The True State of the Union (Strange Product Placement Edition)

Nick Gillespie | February 3, 2005

First came Andrew Fisher, who pulled down more than $37,000 to advertise on his forehead.

Now there's a boomlet in pregnant women's bellies for rent. Elisa Hart of Georgia is ready to shill with her tummy and South Carolina's Amber Rainey has already pulled down $4,050 from the Golden Palace Casino (blessed owners of the infamous Virgin Mary grilled cheese sandwich).

Does it mean anything that this sort of thing seems to be a Red State phenomena?

Comments

Joe Pulcinella|2.3.05 @ 9:16AM|#

Seems to me to be about as free market as you can get. A perfect match of someone with something to sell hooking up with a willing buyer. It's only when the government is involved do you get the proverbial "gun to the head" such as citizens' plundered tax money going toward the placement of the government's "products" on FCC-controlled TV shows.

|2.3.05 @ 9:25AM|#

Absolutely right, Joe. If there's anything to this "red state phenomena(phenomenon?)", it's that "red-staters" seem to demonstrate more entrepreneurial "go-for-it" spirit than those inbred, nose-in-the-air, keep threatening to leave the country but never get the fuck out "blue staters".

|2.3.05 @ 9:27AM|#

or they're more easily entertained. :)

|2.3.05 @ 9:27AM|#

UFP,

Which is why the red states are on average less affluent than the blue states (and on average more dependant on the government teet).

|2.3.05 @ 10:07AM|#

Does it mean anything that piercing your tongue and dying your hair purple seems to be a Blue State phenomenon ? Let a hundred flowers bloom.

Gerard Van der Leun|2.3.05 @ 10:25AM|#

Frankly, Joe, it doesn't mean a damn thing.

If something else confuses you though, don't hesitate to ask.

|2.3.05 @ 10:34AM|#

I'm not concerned in the least. If anything, it gives me someone new to mock.

There is a fine line between "go-for-it" entrepreneurialism and just flat out being a whore. I'm not sure on which side of the line these individuals rest, but if these companies are willing to advertise, and people are willing to accomodate them, and these methods prove to be financially effective for all parties involved, then where's the rationale for being outraged?

|2.3.05 @ 10:35AM|#

Like Lisa Simpson and Paul Anka sang, "Just don't look, just don't look...."

|2.3.05 @ 10:45AM|#

Regarding the pregnant woman.. what can be more pathetic then blatantly stealing a stupid, degrading stunt that had a 10-minute shelf life?

Mike|2.3.05 @ 11:14AM|#

Does it mean anything that this sort of thing seems to be a Red State phenomena?

We don't smoke marijuana in Muskogee;
We don't take our trips on LSD
We don't burn our draft cards down on Main Street;
We get pregnant sell our bellies.

|2.3.05 @ 11:20AM|#

The gal who writes on her breasts for free is the best.

http://www.readmyboobs.com/

|2.3.05 @ 11:28AM|#

GG:

I don't understand how your "point" has any relationship to what I said. Is "affluence" a function of entrepreneurship, or inheritance, and is there a difference in attitudes between the two camps? People who merely spend money they've never earned have a different attitude towards issues such as taxation than those people who've earned their money by the sweat of their brows.

|2.3.05 @ 11:31AM|#

oh, you fucking welfare queens kill me.

|2.3.05 @ 11:47AM|#

UFP,

(A) Let's note that you ignore the "teet" prong of my statement.

(b) Let me get this straight. People in the generally affluent more blue states are such because of "inheritance" and not "entrepeneurship?" Yeah right. I'd like to see you demonstrate that.

Shannon Love|2.3.05 @ 11:57AM|#

Actually, red-states can be considered more entrepreneurial based on such criteria as per capita rates of business startups, the smaller average size of business, and percentage of the population who are business owners.

The barriers to entry, especially government imposed ones, are much lower in Red-states. It is easier for a Red-stater to believe they can succeed as an entrepreneur than it is for a Blue-Stater. Consequently, more people spend more time thinking up business ideas and more people start experimental or marginal businesses. With the internet and the subsequent decrease in the importance of location, this trend has accelerated.

|2.3.05 @ 11:57AM|#

What is a "teet"? If you're making a point with that "prong", could you at least do it in English?

Also, you are making my statement appear to be a blanket characterization, which it is not. THen again, people who discuss "blue states" and "red states" are making blanket characterizations to begin with, which is why I use quotes around those phrases.

|2.3.05 @ 12:03PM|#

Shannon, I'm not doubting you yet, but would you be so good as to supply a site where I could go to see the numbers supporting your findings? Thanks!

|2.3.05 @ 12:10PM|#

From an October 7 2004 Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council press release:

In terms of their policy environments, the most entrepreneur-friendly states under the �Small Business Survival Index 2004� are: 1) South Dakota, 2) Nevada, 3) Wyoming, 4) Washington, 5) Florida, 6) Michigan, 7) Mississippi, 8) Alabama, 9) Colorado, 10) Indiana, 11) Texas, 12) Pennsylvania, 13) South Carolina, 14) New Hampshire, and 15) Virginia. In contrast, the most anti-entrepreneur policy environments are offered by the following: 37) North Carolina, 38) Montana, 39) Oregon, 40) Ohio, 41) Massachusetts, 42) Vermont, 43) Iowa, 44) New Jersey, 45) New York, 46) Maine, 47) Minnesota, 48) Rhode Island, 49) Hawaii, 50) California and 51) District of Columbia.

|2.3.05 @ 12:18PM|#

UFP,

The "teet" prong: Its well known that your average red state takes more money from the Federal government than they put into it; the reverse is true of your average blue state.

Give us a link please.

SPD,

Note that Shannon Love is quite adept at positing rather silly claims here. For example, witness her recent attempt to claim that the advent of firearms lead to the decentralization of military power in the West.

|2.3.05 @ 12:24PM|#

My bad. The press release can be found under the top drop-down box on this page ( again, it's October 7, 2004 ):

http://www.sbsc.org/LatestNews.asp

And I'm assuming you mean "teat", and just have a mental block on that word.

|2.3.05 @ 12:24PM|#

Gary's flirtation with Shannon makes me dizzy...

|2.3.05 @ 12:33PM|#

UFP,

On its face that ranking doesn't make any sense. For example, North Carolina is ranked 37th, yet the state's economy has been nothing but boomtime since the 1980s (suggesting that this is based on "inheritance" is just silly). On the other hand, Mississippi is ranked 7th, yet its economy (as far as I know) is one of the worst performers amongst the U.S. states.

|2.3.05 @ 12:34PM|#

UFP,

Sorry for my Scottish accent. :)

|2.3.05 @ 12:41PM|#

I don't know of any economy that has boomed due to "inheritance", so I agree with you there. I also don't know that there is necessarily a correlation between economic performance and having an entrepreneur-friendly business climate, at least by comparing current entrepreneur-friendliness with past performance of state economies. The current freindliness ratings could be a result of past laggards reforming their policies, and some unfriendly states might be protecting older companies from competition ( does North Carolina have any industry besides tobacco? Not much room for growth in that field ).

|2.3.05 @ 12:44PM|#

Gary, it makes perfect sense. The criteria used to measure "entrepreneurial-friendliness" don't effectively predict the capacity of a state's economy to grow.

Mississipi has been extremely "entrepreneurial" for decades, because the powers that be have made an effort to keep it so - they've kept out unions, have lousy environmental and worker protection regulation, low taxes, low spending. All of the recommendations that the people who created the list would claim are the best way to promote a vibrant economy.

How's that going?

|2.3.05 @ 12:47PM|#

UFP,

Never been to NC's "research triangle" I see? :)

When we move to N.C. next year, my wife will be working for Bayer there.

Check out:

http://www.rtp.org/

http://www.researchtriangle.org/

|2.3.05 @ 12:51PM|#

Ah yes, I have heard of that, GG. For some reason I was confusing it with something similar nearby ( Virginia? ). The only part of NC I've visited is Mt. Airy, where everyone had these weird growths on their necks and faces.

|2.3.05 @ 12:53PM|#

UFP,

If you compared SC and NC you'd find that they are almost mirror opposites regarding economic performance, yet SC is somehow higher ranked (significantly) than NC on that index above.

|2.3.05 @ 12:57PM|#

Anyway, my only point was that "red states" are more entrepreneurial than "blue states". It's not something that will be settled here, but I've given at least a little tiny sliver of evidence to back up my assertion. Probably not enough to convince anyone but myself, though.

|2.3.05 @ 12:58PM|#

Shannon's comments seem almost tailor made for Gary's attacks, and she never complains.

Maybe she does it because she loves him so.

Could GG=SL?

|2.3.05 @ 1:15PM|#

joe

Re: Mississippi. I can't see how it could be argued that it would be any better off with unions, more regulations, higher taxes, more government spending, etc.

|2.3.05 @ 1:48PM|#

UFP,

I'm not yet readily armed with enough facts to either support or negate your assertion about so-called "red" states leading "blue" states in entrepreneurial initiative, but the examples cited in the original article seem to be born of desperation to make a quick buck rather than a sound business plan with long-term goals.

Just because more small businesses start up in the Bush-friendlier states doesn't mean most of them are not ill-conceived or half-assedly run. And is it a coincidence that most of these states where environmental and labor regulations are placed on the back burner seem to have the largest numbers of individuals living at or below the poverty line?

I'm all in favor of business, but not exploiting workers by short-changing them.

The Lonewacko Blog|2.3.05 @ 1:50PM|#

I'm working on becoming her advertising agent.

|2.3.05 @ 2:38PM|#

You're probably right, SPD, at least regarding these businesses being "born of desperation", but it seemed like an interesting discussion, and it probably wouldn't have even became an issue if Mr. Gillespie hadn't have brought up the mind-numbing "red state" aspect.

|2.3.05 @ 3:18PM|#

I suspect that the correlation between relative wealth and lots of regulations and taxes has to do with the fact that you have to be pretty effing rich to afford high taxes and lots of cushy nanny-state programs.

Social safety nets, artificial job security, the soft fluffy cushions of the regulatory state, these are all luxuries. Mississippi doesn't have them because it can't afford them. Wealthier states have them because people who live there can afford the costs they impose.

Shannon Love|2.3.05 @ 3:23PM|#

SPD ,

"would you be so good as to supply a site where I could go to see the numbers supporting your finding"

There was a flurry of articles after the election but I didn't bookmark any of them. I think the WSJ did a big one. I will see if I can google one up.

The Small Business Administration site probably has the data in some kind of raw form such as business size for each state, so you could crunch your own numbers if you are desperate.

|2.3.05 @ 3:36PM|#

Thank you, Shannon. Although if I had to crunch my own numbers, "desperate" would not suffice as an adjective to describe my mental state!

Besides, it's not your job to provide me with a ready list of references. I'll just have to get off my lazy ass (well, not literally, since I have to remain seated to type this) and search out the facts myself.

UFP: I'm afraid the state-color issue will pervade political discussions for at least the next two elections, if not longer, regardless of political leaning.

RC: I certainly wouldn't feel better knowing the state was dipping its finger into an already-messy pie, but it's unfortunate from my perspective that smaller towns in less prosperous states should live or die on the whims of whichever factory happens to employ the majority of its residents. What really frustrates me is I know immediate relief would not come without the state resorting to playing the role of benevolent dictator, and possibly doing more harm than good.

|2.3.05 @ 3:42PM|#

R.C. Dean,

You're just presenting a chicken/egg problem though. Why can't Mississippi afford them? Many of the reasons are likely historical and have to do with the state's own destructive "race legislation." Of course Georgia and North Carolina have appeared to have escaped that path ... so one still has to wonder.

SPD,

You are right of course; more "start ups" doesn't necessarily equal greater affluence.

nothing to see here, move along,

You mean she says rather dense things that I invariably am compelled to correct? Yeah. She's my own personal foil. :)

|2.3.05 @ 4:53PM|#

It could also be that "red states" are more entrepreneurial because larger employers seem to concentrate on the edges and in the larger cities (guessing, I have no data to back up my theory). If you want a job in the red states, you might have to create your own.

Gotta get me one of them Virgin Mary grilled cheese sandwich shirts...

|2.3.05 @ 5:52PM|#

It could also be that the majority of those who are actually wealthy in the so-called "blue" states aren't actually "blue" themselves.

Shannon Love|2.3.05 @ 5:58PM|#

SPD,

I think the specific article I was think off was in the Wallstreet Journal but if so it has disappeared into their archive. I did find the study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (PDF) that I think the article was based on.

The study has several figures showing the geographic distribution of self-employment and the mapping between the percentage of the population who are self-employed and Red counties/Blue counties is pretty self-evident.

In one of those instances where everybody is partially right, the study shows that while far higher percentages of the population in Red zones are self-employed, the high income, value added entrepreneurial are in or around the very blue dense urban cores. So our perception that the significant, big money entrepreneurs are in blue zones is probably correct.

I recommend the study and I find it thought provoking. For example, the high levels of self-employment could be driving a lot of the Red state antipathy towards government. The self-employed collide directly with economic consequences of regulation and taxation (that self-employment social security tax really bites) almost on a daily basis whereas the employed are shielded from dealing with most government regulation and taxation by their employer.

In any case, I think my "silly little idea" that Red-staters are generally more positive toward entrepreneurial activity than Blue-staters is supported (as much as these things ever are.) Whether this actually translates into greater propensity for body part advertising is unproven pending a larger sample of such ads.

|2.3.05 @ 10:40PM|#

Gilbert Martin,

Living in New England I have met too many of the liberal self-made rich to think to fully accept your contention. My friends in Woodstock, Vt. are invariably well off, are largely the owners of their own businesses, and hate Bush.

|2.3.05 @ 10:43PM|#

Gilbert Martin,

Indeed, whatever one thinks of Vermont's tax policy, universal health coverage (e.g., Dr. Dinosaur, etc.), etc., what's striking about that state is just how many small businesses are there. Indeed, I have read that one of the reasons why its unemployment rate has stayed so low in comparison to the rest of the U.S. is due to level of self-employment in the state - from fairy farmers, organic farms, small tech firms, etc.

Shannon Love|2.4.05 @ 12:08AM|#

The link failed in my previous post for some reason. The actual link should be:

http://www.kc.frb.org/RuralCenter/mainstreet/MSE_0904.pdf

|2.4.05 @ 9:01AM|#

"Living in New England I have met too many of the liberal self-made rich to think to fully accept your contention. My friends in Woodstock, Vt. are invariably well off, are largely the owners of their own businesses, and hate Bush."

That could be the case in Vt. but that doesn't neccessarily hold everywhere else that is supposedly colored "blue" in the country. I would guess that most of the rich Wall Street types in New York aren't all that "blue". There are probably plenty of rich "red" types in California as well.


"Indeed, I have read that one of the reasons why its unemployment rate has stayed so low in comparison to the rest of the U.S. is due to level of self-employment in the state - from fairy farmers, organic farms, small tech firms, etc."

Fairy farmers?

How do you farm fairies?

|2.4.05 @ 9:51AM|#

Gilbert Martin,

"dairy farmers"

It was late. :(

|2.4.05 @ 2:16PM|#

didn't someone do a breakdown of exit polls on annual income and who voted for whom? wouldn't that be at least an ok indicator of who swings what, where and how? (if exit polls are anything other than something to get drunk and argue about.)

|2.4.05 @ 3:19PM|#

Since the exit polls falsly indicated a big lead for Kerry before the actual election results proved otherwise, I wouldn't put any stock in them on that score either.