How much wealthier would Mississippi be if it was more liberal?

[Never]

Btw, what did you think of the Oregon healthcare survey?

I found this article to be a good summary of the findings. Some benefits, like lower depression and better preventive care for better quality of life, and some stasis on other measures. A data point to be considered along with the Massachusetts findings.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/02/heres-what-the-oregon-medicaid-study-really-said/

We have tens of thousands of people in the Oregon experiment, and we're now engaging in a much larger experiment thanks to Republican refusal to extend Medicaid coverage. We'll see how health outcomes on many measures do in Kentucky vs. comparable states and if health care is truly wasted on the poor.

It seems that that experiments on health have many factors that can affect things.

It's probably important to remember that the benefit of reduced depression could be mildly affected by people feeling that their situation is better and that they are healthier once they have insurance. I hold the view that a positive mindset can really improve a person's health, so I'm not writing that off. It's just something to consider.

Preventive care is probably among the most effective kind of health care, so it makes since that there could be some correlation between having access to that kind of care through any form insurance and having improved health.

[pbrower2a]

The South has been moving closer to the rest of the country in income since the 50s, thanks in large part to productivity rises. Would being liberal make Mississippi workers more productive? I doubt it.

Better schools, which would require better-educated and better-motivated teachers, would help.

The big change was the abandonment of Jim Crow practice that ensured that many had no chance at a Good Life.

[memphis]

Wealthier states are built by first attracting rich people and their investment builds into wealth. 

I don't agree. Mississippi has had a super rich planter elite going way back the earliest days of the state. The Delta, along the river, was some of the best farmland in the US, and it didn't come cheaply in an age when agriculture defined the economy. Their descendents are still there and are still, for the most part, very well to do. But it's still one of the poorest places in America because everybody else is a black living in squalor. The gasoline powered cotton harvester was introduced after WWII, so now the landowners don't even have to pay sharecroppers in kind for their labor. Having rich people in an area doesn't necessarily translate into widespread prosperity.

[Maxwell]

probably not much at all. It already scrounges for as much federal money as it can.

[Never]

Michigan is more fiscally liberal than socially liberal.

I think there is an element that bleeds over from social policy to economics... A lot of businesses don't want to do business (and find it hard to attract good candidates) in socially conservative areas even when their policies are more business friendly.

Which is why Georgia and Texas are down in the dumps economically (sarcasm).

[Skill and Chance]

Michigan is more fiscally liberal than socially liberal.

I think there is an element that bleeds over from social policy to economics... A lot of businesses don't want to do business (and find it hard to attract good candidates) in socially conservative areas even when their policies are more business friendly.

Which is why Georgia and Texas are down in the dumps economically (sarcasm).

Dallas, Houston and anywhere within 20 miles of Atlanta are not socially conservative.  And Austin is probably more socially liberal than Boston!

[MurrayBannerman]

Correlation is not causation, people. Repeat that many times.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Detroit/Michigan shows that just being liberal doesn't make a state wealthy.

Uhhhh... the liberalism is a result of NOT being wealthy. 

As far as the OP goes... MUCH, MUCH wealthier. 

[CountryClassSF]

Detroit has voted Democrat since the 50s and the city has changed for the worse. This is not debatable.

[7,052,770]

Detroit has voted Democrat since the 50s and the city has changed for the worse. This is not debatable.

Correlation is causation, and there are no other factors that could have possibly contributed. I guess I better be changing my avatar color...

[CountryClassSF]

Detroit has voted Democrat since the 50s and the city has changed for the worse. This is not debatable.

Correlation is causation, and there are no other factors that could have possibly contributed. I guess I better be changing my avatar color...

I don't disagree with your point. But it's like come on. How could liberalism generate wealth when it stifles businesses with higher taxes, forces astronomically high wages for employees (and thus less jobs)?

Sure, I live in  San Francisco and we are an extremely wealthy city. But did you know we also have among the highest income inequality ? Why pray tell, in the most' progressive' city on the planet, does this happen? Because middle class families are rejected by this city.

A high minimum wage hasn't helped jack squat. All it did was drive prices up. We're paying $4 for a slice of toast. I can afford it, but fully recognize other's cant. Atleast your state has good grits and wonderful people. That goes for Democrats too