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.
I think the Midwest has the least going. As another poster stated, landlocked countries dont do well. It would definitely be an agrarian economy. BUT it would still have access to the rest of the world via the Mississippi River, the Great Lakes and the St Lawrence River in Canada eh?
I don't quite understand the argument that the Midwest would do poorly. The Midwest has plenty of abundant and fertile soil for agriculture, it has plenty of rivers and some of the largest fresh water reserves in the world, it has plenty of top-tier academic institutions, large natural resource reserves, plenty of access to nuclear power, cities that could be retrofitted for large amounts of manufacturing. Sure, it doesn't have a booming tourism trade, but tourism alone cannot sustain an economy indefinitely. Plus, as you pointed out, thanks to the Erie canal, the Mississippi river, and the St. Lawrence, the Midwest isn't exactly "landlocked." Chicago has a number of rail lines that converge, which would represent the most logical mode of trade between East and West.
The south would suffer from a loss of federal money returned to them. They get so much more back than they spend.
But I wonder how much of that is due to military expenditures. The South has some of the largest and most important military installations in the country: Fort Hood, Fort Bragg/Pope Air Force Base, Fort Benning, Norfolk Naval Base, Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, Fort Jackson, Parris Island, Camp Lejuene, Fort Gordon, etc.
I think it would be a tie between the west and the south
Both have plenty of farmland (though the south has a much better water supply) both already have HUGE economies. The south would be great trading partners with Latin America and the west would be great with Asia. Both are also huge tourist attractions. (California, Nevada in the west, Florida in the south)
In terms of farmland and the ability for each region to feed itself, assuming there were no trade barriers between the regions from feeding each other
The Midwest nearly outproduces nearly BOTH the South and West combined in terms of farm output.
The Midwest is by FAR the most important agricultural reason the US has, which gives it leverage over the other 3 regions (especially the Northeast) in terms of food production and self-sustenance
The Midwest nearly outproduces nearly BOTH the South and West combined in terms of farm output.
The Midwest is by FAR the most important agricultural reason the US has, which gives it leverage over the other 3 regions (especially the Northeast) in terms of food production and self-sustenance
Gonna be eating a whole lot of wheat and corn though.
The West - it grows "reliably," Americans want to live there, 1 in 4 new immigrants choose to settle in California, and its port cities are links to the burgeoning Pacific business communities.
Among the four traditional regions (Northeast, South, Midwest and West), which one do you think would be the most prosperous if it were its own nation, completely sovereign from the rest of the U.S. and world?
I would say that the Northeast would be the most prosperous on its own, even though it's the smallest region. I mean, there's tons of agricultural farm land to supply food (despite what people may think), plenty of established utility services, a wealth of financial and banking institutions, and has the best public school systems compared to the rest of America. Healthcare is top notch and the country's best doctors are in New England and NYC. It also has the most progressive politics. All northeastern states are blue states. No other region in the country can say the same. The Northeast is also a gateway to and from the rest of the world, particularly NYC. The only major thing it lacks in is auto industry, so I guess they would have to trade with the Midwest lol.
Which U.S. region do you think would be most prosperous as a sovereign nation on its own?
If you are going by Region and not State it would be the Northeastern Area of the Country.
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.
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.
