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.
So you want to secede just to be allowed to smoke pot?
Haha, no, this conversation has been going on a long time in the Northwest. It is similar to the one in Texas about Texas becoming it's own country again. Neither will ever happen unless the actual federal country falls apart and the states are able to opt out of being apart of the USA, which is never going to happen in our lifetime.
But there is more to it than just pot, which actually you can already smoke pot there with a nice medical marijuana card.
The region itself has been one to focus on sustainability, keeping things local, yet all three cities are huge international ports which would mean the country would still have a huge involvement with international shipping. Plus there is the high tech industry, Intel and Microsoft alone are enough for Cascadia to brag about.
Wonder what would be the Capital of Cascadia, Seattle or Vancouver?
Seattle could be because it would be slightly more centrally located.
However, Vancouver, is a bigger player on the World stage.
Seattle generates a higher aggregate and per capita GDP than Vancouver.
Where vancouver beats seattle is it attracts wealthy expats from HK and other parts in asia (hence the disconnect between local/regional wealth and housing prices). A lot of this is driven by ease of purchasing real estate and getting into canada compared to the US, location, and the weather/surrounding natural locale is better than seattle.
Seattle has more 'quiet' strength IMO than Vancouver due to it's industry, money, and position in tech.
Vancouver is more of a resort with a global real estate market and quality of life but I would class it behind seattle in many other attributes.
Even then, I'm not sure if seattle or vancouver would be the capital of cascadia. It could be a smaller city whose function was only to be the seat of the government.
Seattle generates a higher aggregate and per capita GDP than Vancouver.
Where vancouver beats seattle is it attracts wealthy expats from HK and other parts in asia (hence the disconnect between local/regional wealth and housing prices). A lot of this is driven by ease of purchasing real estate and getting into canada compared to the US, location, and the weather/surrounding natural locale is better than seattle.
Seattle has more 'quiet' strength IMO than Vancouver due to it's industry, money, and position in tech.
Vancouver is more of a resort with a global real estate market and quality of life but I would class it behind seattle in many other attributes.
Even then, I'm not sure if seattle or vancouver would be the capital of cascadia. It could be a smaller city whose function was only to be the seat of the government.
That is why Cascadia would be amazing, Vancouver, Seattle, and Portland would be your big three commercial cities, each with their own unique characteristics to bring to the table. Either Olympia or Victoria would be perfect for the capitol, though I think Victoria is the more beautiful between the two and already has an amazing building by the water that would make a great capitol building.
My question for prospective cascadians is what type of economy are you interested in having?
If sustainability is honestly the reason for the creation of Cascadia wouldn't it make since to move in a direction that is opposite of indutrialization and globalization?
lets continue this disscussion, but its to nice outside to stay in.
My question for prospective cascadians is what type of economy are you interested in having?
If sustainability is honestly the reason for the creation of Cascadia wouldn't it make since to move in a direction that is opposite of indutrialization and globalization?
lets continue this disscussion, but its to nice outside to stay in.
I would think the country would want to have a balance between sustainable local and globalization, which both sides are playing a part in the region already.
I have to say I disagree with the concept of the global economy. There are about 14 million people living in the area that is "Cascadia" the resources contained within this massive land area far exceed our ability to consume them on a local scale this would mean that there are plenty of resources for everyone in this area to live comfortably, but when you add global competition you now have 7 billion people competing for those resources, generally going to the highest bidder there is only one possible outcome and that is a low standard of living for those who live in Cascadia. Let’s extrapolate this a bit North America has about 529 million people occupying about 1/7 of the world’s land mass. We only make up 7% of the world’s population but control 1/7 of the world’s resources if North American resources were only available to North Americans there would be plenty for everyone but when we are forced to compete with the other 96% of the population for our own resources all of a sudden there is not enough to go around. People who champion globalism do not understand the amount of wealth we are giving away. Isolationism policy would be beneficial to all but the top one percent who reap the profits of this theft
Last edited by Cascadian Inserection; 08-30-2012 at 08:56 PM..
I have to say I disagree with the concept of the global economy. There are about 14 million people living in the area that is "Cascadia" the resources contained within this massive land area far exceed our ability to consume them on a local scale this would mean that there are plenty of resources for everyone in this area to live comfortably, but when you add global competition you now have 7 billion people competing for those resources, generally going to the highest bidder, there is only one possible outcome and that is a low standard of living for those who live in Cascadia.
I have to say I disagree with the concept of the global economy. There are about 14 million people living in the area that is "Cascadia" the resources contained within this massive land area far exceed our ability to consume them on a local scale this would mean that there are plenty of resources for everyone in this area to live comfortably, but when you add global competition you now have 7 billion people competing for those resources, generally going to the highest bidder there is only one possible outcome and that is a low standard of living for those who live in Cascadia. Let’s extrapolate this a bit North America has about 529 million people occupying about 1/7 of the world’s land mass. We only make up 7% of the world’s population but control 1/7 of the world’s resources if North American resources were only available to North Americans there would be plenty for everyone but when we are forced to compete with the other 96% of the population for our own resources all of a sudden there is not enough to go around. People who champion globalism do not understand the amount of wealth we are giving away. Isolationism policy would be beneficial to all but the top one percent who reap the profits of this theft
I think you are missing what I am talking about, currently Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver have a huge shipping industry that has goods come through that area from all over the world. Also the amount of high tech companies that is in the region is also an impressive feature to the area. Those two things alone make the region a global market, but on the flip side the region has plenty of farm land and the ability to take care of the people that live there sustainably and with the ability to conserve resources as well as expanding on other local resources as well as other forms of energy.
I get that they are currently large player in the global economy in my dreamland I like to see them be large players in a regional economy and viewed as cultural centers instead of a global market place.
I get that they are currently large player in the global economy in my dreamland I like to see them be large players in a regional economy and viewed as cultural centers instead of a global market place.
Well they are big players regionally, I think they play a huge part in that already. No point in having a company like Microsoft or Amazon only selling their products in the country of Cascadia. I would want those businesses to continue to thrive on a global market. I honestly don't think much would change from the way things are now in the Northwest if it became its own country other than having a more local control over its own federal control.
That and I would then have dual citizenship due to my fiancee being born there and me being born on the east coast.
Most of the area that is being talked about is actually pretty conservative. Outside of a few urban centers, there are not a lot of hippies.
No, liberals out number conservatives here by a large margin. Yes, they are mostly in the cities...but those cities contain about two thirds of the population. Not to mention our conservatives here are NO WHERE NEAR AS CRAZY as they are in the South and tend more towards libertarian than anything else.
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.
