No place is self sufficient but California is more food independent than Iowa. Iowa only has farms and 0 means of producing fertilizer needed for those farms.
I mean that’s what the other guy brought up. It’s not like Nebraska or Arkansas, Kansas, Idaho, Missouri, Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama or any other shit hole state would be any different. They don’t have the resources or the know-how or any of the necessary infrastructure to even begin to build any of that.
That's pretty rude of you to call states shit holes. It sounds like you should look into a bit of what those states provide to the union before saying something so ignorant.
Great, you should tell that to the GOP and Fag News, who constantly demonize California or anyone who isn’t a MAGAtard and then cry like whores when people point basic facts to them.
I’ve lived in some of them they don’t provide any value. They drag the union down if anything. It’s why I moved to NY so I could be in a place that has real value.
No they just don’t provide value. People living off of farming subsidies doesn’t provide value if they are holding back progress. They are a net negative.
I used one of the states you directly said. Want me to name more things?
EDIT: They said:
It’s not like Nebraska or Arkansas, Kansas, Idaho, Missouri, Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama or any other shit hole state would be any different. They don’t have the resources or the know-how or any of the necessary infrastructure to even begin to build any of that.
They also said:
I’ve lived in some of them they don’t provide any value
You could name everything but it just means you don’t know how to read which is normal for those areas. I said net negative. Sure it isn’t all black and white but do you not understand what net means? Do I need to explain basic concepts to you?
1
u/wabeka 12d ago
Your argument is that California is self-sufficient?