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.
It's all about commodities versus population. VAS centers are too volitale without a strong commodity sector which is why I believe the states with farmland, earth minerals will do best. Tourism states can possibly keep up if their population isn't too high.
New York and LA would have a much bigger boom/bust cycle than ever since you'd be dealing with international bureaucracy to import products even if within the same continent.
It's all about commodities versus population. VAS centers are too volitale without a strong commodity sector which is why I believe the states with farmland, earth minerals will do best. Tourism states can possibly keep up if their population isn't too high.
New York and LA would have a much bigger boom/bust cycle than ever since you'd be dealing with international bureaucracy to import products even if within the same continent.
True, thats why I think Areas like Cascadia, of the Frontier states could do great. Small populations in huges areas with excellent farmland and natural resources.
True, thats why I think Areas like Cascadia, of the Frontier states could do great. Small populations in huges areas with excellent farmland and natural resources.
Yeah but most of the agricultural land is EAST of there in the Plains/Midwest. North Dakota is in a boom with oil production and then there is the Great Lakes for fresh water. I need not mention what is in Chicago as well the automotive industry. Only slight negative is transporting goods as it would all have to go through the St Lawrence and or into other regions to the ocean etc.
Manufacturing is VAS which requires adding value to commodities and the direction of a final product changes as often as the wind blows due to competition, logistical costs and other organizations finding newer/better ways which to compete.
Commodities come in their pure form from nature. You will always need food and earth minerals, but anybody can compete in the VAS industries which makes success less certain and never a guarantee to continue.
Manufacturing, however, is much more stable than a trading or financial post. Michigan wouldn't be any worse off on their own as they are now.
The states that should be scared are mostly in the northeast, Florida, New Mexico, Arizona, and California (is borderline as they do have some renewables but a very high population).
Texas has a high population but is just stacked with renewables. Texas would need more than 50,60 million people before they would begin to be concerned. Same with the other great plains states, much of the Midwest. The south wouldn't change, not thst they would want to. Many southern states have a good supply of renewables.
Due to the population if the great plains and their vast resources, I'd say overall they have the best chances for success. Nevada would do well with their mineral wealth, Idaho and Montana would fair we'll. Oregon and maybe Washington.
Sorry northeast, you are in the business of trade and financials which are the industries least required for survival, produce nothing but agreements and civil battles. You have VAS based industries but not enough. Money is worthless without a product to buy or sell.
The worst thing to happen to you would be a separation from the rest of the nation. Maybe not immediately, but it would happen. Perhaps slowly at first, but a bust would be imminent. Fortunately, there's almost no chance of that happening. So, cheers!
Texas easily. And I'm not including Texas in the South because other than Atlanta and NC (maybe Florida), the rest of the South would kinda bog Texas down.
While I see your point here, I have to disagree a bit. As HLove said, the South today is no longer region totally dependent upon agriculture, but one attracting industry and, to boot, very much energy rich in terms of oil and natural gas. Louisiana and Texas, particularly, drilling off the Gulf, for one thing.
But equally important as per the point, and backing it all up, is that if the Southern states were to ever become independent (and I am not advocating secession at this point in time! LOL), then if the original CSA constitution were adopted? Then each state would have quite a bit of autonomy to govern its internal economic affairs, so none need "bog down" another. The main interdependence would be military, and Southerners have always made up a disproportionate percentage of men and women in uniform. If it came down to protecting ourselves, the South would easily be able to do so compared to any other region.
Quote:
DevanXL wrote: It's almost funny to think how screwed some regions would be without government assistance and how other regions could prosper without the federal government.
No, what is really "funny" is the presumption that the money belongs to the federal government to take and redistribute to begin with! With all due respect, this is a loaded premise.
Thus, on the flip side? What if each state kept its own money (other than that allowable for specific constitutional powers of the feds), and spent it the way they saw fit based on their own more localized needs and political culture and outlook? In other words, past the enumerated powers delegated to be financed...then let California keep theirs and spend it as they want and Texas keep ours and spend it the way we want? Might save a lot of money all the way around!
Quote:
That's my concern with the south. Take Texas away and it's a whole nother story. The south isn't very self sufficient.
Yes, it is.
But, I admit this contention cannot be proven given the route that tax dollars take and the powers given the feds to take it...then redistribute it...and then place massive regulations and restrictions on it. Plus, I know it isn't politically correct to say it, but demographics have a lot to do with it all. I don't like it, but it is true.
Sorry northeast, you are in the business of trade and financials which are the industries least required for survival, produce nothing but agreements and civil battles. You have VAS based industries but not enough. Money is worthless without a product to buy or sell.
The worst thing to happen to you would be a separation from the rest of the nation. Maybe not immediately, but it would happen. Perhaps slowly at first, but a bust would be imminent. Fortunately, there's almost no chance of that happening. So, cheers!
Theoretically, perhaps the Northeast could just acquire provincial status from the Canadian government?
For various reasons, it's possible that Canada would want nothing to do with them as a provincial member, but I think the NE's true home is within the extended borders of a loyalist-oriented nation and ultimately not as an independent national entity, with or without its economic dynamics.
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.
