U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Which region would be most prosperous on its own?
Northeast 77 44.00%
Midwest 18 10.29%
South 35 20.00%
West 45 25.71%
Voters: 175. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-05-2012, 12:13 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,509 posts, read 28,190,591 times
Reputation: 7598

Advertisements

Don't think the Large NE cities would remain as big without the rest of the US behind it. In fact I think they would lose a lot of population as people move to the better Country to the South.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-05-2012, 12:18 PM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,391 posts, read 24,586,165 times
Reputation: 5666
In a non trade based economy. The NE would probably be last, there was a reason for the westward expansion and the civil war. The NE is powerful b/c of it's relative control and power centers, not from it's geographical resources. Given that the world *is* free to trade, the NE is indeed the most powerful though. You need agriculture, and you need resources to be self sustaining. The NE had already depleted a lot of the crop fertility back in the early 1800s from over farming on already relatively poor soil.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HenryAlan View Post
Yeah, there's pretty much nothing going on besides bit farming. No knowledge economy whatsoever, right?

It amazes me how many responses in this thread have focused on the elements of a developing economy like cheap labor and agriculture, yet completely ignored the elements of a true 21st century economy like R&D, medical equipment, pharma, bio-tech, finance, programming, design, and the list goes on and on. This is what happens in the NorthEast and the Pacific coast, and in a few select metros spread around the rest of the country. If you look at metrics for wealth, GDP growth per capita, world rankings, you will find again and again that it is the places focused on the 21st century, not the places focused on the 18th or 19th. Agriculture? Manufacturing? Really?
Yes, really. In a self sustaining economy that is. There is a reason as I said that they needed westward expansion and to keep the states together. There was also a reason for somewhere like Britain to conquer so many foreign lands.
If all countries decided to go communist and impose trade tariffs, the NE would fare the worst. The English were some of the last to explore the new world, thus got the last dibs on the land. The French, Spanish, and Portuguese already conquered and exploited the best land of the Americas. Of course, the U.S. ended up taking over former French and Spanish territories. But a simple look back through history would tell you which areas are better. That is why the building of the railroads, harbor dredging and the construction of the Erie Canal was so vital.
The NE is how it is today mostly b/c of trade and ports.

Last edited by grapico; 03-05-2012 at 12:34 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2012, 12:38 PM
 
Location: Boston
1,082 posts, read 2,492,524 times
Reputation: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidyankee764 View Post
It's too bad that Texas, California and the entire Northeast weren't part of one geographic region. It would be an economic powerhouse.
On paper, yes. But the real strength of the United States is that it has all three and the rest. There will always be relatively stronger and weaker sections. But it is the massive open economic system that makes the strong parts succeed as well as they do. I've sort of argued in earlier posts that what goes on in the agricultural and industrial heartland areas doesn't matter. And I stick by that in the sense that it is not what drives the economy. So if we had to break the country up, those areas would fare worse than the others. But they are nonetheless very important to the regions you've mentioned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico View Post
In a non trade based economy. The NE would probably be last, there was a reason for the westward expansion and the civil war. The NE is powerful b/c of it's relative control and power centers, not from it's geographical resources. Given that the world *is* free to trade, the NE is indeed the most powerful though. You need agriculture, and you need resources to be self sustaining. The NE had already depleted a lot of the crop fertility back in the early 1800s from over farming on already relatively poor soil.


Yes, really. In a self sustaining economy that is. There is a reason as I said that they needed westward expansion and to keep the states together. There was also a reason for somewhere like Britain to conquer so many foreign lands.
If all countries decided to go communist and impose trade tariffs, the NE would fare the worst. The English were some of the last to explore the new world, thus got the last dibs on the land. The French, Spanish, and Portuguese already conquered and exploited the best land of the Americas. Of course, the U.S. ended up taking over former French and Spanish territories. But a simple look back through history would tell you which areas are better.
The NE is how it is today mostly b/c of trade and ports.
See my comments to KidYankee764. That's the real point we need to come back to, which is that the United States is strongest as a single country. But given the intellectual exercise proposed by the thread creator, I'm sticking with the concept that agriculture, though important, is essentially an 18th century economic force, and industry, while important, is essentially a 19th century economic force. I'll add energy as the 20th century component, and come back to the concept that the 21st century is about knowledge. All of this certainly assumes a framework of free trade, but I think the notion holds even if we reverted to mercantilism. Great Britain was the most powerful country in the world under a mercantilist system in which it had no natural resource advantage at all. As you point out, the Spaniards got the best of the Western Hemisphere. And yet, look at Spain and Britain, even to this day, and ask yourself what mattered more -- gold or industry? Today the question regards oil or technology.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2012, 12:42 PM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,391 posts, read 24,586,165 times
Reputation: 5666
Quote:
Originally Posted by HenryAlan View Post
On paper, yes. But the real strength of the United States is that it has all three and the rest. There will always be relatively stronger and weaker sections. But it is the massive open economic system that makes the strong parts succeed as well as they do. I've sort of argued in earlier posts that what goes on in the agricultural and industrial heartland areas doesn't matter. And I stick by that in the sense that it is not what drives the economy. So if we had to break the country up, those areas would fare worse than the others. But they are nonetheless very important to the regions you've mentioned.


See my comments to KidYankee764. That's the real point we need to come back to, which is that the United States is strongest as a single country. But given the intellectual exercise proposed by the thread creator, I'm sticking with the concept that agriculture, though important, is essentially an 18th century economic force, and industry, while important, is essentially a 19th century economic force. I'll add energy as the 20th century component, and come back to the concept that the 21st century is about knowledge. All of this certainly assumes a framework of free trade, but I think the notion holds even if we reverted to mercantilism. Great Britain was the most powerful country in the world under a mercantilist system in which it had no natural resource advantage at all. As you point out, the Spaniards got the best of the Western Hemisphere. And yet, look at Spain and Britain, even to this day, and ask yourself what mattered more -- gold or industry? Today the question regards oil or technology.
Oh, I have no disagreements with you. I was just arguing it from the original position.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2012, 12:48 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,509 posts, read 28,190,591 times
Reputation: 7598
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico View Post
In a non trade based economy. The NE would probably be last, there was a reason for the westward expansion and the civil war. The NE is powerful b/c of it's relative control and power centers, not from it's geographical resources. Given that the world *is* free to trade, the NE is indeed the most powerful though. You need agriculture, and you need resources to be self sustaining. The NE had already depleted a lot of the crop fertility back in the early 1800s from over farming on already relatively poor soil.


Yes, really. In a self sustaining economy that is. There is a reason as I said that they needed westward expansion and to keep the states together. There was also a reason for somewhere like Britain to conquer so many foreign lands.
If all countries decided to go communist and impose trade tariffs, the NE would fare the worst. The English were some of the last to explore the new world, thus got the last dibs on the land. The French, Spanish, and Portuguese already conquered and exploited the best land of the Americas. Of course, the U.S. ended up taking over former French and Spanish territories. But a simple look back through history would tell you which areas are better. That is why the building of the railroads, harbor dredging and the construction of the Erie Canal was so vital.
The NE is how it is today mostly b/c of trade and ports.
Totally agree with this post.

The NE show the power of the US concentrated from the bread and butter spread out all over the US.

But can you imagine how much the financial centers of NY, Boston and Philly would shrink if their bases was just the NE?

I really think the South would survive the strongest because of all the farmable land, the ports and all of that. The Midwest would fare well too. They have lots of Land, lots of access to fresh water and would have strong trading partners in Canada, The South and the West.

I think the West would be 3rd. They would maintain good trade with Asia even though the Gulf coast ports are looking to steal a lot of their thunder. However like the NE they would lose a lot of their thunder with a reduction in their base.

The South would Rise. Unlike the three other regions we have no stand out financial center (well DC is but I am not gonna open that can of worms about who DC belongs to) so I bet that being the largest new country with over 100M people, the South will definitely produce new financial centers. So while NY, Boston, Philly, SF and LA would most likely shrink, places like Charlotte, Atlanta, Miami, NOLA, Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Tampa, and others would Boom.

some people are voting the NE because it has huge metros in NY, Boston and Philly, but I doubt they would remain huge for long.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2012, 12:54 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,663 posts, read 74,325,418 times
Reputation: 36087
Nevada. However, any state, unshackled by US laws and restrictions, could trump Nevada.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2012, 02:01 PM
 
Location: The Woods
16,964 posts, read 22,285,245 times
Reputation: 9095
Quote:
Originally Posted by HenryAlan View Post
Yeah, there's pretty much nothing going on besides bit farming. No knowledge economy whatsoever, right?

It amazes me how many responses in this thread have focused on the elements of a developing economy like cheap labor and agriculture, yet completely ignored the elements of a true 21st century economy like R&D, medical equipment, pharma, bio-tech, finance, programming, design, and the list goes on and on. This is what happens in the NorthEast and the Pacific coast, and in a few select metros spread around the rest of the country. If you look at metrics for wealth, GDP growth per capita, world rankings, you will find again and again that it is the places focused on the 21st century, not the places focused on the 18th or 19th. Agriculture? Manufacturing? Really?
A service-based economy will not sustain a nation indefinitely. Paper always returns to its true value of zero eventually.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2012, 02:18 PM
 
90 posts, read 72,593 times
Reputation: 43
Politically, wouldn't a unit like the West have the most problems considering that it includes some of the most liberal states (California/Hawaii/Washington/Oregon) and some of the most conservative states (Arizona/Utah/Montana/Alaska) with all very divergent goals, and a real lack of continuity between the states?

I can see a HUGE power struggle to see who controls the West, especially for resources like water which is scarce, if they don't come together as a whole. A region like the Northeast (especially), South, and Midwest are MUCH more cohesive as regions than the West is.

Never mind that each state is doing its own thing, regions WITHIN each of those states have their own interests that could explode and cause an internal rift.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2012, 02:20 PM
 
Location: Boston
1,082 posts, read 2,492,524 times
Reputation: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader View Post
A service-based economy will not sustain a nation indefinitely. Paper always returns to its true value of zero eventually.
Cancer drugs are an example of paper? You learn something new every day!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2012, 02:42 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,509 posts, read 28,190,591 times
Reputation: 7598
Quote:
Originally Posted by HenryAlan View Post
Cancer drugs are an example of paper? You learn something new every day!
each region would develop those, no biggie.
Resources and Trade sustains countries.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top