Hypothetical Musings

So here is a question I find intriguing. What would the federal government do--what could it do--if (for example) the state of California decided to secede? What would the rest of the world do? It's a chance in a million or less that any state would dream of secession, let alone be able to convince 20 million+ voting citizens to agree to it, but permit the hypothesis. What would be likely to happen? It's a little bit amusing, because it seems like popular opinion would keep the government's hands tied. Would it bring in tanks and impose martial law? Blast off a chunk of California real estate at the San Andreas Fault with Cruise missles, a la Lex Luthor? Go pleading to the UN? Just let it slide? :-)

He is Risen!

Happy Resurrection Day!!

"And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.

And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?

And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great.

And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.

And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.

But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.

And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.

Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.

And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.

After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.

And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.

Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.

And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.

And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen."

~Mark 16

How Much Would You Pay?

Only in this society? It's his decision, but I wish he'd burnt $1350 dollars by giving them to me! Seriously, though, think of all the useful or interesting or even simply nice things that money could have been spent on: a lawnmower, a new coat, a nice painting, maybe a couple hundred pounds of food bound for Darfur.

Amateur Economics

I am not an economist, so I'm sure the issue is ten times more complicated than this. But investment, stocks, and the like are built on credit and trust, right? Investors know the money isn't all there in hard specie. The "fake money" that the Jeffersonians thundered against in the early 19th century is common currency now. Why, then, do investors make a run on banks and firms when something shakes their confidence? Doesn't a run benefit almost no one? They can't all be so reflexively greedy that each one is so desperate to be the lucky one who gets a real return on his investment before the bank can't pony up. I sometimes get the feeling that if all these investors just kept their heads and had patience, things would stabilize. But they never do, so there must a lot more to it I'm completely unaware of. Any economics whizzes out there who can shed some light? 

I had an interesting thought yesterday. It seems like the more liberal-minded, the majority of those one would associate with the democratic party, cannot stand the idea of there being anyone struggling to keep a decent standard of living, and so they race to prop up everyone immediately. The more conservative-minded--but I can't include the majority of Republicans here, because some of them probably don't want this or haven't thought about it--recognize that this will end up making almost everyone fall harder. And so they are willing to go through a somewhat difficult transition in order to dismantle or diminish some of the government structure most people have come to depend on and find other solutions that work better over time--even, I would hope, if the transition were difficult for them personally.  

Maybe that just applies to me and a few other people, and the differences between the parties are different or more complex, or both. But that thought struck me and I wanted to write about it. :-)