Why can't a US state default, but a EU state can?
"But do you know about a US state risking to go default now or in the past?  In 1847 four states - Mississippi, Arkansas, Michigan, and Florida - failed to pay all or some of their debts.  All of these states had issued debt to invest in banks.  From the detailed source listed below: ""...it should be remembered that all cases of state debt  repudiation, as contrasted with mere default, involved banks.""  Jackson had killed the federal central bank 10 years earlier and the states were trying to create their own inflationary central banks.  Six other states delayed debt payments from three to six years (source, page 103, this source has more details).  This is the only case I know of where US states defaulted.  US cities default more frequently. I'm very confused do US single states like IOWA have debt and emits obligations on their own like Italy does in EU? Yes.  Individual states can issue their own bonds. Oh, and just another little thing I would like to know, is Dollar a fiat currency too like the Euro? Yes, the US dollar is a fiat currency.  I think the better question is: ""Is there any currency that is not a fiat currency?""" US or EU states are sovereigns which cannot go bankrupt. US states have defaulted in the 1840's, but in most of those cases creditors were eventually repaid in full. (I'm not 100% sure, but I believe that Indiana was an exception with regard to costs incurred building a canal system) The best modern example of a true near-default was New York City in the late 1970's. Although New York City isn't a state, the size and scope of its finances is greater than many US states. What happened then in a nutshell: Basically, a default of a major state or a city like NYC where creditors took major losses would rock the financial markets and make it difficult for all states to obtain both short and long term financing at reasonable rates. That's why these entities get bailed out -- if Greece or California really collapse, it will likely create a domino effect that will have wide reaching effects. "But do you know about a US state risking to go default now or in the past? Ultimately, a US state could go into default.  However, I doubt that such a scenario would be allowed to transpire. This seems to happen to California with some regularity.  That is, risking default.  What would happen is not quite well known: ""There is no provision for a state to go bankrupt,"" Kyser said. ""I don't think anyone really knows what will happen or even if the state will go into receivership if it does default. I can tell you this, officials are looking at all the (current) laws."" (source) I believe that the answer to your question is that it could happen, but likely would not be allowed to occur.  The nature of the EU and US are quite different.  The individual states forming the US are not separate nations.  For better or for worse, the US is a stronger federation than the EU. (Something that is lamented at times when the Feds mess with the purview of the locals.)"
&gt; The state is so blue/democratic that Gov. Rauner is almost at a disadvantage by default.  More complicated than that. Republicans have been governor of the state for 8 of the past 10 terms.  The state is very blue in presidential elections, mostly red in governor elections, strongly blue in state house.   The issue is indeed that the unions have too much of a stronghold on the politicians. "I think a big part of the issue is ignorance. For instance, the US govt cannot default on its loans, yet you keep hearing people speak as if it could. The US govt also does not have to borrow to pay for anything, it creates its own money whenever it wants. These 2 facts often evade many people, and they feel the US govt should act like a household, business, or a state govt. This disconnect leads to a lot of confusion, and things like ""fiscal crisis"". Just remember Rahm Emanuel - don't let a crisis go to waste.  Disclaimer: this is not to say the US should create money whenever it wants without thought. However, the simple fact is it can. For those interested in more, check out Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). Its economic study in a world not based on gold standard, or convertible currency (fiat currency)." Disclaimer: I am not a tax specialist You probably need a sales tax permit if you're going to sell goods, since just about every state taxes goods, though some states have exemptions for various types of goods.  For services, it gets tricker. There is a database here that lists what services are taxed in what states; in Wyoming, for example, cellphone services and diaper services are taxed, while insurance services and barber services are not.  For selling over the internet, it gets even dicier. There's a guide on nolo.com that claims to be comprehensive; it states that the default rule of thumb is that if you have a physical presence in a state, such as a warehouse or a retail shop or an office, you must collect tax on sales in that state. Given your situation, you probably only need to collect sales tax on customers in Wyoming. Probably.  In any event, I'd advice having a chat with an accountant in Wyoming who can help walk you through what permits may or may not be needed. "This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www2.gsu.edu/~ecobth/HMW_PuzzlingMultJobHolding_SEJ_2017.pdf) reduced by 99%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Just as the United States displays substantial differences in MJH across states and regions, Zangelidis finds large variation in MJH rates across countries in the EU, ranging from less than 1 to 9%.6 Livanos and Zangelidis document large differences in MJH rates across regions of Greece with rural areas with large primary sectors having the highest rates, likely due to low labor demand and weak primary 6 Zangelidis also finds that mean weekly hours on the second job average 12.9 hours across the continent, with little variation across countries.  &gt; A quick glance at state rates of MJH show Minnesota with among the highest MJH rates, while New York has a relatively low rate MJH rate as compared to other northern states.  &gt; Our approach is to examine the extent to which controlling for a variety of detailed worker, job, and city attributes can account for differences across labor markets in MJH. To describe the magnitude of MSA differences in MJH, we calculate the mean absolute deviation of MJH across our 259 labor markets based on estimates from increasingly dense individual worker OLS MJH equations using the 1995-2014 urban sample.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6l4ana/the_puzzling_pattern_of_multiple_job_holding/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~158577 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **MJH**^#1 **Job**^#2 **rate**^#3 **work**^#4 **Labor**^#5" It is indeed not comparable. Companies move faster from one state to the next than from one country to the other. The company can move, or the activities can move. This is a quick win in your local economy. It's not sustainable but it can give the local economy a temporary boost, en then the economy can grow in a sustainable way.  But if it doesn't work on a state level, and one state cannot make it economy grow by attracting activities from other states, then how can a country do it?  I mean, it does work to some extend, look at Ireland for example, but it's not a perfect scheme, look at Ireland for example. As other have said though, the population of the EU is greater than that of the US market and so it is more profitable to take the fine, then pull out. The other issue also relates to capital invested in EU countries. By pulling out a full liquidation would be required, which is again a bad move for your (google's) businesses.   Any corporation on a global level such as google have to operate within the legal structure of each jurisdiction they wish to provide products or sales. EU based compiles get fined in the US regularly and don't pull out. It's the nature of global business.  I.e. 320/500 million potential consumers is fair superior than principles.   I should also add that the EU institutions place a heavy emphasis on consumer protection, unlike the US, which I believe is the basis of the Anti Trust Regulations. One place you might consider looking for answers is in case studies from Harvard Business School.  When I was working an MBA, we studied the default of Argentina as part of our economics coursework. Other sources for your consideration might include: Gundlach shared a chart that showed how investors in European “junk” bonds are willing to accept the same no-default return as they are for U.S. Treasury bonds. In other words, the yield on European “junk” bonds is about the same—between 2 percent and 3 percent—as the yield on U.S. Treasuries, even though the risk profile of the two could not be more different.  Sounds like a strong indicator to me. How might this play out in the US?