The most and least socialist states

The Most Socialist States in America | News | Money/Investing | Mainstreet

I'm not 100% sold on their ranking methodology, but the lists are still interesting. The top 5 and bottom 5 states (the link will take you to the top 10 and bottom 10), as ranked based on total state government expenditures as a % of state GDP (for FY 2009):

The Most Socialist:

1. West Virginia
2. Alaska
3. Alabama
4. Vermont
5. New Mexico

The Least Socialist:

1. Nevada
2. Illinois
3. Texas
4. New Hampshire
5. Florida
 

Vince

......
The Most Socialist States in America | News | Money/Investing | Mainstreet

I'm not 100% sold on their ranking methodology, but the lists are still interesting. The top 5 and bottom 5 states (the link will take you to the top 10 and bottom 10), as ranked based on total state government expenditures as a % of state GDP (for FY 2009):

The Most Socialist:

1. West Virginia
2. Alaska
3. Alabama
4. Vermont
5. New Mexico

The Least Socialist:

1. Nevada
2. Illinois
3. Texas
4. New Hampshire
5. Florida
The way they ranked them is questionable. If I'm reading this correctly they are basing this percentage on it being spent on social programs with the state. I'd like to see what they are calling social programs. Also suprised Maryland isn't up there in the top 10 with O'Malley spending our money.
 
The way they ranked them is questionable. If I'm reading this correctly they are basing this percentage on it being spent on social programs with the state. I'd like to see what they are calling social programs. Also suprised Maryland isn't up there in the top 10 with O'Malley spending our money.

I think the top 10 might surprise more than a few people.

The rankings are based on total state spending though, not just what someone might consider social programs. The calculation purports to be the % of each state's GDP that is represented by public sector (state) spending. I'd note though, that some of that spending represents federal funds.

For instance, supposedly West Virginia's FY 2009 GDP was $63.3 Billion, while its total state expenditures for FY 2009 were $20.4 Billion, which represents a little over 32% of its GDP. About $3.9 Billion of that spending was with federal funds.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
The way they ranked them is questionable. If I'm reading this correctly they are basing this percentage on it being spent on social programs with the state.

It looks like it's even more loosely defined than that. It appears to me all they did was compare total money spent vs. the state's GDP. I would think part of the equation would be debt-to-income ratio. And certainly political demographics have to come into play. I don't know what China's GDP to spending ratio is, but even if it's extremely low, they are still a communist country.

This is :bs:
 

Aerogal

USMC 1983-1995
But isn't a state supposed to re-spend it's collected taxes backi nto the state? Such as property taxes going to education, police, fire and emergency services? I'd be more interested in seeing what percentage of collected taxes they put out in State employee union benefits, welfare, housing, and state funded medical insurance. Now THAT would be an indicator of how 'socialist' a state is.
 
It looks like it's even more loosely defined than that. It appears to me all they did was compare total money spent vs. the state's GDP. I would think part of the equation would be debt-to-income ratio. And certainly political demographics have to come into play. I don't know what China's GDP to spending ratio is, but even if it's extremely low, they are still a communist country.

This is :bs:

Why would debt-to-income matter more than (or even substantially relative to) the portion of economic output that is controlled by the government, when it comes to assessing how socialist a society is? That would relate more to fiscal soundness and responsibility than to how socialist a system is. Something doesn't need to be socialist to be fiscally irresponsible or now-centric (i.e. to be spenders not savers).

Frankly, the basic idea of the measurement - how much of a society's economic output is controlled and allocated by the government - is a good one when it comes to trying to quantitatively measure the level of socialism evinced therin (at least, if we're considering the term in a meaningfully descriptive way, rather than just as a generic pejorative). They weren't trying to measure the level of socialism considered rhetorically (or the degree to which socialism is espoused), they were trying to measure the level of socialism considered objectively (or the degree to which it is implemented). I see other issues with these measurements, but the basic posit behind them is sound.

As to China, if we could accurately and realistically measure how much of its production is directed or controlled by the government, I think it would be quite high. That said, an entity choosing to call itself communist or socialist isn't the end all consideration when it comes to whether they are communist or socialist. The U.S.S.R. considered itself communist (I assume, though I don't actually recall it specifically declaring that itself), but it was by no means what Karl Marx would have considered communist - it was a usurper of the name, at least in so far as he had described it.
 

philibusters

Active Member
The Most Socialist States in America | News | Money/Investing | Mainstreet

I'm not 100% sold on their ranking methodology, but the lists are still interesting. The top 5 and bottom 5 states (the link will take you to the top 10 and bottom 10), as ranked based on total state government expenditures as a % of state GDP (for FY 2009):

The Most Socialist:

1. West Virginia
2. Alaska
3. Alabama
4. Vermont
5. New Mexico

The Least Socialist:

1. Nevada
2. Illinois
3. Texas
4. New Hampshire
5. Florida

It seems to be Republican states at both the top and bottom.
 
It seems to be Republican states at both the top and bottom.

I'd say modern American Republicans and modern American Democrats, considered as a whole and not at any precise moment, are roughly equal when it comes to how socialist-icly inclined they are - with the Democrats perhaps having a slight edge. That's speaking to practical considerations, not rhetorical ones - rhetorically, Republicans are significantly more anti-socialism.

The greater difference between the respective groups comes with regard to which flavors of socialism they tend to find tastiest.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
Why would debt-to-income matter more than (or even substantially relative to) the portion of economic output that is controlled by the government, when it comes to assessing how socialist a society is?

I didn’t say it mattered more, I said it should be PART of the equation.
 

bulldog

New Member
FREEDOM IN THE 50 STATES: AN INDEX of PERSONAL AND

Full document:
http://www.statepolicyindex.com/wp-...-and-economic-freedom-by-ruger-and-sorens.pdf

Interesting read on page 33 regarding MD.

Table I: Fiscal Policy RankingState Fiscal freedom
1. New Hampshire 0.28
2. South Dakota 0.26
3. Tennessee 0.25
4. Texas 0.22
5. Colorado 0.21
6. Missouri 0.19
7. North Dakota 0.15
8. Montana 0.13
9. Georgia 0.13
10. Idaho 0.12
11. Oklahoma 0.11
12. Alabama 0.11
13. Nevada 0.11
14. Virginia 0.11
15. Arizona 0.09
16. Maryland 0.06
17. Wyoming 0.06
18. Illinois 0.05
19. Iowa 0.04
20. Utah 0.04
21. North Carolina 0.03
22. Mississippi 0.02
23. Massachusetts 0.02
24. Indiana 0.01
25. Florida 0.00
26. Connecticut -0.01
27. Oregon -0.01
28. Kansas -0.02
29. Louisiana -0.02
30. Delaware -0.02
31. Michigan -0.03
32. Pennsylvania -0.03
33. Arkansas -0.04
34. South Carolina -0.04
35. Minnesota -0.04
36. Kentucky -0.05
37. Washington -0.06
38. Nebraska -0.07
39. West Virginia -0.07
40. Ohio -0.07
41. Rhode Island -0.10
42. Wisconsin -0.13
43. New Jersey -0.17
44. California -0.19
45. New Mexico -0.19
46. Hawaii -0.21
47. Vermont -0.21
48. Maine -0.23
49. Alaska -0.35
50. New York -0.44

Table II: Regulatory Policy Ranking State Regulatory freedom
1. Michigan 0.19
2. North Dakota 0.16
3. Pennsylvania 0.15
4. Kansas 0.15
5. Indiana 0.14
6. Idaho 0.14
7. Iowa 0.13
8. South Dakota 0.13
9. Utah 0.13
10. Georgia 0.13
11. Colorado 0.12
12. South Carolina 0.11
13. Nebraska 0.10
14. Arizona 0.10
15. Alabama 0.09
16. Delaware 0.07
17. Virginia 0.07
18. New Hampshire 0.06
19. Florida 0.05
20. Wyoming 0.04
21. Oklahoma 0.03
22. Missouri 0.02
23. Wisconsin 0.02
24. Alaska 0.01
25. Louisiana 0.01
26. North Carolina 0.01
27. Texas 0.00
28. Tennessee -0.01
29. Ohio -0.01
30. Minnesota -0.03
31. Montana -0.04
32. Kentucky -0.04
33. Nevada -0.05
34. Mississippi -0.05
35. Illinois -0.07
36. Hawaii -0.09
37. New Mexico -0.10
38. Oregon -0.10
39. Vermont -0.10
40. West Virginia -0.11
41. Arkansas -0.11
42. Connecticut -0.14
43. Massachusetts -0.15
44. New York -0.16
45. Washington -0.16
46. California -0.16
47. Maryland -0.17
48. Rhode Island -0.17
49. New Jersey -0.17
50. Maine -0.18

Table III: Economic Freedom Ranking State Economic freedom
1. South Dakota 0.385
2. New Hampshire 0.345
3. Colorado 0.337
4. North Dakota 0.315
5. Idaho 0.257
6. Georgia 0.253
7. Texas 0.225
8. Tennessee 0.225
9. Missouri 0.210
10. Alabama 0.200
11. Arizona 0.190
12. Iowa 0.177
13. Virginia 0.175
14. Utah 0.164
15. Michigan 0.161
16. Indiana 0.159
17. Oklahoma 0.144
18. Kansas 0.126
19. Pennsylvania 0.120
20. Wyoming 0.098
21. Montana 0.096
22. South Carolina 0.062
23. Nevada 0.058
24. Delaware 0.052
25. Florida 0.047
26. North Carolina 0.041
27. Nebraska 0.036
28. Louisiana -0.012
29. Illinois -0.025
30. Mississippi -0.032
31. Minnesota -0.075
32. Ohio -0.081
33. Kentucky -0.086
34. Maryland -0.110
35. Wisconsin -0.111
36. Oregon -0.113
37. Massachusetts -0.133
38. Connecticut -0.142
39. Arkansas -0.148
40. West Virginia -0.177
41. Washington -0.219
42. Rhode Island -0.267
43. New Mexico -0.288
44. Hawaii -0.295
45. Vermont -0.310
46. New Jersey -0.337
47. Alaska -0.343
48. California -0.351
49. Maine -0.406
50. New York -0.596

Table IV: Personal Freedom Ranking State Personal freedom
1. Alaska 0.272
2. Maine 0.193
3. New Mexico 0.138
4. Arkansas 0.125
5. Texas 0.121
6. Missouri 0.110
7. Oregon 0.104
8. Idaho 0.100
9. Virginia 0.100
10. Wyoming 0.095
11. Vermont 0.093
12. Arizona 0.089
13. New Hampshire 0.087
14. Utah 0.086
15. Kansas 0.085
16. Colorado 0.084
17. West Virginia 0.080
18. Tennessee 0.059
19. Indiana 0.049
20. Michigan 0.045
21. Montana 0.029
22. Mississippi 0.027
23. Florida 0.022
24. South Dakota 0.007
25. Iowa 0.006
26. Kentucky 0.003
27. Oklahoma -0.002
28. Hawaii -0.009
29. Pennsylvania -0.018
30. North Carolina -0.022
31. Minnesota -0.036
32. Nevada -0.045
33. North Dakota -0.047
34. Nebraska -0.055
35. Washington -0.055
36. Delaware -0.060
37. California -0.063
38. Connecticut -0.082
39. Wisconsin -0.089
40. Louisiana -0.098
41. South Carolina -0.102
42. Georgia -0.106
43. Alabama -0.107
44. Massachusetts -0.109
45. New Jersey -0.120
46. Ohio -0.124
47. Rhode Island -0.163
48. New York -0.188
49. Illinois -0.213
50. Maryland -0.294
 
Does this make Palin a socialist?

We're all socialists (and non-socialists for that matter) to some extent. The real question is to what extent. As for Mrs. Palin (to whatever extent Alaska's condition reflects her), like I alluded, I think there are some inherent flaws in the way these rankings are done. They're marginally fair as a crude assessment, but I don't think they can be counted on for their precision or even for their accuracy.

That said, Alaska being ranked so high is one of the things that intially caught my eye.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
I realize that, that's why I included the parenthetical.

This still does not state that you believe there should be far more factors for determining what defines a socialist state. This is a poorly devised study; wither that or it's poorly written and doesn't give all the facts of the study.
 
This still does not state that you believe there should be far more factors for determining what defines a socialist state. This is a poorly devised study; wither that or it's poorly written and doesn't give all the facts of the study.

It doesn't appear to have been intended to be a complicated or involved study (for which, the effort to make something such often creates its own 'appropriateness of methodology' issues), but rather a simple assessment. As such, I think the metric used is about as appropriate as could have been used. For a straight forward measurement of generic socialist-ness (without making judgments about what flavors of socialistic policy should or shouldn't be considered as really socialist, and without trying to identify certain kinds of things as good or bad), the 'what % of the economy is represented by government activity' metric is pretty on point.

How much of what a given society does, does it do collectively (through the public sector rather than the private sector)?
 

Baz

This. ------------------>
We're all socialists (and non-socialists for that matter) to some extent. The real question is to what extent. As for Mrs. Palin (to whatever extent Alaska's condition reflects her), like I alluded, I think there are some inherent flaws in the way these rankings are done. They're marginally fair as a crude assessment, but I don't think they can be counted on for their precision or even for their accuracy.

That said, Alaska being ranked so high is one of the things that intially caught my eye.

Isn't Alaska one of the highest (if not THE highest) recipients of federal funds, in relation to how much they pay in? I read somewhere recently that they receive somewhere over $1.50 in federal money for every $1.00 they contribute in federal taxes.

In fact, many of the "Republican" states were high on the list, if I recall correctly. Whch seemed, at the very least, contradictory to their standard talking points regarding federal spending.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
We're all socialists (and non-socialists for that matter) to some extent. The real question is to what extent. As for Mrs. Palin (to whatever extent Alaska's condition reflects her), like I alluded, I think there are some inherent flaws in the way these rankings are done. They're marginally fair as a crude assessment, but I don't think they can be counted on for their precision or even for their accuracy.

That said, Alaska being ranked so high is one of the things that intially caught my eye.

Agree with that whole post except Alaska didn't catch my eye. They have a huge piggy bank in oil and it stands to reason that a state swimming in money with a tiny populaiton is going to spend an awful lot proportionally.

Alabama and Vermont caught my eye as big spenders and Illinois on the other side.
 

chernmax

NOT Politically Correct!!
Tax Burden By State
If all other things are equal, a state with a lower burden is a more attractive place to retire than a state with a higher one. To get a true sense of which state is less expensive, you need to look at state and local tax burdens. Only then do the low tax states stand out. It is estimated by the Tax Foundation that the nation as a whole will pay on average 9.7% of its income in state and local taxes in 2008, down from 9.9% in 2007 primarily because income grew faster than tax collections between 2007 and 2008. This is the latest report the Tax Foundation has issued.

New Jersey residents paid 11.8%, topping the charts. New Yorkers were close behind, paying 11.7%, and Connecticut was third at 11.1%. The top 10 were rounded out by Maryland (10.8%), Hawaii (10.6%), California (10.5%), Ohio (10.4%). Vermont (10.3%), Wisconsin (10.2%) and Rhode Island (10.2%).
 
E

EmptyTimCup

Guest
That said, Alaska being ranked so high is one of the things that initially caught my eye.




Doesn't Alaska pay off Residents with OIL Money a couple times a yr ?



I would not consider that Socialist , but capitalist
 
Top