices of pork will go up in Cali That assumes: * either pork production for CA takes place only inside CA or in other states they have two levels of pork production * if the latter, this further requires that pork producers are happy maintaining two levels of production * it also requires that no or few other states follow CA lead on requirements > Regulation simply equals increased prices Regulation is often (not always, but often) about bring externalities into the actual cost. So the full picture of the result of regulation needs to include: * what were the externalities now being priced? * where was the cost of the externalities previously experienced (e.g. poor communities dealing with runoff and waste from pork production) * what was the full cost of the externalities before regulation bought some of them into the actual price? * what are the remaining externalities after the regulation
    - edmcnulty101 4y ago
      adding additional friction to a process always increases the difficulty of the process and the cost of overcoming that friction is always borne by the consumer.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
        who bears the cost of not adequately regulating production and disposal processes?

> Or people just don't trade with California and California doesn't have any pork. That's not how it works in the real world. See how California sets the entire US auto policy.

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago

This is not how it normally works, and I suspect you know that.

WalterBright 4y ago
That's how it works for San Francisco, which is turning out to be not so good for the SF citizens: https://www.wsj.com/articles/san-francisco-to-consider-tolerating-opposing-views-11666809076 https://www.wsj.com/articles/san-francisco-to-consider-toler...
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  The toleration of intolerance has always been a thorny philosophical problem. The WSJ article is clearly written as an homage to The Onion. Finally, San Francisco is not a big enough market to swing anything (or almost anything). California is, particularly if there are at least a few producer states whose sympathies lie in the general direction the CA is trying to push (e.g. with vehicle emissions).
- jquery 4y ago
  Was the WSJ always this bad or did Rupert Murdoch’s purchase take it in a far right direction?
  - tdehnel 4y ago
    Oh knock it off. Having a conservative opinion =/= “far right”
    - 3836293648 4y ago
      You're talking about Americans. The democrats are far right and the republicans are extremely far right. Look at the rest of the world
      - knewter 4y ago
        The opinions of rest of the world are irrelevant to us as regards our political debates. You literally don't matter.
  - Regnore 4y ago
    The linked article is from their opinion section which is always hit and miss depending on how you lean politically. The actual reporting done by WSJ is still top tier imo.
edmcnulty101 4y ago
What will most likely happen is that the prices of pork will go up in Cali to accommodate for their laws and stay the same everywhere else. Regulation simply equals increased prices which is essentially a tax on the middle class and poor. Whatever was regulated will become a luxury. The rich will have it but the middle class and poor will not. See car prices, gas prices, food prices, liquor licenses, etc. Anything the government gets it's hand on to regulate increases prices. The rich don't notice the increased cost of regulation but the middle class and poor suffer.
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  > What will most likely happen is that the prices of pork will go up in Cali That assumes: * either pork production for CA takes place only inside CA or in other states they have two levels of pork production * if the latter, this further requires that pork producers are happy maintaining two levels of production * it also requires that no or few other states follow CA lead on requirements > Regulation simply equals increased prices Regulation is often (not always, but often) about bring externalities into the actual cost. So the full picture of the result of regulation needs to include: * what were the externalities now being priced? * where was the cost of the externalities previously experienced (e.g. poor communities dealing with runoff and waste from pork production) * what was the full cost of the externalities before regulation bought some of them into the actual price? * what are the remaining externalities after the regulation
  - edmcnulty101 4y ago
    adding additional friction to a process always increases the difficulty of the process and the cost of overcoming that friction is always borne by the consumer.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
      who bears the cost of not adequately regulating production and disposal processes?